tartra

"we have so many other priorities"

I don't know how these people tie their shoelaces knowing that 'more important things' are happening anywhere else in the world

God forbid people have more than one thing on their to-do list

That's definitely how I hope it's taken by the general public!

It looked like a sign that management had posted in solidarity with the elevator companies rather than with the workers themselves, so I figured it was meant to be taken cynically.

It's hard to be the only person fighting sometimes. Especially if she was surrounded by people who were all for this, what good is throwing a sprinkle of water at a bonfire?

It's not like she quietly disappeared. She publicly denounced it and went on record actively against it. Making changes require negotiations, and her colleagues have shown they no interest in negotiating.

It is extremely unlikely that this was her Plan A. It's also extremely unlikely that it was just this one isolated thing. And now, she's free to join groups that actively interested in fighting against this and throwing her experience and network in as resources to help them instead.

Maybe that would wake people up enough to do something.

I'm sick of making shitty incremental process all the time when people need actual change put in place, all because "it's better than nothing".

Puts the anger onto the people striking. Classic.

Unfortunately, the people who should be concerned by that are the employers, and it's not historically common for them to give a shit amout their disabled employees enough to prioritize their access overall, let alone in particular as a result of this strike.

LMAO @ them whining "but we worked really hard on it"

History attaches names to things, so resigning at least makes sure you aren't the one remembered bringing this policy out.

The disgust - which should be the bare minimum - is very, very often withheld.

So go full force on disgust. That's plenty on its own. It's not just about them who organized this, but to show to everyone this is targeting (non-white supremacists) that this is not accepted in our communities, and that the people who aren't directly targeted by this do not want to be in the company of white supremacists either.

The weaker the disgust is, the more it emboldens others to think 'lesser' forms can sneak in under the radar, since it's not 'as bad' as the first thing they did. Everyone who's targeted by the impact of this hatred sees those attempts made over and over again, so shutting it down each time shows that there's never going to be a compromise of "okay we'll do a little bit of racism because we have to meet in the middle".

Sorry I took so long to reply! I'm still not used to Lemmy. :P

That was an excellent answer. I imagine it's further compounded by how kids are sorted into grades, with someone being born very late to the grade's cut-off having a disadvantage to someone born many months earlier/at the start of the cut-off.

From what you wrote, I'm almost persuaded to think that it's something kids should be taught in school, but far later. I'm back on the boat of having calligraphy classes offered in high school as electives. The trouble is, once I suggest that, I feel like it's setting myself up to be argued into having it at a much younger age and as a mandatory part of education, which puts us right back into the problems you listed out. :(

They're clowns, so they can't be taken seriously enough to invest in as propaganda. At any moment, everything they say can be dismissed as a joke. At best, it might be taken as a reflection of general sentiments, but it's all deniable satire.

So they're totally free to talk about anything they want. Their money doesn't come from that in the same way as news outlets. And that means they can choose to focus on topics (regardless on what take they have) that news outlets aren't allowed to touch for fear of losing cash. That means we end up hearing about stuff at all that we wouldn't otherwise.

A diversity of topics is pretty important when it comes to breaking up an echo chamber!

I agree to a large extent! I would add onto that by saying government funding also acts as advertising dollars would, but that because the government has put some value onto transparency and has to be elected, Canadians can have a better chance to identify where the unspoken bias is based on who's got the wallet.

I would also say that because of all their funding and because of their need to establish themselves as a reliable source of news, CBC has to put a ton of effort into reporting on news that many would call 'useful' so that there's more of a benefit of doubt extended to them when they don't report on telecoms.

All that to say "let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater," but the genuinely useful articles and journalistic standards that exist for CBC do also operate in an environment that serves whoever's funding it. They're an excellent starting point for awareness, so I'm happy to see their stuff shared, but I'd never recommend having their word be law on what's "worth" reporting or sometimes even the angle they're taking while they report on it.