jkure2

The giant lib media companies are literally intermingled with the exact same capitalists that run the studios and streaming services that the actors are striking against. I cannot understand why anyone would think it's a good idea to send obviously newbie people to go read what they have to say about it, even if one article you have found doesn't exhibit obvious lies.

Maybe it's because I'm a big sports person too, and often see how people react whenever those unions act? The average American has no concept of this. People literally see this and think 'oh wow tom cruise thinks he should make even more money, screw him give me back my shows'. That's a real thing lots of people think in America! That's the kind of thought pattern you get after uncritically living within the mainstream media ecosystem in America. It's not the person deceptively framing the question, it's the person relating the question through the lens they have been made to have by living in that ecosystem.

When I say 'mainstream' I don't mean it in the qannon conspiracy way, I mean these companies are literally owned and operated by the capitalists you are fighting against. They are absolutely not apolitical actors. Why would you expect them to report on this fairly? Is it even fair to put that info in the sixth paragraph instead of the second?

It's an own goal to send people there instead of explaining to them why the common perception of these 'rich people unions' is complete bunk.

"Hey there fledgling leftist who is asking to be propagandized, unfortunately I do not deem your question worthy of my time, please go read CNN instead"

Is the painfully dumb to me sorry. Simply saying nothing would be a significant improvement. In a normal discussion, sure. This is not a normal discussion, it's 101 for a reason I feel like I am taking crazy pills here it's like some people are actively hostile to the idea of growing leftism, which has always been true, but also they decide to hang out in a place called 'communism 101' for some fking reason

The people who own these companies ARE THE BOSSES that the actors are striking against!

Lib news is fine if you know what you are looking for. If you are asking "is the actor strike good" you don't know what to look for.

You're gonna get "both sides make good points" from lib news on that. So why tell newbies they should go read that instead of us? It's pointlessly hostile, spiting ourselves for no reason

The whole point of a 101 community is to propagandize to people who are interested in leftist politics.

If you are sending people to the sixth paragraph of an NBC news article instead of just answering the question with leftist spin (i.e. extra truth that nbc leaves out), you have totally missed the point.

Especially when you have a big issue that's hot in the news that has generates more interest than normal.

Ok great yeah please go listen to the mainstream media to get your understanding of labor action 😵‍💫

This is a question that a lot of less politically conscious people have, the answer is obvious if you know it, this place should be for sharing that information with people who are seeking it. Introductory info, 101, no??

Please do the bare minimum of research

What do you think they're doing by posting in communism 101?

Plenty of labor org's have wealthier people running them

This part merits plenty of discussion more broadly imo.

This doesn't change the fact that this labor action is good, striking now is a great move for sag aftra. Creating a class divide between union leadership and union rank and file is one of the most effective capitalist tools to undermine union solidarity. Cohesion is the only thing keeping any union standing; leftists should get and remain vigilant about this in the coming months and years as labor action becomes more and more prominent in America.

Big ups to the UAW for unseating incumbent leadership earlier this year, for example