3 ms·
This is probably the thirtieth time I've seen this debunking over the last several years. The first was not long after the original Foxconn suicides news cycle.
by wutbrodo 7y ago
This is probably the thirtieth time I've seen this debunking over the last several years. The first was not long after the original Foxconn suicides news cycle. This is widely available enough information that if somebody references the Foxconn suicides and doesn't know the figures you mention by now, they have no interest in understanding the reality of the situation.
I say this as someone who's considerably more negative about Apple than the median here. I just think you're wasting your breath assuming intellectual honesty from people repeating a canard years after it's been debunked (Note that I'm excluding people aware of the statistic who are interpreting Foxconn's suicides as still notable for whatever reason)
- ryantgtg 7y agoThis is the first time I've seen this debunking. And my head isn't in the sand, and I am definitely interested in understanding the reality of the situation. So, it's not a waste of breath at all.
- wutbrodo 7y agoThanks for the counterexample. I'm sincerely curious as to how you ended up in this position. When you read a claim (in this case, "Foxconn workers have an elevated suicide rate"), are you not in the habit of at least Googling it to verify whether the source you read is mistaken or lying? In this case, the very first Google result is a short Wikipedia article containing the debunking, for a grand total of thirty seconds of research required to get a clear picture of the truth of the matter. This isn't a rhetorical question,as I'm actually curious: taking you at face value as subjectively not having your "head in the sand", I don't have a model for how you'd end up believing the Foxconn suicide claim without being aware of the counterargument.