Why is it almost always used in a way where an injustice is invented and exaggerated?
To tie this back to the topic, because you're doing the same thing that Trump does. I'm no fan of Biden and I'd rather wash my hands in lemon water than watch the debate (even managed to avoid highlights, thankfully), but the whole root of "injustice" and "inventing an injustice" is because you've decided that real injustices are fake injustices, and vice versa.
Does this mean every alleged injustice is true by default? No. But you're applying a value judgement; a personal opinion, to a definition. This is how Trump gets his message across, and why I still think it was a tactical failure for Biden's team to agree to this debate at this time. Hindsight has, also, thankfully qualified that personal opinion of mine (in that the debate has triggered a ton of debate about Biden's chances r.e. this election).
You originally claimed "woke" was "kinda stolen" from "David Icke". This is factually untrue, and gaps in
your knowledge do not make up for that. It's fine if you don't know where a word came from, the problem is when you claim that you
do. It becomes a claim, much like those made on TV by our potentially-presidential candidates over in the US. And claims require evidence, and the cool thing about etymology is insofar as we have a record, it's concrete. It's evidenced. And when the evidence is circumstantial, that also becomes a part of the etymology on one of a dozen dictionary sites that track these kinds of things.
I definitely don't think the Democrats are going to maintain any kind of lead if they keep agreeing to debates where the Republicans can just throw things at the camera without any verification or follow-up. I don't like the Democrats as an institution (some would say I mean the "DNC" here, and perhaps). But the alternate is still worse, from my far and distant vantage point.