I support the writer’s guild strike because they are not part of the bourgeoisie. The same can’t be said of a lot of these rich actors who own a ton of capital themselves. So on the one hand, it kind of seems like the bourgeoisie is fighting the bourgeoisie on this one. On the other hand, not every actor in the guild is as successful as Tom Cruise, so some of those striking actors are working class.
Asking for other people to do the research for them, you can learn this info by reading or listening to like 1 news article
Ok great yeah please go listen to the mainstream media to get your understanding of labor action 😵💫
This is a question that a lot of less politically conscious people have, the answer is obvious if you know it, this place should be for sharing that information with people who are seeking it. Introductory info, 101, no??
Get your opinion? No, but mainstream media will present most of the basic facts if you actually read the article, they tend to just deceptively edit headlines and shit with stuff that’s harder to lie about like this, it’s not ike this is news about the war or anything
Edit: like this is 6 paragraphs down in the nbc article, it should lead you not to make assumptions like the guild is just rich actors or something:
The whole point of a 101 community is to propagandize to people who are interested in leftist politics.
If you are sending people to the sixth paragraph of an NBC news article instead of just answering the question with leftist spin (i.e. extra truth that nbc leaves out), you have totally missed the point.
Especially when you have a big issue that’s hot in the news that has generates more interest than normal.
It’s not that asking “is supporting [x] union the right move?” is bad, it’s that the framing of the question implied that famous actors make up a significant amount of the union. I don’t see how you come to that conclusion if you’ve done any sort of cursory reading or listening into the topic. This isnt even communsim101, it’s like media literacy 101 to just look into a situation for like at least 5 minutes to get extremely basic facts. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask people to do that before posting
edit: further, what truth is nbc leaving out with regards to this question? If they were asking if the 100k+ poorer actors were just throwing a temper tantrum and turning down a good deal, I would get it, they have uncritically been repeating studio exec lies, but essentially they asked a question that the lib media themselves is not even trying to lie about
The giant lib media companies are literally intermingled with the exact same capitalists that run the studios and streaming services that the actors are striking against. I cannot understand why anyone would think it’s a good idea to send obviously newbie people to go read what they have to say about it, even if one article you have found doesn’t exhibit obvious lies.
Maybe it’s because I’m a big sports person too, and often see how people react whenever those unions act? The average American has no concept of this. People literally see this and think ‘oh wow tom cruise thinks he should make even more money, screw him give me back my shows’. That’s a real thing lots of people think in America! That’s the kind of thought pattern you get after uncritically living within the mainstream media ecosystem in America. It’s not the person deceptively framing the question, it’s the person relating the question through the lens they have been made to have by living in that ecosystem.
When I say ‘mainstream’ I don’t mean it in the qannon conspiracy way, I mean these companies are literally owned and operated by the capitalists you are fighting against. They are absolutely not apolitical actors. Why would you expect them to report on this fairly? Is it even fair to put that info in the sixth paragraph instead of the second?
It’s an own goal to send people there instead of explaining to them why the common perception of these ‘rich people unions’ is complete bunk.
Because they honestly very rarely tell blatant lies unless they think they can get away with it like the DPRK or war? Like, if you think NBC is an outlier idk what to tell you, it’s not like im telling them to read fox news. Like im literally just telling people not to be redditors, do even just a teensy bit of research.
Also, they did put shit about it in the 2nd paragraph, I thought I would just show that they are giving pretty accurate details really early in the article (if you cannot have the patience to read 6 one-sentence-long paragraphs or listen for 2 minutes to a news report idk what to tell you)
It’s not like I refused to answer and just linked a nbc article? I just want people to look into shit so they arent asking questions so basic that the media isnt even lying about it
I think you’re encouraging new socialists to be intellectually lazy, they should be encouraged to start critically engaging with media and coming to us with questions, not seeing headlines, doing no research, asking poorly framed questions. Like holy fuck i said 7 words asking for basic research i feel like im having to drag this user to explain myself
You’re right, they don’t lie blatantly. The non-blatant, subtle lies (frequently by omission, or even by placement) you get from these sources leaves the average reader with the exact lens of this original comment.
All I’m saying is it makes no sense to have a community dedicated to propagandizing people if you are just going to send them back to those sources if their question isn’t sufficiently advanced. But hey that’s just my take, idk what else to say about it. Capitalist media is not an effective propaganda tool against capitalism.
But it doesnt. Thats what im saying. This misconception isnt coming from how the media is currently reporting this strike. If it did, this user would be calling the actors greedy or lazy by asking for too much. They arent even trying to pretend that it’s rich actors pushing for this, that’s what im trying to say. I think encouraging people to read and think for themselves (so that they wont be resistant to reading theory) is far more important so they don’t get stuck as soc dems
Your account is new enough that you presumably came from reddit? I’m sure you know that redditors are extremely bad about reading articles or looking up claims people make, I really think it’s important to push back against that
We’re not qanon. Lib news is very useful, but has to be read critically.
Lib news is fine if you know what you are looking for. If you are asking “is the actor strike good” you don’t know what to look for.
You’re gonna get “both sides make good points” from lib news on that. So why tell newbies they should go read that instead of us? It’s pointlessly hostile, spiting ourselves for no reason
Lib news is fine to understand the basic facts of what’s happening, like imonadiet mentions:
“Hey there fledgling leftist who is asking to be propagandized, unfortunately I do not deem your question worthy of my time, please go read CNN instead”
Is the painfully dumb to me sorry. Simply saying nothing would be a significant improvement. In a normal discussion, sure. This is not a normal discussion, it’s 101 for a reason I feel like I am taking crazy pills here it’s like some people are actively hostile to the idea of growing leftism, which has always been true, but also they decide to hang out in a place called ‘communism 101’ for some fking reason
The people who own these companies ARE THE BOSSES that the actors are striking against!
It’s a very common trolling tactic here to ask questions framed by wrongly presented facts.
It’s not weird to push back against the wrongly presented facts; there are other answers here as well.
It’s ok, I think you’re painfully dumb too.
Defending leftism by driving off everyone interested in leftism, doing your part 🫡
“leftism” doesn’t exist.
It’s not weird to push back against inaccurate facts in a question.
It is weird to newly join a community and immediately try to correct everyone else’s behavior.
I am not a proselytizer, and I’m frankly disgusted by it. If someone with a question is turned away by a (polite) correction, they were never interested in the first place.