TL;DR: The two most recognizable and oft criticized aspect of "woke Identity Politics", are the excess punitiveness and the excessive suspicion of bigotry (which is unverifiable and unfalsifiable).

Idpol is a word that can be defined in many ways. The sort of people that think this sub is for nazbols will define it as "groups of a particular identity group (race, gender, etc) trying to improve their rights." I think people on here will agree that in and of itself this is a fine thing.

Nonetheless when we talk about idpol we use a term that can be hard to define, so it's better to describe specific things we find annoying. Two things about "woke culture" that I'm thinking of are the excessive punitiveness (EP) and the excess suspicion (ES).

An example of EP is Justine Sacco, the women who made an aids joke on twitter, went viral, and got fired. This is also an example of "cancel culture" that wokies will often deny by pointing to figures like louis ck (who I believe will ultimately be fine, and is likely to return to the public sphere).

The problem with denying cancel culture in this way is that it relies on survivorship bias. The people who are able to maintain/regain their fame are powerful successful people like louis, the ones that are successfully cancelled are not, and so are easily forgotten. When cancel culture works, its targets are often the sort who are easy to forget (or never hear about it the first place because the scene or field they got cancelled in is not one that receives attention from the mainstream.)

An example of ES is this article accusing Amy Klobuchar of being homophobic after she was heavily critical of Mayor Pete during the most recent Democratic Debate.

In my mind the best reason for this criticism are that she is vying for the same voters as him, and that she may have personal resentment towards him because he is a mayor from an insignificant town who lacks the national politics experience she has, yet is able to beat her in the polls.

The second paragraph says it all:

Klobuchar has a solid record of supporting LGBTQ rights. But the look on her face whenever she attacks out candidate Pete Buttigieg is one that gay men know well. It’s the smug look of heterosexual superiority.

Later on the author talks about their personal experience with purportedly similar "body language and barely concealed sneer" from similarly "wealthy white liberal women". Essentially the author is projecting their experiences of interpersonal prejudice onto an interaction between two people she has viewed from afar, and is making an unverifiable and unfalsifiable claim that Klobuchar behaviour is the result of barely concealed homophobia.

Subsequent paragraphs bring forth more specious evidence:

• she didn't make eye contact when criticizing other candidates

• she prefixed her criticism of other candidates with statements like "my friend Elizabeth"

• she showed more respect to Yang, who has less experience than Buttigieg

The first two can be explained by the reasons I gave earlier, as for Yang, he was never as big a threat to her as Buttigieg is now, because that was earlier in the race.

Nonetheless these claims cannot persuade the author (or similarly minded people, like those on the Pete subreddit who agreed with this article when it was posted) because what under-girds it is not analysis of the interaction itself, but a projection of personal experiences onto an event that looks similar, at least on the surface level.