This is another instance where I feel like it's important to be specific. Most everyone has assumptions they hold above the need for discussion. As a dramatic example I'll steal from Zizek, if somebody tries to start a discussion about how women secretly like being raped (there was a serious movement around this), the correct reaction is not to debate them, but ignore and laugh at them. Discussing an idea means admitting implicitly that the idea is worthy of consideration.
For example, I was banned from a libertarian Facebook group because I mentioned there were socialists who criticized the Soviet Union for being anti-liberty. These are the people who are supposed to really care about liberty and free speech, but according to their dogma socialism is inherently incompatible with liberty and they need to destroy discussion of it by any means necessary.
I'm probably a lot more open to this sort of thing than a lot of people. I used to troll white supremacist forums and I've recently read Mussolini for example. But there are still some things that may be radical for other people but which I think should be taken for granted.
Like calling trans people by their preferred pronouns. I don't have a sophisticated understanding of what it's like to be trans, but I do know that gender dysphoria causes a lot of suffering and it matters deeply to people in how they're able to actualize themselves. My core values are human freedom and flourishing, so I take it basically without argument and I don't get into discussions about it.
A lot of the other "woke" things I can think of are pretty well substantiated. There are mountains of statistical and historical evidence for bias against black people especially in the justice system. If you don't think that's important, then there's not too much to discuss. A sheep can't convince a wolf he ought to eat grass for dinner.