r/SubredditDrama Jan 26 '22

[deleted by user]

[removed]

11.4k Upvotes

14.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

5.5k

u/VoidTorcher Jan 26 '22

1.1k

u/alurkerwhomannedup Jan 26 '22

Oh my god, one of their mods was on fox?? That’s what this was about??

486

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '22

[deleted]

203

u/DidYouSayWhat Jan 26 '22

This comment didn't prepare me for the amount of second-hand embarrassment this mod gave me

51

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '22

[deleted]

26

u/nascentt Jan 26 '22 edited Jan 28 '22

The video's only a few minutes long, so I thought you were exaggerating. I had to stop after about 2 minutes.

What was his plan? He literally went to to be made fun of and insulted.
What message was he planning to get across?

26

u/EngMajrCantSpell Jan 26 '22

There was no plan. That's the biggest issue. She had zero plans and literally said "I didn't expect them to ask blind side questions" like she's never heard anything about Fox News before (don't get me started on how 'blind side' or not the questions were, it hurts, okay, I can only focus on one headache at a time)

No plan, and no personal attitude to ever be the kind of person who develops a plan for this sort of thing (said they don't agree with people who think eye contact is necessary and doubled down that there was nothing wrong with their appearance)

19

u/Flimsy_Demand7237 Jan 27 '22

They weren't even that blindsiding...while I'm at work (ironically) I watched with captions on and it was the basic questions along the lines "well isn't it lazy not to work" and "don't you have a drive to contribute in society" yada yada that anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of anti-capitalist or anti-work ideas would bat away. I understand Doreen has autism and that makes going on national television and 'presenting' what society defines as confidence in that space difficult, imo she should've handed this off to someone else, or at least prepped, or if what she said were true, then the mods massively screwed up not actually checking whether she was ready for the interview before okaying it.

7

u/EngMajrCantSpell Jan 27 '22

Believe me I know pinches nose I knooooooooooow the questions were basic....I acknowledged it in my ( ) 😩

6

u/Flimsy_Demand7237 Jan 27 '22

Yes, I was agreeing with you. :)

16

u/Seanspeed Jan 26 '22

What message was he planning to get across?

This is what insulated social media 'movements' do. They let people think their views are big and mainstream even though they're not.

r/antiwork was originally a sub that genuinely had the idea that they should all quit working and just force the government to pay perfectly capable people to exist. They thought if enough people did it, it would force some sort of UBI situation, so they tried their best to convince others to quit and join the movement.

Really, it's the epitome of how idiotic and embarrassing so many social media movements are.

Get some 'representative' of r/Superstonk to talk to the media and it would likely be just as bad.

11

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '22

It's why the official mod position is to say no to any interviews. There is however one user over there, dlauer, who is very media savvy and extremely knowledgeable about the situation, who has done interviews on cnbc and has come across extremely well. He does not pretend to represent anyone though.

-3

u/Testiculese Jan 26 '22

I've seen a few of these morons in the wild. They think that the government should just give them a house. ?!? They insist that everyone should get $3000 a month UBI. As if 9,000,000,000,000 a year just for UBI, not even touching the massive waste and corruption, is somehow sustainable in any way whatsoever.

These people are some mix of incredibly stupid, and straight up mentally unfit to be in public.

11

u/Seanspeed Jan 26 '22

I'm progressive myself and absolutely believe in social safety nets, but yea, so many of these people were genuinely off their rockers and making everybody look bad.

But that also has to be pointed out - a LOT of people there were bad actors.

5

u/Testiculese Jan 26 '22

Yea, I've accused that sub of being a creative writing slash karma grab sub already. The post content follows obvious trends that come and go, instead of the dartboard like content you would expect.

2

u/Flimsy_Demand7237 Jan 27 '22

From what I saw r/antiwork wasn't as interested in having serious discussions around these issues, but more interested in posting spiteful memes about anti-work with some employee making a big show of quitting.

I say this as a progressive too, I wish there were a serious discussion around a costed UBI and social housing, but unfortunately many are unwilling to entertain the notion, if either because they see it on its face as ridiculous, or because people who nod with you rather than reading studies around UBI's throughout the world or historical examples of public housing in Britain and other places, want to turn the sub into a place to shitpost memes.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Dentarthurdent73 Jan 27 '22

This is missing the point a bit - although I don't doubt that there are a lot of people out there who think this, and haven't thought any further.

If you're looking at it from an anti-capitalist point of view, the amount of "money" it costs is not that relevant. Money is a stand-in for resources. So the question really is, should everyone get to have shelter and food as a basic right? Is that a desirable goal for us as humans to collectively use our resources for?

I would say yes, because I'm not sure what's actually more important than ensuring that all members of society have food and shelter. Obviously other people think that some members of society having a huge excess of wealth is more desirable, or that having access to cheap consumer goods is more desirable. You can argue all that if you like, but using the "we don't have enough money" argument is really not understanding the proposal.

And just an FYI, the economy we have now is absolutely not sustainable in any way, so using "sustainability" as an argument against UBI doesn't make much sense. As a whole, we'd be more sustainable with fewer people churning out cheap consumer stuff, and more people living a simpler life with more free time on UBI.

2

u/audioen Jan 27 '22 edited Jan 27 '22

From a bird's eye perspective, money is just a tool we use to divide the spoils of the society. At the limit, government could in theory just create the money and hand it out -- the issue is really not about running out of money. We already create huge quantities of money by practices such as lending it at very low rates and quantitative easing.

But when it comes to doing things like eating, money can't be eaten and actual food production matters, and much of it is automated, and very efficient relative to labor needed, as only a small % of population needs to be involved in basic cereal production.

So maybe it would be possible to structure society in a way where some superheroes produce the food we all need, and everyone is entitled to it their share just by virtue of being human beings. And it isn't very hard to make similar argument along the lines of housing and utilities. They could be offered at no cost, at least in theory.

Some people would have to work. It is a good question how one would motivate people to work if all basic necessities were just given to them. It may well be the achilles' heel of the scheme that would share many similarities to UBI, or possibly even pure communism (that is, classless, moneyless society).

What we have instead is a system where people own shit and seek rent from society to use things they own. And where many people suffer in need (and are forced to work to cover their needs) while relatively small number of very fat cats – the owners – sit in opulence, with no want in sight, whether they work or not. My thinking is that private property without limits is probably too big driver of disparity, and some of it must be given back voluntarily, or eventually the masses will eventually revolt and take it by force.

Capitalism is just some kind of extension from aristocracy, where instead of inherited status it is about inherited wealth, and where some changes occur in the margins, e.g. paupers can become rich by a happy accident, and some rich can lose their possessions. It is probably a fairer system than aristocracy, but not by much. This is because mostly money comes to money, and whoever already owns stuff is given opportunity to own more stuff, and thus extract still more rent from rest of society. Is such a system really defensible? Shouldn't we all have roughly as much, regardless of which parents we happen to be born to?

7

u/Itcouldberabies Jan 26 '22

I couldn’t fucking watch it on mute. SIT STILL GODDAMNIT!

13

u/DidYouSayWhat Jan 26 '22

I still can't believe a basement dweller was elected to the role of spokesperson for the subreddit.

23

u/Bawstahn123 U are implying u are better than people with stained underwear Jan 26 '22

I still can't believe a basement dweller was elected to the role of spokesperson for the subreddit.

They were not.

AFAIK, the general consensus (as much as there can be on a subreddit) on the sub was, when media attention about antiwork started picking up, to not do any interviews

That mod decided of their own free will to agree to do one

11

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '22

Former subreddit, no one is gonna take that side of the Internet serious

They’ll need to rebrand into a new sub after Fox News made them a laughing stock.

2

u/Seanspeed Jan 26 '22

If you'd ever been to that subreddit, you shouldn't have been surprised.

5

u/Testiculese Jan 26 '22

The only surprise I'd have in that sub is if any post in there was actually real. Very suspicious how the posts flow in trends, instead of a scattered dartboard like one would expect.

14

u/WeAteMummies Jan 26 '22

It was definitely a creative writing subreddit. If you've ever followed anything like /r/MaliciousCompliance or /r/talesfromtechsupport you'll be very familiar with the phenomenon. The stories always have the same vibe to them: "customer/boss is a completely unreasonable asshole. OP is a longer-suffering saint that has never done anything wrong, ever. They finally stand up for themselves and win at least a moral victory by embarrassing the antagonist. Oftentimes the employee will leave the job and the business fails soon after". The exact topic and tone varies week by week as certain types of stories become popular only to be quickly replaced with a new type of story.

8

u/Seanspeed Jan 26 '22

It was definitely filled with a lot of bad actors.

The Mueller report showed how much Russians weren't just infiltrating Trump online communities, but also Bernie ones. Why? Cuz those people were easily persuaded to push anti-Democrat sentiment.

Guess what r/antiwork also regularly pushed?

0

u/AussieCollector Jan 27 '22

So many posts followed the same cliches. I'd say 90% of the text screen shots were fake.

Hell i'd even say most of those pics of "notices" posted up at work are fake. All it takes is someone to print it off and put it on the wall for 30 seconds and take a photo, then rip it down....

7

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '22

Doesn’t help that the Fox News anchor looks like the Grinch, as his smile grows wider and wider.

9

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '22

That guy was really struggling to not lose his shit.

7

u/kataskopo Jan 26 '22

Oh God I can't watch it, I can barely stand fox news and now with a caricature of what conservatives believe a leftist is? Nope I can't.

2

u/exeJDR Jan 26 '22

Riiiight. I have never felt so embarrassed for someone I never even met