159
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
159 points (100.0% liked)
Work Reform
17283 readers
1616 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Nobody's arguing that. This is about the right to informed consent, not censorship.
That's not always the case in the moment.
...so you actually agree with what they're trying to do but still felt like misrepresenting it for a few sentences before saying so?
Weird choice, but at least you reached the right conclusion at the end 🤷
Misrepresenting? Please elaborate how I'm doing such a thing, there are two issues here: the subject of the scenes, and the not being told about the subject.
I have my two cents on each subject, you can agree or disagree with what I say, but saying I was Misrepresenting anything is flat out lying about my comment.
That's how. By inventing the first issue. Nobody's arguing for censorship. It's only about the right to informed consent.
Nope. You were inserting a strawman argument about censorship. That's by definition misrepresenting.
I feel like sometimes people comment, then read the article, and then try to backpedal when you point out that they missed the point of the article. Thanks for calling it out though
What an empty comment, smuglord.
Just pointing out the logical inconsistency of going off on an irrelevant tangent about prudishness and then in the same comment support what it's ACTUALLY about.
That's not empty. Unlike your comment, hypocrite.
My comment was concise, clear, and accurate, and I stand by it.
I also don't agree with the OP you responded to, but they at least had thoughts - and, more to the point, weren't a total smuglord.
Well, you're right that it was concise, at least..
As did I. Using strawmen like injecting an irrelevant argument about censorship matters. It's dishonest and misleading and that's what I was commenting on.
That's just your hypocritical opinion 🤷
Not really expecting you to see it, anyways.
I'll continue to love love, hate hate, and outsmug the smuglords. I don't mind the apparent hypocrisy of using my enemy's tools on them, when I find it applicable.
try not to cut yourself on all that edge.
Ok, l'll be more careful.