3 ms·

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

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
        At this point I don't really know how to respond other than, again, everyone else is on the same page here.
        SilasX 6y ago
        All such people are so blinded by the outrage they can't take a few seconds to make clear what they're actually outraged about in way that can convince others to join them? Yeah, sounds about right.
        wizzwizz4 6y ago
        You don't need to make things clear if everyone already knows what everyone else is talking about. After an explanation that you clearly understood, I'm not sure why you're still complaining about conversational opacity.
        SilasX 6y ago
        No, I didn’t get any coherent explanation of what the OP was objecting to, after offering charitable interpretations that were rejected. Edit: I did get some completely separate, independent arguments, if that’s what you mean, but I’m saying I got no explanation of the original comment.
        wizzwizz4 6y ago
        The original comment (at least, I think I went far enough up-thread) said that teaching somebody how to vote and to vote in your favour, when you have power over them, is sleazy.

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
        At this point I don't really know how to respond other than, again, everyone else is on the same page here.
        SilasX 6y ago
        All such people are so blinded by the outrage they can't take a few seconds to make clear what they're actually outraged about in way that can convince others to join them? Yeah, sounds about right.
        wizzwizz4 6y ago
        You don't need to make things clear if everyone already knows what everyone else is talking about. After an explanation that you clearly understood, I'm not sure why you're still complaining about conversational opacity.
        SilasX 6y ago
        No, I didn’t get any coherent explanation of what the OP was objecting to, after offering charitable interpretations that were rejected. Edit: I did get some completely separate, independent arguments, if that’s what you mean, but I’m saying I got no explanation of the original comment.
        wizzwizz4 6y ago
        The original comment (at least, I think I went far enough up-thread) said that teaching somebody how to vote and to vote in your favour, when you have power over them, is sleazy.