4 ms·

I don't understand. Is your entire point in this discussion to somehow justify talking down to other people? > If the point is that many people in rural areas

I don't understand. Is your entire point in this discussion to somehow justify talking down to other people? > If the point is that many people in rural areas are economically struggling, then yes we agree, just as many poorer urban dwellers are (and to whom a random $12k received would also be hugely impactful), but that has nothing to do with example proposed. My point was that the OP's use of the phrase "only $12,000" is offensive, classist language in the context it was written in. That point is unrelated to the rest of the discussion. I don't get why anyone would want to double down on defending this language, especially since you weren't the person who used it. But here we are. But hey, if $12,000/year is peanuts to anyone reading this thread: https://www.patreon.com/ciphpercoder https://www.patreon.com/ciphpercoder

danans 7y ago
> I don't understand. Is your entire point in this discussion to somehow justify talking down to other people? > My point was that the OP's use of the phrase "only $12,000" is offensive, classist language OP wasn't talking down. They used "only" to compare the difference in housing cost to the much higher difference in wages between rural and urban areas, as in $12K housing cost increase < $40k salary increase, not to imply that $12K is inconsequential in an absolute sense. $12K out of most people's pockets is a lot of money (including if it were out of mine), but the OP wasn't implying that it isn't. They were making a simple observation that: big city salary - big city housing costs > rural salary - rural housing costs Looks like they even responded below stating precisely that. There's real classism out there, often expressed across the rural/urban divide, but this isn't an example of it.