I think the cultural shorthand for the -ists in question at the moment is “anti-PC” opposed with “woke” (in the non-pejorative sense; predictably enough it has also become a slur when used by those who oppose it).
These roughly align with a lot of other social dichotomies (e.g. they map approximately to right/left, respectively) in the US, although not quite coterminously. There’s a lot of fuzzy leakage around the edges on a lot of issues that primarily map directly to this split.
People want a political home. In countries without any type of per-capita representative voting system (where parties are split amount % of opinions like in MMP), they feel like they need to vote 'tactically.'
At least in America, at one time people could say, "I don't believe in everything x wants, but I do agree with core policies a, b and c and so I'm voting for them." Today we are much more polarized and people desperate for a political home may start internalizing and adopting policies they may not totally agree with just so they don't feel left out in the middle.
Cancel culture makes harder, if not impossible, to be in the middle. Are you against racism, but not for the specific BLM organization? You're opinion is not acceptable to the Democratic/politic-left. Is that a hill you're going to die on? If not, you move on and ignore it.
This gets into some pretty dangerous territory because now you cannot say certain beliefs publicly without fear of ostracization from your political home. You may be able to keep that belief secret, or you may just start to believe the opposite. Viewpoints within each false-dichotomy lose their diversity, and both sides could bend, consciously and subconsciously, to a narrow, homogeneous world view.
the mapped ideologies are dynamic (leaky), but the historically enduring dichotomy is simply power and its disciples vs. the disenfranchised.
"anti-PC" is power retaliating against change, and "woke" is the disenfranchised calling for change. conservative and progressive also map to this same dichotomy.
The conflict between "anti-PC" and "woke" in its entirety is in service of power. A perpetual screaming match between poor and middle-class people, about topics that have little to no bearing on profits, is ideal for corporate elites.
What do you mean? "Woke" is all about people with privilege trying to shield that privilege behind their correctthink as they attempt to disenfranchise the lower classes of their political rivals. "Woke" people do to Arkansas rednecks the same thing they accuse their opponents of doing to inner-city minorities.
"woke" people are more diverse than you claim, and certainly less privileged on average. perhaps the "privileged woke" people you speak about over-exert their privilege, but that's a conquence of privilege, not wokeness.
Wokeness and its methods are by their nature an amazing social shield and sword, so they attract the sort of people who want to cloak themselves in righteousness and tear into others.
possibly, but then, never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance. i can't say how many such folks there might be, but in any case, it's more likely that they're pursuing their aims of fairness/justice badly, not maliciously.
These roughly align with a lot of other social dichotomies (e.g. they map approximately to right/left, respectively) in the US, although not quite coterminously. There’s a lot of fuzzy leakage around the edges on a lot of issues that primarily map directly to this split.