3 ms·

I don't see evidence that: 1. This person is crying 2. This person is even that elderly This is just bs propaganda - it could easily be framed as "Walmart is

I don't see evidence that: 1. This person is crying 2. This person is even that elderly This is just bs propaganda - it could easily be framed as "Walmart is engaging in rampant age and ableism discrimination" if Walmart didn't allow this person to work.

tossandthrow 1y ago
This might be propaganda. But it resonates. And that by itself is indicative and an issue. However, it is always useful to back it up with some macroeconomic evidence - which was done in the thread. 67% of bankruptcies are apparently due to medical bills.
- hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
  > This might be propaganda. But it resonates. > And that by itself is indicative and an issue. I absolutely detest this line of thinking "There is no evidence it's true, and heck plenty of reason to think it is not true, but people like to believe shit they read on the Internet so that makes it an issue." If you want to talk about the real problem of medical debt, then discuss it using facts, like the rule to prohibit medical debt from affecting credit reports in the US is currently on hold while it is being challenged by industry groups in court.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - tossandthrow 1y ago
    That line of thinking is what have gotten the US such a dire situation regarding workers rights etc. The core of lobbying is equally that line of thinking. Eg. To convince you that unions are bad for you as a worker. We can't defer rights for the masses to be discussed using only facts and charts while allow pro profit incentive to use emotion lead narratives.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
zero-sharp 1y ago
It's true. There's a lot missing from the presentation. There's a lot of ways to dismiss this particular post. Would it be unfair to ask you to argue against a steelmanned version instead?
happytoexplain 1y ago
Just accuse the poster of lying. You don't need to comment on the need for photographic evidence that somebody is suffering in this context. That's sick - there's neither evidence that the person is or is not crying. The point is that the poster is telling us their observation. You can say it smells fishy and disbelieve them without these bizarre observations of the photo, which obviously does not clearly prove anything either way on its own.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

tossandthrow 1y ago

This might be propaganda. But it resonates. And that by itself is indicative and an issue. However, it is always useful to back it up with some macroeconomic evidence - which was done in the thread. 67% of bankruptcies are apparently due to medical bills.

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
> This might be propaganda. But it resonates. > And that by itself is indicative and an issue. I absolutely detest this line of thinking "There is no evidence it's true, and heck plenty of reason to think it is not true, but people like to believe shit they read on the Internet so that makes it an issue." If you want to talk about the real problem of medical debt, then discuss it using facts, like the rule to prohibit medical debt from affecting credit reports in the US is currently on hold while it is being challenged by industry groups in court.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- tossandthrow 1y ago
  That line of thinking is what have gotten the US such a dire situation regarding workers rights etc. The core of lobbying is equally that line of thinking. Eg. To convince you that unions are bad for you as a worker. We can't defer rights for the masses to be discussed using only facts and charts while allow pro profit incentive to use emotion lead narratives.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

zero-sharp 1y ago

It's true. There's a lot missing from the presentation. There's a lot of ways to dismiss this particular post. Would it be unfair to ask you to argue against a steelmanned version instead?

happytoexplain 1y ago

Just accuse the poster of lying. You don't need to comment on the need for photographic evidence that somebody is suffering in this context. That's sick - there's neither evidence that the person is or is not crying. The point is that the poster is telling us their observation. You can say it smells fishy and disbelieve them without these bizarre observations of the photo, which obviously does not clearly prove anything either way on its own.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]