3 ms·
I apologize for not reading the whole article, but after hitting > Picture the nation as a pirate crew: In recent decades, the owners of the ship have graduall
by nullc 6y ago
I apologize for not reading the whole article, but after hitting
> Picture the nation as a pirate crew: In recent decades, the owners of the ship have gradually claimed a larger share of booty at the expense of the crew. The annual sum that has shifted from workers to owners now tops $1 trillion.
I couldn't help but feel that if they failed to research their examples that the rest of the article is probably not well researched either.
(You wouldn't want to use pirate ships of yore as an example of poor or inequitable labor conditions, because they were often much better than the alternatives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance_in_18th-century_piracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance_in_18th-century_pir... )
- adjkant 6y agoThe purpose of the bit you quoted is not meant to be a literal example, it's a thought experiment using a pirate stereotype/myth familiar to most readers. The history of pirates and equitable labor is interesting of course, but its factual accuracy in the example is not relevant. It's very odd to write off a full piece based on this choice, especially so for "accuracy reasons" than rhetorical device choices.
- nullc 6y agoHow many other statements in it were chosen for rhetorical flourish, because they appealed to readers biases, rather than being grounded on some rigorous researched basis? It's impossible to tell without far more work than the article justified. The history of pirate labour isn't particularly obscure. So either the article wasn't reviewed by someone with more than a passing interest in labour relations or it was and they just didn't care that they used probably one of the worst historical examples they could have used just because it made for good imagery.