Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

3

sudo wrote

  1. Cite your sources, please.

  2. Call them office workers, not "typical" workers. They aren't more common than minimum wage workers.

Other than that, this is a good chart.

-2

moto wrote

  1. Sources for a bloody meme? No.

  2. How pedantic are you?

7

sudo wrote

This isn't a meme, it's an infographic. There have been lots of infographics in the past that didn't cite their sources, and for some of them it turned out their information was wrong. As a result, lots of people will now ignore infographics unless their sources are cited, because they don't want to be misled, and they don't have the time or energy to verify the numbers on their own. If you are the creator of this infographic, then I strongly urge you to put your sources at the bottom in fine print. If you're just reposting this from somewhere else, don't post infographics that don't cite their sources. That way, you won't be responsible for spreading misinformation, in case the numbers quoted are wrong.

Also, I don't think I'm being pedantic by saying that office workers aren't typical. I know there are a lot more hourly service jobs where I live than there are office jobs. Maybe office work is "typical" work for you if you're a privileged white person, but not otherwise. Proletarians outnumber labour aristocrats.

2

moto wrote

I didn't make the meme, why would you even think I did? And push me around because the meme isn't good enough for you?

1

sudo wrote

I already thought that you might not have been the creator of the infographic (in fact, that's what I thought was most likely), hence why I said "If you're just reposting this from somewhere else, don't post infographics that don't cite their sources." And I wasn't criticizing you in my first comment, I'm criticizing the infographic itself. Sorry if that wasn't clear. (But I will criticize you for sharing an infographic that doesn't cite any sources.)

-3

JoeMemo wrote

Please stop. You're just pushing noobs away with this pedantic nonsense. No one cares about this but you.

3

martasultan wrote

It's not pedantic; these are claims with specific numbers attached. If it were vague and they were asking for citations, it would be pedantic. Less so when every digit is specifically chosen.

Also, yeah, 'typical workers' is dumb.

2

JoeMemo wrote

It's a link to a meme on reddit. It's completely pedantic to give someone reposting it here the third degree. Who cares about 'official figures' anyway? The officials are liars.

2

martasultan wrote

I'm not sure where you're quoting 'official figures' from, given you're the first person to mention such; the request was for any citation.

2

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

How about you or sudo do a quick gooogle search for some figures instead?

It’s 👏 not 👏 that 👏 hard 👏

0

martasultan wrote

Burden of proof relies on the person making the point, not the person receiving it.

3

moto wrote

I didn't make the meme...

1

martasultan wrote

Then whoever did should cite sources and it's not very good of one unless they do, given it gave specific numbers down to the digit.

1

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

You might wanna consider therapy for your OCD. This is the Internetz. People are gonna make unsupported statements. Even if the figures aren’t perfect, they make a valid point.

Arguing to discredit them makes you look like you’re capitalist sympathizers.

2

martasultan wrote

Arguing to discredit them makes you look like you’re capitalist sympathizers.

That's an assumption to make, and you know what they say about assuming.

You might wanna consider therapy for your OCD.

It's not good to compare this to legitimate conditions that effect people a lot; OCD can be really bad depending on its manifestations.

Even if the figures aren’t perfect, they make a valid point.

Which is exactly what I said; they should have made the point with vaguer figures rather than such specific ones, which ruin credibility.

0

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

Well they didn’t use vague figures and it can’t be changed. Might be interesting if someone here who cares would do the leg work to validate them rather than wasting energy ordering people around to do it.

And, you should still consider therapy. I don’t mean it as an insult.

1

martasultan wrote

And, you should still consider therapy. I don’t mean it as an insult.

That's rather rude, and I'd like to ask you to kindly fuck off.

-1

JoeMemo wrote (edited )

What study of wealth and poverty wasn't done by an official institution? They wouldn't have the funding to lift a finger if they weren't approved by an authority.

They are constantly making appeals to authority, this isn't an isolated incident. I'm sure the real figures are far worse, source: just from living in this world and having eyes.

1

ntm wrote

Pedantic? I don't know which of these are inflation-adjusted. If you're going to bring up numbers as an authoritative source, you better have backing.

3

JoeMemo wrote (edited )

Way to break the circlejerk with this "If you're going to tarnish capitalism, I demand figures backed by an authoritative source" routine.

I'm sure the noob feels really welcome and positive about posting right now.

1

martasultan wrote (edited )

2

moto wrote

I spent a long time writing that... Thanks.

1

sudo wrote

And I'm sure Tommy Wiseau spent a long time directing The Room. That doesn't mean it wasn't stupid.

1

AbleBot wrote

2

sudo wrote

This is a good bot idea, but the word list needs to be vetted. Some of these words were historically ableist, but aren't considered to be ableist anymore. Some others could be considered ableist when thought about in a certain way (like the word stupid), but aren't generally considered to be ableist, according to popular opinion among disabled people. I think we should limit the list to the actual slurs.