You didn't show me anything though. I've read those articles, I mentioned one point (actually I mentioned at least 2) but I've surely considered the others and

You didn't show me anything though. I've read those articles, I mentioned one point (actually I mentioned at least 2) but I've surely considered the others and many of the articles you mention are in fact cherry picked to cast Amazon in a bad light. Which is why I mentioned they don't make up systematic abuse. That fact that you're trying to position this as you showing me the error of my ways when, no, in actuality I've considered the angles and still very much disagree with those positions says a lot more about you than it does me. I'm against unions, pro corporate in many cases and think Amazon goes above what they even have to. I find this interaction pretty representative of the problems in online discourse. Namely that because I hold a widely different position to you, you assume I must not have considered multiple sources or am letting my biases talk for me. I assure you I'm pretty well considered in everything I write. Please take your "virtue" elsewhere. Edit: In fact thinking more about it I think your assumption even violates one of the guidelines here on HN which is to hold your opponent's thoughts in the most charitable light. That is it's on you to assume that I have put the thought in and considered multiple narratives instead of me being intellectually lazy.