this post was submitted on 31 May 2026
1529 points (98.8% liked)
Work Reform
17396 readers
3252 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It was intentional. A sign of a skilled writer, even. Irony works.
(Even if it does undercut the trucker roommate a bit. The double irony of privilege.)
Not sure how you know what was intentional without being the writer, but ok.
Because we all read the post their comment was responding to and understood quickly & easily that they were setting up the same reversal of expectations as the lineman in the OP. Context my friend, context.
Not sure how you know they weren't but ok.
Because comments have usernames on them.
You could tell they aren't using the first line as a rhetorical device because their username is Leon?
No, I could tell one person didn't write the comment they were making a pronouncement about because the two comments had different usernames. I did assume it wasn't one peson using two accounts, so my bad.
OK. So how does that help with you knowing OP didn't write it like that on purpose?
See all those upvotes OP is getting? It means people understood why he wrote "devastated" because they read the entire comment. I think your heart was in the right place, but in the end your concern was completely unwarranted. It's a shame you got downvoted just for caring about OP's wellbeing :(
I don't get why all these questions and challenges are necessary - it was just a minor editorial criticism and then a reply to somebody claiming to know what the writer was thinking. Have it any way you guys want.
Because you keep making weird claims. I wanted it to make sense to me.
Learn to live with disappointment I guess.
How do I "know" that you have a mind and have conscious experiences and aren't just a zombie?
For arguments sake let's say I don't "know." But I can still assume so. I wrote and write under the assumption that such is the case then and now.
Does one need to know x--whatever "know" means--to state "that x"?
I don't believe so, certainly not as a blanket rule. Do you? Is that why the standard was applied to what I wrote?
A can of worms. What's the point? Plenty abound in backyards, internet forums (elsewhere), and politicians' brains apparently.
Ultimately, the bar--or standard of proof--for acknowledgement and praise, which could have been reasonably inferred from my comment, is low. E.g., when a student does well on a test (in-person, lol), we do not need to "know" that they are perspicacious or precocious. Nor do we need to "know" that they didn't cheat or simply "guessed" and got lucky. Regardless of (or even in spite of) experience or plausibility, I strongly hold that it is by default fine to assume they did a good job and are a good student. That's good faith.
How can anyone make friends or have a good life without having some good faith for "strangers," even if that "vulnerability" can be abused from time to time?
Good luck on the path ahead.