3 ms·

> What’s offensive about instructions on how to fill out a ballot above and beyond the fact of them asking you to vote no? Nothing. The outrage is about them t

> What’s offensive about instructions on how to fill out a ballot above and beyond the fact of them asking you to vote no? Nothing. The outrage is about them telling you to vote no. If they were trying to help you fill out your ballot in good faith, there wouldn't be a problem.

SilasX 6y ago
No. The OP was complaining about something already assuming they're telling you to vote no, meaning the OP was adding something on top of that. I was asking what that thing-on-top is. So it has to be something more than: >The outrage is about them telling you to vote no. Which, indeed, you correct yourself on in the next sentence, to say that the issue is that it pretends to be neutral ballot instructions, but, if followed, end in you voting no, and are thus misleading (just guessing -- again, no one here seems to be making it easy to understand what they're objecting to). If so, it would have been helpful for the OP to communicate that the first time around. Remember rtpg joined in to clarify, but actually objected to something else, the power imbalance -- and yet s/he seemed to believe s/he was agreeing with the initial comment! Not everyone can read minds about what a speaker thinks is the most salient part, and we don't deserve to be ridiculed for asking. If you want others to be outraged, it helps to clearly communicate what they're supposed to be outraged about -- starting form a clear model.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  I didn't correct myself. Did you look at the article? It doesn't purport to be neutral at all. There's a giant yellow sign that says "VOTE NO" with five bullet points about why you should vote against the union. The step-by-step instructions encourage you to vote no in three different places. There's no assumption or mind reading needed. To be honest, I don't see how OP could have been more clear: > Detailed, 6 step instructions on how to open a ballot and mark no? Thanks, amazon.
  - SilasX 6y ago
    I'm not objecting to the article. I'm asking what the original comment was objecting to. We all know, before that comment, Amazon wants you to vote no. The OP was adding to that, in criticism of Amazon, by saying there are detailed six page instructions on how to vote the way they want. But that doesn't tell me what's to be outraged about -- as the first response noted, that is exactly what every other campaign does. If the OP wasn't claiming Amazon was outrageous beyond the mere fact of asking for no, then why even bring up a six page instruction set?
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      You're reading too far into this. OP is just saying that Amazon's propaganda is slimy. Everyone else is on the same page here.
      - SilasX 6y ago
        So, it's only as slimy as every other organization that gives you ballot instructions. Not sure that's the message you were trying to send.
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        Someone noted that it's different when your employer tells you to vote in a certain way vs. a random political party. That's where you entered the conversation, so I'm not sure how that's getting lost.
        SilasX 6y ago
        I guess what's "getting lost" is the fact that the original comment says nothing about that, and how that part has nothing to do with all the kvetching about "omg six detailed pages!" -- you know, the focus of that very comment.
        jakelazaroff 6y ago

SilasX 6y ago

No. The OP was complaining about something already assuming they're telling you to vote no, meaning the OP was adding something on top of that. I was asking what that thing-on-top is. So it has to be something more than: >The outrage is about them telling you to vote no. Which, indeed, you correct yourself on in the next sentence, to say that the issue is that it pretends to be neutral ballot instructions, but, if followed, end in you voting no, and are thus misleading (just guessing -- again, no one here seems to be making it easy to understand what they're objecting to). If so, it would have been helpful for the OP to communicate that the first time around. Remember rtpg joined in to clarify, but actually objected to something else, the power imbalance -- and yet s/he seemed to believe s/he was agreeing with the initial comment! Not everyone can read minds about what a speaker thinks is the most salient part, and we don't deserve to be ridiculed for asking. If you want others to be outraged, it helps to clearly communicate what they're supposed to be outraged about -- starting form a clear model.

jakelazaroff 6y ago
I didn't correct myself. Did you look at the article? It doesn't purport to be neutral at all. There's a giant yellow sign that says "VOTE NO" with five bullet points about why you should vote against the union. The step-by-step instructions encourage you to vote no in three different places. There's no assumption or mind reading needed. To be honest, I don't see how OP could have been more clear: > Detailed, 6 step instructions on how to open a ballot and mark no? Thanks, amazon.
- SilasX 6y ago
  I'm not objecting to the article. I'm asking what the original comment was objecting to. We all know, before that comment, Amazon wants you to vote no. The OP was adding to that, in criticism of Amazon, by saying there are detailed six page instructions on how to vote the way they want. But that doesn't tell me what's to be outraged about -- as the first response noted, that is exactly what every other campaign does. If the OP wasn't claiming Amazon was outrageous beyond the mere fact of asking for no, then why even bring up a six page instruction set?
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    You're reading too far into this. OP is just saying that Amazon's propaganda is slimy. Everyone else is on the same page here.
    - SilasX 6y ago
      So, it's only as slimy as every other organization that gives you ballot instructions. Not sure that's the message you were trying to send.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        Someone noted that it's different when your employer tells you to vote in a certain way vs. a random political party. That's where you entered the conversation, so I'm not sure how that's getting lost.
        SilasX 6y ago
        I guess what's "getting lost" is the fact that the original comment says nothing about that, and how that part has nothing to do with all the kvetching about "omg six detailed pages!" -- you know, the focus of that very comment.
        jakelazaroff 6y ago