4 ms·
> I don't know if it's bad faith, but you're describing a property the entire society had at the time. Perhaps the unions were worse than most, but that's not t
by chimeracoder 8y ago
> I don't know if it's bad faith, but you're describing a property the entire society had at the time. Perhaps the unions were worse than most, but that's not the case you're making.
It's not true that lobbying the government to enact explicitly white supremacist legislation is "a property the entire society had at the time".
> Also, it's not clear how your claims and those of the article can't both be true.
It's disingenuous at best for the HN headline to read "Unions Did Great Things for the American Working Class" when unions systematically discriminated against working-class Americans of Chinese, Indian, Mexican, and Japanese descent.
- neonate 8y agoSociety at the time was dominated by views we would now call white supremacist. That is enough to explain why the unions behaved as you describe. Since you asked above, I think this might be where the feeling of "bad faith" comes in. You're pushing this point harder than it can support and more harshly than you need to. That creates a feeling in the reader of something being off. That's too bad, because it's a good point. I found the information interesting, but because of this extra torque you're putting on it, one ends up responding more to that "off" feeling than to the informative parts of your comment.