Ouch. The questions were not even hardballs. When the interviewer stated that the system is fair because one freely agrees to the company’s terms and conditions of employment, I would have been the one laughing. If “starving” is the alternative then perhaps the bargaining power of the employers is a bit unbalanced.
But I don’t judge the guy. He must have been tripping on nerves. It would have been a good idea to pick someone a bit more prepared to face this kind of pressure. But hey, he was brave. Maybe they got the opportunity with short notice and no one else was willing to step up.
that’s the kind of shit they do if you get on tv, you need to be super violent and aggressive if you want them to take you just a bit serious
bad info mb
Thank you for the added context. I try to assume the best of a situation. If this is what happened, then that was definitely not cool of the mod.
Thank you for the added context. I try to assume the best of a situation. If this is what happened, then that was definitely not cool of the mod.
that’s for the best, I’m just really disappointed in the mods for this.
It sucks, but this sub now may have to consider changing it’s name to workreform because of this. Plus workreform is a much better description of the movement.
I do think work reform is a much better description as well.
I vote for work reform name change.
Anytime I mentioned antiwork to someone, the first thought they had was lazy people not wanting to work and I would have to explain the movement. After explaining everything and making good points, they would just stare at me and then ask ‘why is it called antwork’?
The work reform name explains itself. And who wouldn’t want to improve and reform their workplace. Its instantly much more relateable.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Antiwork as a concept only makes sense in the context of being against the way work is structured under capitalism. The fundamental idea behind work is that certain things need to be done in order for people to live whether people like doing these things or not. We need to produce food, build housing, provide sanitation, healthcare, and all the other things that make a society function. Focusing on labor organization such as forming unions, starting cooperatives, and other ways for workers to take control seems as a more productive way to move forward.
deleted by creator
You didn’t address my point. I completely agree with the concept of bullshit jobs, and working towards minimizing required work. However, the concept of work doesn’t go away in any foreseeable future. The real issue is with who decides on the purpose of work and nature of work.
Under capitalism, the means of production are largely owned by a small group of capitalists and the purpose of work is to create further wealth for these people. Any social benefit from work is strictly incidental, and much of this work can even be actively harmful to society. Corporate lobbyists are an example of a job that creates negative social value that would be considered a bullshit job. Furthermore, workplaces are run as dictatorships where the owners get to unilaterally decide how the work is done, and what rights the employees have.
I think that the purpose of work should be to create social value first and foremost. Any required work should be directed towards making life better for everyone. The only way we can achieve that is through public ownership. We need to move away from the capitalist model and move towards socialism where ownership of the means of production is in the hands of the general public. And of course, it should be the workers who make all the decisions regarding how they work.
Simply focusing on antiwork misses the bigger picture and fails to provide emancipation for the people who make our society run.
deleted by creator
I’d argue it’s very much relevant to theory behind the whole concept. I’ve read Geaeber, and I’m not jumping to any conclusions here as far as I can tell. Nowhere does Graeber argue that work as a concept would disappear in the foreseeable future. I don’t see Russell arguing anything of the sort either. Since you’re clearly caught up on the theory, why don’t you address the point I made for everyone’s benefit.
Apparently there’s also been a lot of drama with mods banning people for calling them out, and failing to act in good faith. There’s now r/workreform that split off because of that. I imagine now that the subreddit got big and it’s translating into real world action there’s likely an effort to neuter the whole idea.
/r/WorkersStrikeBack is also out and seems like a better alternative even though it has slightly less people right now (at 40k compared to 70k)
Oh yeah that’s a good one.
They nuked the sub
Daaang, I see it went private to deal with brigades.
Was there not some other mod they could send to the interview?
I read that a number of mods had been approached so they all had a vote and decided not to do interviews. It seems that, just like hyenas surrounding a group of herbivores, they managed to get one member to split from the pack…
Uff, if this is the case then I might have to take back my previous comment about not being too hard on the guy.
Wow that sucks. I don’t really like the subreddit but I hope they act in unison in the future as it would be better for them individually at least.
Someone please shoot that Fox news bastard in the knees and balls
Honestly, like fuck Fox News and that dude was just a smug asshole. But at the same time, is he really the one at fault for fucking up that interview?
If this mod were being interviewed by anyone that wasn’t already deeply sympathetic to the community were conducting that interview would it really have gone any differently?
I think that if the person conducting the interview would have human decency the result would have been much more different. Sure, that dude did it horribly, but he’s a person trying to do the best he can as everybody else while managing a shitty job, he didn’t receive professional training on how to take one and that’s fine, but the interviewer didn’t let him speak, interrupted him and all the questions were done on purpose to control the narrative, and I’m sure it was all planned like that. If it would have been a real interview there would have been questions, answers and a debate, here we only saw an upper class white cis heterosexual man saying “heuuhh ehuhe look at me im got moneis heheheh fuck you hehehe.”
IDK those questions seemed pretty softball to me. Dude was smug yeah… but that should have been expected.
hmm…i think the interviewer did fine. He asked the moderator pretty easy questions.
The dude put no effort into the interview and didn’t prepare for it. He didn’t dress properly, the room was messy, lighting was horrible, etc.
He acted like he doesn’t really care about the subreddit that he moderates.
deleted by creator
indeed
I think this movement just pulled an Occupy Wall Street.
What a stupid fucking move. I would have at least had someone go on that would have said “what do I do? I came to ask what the hell YOURE doing. I doubt you work more than 20 hours a week either”
Anyway during the call I would have had a goatse flag fade in slowly so they dont cut me off immediately.
In these days what the hell do you expect from someone still moderating on reddit? Place is a fucking disaster and they just keep making it worse by continuing with that ‘new’ reddit design.
deleted by creator
Cringetopia is just the sequel to CringeAnarchy, a subcommunity that was home to thousands of neofascists and other antisocialist dullards before the Reddit wizards shut it down. It used to featured LateStageCapitalism content frequently back when that subcommunity was Reddit’s favourite whipping boy. Now that antiwork has substituted LSC in that rôle, the cringelets are obsessing over that instead.
deleted by creator
I think the main issue that people had was they felt he misrepresented the sub and helped perpetuate the stereotype of laziness and not understanding the economy. In reality though, they were the ones mistaken, as their impression of what r/antiwork stands for is only a recent version from when the sub became mainstream and is not what the sub originally stood for.
Originally, the sub was much more radical and truly anti work which is the vision I’m sure Doreen here still believes in.
This process is part of why I dislike reddit these days tbh. Bunch of normies come in, change the culture and ideas, then bully the original users for being weirdoes who don’t “get it”.
The issue less with the interview itself and more with the fact that the mod decided to do the interview unilaterally, and how the mod team responded after. The mods have already shown concerning tendencies with being sectarian, and then had a meltdown when faced with criticisms from the community.
This interview summarizes why we really need to pump the brakes on all the new users coming to Lemmy. I’ve never seen cringe this bad. And now, antiwork and reddit will continue to remain punching bags.
You want stop new users because they might be… cringe?
I disagree. Lemmy is an anti-fragile system. It will grow better with more people pouring in.
The problem with the above issue has to do with cable news: old media, and the focus on a singular individual.
