Comments like this are so incredibly weak. If you’re not a bot or a troll, please realize that this low-hanging fruit brings zero value to this discussion.
This is called the normative-descriptive switch. Instead of arguing that union-busting is good or bad, you dismiss all arguments by sarcastically stating something everyone knows, i.e. big corporations tend to abuse workers. It almost reads like you’re making a substantial point, but you’re not.
Try this: multi billion dollar companies should not be allowed to abuse their workers.
Edit: You know initially I agreed with you, then I realized that your suggested comment accomplishes essentially the same thing.
Anyone would be able to infer from my comment that I don’t support the way that billion dollar companies are allowed to abuse their workers. It implicitly supports the idea that they should not be allowed to. Your suggestion contributes about as much to the discussion as my comment does, and to say that they are meaningfully different implies that people can’t interpret sarcasm.
Both my comment and your suggestion are saying something obvious, but so is the article. That’s the joke.
You’re both saying the same thing, but your message was sarcastic/cynical and to an extent, self-defeatist.
I don’t have a horse in this race, but I also observe that comments like the one you made generally result in zero subsequent conversation of the root post’s content.
Which, fair enough. It definitely was sarcastic, low-effort, and unlikely to generate conversation. But just say that instead of lecturing me about fallacies, you know? Lol
Comments like this are so incredibly weak. If you’re not a bot or a troll, please realize that this low-hanging fruit brings zero value to this discussion.
This is called the normative-descriptive switch. Instead of arguing that union-busting is good or bad, you dismiss all arguments by sarcastically stating something everyone knows, i.e. big corporations tend to abuse workers. It almost reads like you’re making a substantial point, but you’re not.
Try this: multi billion dollar companies should not be allowed to abuse their workers.
Holy god my bad
Edit: You know initially I agreed with you, then I realized that your suggested comment accomplishes essentially the same thing.
Anyone would be able to infer from my comment that I don’t support the way that billion dollar companies are allowed to abuse their workers. It implicitly supports the idea that they should not be allowed to. Your suggestion contributes about as much to the discussion as my comment does, and to say that they are meaningfully different implies that people can’t interpret sarcasm.
Both my comment and your suggestion are saying something obvious, but so is the article. That’s the joke.
Eh, you’re both right.
You’re both saying the same thing, but your message was sarcastic/cynical and to an extent, self-defeatist.
I don’t have a horse in this race, but I also observe that comments like the one you made generally result in zero subsequent conversation of the root post’s content.
Which, fair enough. It definitely was sarcastic, low-effort, and unlikely to generate conversation. But just say that instead of lecturing me about fallacies, you know? Lol
damn this is the longest comment chain on this post. thanks for starting the conversation with your mediocre comment :)
What a long-winded way to impose your expectations on a stranger.