Bully in the sense in someone who gets off on hurting other people; and preferentially targets those who can’t or won’t fight back. I’d say that is pretty spot on here, no? Hiding behind some group or cause is a means of achieving this.
There is of course some sort of power differential involved in the target not being able to respond in kind; however it need only be a tactical advantage — as opposed to a strategic advantage.
Power is different, people are using these movements to wield power, not necessarily to harm others.
Someone with power is going to harm others (for some definition of harm) because wielding power generally means giving someone something and that implies not giving it to someone else. But it's often inadvertent, what you're describing is someone who does it on purpose.
This is why it's important to differentiate, if I pay tuition for my children and it takes up slots such that other kids cannot go to that school, I'm wielding some form of monetary power, but my intent is not to harm the ones who end up not being able to go to that school.
Many of these people are after power itself rather than trying to harm others.
> wielding power generally means giving someone something and that implies not giving it to someone else.
I don’t know if I would describe this as power as opposed to Economics? And when we talk about something like economics (the systems by which resources are allocated) I think we are at a level of organization that transcends individuals in the way that bulk materials transcend individual atoms or electrons.
Using your example, you can pay your child’s tuition, but you simply operating with a system you have no real control over. You as an individual are powerless to determine tuition rates, or that there is a financial component in the allocation of seats in the school in the first place.
What I am talking about is individuals who abuse systems to hurt other people. Like the person who willfully misinterprets something you said, or makes up a rumor about you to turn others against you or justify beating you up.
rather than worry about the specific example, try to understand the overarching point.
If I have three cats and 2 hands, 1 of them is naturally not going to get pets. I'm wielding power in the form of that decision, not because I'm egomaniacal and love leaving the 3rd cat out of pets, but because I've chosen to employ both hands to pet two cats.
People chase power. The woke movement is 1 mechanism for doing so (there are others). It doesn't mean all those chasing power using the woke movement are specifically doing it to bully others.
And while YOU may want to limit to bullies, you responded to a post talking about the woke movement in general, my point stays within that context even if you've chosen to go outside that context.
2. Fortitude - the ability to carry out one’s will
Those are two entirely separate things. And it is entirely possible to have one without the other. You may decide one cat deserves all the pets, but he / she may have different ideas and decide to run off and go bat at a fly. This you were the arbiter of justice, but had no power.
Social justice movements are generally concerned with justice. The question of what is fair. Power generally rests in the hands of the state / mob / body politic. Laws mean nothing without some mechanism of enforcement.
Now what the OP article is saying is that malevolent people will often try to abuse social norms to protect themselves from the consequences of their malevolent behaviors. My reply to OP is saying that this is a very human trait and not specific to any particular social movement or social norm. As evidence I give a couple of similar examples that happen in different socio-political contexts.
It's power.