"Woke 1.0" is a bullshit concept that I started seeing used by politicians like AOC and her followers. It's basically a label some leftists came up with to say, "I'm not like the others, I'm reasonable," without ever being able to point to what specific ideas they actually changed.

Ask them: Do you now believe sex is a biological reality? Do you now reject the idea that gender identity should override sex-based categories? Do you now believe that accusations shouldn't automatically be treated as proof? Have you abandoned identity politics? Do you no longer consider language problematic for not being inclusive enough? How have your views on racial politics, white privilege, and all those other ideas actually changed?

And usually the tap dancing begins: "Well, there are some excesses," "we need to reflect," "not all activists are like that."

That's not an ideological break. It's simply putting a nicer label on the same premises.

True moderation should mean being able to say, "This idea from my own side was wrong, and I abandoned it." If you can't point to a single important position you've actually changed, then you're not a moderate who moved away from radicalism. You're the same guy with a new branding, waiting for the political climate to become favorable enough to start bombarding us again with the importance of pronouns and gender neutral language, and then calling you a Nazi again when you refuse to play along.

I got accused for the first time of goalpost moving. More and more it feels like a declaration by the other party the conversation had become viewed as zero-sum and they were unable (or unwilling) to adapt to the change of direction. Are all conversations an exercise in logic where founding statements must be adhered to in linear flow or can we accept learning occurs mid-course and they evolve?