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
In the spirit of longwindedness… I’m reading my comment back a day later, and I apologize for being lecturey. I stand by my point that your comment was defeatist and unproductive, but there are other ways I could have said that. That said, I don’t agree with the assumption that your comment was criticizing corporations. It could read that way, but why not just say what you mean?
Some of my most upvoted reddit comments were things like, “Billionaires gonna billionaire” and I realized at some point that was cheap and unoriginal. It’s depressing to open a comment thread and find that the top 10-15 comments are jokes and memes.
Anyway, thanks for being open to a dialogue. This is why I feel that Lemmy (for now) is a different experience.
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 :)
In the spirit of longwindedness… I’m reading my comment back a day later, and I apologize for being lecturey. I stand by my point that your comment was defeatist and unproductive, but there are other ways I could have said that. That said, I don’t agree with the assumption that your comment was criticizing corporations. It could read that way, but why not just say what you mean?
Some of my most upvoted reddit comments were things like, “Billionaires gonna billionaire” and I realized at some point that was cheap and unoriginal. It’s depressing to open a comment thread and find that the top 10-15 comments are jokes and memes.
Anyway, thanks for being open to a dialogue. This is why I feel that Lemmy (for now) is a different experience.