• 0 Posts
  • 884 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 20th, 2023

help-circle
  • My sarcasm implies the point. Your “arguments” are just stating something is good enough because “positive means more better”, while ignoring the complexities of the issue at large. How much is enough? And averaging out inflation over time indefinitely without specifying time intervals is disingenuous. Defining useful time intervals for that which aren’t inherently biased to sway the overall argument is in itself a debate to have. This is all without challenging the assumption that the worker’s value stays the same or increases very slowly over time, so they must be happy with an effective raise.

    Seeing as how you don’t care to address the obvious major points that come up in conversations about inflation vs wages in your argument to begin with, and are happy just making hammy assertions, I’m happy to just mock them without putting in too much effort. Why would I let myself fall prey to the bullshit symmetry principle to someone already signaling bad faith with hammy statements?





  • In a perfect world, everything is fair and power imbalances don’t exist. In a perfect world capitalism may not exist. In a perfect world is not a good tool for analysis, here, and doesn’t excuse the tone-deaf response from Costco.

    In our actual world, where virtually every other corporation is what it is, why would Costco think they are completely immune from the distrust that sows? Why would Costco think this doesn’t come off as manipulative? Why didn’t they emphasize “we apologize and we will do better”?

    No, I think the under-handed tone of doom and gloom was very deliberate. I think they want the effect it had: reinforcing their stance that unions are bad, to let the employees know that they should still fear retribution of some vague type, if only to slow down employees at other stores following suit, while they devise a strategy to deal with it.








  • I’m not saying “they changed the definition”. I’m saying “too many things about the way this term is gatekept from general use are flawed, and done for political gain sometimes, the average discussion of what is happening right now being one of them”. It depends on the context whether a more academic definition standard should be expected, and even then it’s not as straightforward as whoever is trying to shut down its use likes to pretend, and so perhaps a less-important hill to die on than whatever discussion is happening at that point in time."






  • Negative hype can kill a product that could have been good.

    Positive false hype can deceive people into wasting money.

    Sure, complete honesty would be ideal, but if you say “well it sucks right now but we promise it will be ok when you buy it”, not many people would rush to order one.

    And they shouldn’t. It’s just another way of saying “people acting rationally based on truthful information”

    Many good products never made it to market because of insufficiently good perception.

    That should be a separate issue. It’s not the only available path, just one often taken because it’s the most forgiving of shoddy business practices, doesn’t justify its existence, either.

    On the flip side, creating positive hype out of smoke and mirrors can be used to kill a competitor’s product for no good reason, so it’s not quite ok either.

    I think people are starting to realize the depth of corporate deception and bad-faith practices and how that affects everyone at large, and so they’re rightly tired of them and trying to reset it all back to simple, effective, and fair ethical standards.