I have yet to understand what a dog whistle is in this regard but in response to quickslowdown's reply, I can only best describe 'woke' as using victimhood as the means to justify(?) their ephemeral power(?) in whatever context they deem fit? /shrug

A dog whistle is speech that's ambiguous enough for a speaker to claim "Well I wasn't talking about that" whenever they receive blowback for a thing they said, but mean it and communicate their meaning if there's no blowback.

To parent's point, the bullshit of the right's current definition of wokeness is that it's "things we don't like."

Which is about as useful as people calling something "problematic."

If there were firmer ideological underpining to the right's platform, I'd be willing to listen.

But currently, more words are spent complaining about and accusing others than talking about what they want to do.

> [woke is] using victimhood as the means to justify(?) their ephemeral power(?) in whatever context they deem fit?

Isn't that what the right is doing now?

I.e. we're victims, so we're justified in using our temporary political power to do whatever we want

> If there were firmer ideological underpining to the right's platform, I'd be willing to listen.

But there isn't and will never be imo, as human behavior cannot be hard-categorized into easy to understand boxes. Just as a light example, look at the former D's that were appointed and confirmed by the current administration. Would you say they have accepted a level of the Right's conformity over their original/core beliefs?

Using Bessent and Navarro as examples, they both have ideological underpinings to their approaches.

Unfortunately (for the world) they're also contradictory.

And the administration doesn't seem capable of enunciating a coherent decision as to which guides its policy -- instead it's last-man-in-the-room-ism.

I think if it really was the case that Trump's 2nd term appointees had been all right-leaning, the narrative that he is a _fascist dictator_ would have held more weight. But it hasn't as a sort of compromise or willingness to meet closer to the center.

Whereas inversely, a true-to-life dictator XJP whom there is no perceived dissent within his congress or at minimum ever widely publicized or disseminated. Maybe this is the ideological stability you are looking for?