You already nailed it, it's very repetitive and mostly relies on telling you what conclusion to have rather than laying out a compelliy case. It's also a buddy of Nathan's that, I believe, joined after a lot of this has gone down or was otherwise not personally knowledgeable of it, being someone that wrote very rarely.
Also failed to address the key accusations.
As an example of how it relies on innuendo, it spends a lot of time talking about an alleged harassment campaign and saying someone who wasn't an employee was engaged in it and how this is all terrible. It's even convinced several hexbears in this thread. Of course, badmouthing a conniving employer on Twitter and telling him he sucks in a grocery store when you happen to randomly see him is not exactly a harassment campaign, it's just basic naming and shaming we tend to celebrate here. And that person that wasn't an employee? Well they're the long-time partner of an employee that was in the thick of it and went through this ordeal with them. Nothing strange about that.
Yeah I'm annoyed I have to think about this again lol. Not annoyed at anyone here, lol, just don't think this is worth spending time thinking about but can't help myself
I have a hard time believing we read the same thing.
rather than laying out a compelliy case
It shows conversations with and between the people involved and the author viewed Zoom recordings of their meetings (and references them). What other evidence are you looking for?
Also failed to address the key accusations.
The key accusation is "he fired employees for unionizing." It makes clear that no one was fired and no unionization was attempted.
He asked for a few people to resign, yes, and he didn't have the authority to fire them, yes.
What's the difference between this and firing someone? They knew he couldn't fire them (which makes their "I was fired here's where you can donate" tweets extremely bad in my eyes), so they could and did refuse to resign, and they kept getting paid even as the magazine went on hiatus and they did no work.
Person A is a little more senior in an organization than Person B, and Person A delegates some work to Person B.
Over time, there is some dispute over how well Person B is doing their job.
Person A asks Person B to resign.
Person B stays, and keeps getting paid, because they know Person A can't fire them.
Person B tweets out "I've been fired, donate here."
Is "Person A fired Person B" at all a fair characterization of that situation? I don't see any way someone who claims they were fired and asks for money while still drawing a paycheck is in the right -- they're just straight-up lying.
There's room to criticize Robinson for not handling a difficult situation particularly well (and for not setting up a better group structure in the first place), but this is wildly different than "he fired employees for unionizing." There's was certainly no effort to unionize, in any case.
Come on. It posts receipts, names names, and is a conventionally-formatted narrative.
As for who's credible here: I'm sure not going with the people who (at minimum) lied about being fired so they could grift money over twitter. They also declined to be interviewed for the article and never piped up to dispute the key "not actually fired" part despite continuing to tweet about the situation years after the fact.
it sure sounds like every single person involved in the dispute is insufferable and shouldn't be published or paid attention to
One reason "only me and my five online friends are True Leftists" is so popular is that being dismissive is easy. Mao and Stalin worked closely with plenty of leftists who didn't have perfect takes on everything, and even allied for a time with reactionaries like the KMT and U.S. That's the reality of a mass movement, not writing off people who are closer to you than probably 95% of the U.S. population.
Have you read the original Twitter thread + Google doc?
It shows conversations with and between the people involved and the author viewed Zoom recordings of their meetings (and references them). What other evidence are you looking for?
Evidence for what? They didn't even lay out a coherent rationale given the original accusations backed up by the rest of the staff.
The key accusation is "he fired employees for unionizing."
No it isn't lol. That isn't even their accusation.
It makes clear that no one was fired and no unionization was attempted.
They already had a union. NJR firing them was precipitated by him getting cold feet about collectivizing as a co-op. He then sent out messages asserting his status as The Boss, got pushback for reneging, and then started firing people, and it became a shitshow from there.
Dithering about whether he technically 🤓 had the power to do so isn't particularly relevant unless someone is going to start suing. He used his position of power as the founder and active editor to start telling people they need to go and they reasonably understood he was firing them. Also, being at a small workplace where the main person wants you gone isn't exactly a great environment, especially when they are this incompetent, so I would've doubted anyone was super excited about suing to get their job back.
You already nailed it, it's very repetitive and mostly relies on telling you what conclusion to have rather than laying out a compelliy case. It's also a buddy of Nathan's that, I believe, joined after a lot of this has gone down or was otherwise not personally knowledgeable of it, being someone that wrote very rarely.
Also failed to address the key accusations.
As an example of how it relies on innuendo, it spends a lot of time talking about an alleged harassment campaign and saying someone who wasn't an employee was engaged in it and how this is all terrible. It's even convinced several hexbears in this thread. Of course, badmouthing a conniving employer on Twitter and telling him he sucks in a grocery store when you happen to randomly see him is not exactly a harassment campaign, it's just basic naming and shaming we tend to celebrate here. And that person that wasn't an employee? Well they're the long-time partner of an employee that was in the thick of it and went through this ordeal with them. Nothing strange about that.
deleted by creator
Yeah I'm annoyed I have to think about this again lol. Not annoyed at anyone here, lol, just don't think this is worth spending time thinking about but can't help myself
I have a hard time believing we read the same thing.
It shows conversations with and between the people involved and the author viewed Zoom recordings of their meetings (and references them). What other evidence are you looking for?
The key accusation is "he fired employees for unionizing." It makes clear that no one was fired and no unionization was attempted.
deleted by creator
He asked for a few people to resign, yes, and he didn't have the authority to fire them, yes.
What's the difference between this and firing someone? They knew he couldn't fire them (which makes their "I was fired here's where you can donate" tweets extremely bad in my eyes), so they could and did refuse to resign, and they kept getting paid even as the magazine went on hiatus and they did no work.
deleted by creator
Is "Person A fired Person B" at all a fair characterization of that situation? I don't see any way someone who claims they were fired and asks for money while still drawing a paycheck is in the right -- they're just straight-up lying.
There's room to criticize Robinson for not handling a difficult situation particularly well (and for not setting up a better group structure in the first place), but this is wildly different than "he fired employees for unionizing." There's was certainly no effort to unionize, in any case.
deleted by creator
Come on. It posts receipts, names names, and is a conventionally-formatted narrative.
As for who's credible here: I'm sure not going with the people who (at minimum) lied about being fired so they could grift money over twitter. They also declined to be interviewed for the article and never piped up to dispute the key "not actually fired" part despite continuing to tweet about the situation years after the fact.
One reason "only me and my five online friends are True Leftists" is so popular is that being dismissive is easy. Mao and Stalin worked closely with plenty of leftists who didn't have perfect takes on everything, and even allied for a time with reactionaries like the KMT and U.S. That's the reality of a mass movement, not writing off people who are closer to you than probably 95% of the U.S. population.
deleted by creator
Have you read the original Twitter thread + Google doc?
Evidence for what? They didn't even lay out a coherent rationale given the original accusations backed up by the rest of the staff.
No it isn't lol. That isn't even their accusation.
They already had a union. NJR firing them was precipitated by him getting cold feet about collectivizing as a co-op. He then sent out messages asserting his status as The Boss, got pushback for reneging, and then started firing people, and it became a shitshow from there.
Dithering about whether he technically 🤓 had the power to do so isn't particularly relevant unless someone is going to start suing. He used his position of power as the founder and active editor to start telling people they need to go and they reasonably understood he was firing them. Also, being at a small workplace where the main person wants you gone isn't exactly a great environment, especially when they are this incompetent, so I would've doubted anyone was super excited about suing to get their job back.