4 ms·

Sure, but in the context of this article it's just embellishment to whip up the reader's anger at the supposed injustice of Uber and Lyft. It doesn't contribute

Sure, but in the context of this article it's just embellishment to whip up the reader's anger at the supposed injustice of Uber and Lyft. It doesn't contribute to any fact-based arguments and it shows the author as incredibly biased against big business in general.

grasshopperpurp 9y ago
Well, which parts do you disagree with? Or, do you just disagree with the sensationalist language?
- reading-at-work 9y ago
  I agree that humans in general with unchecked power can become dictatorial maniacs. I disagree that the CEOs of ride-hailing companies specifically will become dictatorial maniacs. I think that kind of sensationalist language discredits the article to a large degree, and doesn't contribute to the author's argument in a concrete way. It's an appeal to emotion, not a rational and defensible argument.
  - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
    Appreciate you breaking that down, and I agree that the sensationalist language is not helpful (preaching to the choir, etc.), but I think discredits goes too far. I can say something completely true in the most obnoxious way possible, and it can turn off a lot of people, but it doesn't alter the truth. I believe that he's harping on CEOs of ride-hailing companies, because they're the obvious example that everyone is familiar with. His overall statement, as I read it, is closer to: >humans in general with unchecked power can become dictatorial maniacs. And, I think that's the salient point. Others have hit on it, but if a society is too Capitalistic or too Socialistic, the power-hungry people (who always have and, presumably, always will exist) will take advantage of the imbalance, and the people (general population) will suffer as a result. On a large scale, it shouldn't matter how evil/greedy any CEO or politician is, because their power should be limited. The problem, of course, is finding the right balance.
emodendroket 9y ago
But it's an opinion piece in a left-wing publication.
- reading-at-work 9y ago
  You can still formulate opinions based on facts instead of on sensationalist fear-mongering.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    The article offers facts and editorializing. I don't see much issue.

grasshopperpurp 9y ago

Well, which parts do you disagree with? Or, do you just disagree with the sensationalist language?

reading-at-work 9y ago
I agree that humans in general with unchecked power can become dictatorial maniacs. I disagree that the CEOs of ride-hailing companies specifically will become dictatorial maniacs. I think that kind of sensationalist language discredits the article to a large degree, and doesn't contribute to the author's argument in a concrete way. It's an appeal to emotion, not a rational and defensible argument.
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago
  Appreciate you breaking that down, and I agree that the sensationalist language is not helpful (preaching to the choir, etc.), but I think discredits goes too far. I can say something completely true in the most obnoxious way possible, and it can turn off a lot of people, but it doesn't alter the truth. I believe that he's harping on CEOs of ride-hailing companies, because they're the obvious example that everyone is familiar with. His overall statement, as I read it, is closer to: >humans in general with unchecked power can become dictatorial maniacs. And, I think that's the salient point. Others have hit on it, but if a society is too Capitalistic or too Socialistic, the power-hungry people (who always have and, presumably, always will exist) will take advantage of the imbalance, and the people (general population) will suffer as a result. On a large scale, it shouldn't matter how evil/greedy any CEO or politician is, because their power should be limited. The problem, of course, is finding the right balance.

emodendroket 9y ago

But it's an opinion piece in a left-wing publication.

reading-at-work 9y ago
You can still formulate opinions based on facts instead of on sensationalist fear-mongering.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  The article offers facts and editorializing. I don't see much issue.