| > a pro vs anti union debate with a corporate executive on one side and an organizer on the other would be informative and entertaining, and is uniquely suited to your medium. IMHO, those are the last people that I want to read. Both sides would present the same talking points we see every where. There'd be a lack of meaningful engagement as these people hold little nuance in their positions. Or, at least, the positions they're willing to present in public. It's just each side hitting the notes to fire up their base. [EDIT] This article about Israel/Palestine is an even better example: https://www.pairagraph.com/dialogue/8c47026d6af148588f3ad8f4... There's little to be gianed by reading that unless you want to know the two extremes to the point of view. [/EDIT] As an example, take this one about breaking up big tech: https://www.pairagraph.com/dialogue/ff5d6b5332124e59b081c5a5... One side wrote "Break ‘Em Up: Recovering Our Freedom from Big Ag, Big Tech, and Big Money (2020)". The other side is wrote "Antitrust Law, which is the most-cited antitrust authority in the country". Predictably, the first is pretty bombastic and mostly preaching to their choir. The second is more nuanced and less definitive. |
You’d have the boss on one side, who would lose money and productivity with a union, and an organizer on the other, who stands to gain benefits and stability. That is an interesting pairing _because_ it is directly about what each side wants.
It’s exactly what you don’t get in traditional media, where it’s mostly disingenuous hemming and hawing by opinion columnists. I’m showing my biases here, but I think the reason you don’t hear politics talked about in “who gets what” terms is because those in power benefit from obscuring material realities.