3 ms·

So the criticism here is the lack of specification as to what country’s middle class it supposedly refers to? I doubt that, but just in case: it’s probably the

So the criticism here is the lack of specification as to what country’s middle class it supposedly refers to? I doubt that, but just in case: it’s probably the US. Or is OP having a problem with terms that cannot be neatly defined with, for example, specific income cutoffs? That would preclude most any words from being used in journalism. “Is that an SUV, or a large sedan?” “Can’t say, let’s never use these words again”.

chrisseaton 8y ago
Some people think that income has nothing to do with being working or middle class, so the whole use in the article would make no sense to them. Ultimately the person was asking for help understanding something, which is always fine in my book. If you don’t need help understanding the move onto the next comment. Plus you were being belittling by saying they were stumbling.
- IAmEveryone 8y ago
  I guess this goes at the heart of the difference in interpretation between us: where you see a good-faith effort to better understand the article, I see an attempt to ridicule or otherwise undermine it by questioning the most basic assumptions needed to understand it. As evidence, I point out that a simple search would be far better to achieve an understanding of what the term may be referring to in this context than sending us all on a wild goose chase. Not taking this more promising route, IMHO, undermines any claim of good faith. Even if existing definitions are found lacking, they would certainly serve as a better base for discussion than the actual, unspecific dismissal of the article itself. I may also be influenced by the general tone of discussion here. This threat is currently sandwiched between two comments calling the article “rather disappointing” and “very stupid” [0], respectively. This shallow reflex to find nothing but dreck in everything, especially if it’s written by anyone who may have an education in anything but JavaScript, is getting somewhat tiring. 0: somehow, it’s the “very” that really makes that particular commment what it is.

chrisseaton 8y ago

Some people think that income has nothing to do with being working or middle class, so the whole use in the article would make no sense to them. Ultimately the person was asking for help understanding something, which is always fine in my book. If you don’t need help understanding the move onto the next comment. Plus you were being belittling by saying they were stumbling.

IAmEveryone 8y ago
I guess this goes at the heart of the difference in interpretation between us: where you see a good-faith effort to better understand the article, I see an attempt to ridicule or otherwise undermine it by questioning the most basic assumptions needed to understand it. As evidence, I point out that a simple search would be far better to achieve an understanding of what the term may be referring to in this context than sending us all on a wild goose chase. Not taking this more promising route, IMHO, undermines any claim of good faith. Even if existing definitions are found lacking, they would certainly serve as a better base for discussion than the actual, unspecific dismissal of the article itself. I may also be influenced by the general tone of discussion here. This threat is currently sandwiched between two comments calling the article “rather disappointing” and “very stupid” [0], respectively. This shallow reflex to find nothing but dreck in everything, especially if it’s written by anyone who may have an education in anything but JavaScript, is getting somewhat tiring. 0: somehow, it’s the “very” that really makes that particular commment what it is.