3 ms·

> It's very easy to ask people to not be "divisive" when you're the one with the money and the power, and not the ones who have the rights they have now as a co

by kodah 6y ago

> It's very easy to ask people to not be "divisive" when you're the one with the money and the power, and not the ones who have the rights they have now as a consequence of the deaths and sacrifices of people being "divisive" by daring to stand up for themselves. The person you're replying to is talking about how people act in discussions about this topic. So, with that in mind, who can ask you (read: metaphorical you) to not be divisive, aggressive, or stand-offish when discussing unions with lay people?

vidarh 6y ago
> The person you're replying to is talking about how people act in discussions about this topic. Yes, but posted an extremely self-serving (for Walton) quote of Walton, and argued different perspectives were important. So I offered a counter to Walton. My point being that it is deeply insulting to expect of someone to not be "divisive" when involving parties in a conflict with a century-long history of outright bloodshed, alongside a whole host of brutal practices. It's a classic tactic to put an opponent on the defensive to suggest they're being "divisive, aggressive, or stand-offish" and by extension implying their side is not that and more. You can't metaphorically punch people in the face and then complain afterwards that they're now "aggressive".
- kodah 6y ago
  Right, but we're not talking about Sam Walton debating you about unions, we're talking about an everyday person who might end up joining one. You either missed the part where OP is talking about behavior in comments on this site or you're willfully ignoring it to make a point about Sam Walton and power. Unless you think it's okay to take the full history of unions and people's suffering on your back and wear it on your sleeve. I'm guessing this is exactly what people are saying is off-putting about pro union behavior. Believe it or not, people do find it detestful when companies push back on unions with underhanded techniques. They get off-put when what is clearly propaganda comes out of their mouths. Pro-union people, representing the union online or anywhere else, are held much to the same standard that any company or corporate employee would.

by kodah 6y ago

vidarh 6y ago

> The person you're replying to is talking about how people act in discussions about this topic. Yes, but posted an extremely self-serving (for Walton) quote of Walton, and argued different perspectives were important. So I offered a counter to Walton. My point being that it is deeply insulting to expect of someone to not be "divisive" when involving parties in a conflict with a century-long history of outright bloodshed, alongside a whole host of brutal practices. It's a classic tactic to put an opponent on the defensive to suggest they're being "divisive, aggressive, or stand-offish" and by extension implying their side is not that and more. You can't metaphorically punch people in the face and then complain afterwards that they're now "aggressive".

kodah 6y ago
Right, but we're not talking about Sam Walton debating you about unions, we're talking about an everyday person who might end up joining one. You either missed the part where OP is talking about behavior in comments on this site or you're willfully ignoring it to make a point about Sam Walton and power. Unless you think it's okay to take the full history of unions and people's suffering on your back and wear it on your sleeve. I'm guessing this is exactly what people are saying is off-putting about pro union behavior. Believe it or not, people do find it detestful when companies push back on unions with underhanded techniques. They get off-put when what is clearly propaganda comes out of their mouths. Pro-union people, representing the union online or anywhere else, are held much to the same standard that any company or corporate employee would.