Tensions within the GOP are growing, with hawkish Republicans supporting Waltz and Trump loyalists opposing him.

Well, when you figure out why exactly you want to do it, when you want to do it, and who all should be involved, build off of that with actionable steps. The why is the most important as you need to be able to communicate exactly what it is your demands are and what will be considered satisfactory to end the strike not only to those you need to negotiate with, but with those you want to participate and as a message to the public. Make a realistic ‘when’ so that you have a deadline and something concrete to work with. The who needs to be quantifiable. Do you want a certain percentage of workers participating before you start? Get a number and stick with it.

The main thing to keep in mind is to communicate with others and yourself in clear and actionable steps. Asking someone to strike with you? What does their role looks like? What will they be doing? When will they be doing it? What resources will be provided to them? Found your way to the negotiating table? What are your demands? What will you not compromise on? What are you willing to compromise on? Do you have someone who understands corporate lawyerspeak that can translate for you? Do you have a reliable way to effectively communicate the results of negotiations with the participating workers?

I think it’s better to try and start this yourself. Find like-minded people at work to help delegate out the tasks needed to organize and sustain the strike. As you organize, you might have certain organizations reach out to provide assistance, which would be great, but plan on doing it all yourself. Afterall, the movement is about empowering the workers, and what could be more empowering than having come together to do this yourselves?

Aw, why the downvotes? I thought it was funny.

My wife is gonna appreciate the meme, but yeah, she’s gonna roll her eyes about who the song is attributed to… all the more reason to send it.

I feel like you missed the point at the detriment of people taking your position seriously. Words and their definitions are very important in communication and I feel like semantics is something that is very undeserving of the flippant treatment it routinely receives.

If someone were to accuse someone else of lying, this also comes with an accusation of intent. It isn’t sufficient for someone’s statement to be false to be a lie, there also needs to be intent to deceive. Intent to deceive implies that the liar at least knows what they’re saying is untrue, and possibly implies they know what is actually true depending on the context. However, if there is no intent to deceive, it’s usually a case of that person just being mistaken. How frustrating would it be for someone to be accused of lying when they say something they believe to be true? And how seriously should they take their accusers when not only being told their view of reality is incorrect, but also being informed that their own intent is malignant when stating something they believe is true?

So, when it comes to describing something as a genocide, you’re also describing intent. If you tell people that they’re killing animals with the intent to extinct them, they’re probably not going to take you seriously. It’s probably better to have someone tell you what their intentions are rather than just assuming you can slap a piece of paper saying “this is you” on a scarecrow before drop-kicking it.

Weapon of mass construction.

Damn, man. You really gotta call out my disengaged ass, don’t you? I think you make an extremely important and overlooked point here. In any kind of social movement it’s imperative that you gain a following for that movement. On an individual level, you do that with good reasoning and specifically not using unnecessary antagonism. It reminds me of all the leftists who were recently bemoaning all the apathy in the 2016 election for what they perceived as “I like whichever candidate, but their supporters were mean to me”. I mean, they’d be correct that this is a childish reason to disengage completely, but these are the exact same people you need to join in your social movement. Too many times we get so obsessive with the academic structure of a movement that we become blind to the world that would benefit from it. We forget that we need to find a way that others would be receptive to our message in how we present it. Truth at all costs is admirable on the surface, but how admirable can it be when the cost is mass dismissal because we felt entitled to be antagonistic toward those who don’t agree yet? So maybe I should put childish ways behind me and begin engaging with others in charitable and good faith.

Oh my god, that’s something that gets under my skin so very quickly and it’s sadly so common. It’s such a specifically arrogant kind of strawmanning where you’re telling someone else what they think sometimes even in direct contradiction to what they say. Like “you’re just jealous” or “you just want to ____”. It just reeks of anti-intellectualism and everyone is worse off with every use. We desperately need more people to learn the principles of philosophy, and maybe even more specifically of epistemology.