3 ms·

> If, for example, gay people would be voting on gig worker law propositions based on LGBTQI support organization recommendations Gay people don't have to, and

> If, for example, gay people would be voting on gig worker law propositions based on LGBTQI support organization recommendations Gay people don't have to, and often don't, vote based on LGBTQI organization recommendations. However, if LGBTQI organizations believe that LGBTQI people are more impacted by gig work, shouldn't the orgs be speaking on that? It seems relevant to me. As long as dismissal for being gay is still possible, workers' rights seem to be very much in scope for these organizations. [To downvoters: What's the point of having an organization, otherwise?]

wozniacki 5y ago
There are plenty of reasons to have a strong organization irrespective of whether it does what it says it does. 1. To silence valid criticism & gag public opinion. 2. To take advantage of a splintered population of insignificant and disorganized clusters and interest groups & gain legislative / political power. 3. To steer discussion & policy directives toward boondoggle initiatives so that there is semblance of progress but very little to show in the way of actual positive outcomes - outcomes deemed not core to the said group's world outlook. 4. To bully lawmakers into shaping public policies in the hopes of creating a moat so big, that it effectively shields said organization from any incursion, for decades to come. Basically all organizations - in the current highly polarized atmosphere - want to concentrate power within themselves for use as currency for various objectives - whose motivations are not necessarily what they appear on the surface. No matter what the organization is, the more powerful it is the more of these things it engages in, by virtue of just being powerful.
michaelt 5y ago
I can certainly understand making political decisions based on the recommendation of political organisation you trust. But often an organisation will have multiple goals, some of which you find more important than others; and they'll evolve their stances over time, to stay relevant in a shifting political climate. So giving your unwavering, uncritical support to a single organisation is only a little less naive than giving the same support to a single political party.

wozniacki 5y ago

There are plenty of reasons to have a strong organization irrespective of whether it does what it says it does. 1. To silence valid criticism & gag public opinion. 2. To take advantage of a splintered population of insignificant and disorganized clusters and interest groups & gain legislative / political power. 3. To steer discussion & policy directives toward boondoggle initiatives so that there is semblance of progress but very little to show in the way of actual positive outcomes - outcomes deemed not core to the said group's world outlook. 4. To bully lawmakers into shaping public policies in the hopes of creating a moat so big, that it effectively shields said organization from any incursion, for decades to come. Basically all organizations - in the current highly polarized atmosphere - want to concentrate power within themselves for use as currency for various objectives - whose motivations are not necessarily what they appear on the surface. No matter what the organization is, the more powerful it is the more of these things it engages in, by virtue of just being powerful.

michaelt 5y ago

I can certainly understand making political decisions based on the recommendation of political organisation you trust. But often an organisation will have multiple goals, some of which you find more important than others; and they'll evolve their stances over time, to stay relevant in a shifting political climate. So giving your unwavering, uncritical support to a single organisation is only a little less naive than giving the same support to a single political party.