You are assuming the intent of the poster. Your "civil rights" example does not capture the same (ambiguous) spirit that the poster's use of "woke" captures.
1. Did they use scare quotes to make it seem like "woke" is a nonsense concept?
2. Did they use quotes to identify that they are aware that they are perhaps using the term ackwardly, having little experience using it in discussion?
3. Are they putting it in quotes because they happen to already be mostly on your side regarding the word's offensiveness, and wanted to have a shorthand way to express that conviction without getting bogged down in the details?
4. Are they putting it in quotes as shorthand for all the ambiguity of points #1-3 and a myriad of other possible positions?
Your line of reasoning is a moral argument against using this word except in very limited circumstances where the speaker's moral stance is made clear with lots of stated qualifications- with no intent to offend, and with no possible indicated bias against any group that could be slighted by use of the term. This is a hostile norm of expectations that it makes conversations more difficult and less productive.
As far as I can perceive it, the majority of people haven't arrived at the conclusion that woke is a slur. When you are on the front lines of the linguistic fight, you're either gonna have to convince people that the word is hurtful, or at least convince them that if they use the word, bad things will happen to them. I'm not really convinced of either of these right now, and I hope that the majority of people are the same. After all, wokeness is a political stance, and it's pretty rare for descriptors of political stances to get a reputation as such a vile slur that we no longer use the word. After all, Nazi and Communist get thrown around as insults all the time, along with their non-insulting literal denotations.