Does anyone else remember when "they" broke up the anti-work movement on reddit by putting a mod on fox news then dividing the community by creating the work reform sub?

Remember that

Unless your a professional communicator, talking to media is always dangerous. They can totally change what you say using "editing", and loaded question can quickly trap you. There is a reason why there is so many job in communication and media assistant, you don't want to let people talk unsupervised
Honestly, if only a sub reddit keeps a political movement alive, it isn't a political movement

To expand on the point about editing for anyone who assumes that is only means taking things out of context, editing can also be rearranging the order of communication to change the meaning as well as introducing context prior to the interaction that changes the meaning.

Fox News is known for doing all of that.
- The ol Frankenbite/frankenedit
Unless you're* a professional communicator, talking to media is always dangerous. They can totally change what you say using "editing", and loaded question can quickly trap you.

This is probably the real reason why politicians never actually say "yes" or "no"! Haha
Wtf is a "professional communicator"? How do you think you get there?

They just needed someone who wasn't really weird, and had a proper job. Look at Mick Lynch's interviews in the UK for example - he did great work for the union.
- Lynch is a professional communicator, surely? His job is literally to represent the interests of the members of the union. And he's very good at it.
- It’s not a job description, it’s a skillset. Any public face would want it.

The mod broke the first rule of talking to Fox News: never talk to Fox News.

I was amazed at how few people thought she was a plant.

It's not that hard to get someone in a mod position. Then they just have to be a whackjob on air. Mission accomplished.

Vaguely similar to the Occupy Wall Street protests. Interview several people across the country then cherry pick the ways they disagree with each other to call it a disunified movement. All you really need is one discordant voice.
- I think it's because a lot of people though: "hmm, yea, that checks out for a reddit mod"
- In regards to OWS, they just had to find the most wacked out, stoned nut jobs that saw the sit-in as a party and ask them a couple pointed questions. Then they blast it all over the evening news as a bunch of lazy hippies, no crazy editing needed. I remember seeing the newscast live and compared it to what was going on online, and yeah that was a masterful way to shut it down unfortunately, because the next day all anyone could talk about was the lazy, entitled kids demanding free this or that from wall street. From there the movement was dead in the water.

That mod was definitely not a great public representative. Why go on Fox at all? Pretty obvious they’d try to make you look bad.

Knowing reddit, I assume the thinking was something along the lines of "I can regularly win a reddit argument, therefore my towering intellect will surely win the day on TV and I will become a hero." Which of course doesn't hold up at all against someone with professional-grade social/communication skills no matter how right-on your point is.
- While that's true, it's clear from the segment the mod didn't put any thought into their appearance, or prepare for the interview in any way.
The sad thing is that FOX didnt have to do anything to make this mod, and the community they represented, look bad. They did that all on their own because fundamentally something was very wrong with that sub. It wasnt just people legitimately pissed off at employers, there were people in that community that were very much like that mod and the former didn't want to be associated with the latter.
- It’s fairly easy to infer that Fox would not give a sympathetic or neutral interview to someone with views that the hosts fundamentally disagree with. The mod was unprepared, had poor lighting - which surely Fox could have asked them to fix before the show - started rocking back and forth, but they also have a lot of subtle ways of manipulating the audience. If you watch their other shows, the hosts use facial expressions and negative tones of voice to express what they want viewers to feel about the topic - look like they’re having an orgasm when they mention Trump, scowl and use a derisive tone for Democratic politicians. Some of that was going on with Waters’ smug smirk, but I think he detected quickly that the mod was an easy target and he didn’t have to do much for the intended effect. For some reason the interview drifted to the interviewee’s personal life vs. antiwork, too, and that’s intentional imo.
I was really active in that sub at the time. Fox or CNN or something contacted the moderators about an interview. The mods discussed it and decided to decline. IIRC, they later made a post about not accepting interviews until they felt they were more ready to present clear goals, and maybe pull someone from the community to be a "official" spokesperson.

Then a mod went rogue and did the now infamous Fox interview. That was bad, but recoverable. It was further shenanigans by the moderators in the immediate aftermath that caused the schism into work_reform. Before my exodus from reddit, I followed that community closely, but never got as involved. At the time, I remember thinking that the mods felt more reasonable than in antiwork, but that quickly changed too. Eventually they effectively became mirror subs.

Then RIF got shut down and someone told me about this lemmy federation where I could post about all the gay space communism and fringe technology I wanted. I think that I am happier now overall.

I feel like I was watching a very different situation than the rest of you were.

First off, the antiwork subreddit didn't actually accomplish anything. It was mostly people complaining about bad/illegal practices at their jobs, and literally nothing changing.

Second, things didn't die after that mod appearance. It drew attention to many users that the mods had a different goal than they did, but that didn't change the atmosphere of the posts for very long. The work_reform sub did become more popular, and antiwork still kept getting just as many people complaining about bad practices.

And neither sub got people organized, neither sub changed attitudes, and neither sub made a difference.

I disagree but it didn't accomplish anything. It made people aware that they are not alone in their situation and thinking. It created community. This also helped fuel the great resignation and encouraged people to do better for themselves. To not keep running on the wheel for a broken and abusive system. That's far from nothing.
Even if it never accomplished nothing before the Fox News interview, isn't it interesting Fox felt the need to confront it?
- Fox just used it to back their generational culture war theme for another segment

Antiwork accomplished nothing of consequence aside from embarassing itself.
That mod didn't represent a huge chunk of the community that was in that sub which is why people broke off to form another sub that did.

The sad thing is that all FOX really had to do is let this mod speak on what their beliefs were. No dishonest editing to make them look bad was needed. They did that all on their own.

The Reddit antiwork community had quite a few ridiculous folks hanging out within it.

Not that getting to a post-scarcity society where people aren't forced to work wasn't a nice horizon-goal to have, but there are a million steps from where we are in the modern world to there, and a lot of those people wanted it done by next Tuesday. And then when you'd point out that was literally impossible, they'd stick their fingers in their ears and make noises. Needless to say, I didn't try to stick around for long.

Ah I remember that. The mod was deranged

WorkReform represented how I felt more than AntiWork ever did. That interview just made it really obvious to everyone.

I remember that! I also remember it passing pretty quickly, don’t think it was effective. And I disagree with all of the nay sayers on the usefulness of those subs. Since that time I’ve noticed a lot more people willing to speak about work as a simple contractual arrangement. Not too long ago you would be called lazy and lacking in team spirit etc. for holding boundaries at work. I’ve had more co-workers express the ‘work to live not live to work’ mentality.

Maybe you guys didn’t grow up around as many people who put their entire human energy into their jobs as I did, but in some places there has been a clear shift in how people are thinking about work. Boomers used to let ther vacation expire guys. I am not seeing that in the workplace anymore. Don’t forget the ‘lying flat’ movement that was/is concurrent and frequently discussed in those subs as well. I truly think the antiwork sub helped spark a conversation in the public zeitgeist and helped spur a shift in thought.

"they" didnt break up the anti work sub reddit. The anti work subreddit was actually that insane that an interview with one of its members was enough to expose them. Anti work did it to themselves and reasonable people saw it for what it was and moved to work reform.

Nah, I'm not a hard core conspiracy theorist but "they" wanted that sub reddit gone. I bet they were ecstatic about how easy it was.
- Nah man. That sub was probably good for them because it exposed how childish some of the left is.
- Who is "they"?

I remember what she said was embarrassing. The discussion afterwards made me realize how many in that sub really were 'antiwork' in a literal sense, not just about labor protections and maintaining work-life balances.

Every movement is going to contain a whole spectrum of voices. Never having to work is pie in the sky but I'll tell you who I'm siding with in the "there should be slaves" and the "people should not have to work at all" argument.
- Never having to work is pie in the sky but I’ll tell you who I’m siding with in the “there should be slaves” and the “people should have to work at all” argument.
  
  I'm only 'siding' with people that can recognize that's a very silly false dichotomy.

To be fair, a lot of the content on that antiwork sub was basically "communism is when we don't have to work." The whole thing reeked of propaganda intended to make the left look stupid.

Nah.

A couple idiots made the sub. But then it got popular and most of its users were way more rational than the people who created it.

But they were still the ones in charge of it.

So when Faux News reached out for an interview, they 100% believed they represented their user base and it would be a good idea.

If I'm remembering right, the mod didn't even announce they were doing it. The sub didn't find out till it was aired.

And Faux portrayed the idiot that came on as a perfect representation of all users of the sub.
- Yeah the mod didn’t announce they were doing it, there was an active top level post saying the community didn’t want anyone to take the interview.
  
  They went rogue, did it anyway, made the subreddit and themselves look like a fucking dunce and a half. They didn’t even clean their god damn room, there was like dirty laundry and shit in the background.
  
  Asinine. It could’ve been a catalyst moment for a lot of people if someone with some media training had taken the interview, or if we had said nothing.
Why is it that everytime someone on the left does something stupid online, it's automatically propaganda? Why can't it just be the case that there are a lot of politically and generally uneducated people that are part of the movement, which is consistent with every populist movement for all time? This has to be reckoned with and mitigated if the left ever wants to actually hold power and do something with it.
- It's funny you should ask. I use this language specifically because when I say that leftist communities are filled with cringe populism and bad political science, I get banned from .ml pretty reliably. Calling it out as propaganda seems to play better most of the time.
To be fair, nobody should have to work once Communism is achieved. During socialism sure. Socialism (worker ownership of MoP) incentives automation. Eventually there would be no necessary labor nor resource scarcity. Which is the only way I see communism being fully achieved. FALSC( Fully automated luxury space communism).
- Fully Automated Luxury GAY Space Communism!
I can't imagine that a sub against working is against working. Maybe they should have picked a better name?

There are always a few people who take things to extremes and make themselves look bad. The person who ended up being interviewed on Fox News made themselves look foolish on their own, the only real issue there was their views being treated as a thing that the majority of the left thinks.
The whole thing reeked of propaganda intended to make the left look stupid

Got some bad news for you...
Agreed. The group make itself look bad. The mod is what everyone was expecting and didn’t disappoint in the interview. I haven’t laughed that hard in years.

One of the reasons I am on Lemmy is to get away from all the bullshit Reddit drama and infighting...

The drama and infighting here is completely different.

Yep, im pretty sure after that reddit Admins ousted the remaining mods and installed their own. Thats part of why the workreform sub grew so large.

Definitely not a psyop though, its not like the government has ever done something like that before by lets say dismanteling a radical black socialist group by dividing it against itself into two competing street gangs . . .

Oh wait . . .

Had you read any of the shit before? It's not like anyone needed to do anything. They just had to wait for it to self-incinerate - which it disgracefully did - and then take over.

Why put in effort if all you need to do is eat popcorn and watch? :D
- TBH this is one of the left's major flaws in general, in my opinion. The right will generally all glom together on an issue even if it's not 100% what they want, just as long as it's pushing things in the general direction they want. The left tends to be like herding cats, even if you can get a decent amount of people behind an issue, it'll inevitably split over some relatively minor disagreement and then the two sides will spend more time fighting each other than moving the general cause forwards.
- I'd have to be really shitty at pattern recognition to think that the organizations that threaten the power structure the clandestine orgs seek to uphold just always fall apart by themselves while organizations filled with fascists last long enough to become institutions. Theres a reason Fox news was the one to reach out to them in the first place. Theres a reason the mod that went on air didn't listen to the majority of the sub telling them not to legitimize fox and be the villain they wanted to use as propaganda, and theres a reason Reddit admins cleaned house afterwards.
'Workreform' was a more accurate name for the majority of people that were on antiwork anyway, since reducing the amount of work and improving conditions while recognizing that some work is still needed is not the same thing as being against work as a concept.

What has reddit accomplished in over a decade? That place has been nothing more than an escalating demoralization psy-op. It's given the right another central platform to push their ideologies. It's had the left preoccupied with petty squabbles.

Maybe reddit closer to 15-20 years ago would have been able to use reddit to stage actual coordinated worker demonstrations in cities around America. Over the past decade or so they've been keyboard mashing.

Reddit isn't a "psy-op" but it does intentionally select for the status quo. Once the decision was made to start trying to IPO, radical elements that were anti-capitalist, were purged from all the major sub-reddits. The other radical's drew traffic and were allowed to stay. Once you get rid of anyone advocating for change, of course stagnation is the end result. That's the goal.
- Well put. Thanks for elaborating.
It's "accomplished" giving a clear place of congregation to many, many niche communities. It's (anti-)social media; it's not intended to accomplish anything big.

I remember when anti-work meant anti-work. As in, fewer jobs, more free time, against the notion of labor as an entire thing. Our entire species retiring.

Honestly, I'm glad work reform is a separate thing now, because I don't want to reform work. I want to eliminate it.

Unfortunately much of the world feels entitled to the labor of others and refuses to acknowledge the mental gymnastics we accept as a society.

One has to look no further than the way we treat food service employees. People demand to be served. They feel they are entitled to their basic human needs being serviced while blaming those servicing them for being under valued.

It's sick and twisted; our society is mentally ill.
So how do you propose that would (pun coincidental) work? Who'd build and maintain roads and railways, who'd build houses and install plumbing, who'd build cars, robots and other goods, who'd grow produce and who'd transport it to the cities where people live? Who would do all the work?
- I don't have an entire solution for it, and for a while some work would obviously be necessary. But it's important to have a goal so we work toward it instead of just working forever.
  
  I share David Graeber of the opinion that we could eliminate a third of jobs - the Bullshit Jobs - immediately, and with a small increase in our standard of living. And I think that if someone can automate their job they should be given their salary in perpetuity, because now people don't have to do this one thing.
  
  For me, antiwork is less a clear political goal than it is an ethos. Find ways to eliminate drudgery so all of us everywhere can retire and live comfortably.
Eliminating work wouldn't actually be enjoyable.

We just need to reform society so that people aren't required to be employed to survive.

Humans inherently like to work and be productive. The problem isn't working, it's employment under shitty companies.
- I've had this argument too many times with newcomers to antiwork that I'm not going to do it again with you. But ask yourself this: If people so desperately want to work, why do they dream about winning the lottery so they don't have to? Why do they save up their entire lives to enjoy their golden years not working?
  
  Stop looking at this from the bottom of a 6,000 year old hole that tells you that you need to justify your existence to your superiors.

That's Fox News for you.

I'm sure it makes it feel better to think it was an organized effort to take them down rather than that the people behind it were just genuinely embarrassing

It's a pretty common tactic by people pushing an agenda to interview an idiot with certain views and then present it as if everyone with those views are just as dumb. It's common on conservative outlets but I also don't like it when people do interviews at Trump rallies and find the biggest idiot to put in front of the camera. It's disingenuous to do that.

The thing about trump rallies is you’d have to look really hard to find someone with a full set of functioning brain cells.

"Dividing the community" lol. Anti-work is a horrible name.