this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
908 points (85.4% liked)

Antiwork

8259 readers
5 users here now

  1. We're trying to improving working conditions and pay.

  2. We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.

  3. We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.

Partnerships:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Yayannick@lemmy.ml
uthredii@lemmy.ml
sexy_peach@feddit.de
yogthos@lemmy.ml
mossy@lemmy.ml
908
I sure as hell don't. (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world to c/antiwork@lemmy.ml
306 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] worldsayshi@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

The negative connotation that you mention is the point of the trade off. On one hand it makes the message less appealing - because it's using a symbolic name with a negative connotation.

On the other hand - the negative connotation makes it less likely that the symbols will be hijacked by opponents.

By example:

  • Green movements don't have symbols with such connotation. Opponents use green washing to hijack the movement.
  • Pirate party movements do have names and symbols with negative connotations. If you're working with intellectual property you don't want to be associated with piracy. There's no such thing as pirate-washing..(?) However, open source movements is a related phenomenon and a counter example. There have been examples of open source-washing. Companies that pretend to be open but they really aren't really. Android and openai comes to mind.

When a movement is formed there is a possibility to build a narrative that is more or less desirable to hijack. Making it less desirable to hijack might make it less desirable overall. That's the trade off.