I may be missing your point, but it seems like you're missing mine: I feel you're basing your thesis on a small collection of politically powerless nobodies who just happen to be loud on social media. The only significant people you mention disavow the stance their organization has taken.

Side note: as always with liberals, I take the word "organization" with the daily output of a salt mine. Forget herding cats, cats think liberals are hard to manage.

America is 330 million weirdos, so a few fringe political parties and dumbass college students high on the arrogance of youth doth not a relevant coalition make. Rounding error to a scientist. Sofa cushion change to a millionaire.

Thus, I'm not sure about the point of the article. You've taken the word "woke," which has been stripped of all meaning other than the conservative definition of "we hate liberals."

Now you're trying to draw some conclusions about its bloated carcass based on the rantings of, well, a small collection of powerless nobodies who just happen to be loud on social media.

Does anyone say "woke" without irony other than Republicans running for president?

Unless I'm missing something, this seems to be a futile enterprise other than giving ammunition to conservatives. I don't know your readership, but if it's large enough to move the needle, right-wing sites will be aggregating this piece. That title is a gift, and they'll use it to bludgeon everyone they can.

So yeah, we probably agree that most of these crazies are not right in the head. On the other hand, Israel is in no way blameless in the whole conflict, and for all we know, tomorrow we'll wake up to an atrocity they've committed. In that case, the identity politics types on the right — that is, all of them, from nobodies to major national figures — will line up to blame it on the Palestinians.

I'm not saying you're wrong. But does that matter if there's nothing to be right about?

So, color me confused is all.