Kickstarter also voted itself to become a Public Benefits Corporation [1] so you would hope they were already out in front of ensuring contributor rights are fairly represented in concert with other stakeholders.
Also a large chunk of the employees who didn't want to unionize (25-35% of their peak headcount) left the company over some of the tactics employed in the contested fight over unionizing the company.
It's worth remembering that the event that, uh, kickstarted their drive for unionization was the site's management banning a project that was raising money to support violence against conservatives (the actual physical kind, not words). The details are a bit fuzzy now but iirc some of the hard-left employees didn't like the ToS being enforced in that case, because whilst they accepted the project was calling for violence they felt that encouraging people to "punch Nazis" should explicitly be allowed. They felt that strongly enough that they unionized to force management to acquiesce.
So this isn't a classical union that's requesting more money for the workers or anything. It's the new sort of union which tries to force companies to take sides in the culture war.
It's thus not a surprise that a significant proportion of workers wouldn't want to be a part of that, and well, the sort of people who were unionizing the firm were doing so explicitly to support physical violence. US unions have a long history of violence already.
The other sibling comments in reply to this comment emphasise the central point that it was about culture war and that therefore it's not surprising that many employees don't want to take part on one side or the other!
The comments are literally just rehashing a conflict. Would anyone want to work in a place where such a discussion was part of daily working life?
> banning a project that was raising money to support violence against conservatives (the actual physical kind, not words)
"A graphic artist...raising money on the crowdfunding site Kickstarter to bring a comic book, called 'Always Punch Nazis,' to life" doesn't obviously sound like a call for violence [1]. I see enough ambiguity here to hold judgement.
>management banning a project that was raising money to support violence against conservatives (the actual physical kind, not words)
What? The article you linked says this is about a comic book about punching Nazis. How is this "not words" ? We are seriously getting angry at comic books about punching Nazis? Captain America comics have been doing that for 80 years. Is there more to the story that I am missing or are people just equating a comic book about punching Nazis to literal "violence against conservatives"? This sounds exactly like the "words are literal violence" idea that conservatives are always mocking.
"Sometimes they're called Nazis. Other times, they're the far-right or alt-right. White Nationalists. No matter the name, hateful groups are spewing vile, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-POC, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-anything-but-white-Christian-views ideologies.
What is your objection to that passage? Most Nazis today do not call themselves "Nazis" because almost everyone agrees the Nazis were the bad guys. That is all that passage is saying. Saying sometimes Nazis go by "the far-right" is not the saying all far-right people are Nazis. You are the one reading "hateful groups are spewing vile, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-POC, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-anything-but-white-Christian-views ideologies" and immediately equating that to all conservatives.
I was just quoting from the book to provide missing context. My read is that they are casting a larger net than the traditional definition to include anyone that disagrees with their ideology.
>My read is that they are casting a larger net than the traditional definition
I doubt the book is about punching near centenarians who were members of a specific political party in the 1930s and 1940s. "Nazi" is now colloquially used as a general term to describe fascists and bigots.
Here is the Merriam-Webster definition for the word[1]. The traditional definition is definition 1. The definition the book is using is definition 2.
You don't need to wear a swastika to be fairly categorized as a Nazi according to that second definition. Some people espouse Nazi and Nazi-like ideals without self-identifying as Nazis. That seems to be the underlying meaning of the above passage.
The way I read the passage, merely holding any position perceived by them as "racist, anti-immigrant, anti-POC, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-anything-but-white-Christian-views ideologies" constitutes Nazism - regardless of whatever term you may choose. Therefore, holding such views rightfully subjects you to well-deserved violence.
Given that most conservatives hold positions that are perceived by the nazi punching crowd as one or more of those evil stances above, I feel like the concern is genuine. Emphasis on perceived, because there is a tendency to exaggerate just how "anti" such stances are.
You edited "hateful groups are spewing vile..." out of the beginning of that quote which is important because even if people "exaggerate just how "anti" such stances are", there is still a difference between an anti stance and a hateful and vile stance. It isn't talking about opposing affirmative action, being against more immigration, or disagreeing with gay marriage. If you hear words like "Nazi", "White Nationalist" "hateful", and "vile" only to immediately think "they are talking about me" that is a problem on your end.
>"If you hear words like "Nazi", "White Nationalist" "hateful", and "vile" only to immediately think "they are talking about me" that is a problem on your end."
And there's the issue, front and center. If someone like me is worried that labels are getting thrown around in a wanton and haphazard manner, and such labels are used as justification for violence, why is it seen as a character flaw for me to worry that such labels might be foisted upon myself in the future?
>"only to immediately think "they are talking about me" that is a problem on your end."
Honestly, part of why I'm so concerned is that I can't read this as anything other than an insinuation.
The character flaw isn't worrying about the labels being foisted wrongly upon someone. The character flaw is someone worrying that their personal politics can't clearly be distinguished as not being motivated by hate. Odds are that is a marker of a bad and unjust political opinion.
The entire comic is predicated on a meme coming out rioting at UC Berkeley when Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak on campus
It is a reference to a tweet from writer Mike Monteiro, who declared “It’s ok to punch nazis AND white male libertarians who wanna talk about free speech.”
It is not about literal German Nazis, It is about attributing the title of Nazi to US conservatives and validating physical violence.
Equating people criticizing folks like Milo Yiannopoulos and Richard Spencer as people criticizing "US conservatives" says more about you and the Republican Party then the people doing the criticizing. These are not mainstream conservative people. They do not have mainstream conservative values. These are people who support extreme right wing policies including at times fascist policies. Basically every mainstream platform has kicked these people off for their abhorrent behavior. Holding them up as a representative of "US conservatives" is an insult to any reasonable-minded conservative.
I think most folks would agree that at some point Hitler's Third Reich could be opposed by force, but I think folks would struggle at exactly when to draw the "ok, it became OK to punch Hitler's brownshirts" line.
I don't think it as clear cut as you claim. There are many political and psychology thinkers who hold that extrajudicial violence is usually counter productive.
> I said that the idea was about labeling conservatives in general as nazis and justifying violence.
But these aren’t “conservatives in general”. These are people who are at the very least fascist sympathizers. No one serious is calling Mitt Romney a nazi.
And plenty of people today call Joe Biden a communist. Yet if someone has a "Punch a Communist" bumper sticker, I'm not going to call up the Secret Service saying someone is threatening the president because I know that name-calling is inherently unserious.
Meanwhile Richard Spencer's Wikipedia page starts with "Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 1978) is an American neo-Nazi..." It is entirely fair to call that guy a Nazi and it is the reason the modern "punch a Nazi" meme centers on him.
>"I know that name-calling is inherently unserious."
But I must beg the question, if society normalizes and encourages violence against Nazis, doesn't that mean that calling someone a Nazi is a potentially serious act? And, what if they aren't really a Nazi?
The term "stochastic terrorism" has been discussed and I believe it applies here. This is the definition I pulled from dicitonary.com:
"the public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted"
>But I must beg the question, if society normalizes and encourages violence against Nazis, doesn't that mean that calling someone a Nazi is a potentially serious act? And, what if they aren't really a Nazi?
Context is important and it seems like you are trying to blur that context for the sake of an argument. "Mitt Romeny is a Nazi" is not a serious opinion. "Punch a Nazi" is only a slightly more serious notion, but there is firmly a tongue in cheek aspect to it. There is a reason why the only "punching of a Nazi" to reach any type of penetration into pop culture was from the year before this Kickstarter was launched. This comic is not a serious threat anymore than your average issue of The Punisher.
>"Punch a Nazi" is only a slightly more serious notion, but there is firmly a tongue in cheek aspect to it.
I think we are debating cross topic.
There is a literal argument that if you think someone is a Nazi you should punch them in the face. It is not a widespread sentiment but advocated by fringe people.
Others are arguing against the literal interpretation. If you disagree with the literal interpretation, I think discussion of abstractions would be more fruitful
Anyone can call anyone a Nazi. The question is whether someone can make an individual determination that they think another person is a fascist, and whether this is a legitimate moral defense of extra judicial violence. Do individuals or groups have a moral right to judge others and carryout violence outside of the legal system
>Anyone can call anyone a criminal. The question is whether someone can make an individual determination that they think another person is a criminal, and whether this is a legitimate moral defense of extra judicial violence. Do individuals or groups have a moral right to judge others and carryout violence outside of the legal system
That is basically all comic books. Why are you criticizing this one and not like Batman or something?
Being a Nazi isn't criminal, and I don't have a dog in this fight. I was just pointing out why the comic was controversial.
I don't think it should be illegal to print, but can see how Kickstarter employees could see it as advocating violence in the context of it's name and origin.
I think employees would be similarly outraged if someone was crowd funding a comic called "how to mow down leftists" after the Charlottesville car attack.
Again, not illegal, but you could see it as advocating vigilantism and not want it on their platform.
In general, I oppose vigilantism and violence, and think both sentiments are detestable.
No see I really want to press you on this, because I want to hear how a theoretical stance in support of violence against unarmed, peaceful protestors (Charlottesville) is equivalent to support of violence against violent armed people who more often than not are the ones initiating the violence.
One of those could maybe be called vigilantism. The other isn't, its terrorism.
>"Let's be clear; the title was "Always Punch Nazis", not "Always Punch Conservatives". If you're mixing the two up, that's more on you than the author."
I've definitely noticed an overlap between the kinds of folks who want society to embrace and normalize violence against "Nazis" and the kinds of folks who go around accusing opponents of Nazism with little to no restraint.
Edit: I'm struggling to articulate this, but I also sense a rhetorical sleight-of-hand along the lines of "By definition, we only go after Nazis. If you claim that Nazi we went after was actually a conservative, that says more about you than it does about us and it makes us question your sympathies."
> I've definitely noticed an overlap between the kinds of folks who want society to embrace and normalize violence against "Nazis" and the kinds of folks who go around accusing opponents of Nazism with little to no restraint.
Indeed, there was a very high profile example of just that a few months ago. It even made headline news, you've probably heard about it.
> I've definitely noticed an overlap between the kinds of folks who want society to embrace and normalize violence against "Nazis"...
C'mon. Beating up and killing Nazis has been a core part of American culture for 80 years or so. Comics, video games, movies. Is Inglorious Basterds anti-conservative? Is Captain America?
That's an appeal to tradition. If harassing gay people was a core part of American culture should we continue to do it? Beating up and killing people over one's political beliefs is wrong.
I think you're dramatically overstating just how integral "beating up and killing Nazis" is to American culture. I'd go a step further and say that the principles of liberty and the First Amendment are more ingrained than the notion that it is permissible and encouraged to commit violence against Nazis. Especially if the alleged Nazis are fellow Americans.
>"Is Inglorious Basterds anti-conservative? Is Captain America? "
Obviously not, and the fact that this is even being asked illustrates the concern because the association between Nazism and Conservatism has already taken root in some way. If you had just left those last two sentences out of your post, the first assertion would have stood on its own.
A recently unionized workplace can get hostile to workers who opposed it. This is fine by me: if you opposed the majority of your coworkers in their struggle for better material working conditions, then you should feel their resentment.
Actually most people were union-supportive but thought it either wasn't the right time or would negatively impact the company in the long-run. Only a small minority (maybe 15%) of the company were activist and the rest were "union? okay cool!".
There were some really dirty tactics used by the activist camps (on both sides) and even some press written about such at the time. Things like demanding that management accept the union without an employee vote (back when their internal polling showed that only 30% would vote to unionize...). Negative articles in the press, etc.
The tactics employed and employee-vs-employee culture caused a number of folks I know to leave. Some even from the pro-union side.
Only 15% being activist is usually the case. Most people just participate in conversations and voting.
Internal polling is always skewed, which is why you have the NLRB process. Negative articles in the press about working conditions and demanding that the management accept the union without going through a vote are both normal. Pretending they're "dirty" is kind of weird.
And if the people left, that's fine. I instigated and ran an organizing committee and left the shop after we won. It's a draining struggle, and one that wouldn't have been successful if things weren't already fucked up for a lot of people at Kickstarter. Ultimately, the success of a union campaign shows that people don't think informal channels will get them what they need at their jobs, and they're willing to commit to long-term conflict in order to make it happen. They wouldn't do that over mild dissatisfaction.
It already is hostile to pro-union workers, usually. This is part of the resentment that sets in. After months of surveillance and harassment, your pro-union coworkers will be pissed that you chose to side with the people who surveilled and harassed them.
"If working with dangerous machinery without union representation for 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, for company scrip was good enough for my great-grandfather when he was 8 years old, it's good enough for me!"
The flip side is that a union shop, especially a recently unionized one, is much more tight-knit. I still have close friends from a union struggle years ago. And you have job security, collective bargaining power, and Weingarten rights for the duration of your time at that company.
[1] https://medium.com/kickstarter/kickstarter-is-a-pbc-heres-wh...