Someone please shoot that Fox news bastard in the knees and balls
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.
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.
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.
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.
They nuked the sub
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.
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.
I don’t see the full interview linked anywhere (and probably wouldn’t spend my time watching it if I did), but nothing in this 1:37 clip seems that bad? The antiwork person didn’t do good but didn’t do terrible either. I don’t get why this clip was posted to cringetopia.
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.
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.
That is a bit like calling something “communism” and then explaining that in reality you mean social democracy. I think you just misunderstood what Antiwork is about and might simply be at the wrong place. So yes, by all means: make a new community and share your ideas about reforming the work-place there (those are good too).
Yes that would probably reflect the opinions some people have here better. Antiwork as a concept never was and never will be about reforming the workplace.
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.
No, that is not what Antiwork is primarily about. Raddle has a nice reading list in case you are interested: https://raddle.me/wiki/antiwork
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.
I didn’t address it because it is not really relevant for Antiwork. I think you need to read up a bit on the theory behind it before jumping to conclusions. Anyways, as I was warned by a moderator here to not get into so many arguments, I will leave it at that.
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.
While the article by Graeber is mentioned in the reading list, I would personally not associate this article or Graeber’s ideas in general with the Antiwork concept. The idea is much older then Graeber’s writings anyways.
P.S.: Since MLs are often complaining that Anarchists are unwilling to read up on theory, I will leave it as is ;)
To sum up, you provided links to read and now you’re saying you don’t agree with the theory you linked. Amazing stuff. You still haven’t explained how any of the writings contradict my points. The ones I’ve read certainly don’t.
Surely since you’ve read and understood this anarchist theory you’re promoting, you’d be able to explain it to others in simple terms. As Albert Einstein famously said, if you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself. I’ll leave it as is. :)
I didn’t make that list so it is no wonder I don’t agree with the inclusion of every single article.
So, you sent me a link and now that you realized I’ve read the things you linked to, you’re distancing yourself from it. Amazing stuff.
You happen to have read one highly polemic and mostly unrelated article of a list of 30 or so articles and now you claim to know everything about it? Don’t make me laugh ;)
I read both Graeber and Russell, neither of them say anything remotely close to eliminating work entirely. You’re evidently unable to explain how that would work either, and just keep deflecting when asked. Don’t make me laugh. ;)
I don’t want to explain it to you as you are obviously too lazy to read up on the real theory. But I also have the feeling you are not reading Russel or Graeber properly, but rather through marxists lenses that distort what they write. Not everything can be seen through such lenses especially not Antiwork, which has nothing to do with marxism.
You wouldn’t be just explaining it to me, you’d be explaining it to everyone on this public forum. This is an idea that you’re promoting and you are evidently unable to explain the basics of this idea.
At least I’m able to articulate my points and ask people to read books if they’re interested in more details. You are unable to articulate what this theory of yours is, which is quite telling.
You’re claiming I don’t understand what Graeber and Russell write, but again fail to articulate what it is that you claim I’m not understanding. The term for what you’re doing here is sophistry.
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.
We’re trying to improving working conditions and pay.
We’re trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.
We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.