5 ms·

/r/antiwork isn’t about improving working conditions, though. There was a huge drama about people splitting to some other “work reform” subreddit because they w

/r/antiwork isn’t about improving working conditions, though. There was a huge drama about people splitting to some other “work reform” subreddit because they were tired of the, literally, anti-work tone that took over the subreddit. They try to say it’s about something else, but the posts that hit the front page are always just being angry about something like a supposed text from someone’s boss or a piece of paper with a message taped to a wall. The effort to fake any of these posts is 10 minutes of imagination and prep, at most.

biofunsf 3y ago
I believe the origins of r/antiwork are actually more literally "anti-work" like you mentioned. As in, moving towards a basic income post scarcity society where we don't have to work. It's a noble utopian goal but since we're so far away from it of course the posts make the problem feel intractable. As the subreddit grew there was a natural tensions between those that actually wanted to improve things and those that wanted to dream about a future and complain.
zug_zug 3y ago
Well I've seen a huge number of r/antiwork posts and in my opinion they pretty much are all healthy. They all tell stories of workers putting up with an unreasonable boss. I never see posts about workers criticizing all bosses or reasonable bosses, at least not that make frontpage. I have a hunch it's actually to the long-term benefit of the economy if unreasonable bosses (emotionally abusive, sexually exploitative, illegal-action-requestinging, etc) are rooted out or rallied against.
- dumpsterdiver 3y ago
  I've always found the tone on r/antiwork to be immature and ineffectual. It's telling that the vast majority of posts come from people working in jobs that would typically be taken early on in someone's working life, i.e. wage slaves. You don't really hear much from people who are established in their careers. It's true that wage slave jobs typically aren't very rewarding, but it's also true that most people have to work in unrewarding jobs for awhile until they gain the experience necessary to move up. It appears to me that the folks in that forum feel entitled to skip over the whole part where they "gain experience in the world". Not only that, but I've seen a repeating theme in which a manager makes a request of someone, and their response is utterly devoid of tact. Instead of just saying, "Oh, sorry I can't do that" or even just not responding and saying that they were busy and didn't see the message, they feel the need to become adversarial and "stick it to the man". I would argue that not only is it more effective to "take the high road" in such situations, it also takes less effort than adversarially engaging with your manager. Like instead of starting a message with, "I already told you last week that I planned <some thing>, and in fact, I quit." Maybe instead try something like, "Hey, I'm so sorry, I can't tonight. I have that <some thing> at 7. Maybe Carter can cover the shift?"

biofunsf 3y ago

I believe the origins of r/antiwork are actually more literally "anti-work" like you mentioned. As in, moving towards a basic income post scarcity society where we don't have to work. It's a noble utopian goal but since we're so far away from it of course the posts make the problem feel intractable. As the subreddit grew there was a natural tensions between those that actually wanted to improve things and those that wanted to dream about a future and complain.

zug_zug 3y ago

Well I've seen a huge number of r/antiwork posts and in my opinion they pretty much are all healthy. They all tell stories of workers putting up with an unreasonable boss. I never see posts about workers criticizing all bosses or reasonable bosses, at least not that make frontpage. I have a hunch it's actually to the long-term benefit of the economy if unreasonable bosses (emotionally abusive, sexually exploitative, illegal-action-requestinging, etc) are rooted out or rallied against.

dumpsterdiver 3y ago
I've always found the tone on r/antiwork to be immature and ineffectual. It's telling that the vast majority of posts come from people working in jobs that would typically be taken early on in someone's working life, i.e. wage slaves. You don't really hear much from people who are established in their careers. It's true that wage slave jobs typically aren't very rewarding, but it's also true that most people have to work in unrewarding jobs for awhile until they gain the experience necessary to move up. It appears to me that the folks in that forum feel entitled to skip over the whole part where they "gain experience in the world". Not only that, but I've seen a repeating theme in which a manager makes a request of someone, and their response is utterly devoid of tact. Instead of just saying, "Oh, sorry I can't do that" or even just not responding and saying that they were busy and didn't see the message, they feel the need to become adversarial and "stick it to the man". I would argue that not only is it more effective to "take the high road" in such situations, it also takes less effort than adversarially engaging with your manager. Like instead of starting a message with, "I already told you last week that I planned <some thing>, and in fact, I quit." Maybe instead try something like, "Hey, I'm so sorry, I can't tonight. I have that <some thing> at 7. Maybe Carter can cover the shift?"