[coffeedoughnuts]

> you can never be sensitive enough

> just a complaint about “the culture”

> this is dumb ... is this really the place to grind the diversity and unionization axe

> race to the bottom for wokeness

It's a workplace dispute that has become public because the show they produce is critiquing another workplace that had a similar dispute. The hypocrisy involved there is the reason for this being reported so widely. Every workplace has a dispute at some point and sometimes these disputes result in people moving within or away from the company. The parties at Gimlet involved surely could see the parallels between the story and themselves, but didn't address this publicly in the first episode so it strikes me that they either hoped it wouldn't come up or didn't feel it was hypocritical, both of which feel naive and this result would have been avoided if they just addressed this obviously-forthcoming controversy head-on.

But sure, paint this up as "woke-millienials-coming-to-cancel-your-life-choices" if it makes you feel better. That's not what's happening, but it sounds like maybe you need it to be.

[abnry]

> a workplace dispute

It was a dispute about unions and how POC felt in the workplace, according to the person who spoke up. You can't get more woke than that.

[coffeedoughnuts]

Not sure if this is true wherever you're from, but here in the UK unions are very commonplace all over different industries and have been a recognised part of society for quite some time now. The same with our laws on racial discrimination in the workplace.

Not sure what your (or any) definition of 'woke' is, but I gathered it was a fairly new phenomenon that is often used as an excuse to belittle people who hold different views to your own (see also: 'political correctness') - I hadn't realised that my 60-something union-rep father was so woke! I'll call and let him know!

[M2Ys4U]

"Woke" is "Political correctness gone mad" for people that don't want to appear like they're recycling decades-old memes about how it's okay - nay GOOD - to be abusive.

[StavrosK]

Doesn't this argument imply that anyone who is against "wokeness" supports abuse?

I see lots of shutting down discourse from both sides here.

[coffeedoughnuts]

that would require a coherent definition of what "wokeness" is. From my perspective it's a catch-all term which in most contexts could be replaced with "the left" or "social-justice-warriors" or "young people"

In the context of this thread, it's being used to describe people who want to fight for the formation of a union and against racial discrimination in the workplace.

If someone is on the other side of that argument it must be for one of two reasons; either they are anti-union (which, as a personal belief it is their right to be, but they don't have the right to limit others from forming a union) or they are pro racial discrimination in the workplace.

If I met someone that was either of those things, I would lose some respect for that person. Apologies for the "cancellation".

[StavrosK]

> If I met someone that was either of those things, I would lose some respect for that person. Apologies for the "cancellation".

To me, this is the entire problem with the current discourse situation in the US. Everyone keeps focusing on people instead of arguments. Everything is about labeling people and what they are, so they can dismiss or embrace them, and people are rarely that one-sided.

Even here, I don't see people arguing for or against unions, everyone is arguing about whether Vogt is a "good person" or not, and ultimately that doesn't matter. If he's against unions, I disagree, I like unions. That doesn't mean he's a terrible person, presumably he has other opinions that form his personality, and I can hopefully evaluate those on their merits.

[M2Ys4U]

> Doesn't this argument imply that anyone who is against "wokeness" supports abuse?

Yes, although possibly tacitly.

[hellomyguys]

The Civil Rights Movement was a very woke movement I guess with this line of thinking.