It was a Fox News interview. If the person who did the interview came off well they wouldn’t have bothered airing it. Hell, if the person they interviewed didn’t come off the way they did they wouldn’t have bothered interviewing them.
This is what I’m getting at, though. If the interviewee didn’t fit the checklist of stereotypes Fox News was looking for, there wouldn’t have been an interview aired. It was a hit piece. Fox News went looking for a way to run a segment discrediting a movement, and found one.
It was Fox News. Even if had been a stellar interview, they would have made it look bad.
And I don’t think it had any actual impact on how people viewed the community in general. It’s just people being terminally online and blowing things way out of proportion.
I agree the interview was bad, but it’s also one of the most inconsequential parts about it. That’s the tiniest most petty reason I’ve ever seen a community tear itself apart over. It was like a bunch of mindless chickens pecking one to death because they saw a spot of blood. Definitely on brand for reddit though.
It was doomed from the start, and yet they went on anyway.
tbh I think they’d put a bad case forward even if they were given a favorable interview, considering they gave Fox more ammunition than they could ever ask for.
The misgendering and harassment is wrong, but I honestly think it’s right for the anti work community to call out how awful that interview was and distance themselves from it as much as possible. imo it did actively harm the public perception of the movement.
it did actively harm the public perception of the movement
Again, this is greatly exaggerating the nature of the situation. Even if it did, it was so minor that it could have easily recovered. It’s not like irreparable harm was caused.
Fox is not a small-time, they have more primetime viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined. If people’s first exposure to a movement is something like that interview…Several other news outlets also rehosted clips and wrote stories about just how terrible it was. That creates a strong barrier to anyone labeled as being “with” that person to overcome in order to be taken seriously. Whereas if you discovered the community where there were memes/conversations around workers rights and how they’re getting fucked the perception is much different.
It also was directly against the wishes of a community vote and mod discussion of doing a fox interview. A very good way to tell supporters of a movement that a purported “leader” doesn’t actually care about what they’re saying. To say that it was minor damage really underplays how it affected perception and unity of the community.
Hard disagree. Again, you’re blowing this way out of proportion. A movement isn’t one mod. It’s pretty clear that users were more interested in jerking their hate boners than in the movement itself.
It’s telling that even after these years, you’re still unable to gain a little healthy perspective on this. It’s really hard to admit that you were wrong, especially if you actively contributed to what was essentially a targeted harassment campaign.
This is like talking to Gamers about why death threats to devs are wrong lol
The anti work community had a lot of idiotic freeloaders who just didn’t want to work. After the interview when the sensible people left, it got so much worse.
Work reform was better, and came about as a result of that interview.
That was a colossal fuck up of an interview though, made the entire anti work community look like a load of stupid freeloaders.
Absolutely no excuse for the misgendering or any harassment, but I still wouldn’t undersell how bad that interview was.
Removed by mod
It was a Fox News interview. If the person who did the interview came off well they wouldn’t have bothered airing it. Hell, if the person they interviewed didn’t come off the way they did they wouldn’t have bothered interviewing them.
Removed by mod
This is what I’m getting at, though. If the interviewee didn’t fit the checklist of stereotypes Fox News was looking for, there wouldn’t have been an interview aired. It was a hit piece. Fox News went looking for a way to run a segment discrediting a movement, and found one.
It really is hard to understate how bad the interview was, that’s what makes the misgendering even worse, there were so many other things to critique…
It was Fox News. Even if had been a stellar interview, they would have made it look bad.
And I don’t think it had any actual impact on how people viewed the community in general. It’s just people being terminally online and blowing things way out of proportion.
I agree the interview was bad, but it’s also one of the most inconsequential parts about it. That’s the tiniest most petty reason I’ve ever seen a community tear itself apart over. It was like a bunch of mindless chickens pecking one to death because they saw a spot of blood. Definitely on brand for reddit though.
It was doomed from the start, and yet they went on anyway.
tbh I think they’d put a bad case forward even if they were given a favorable interview, considering they gave Fox more ammunition than they could ever ask for.
The misgendering and harassment is wrong, but I honestly think it’s right for the anti work community to call out how awful that interview was and distance themselves from it as much as possible. imo it did actively harm the public perception of the movement.
Again, this is greatly exaggerating the nature of the situation. Even if it did, it was so minor that it could have easily recovered. It’s not like irreparable harm was caused.
Fox is not a small-time, they have more primetime viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined. If people’s first exposure to a movement is something like that interview…Several other news outlets also rehosted clips and wrote stories about just how terrible it was. That creates a strong barrier to anyone labeled as being “with” that person to overcome in order to be taken seriously. Whereas if you discovered the community where there were memes/conversations around workers rights and how they’re getting fucked the perception is much different.
It also was directly against the wishes of a community vote and mod discussion of doing a fox interview. A very good way to tell supporters of a movement that a purported “leader” doesn’t actually care about what they’re saying. To say that it was minor damage really underplays how it affected perception and unity of the community.
Hard disagree. Again, you’re blowing this way out of proportion. A movement isn’t one mod. It’s pretty clear that users were more interested in jerking their hate boners than in the movement itself.
It’s telling that even after these years, you’re still unable to gain a little healthy perspective on this. It’s really hard to admit that you were wrong, especially if you actively contributed to what was essentially a targeted harassment campaign.
This is like talking to Gamers about why death threats to devs are wrong lol
The anti work community had a lot of idiotic freeloaders who just didn’t want to work. After the interview when the sensible people left, it got so much worse.
Work reform was better, and came about as a result of that interview.
The interview was a shit show, but your interpretation of this and that it supposedly destroyed I find ridiculous.