southsamurai comments on Job allocation

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 5 points 7 hours ago (4 children)

I stuck to the topic of the post and didn't veer off. Anyone wants to start a different branch of the discussion, that's fine. But that's not what the comment I responded to did. They complained that I didn't expand on the topic.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] CheesyFingers@piefed.social -3 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

Ohhh providing examples that conflict with the narrative is complaining. Got it

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] untropvertimide@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

No, the dismissing tone of the message providing this contradiction is the problem. It does not have the form of simple nuances or counter-arguments. It has the form of an attack on the previous commenter's credibility.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] CheesyFingers@piefed.social 1 point 2 hours ago

If counter examples to highlight flaws in blanket statements are an attack to a person's credibility then idk what to tell you.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] untropvertimide@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 4 hours ago

And to be clear, about the core of these comments, form aside. I do not fully agree with the explanations given, while I recognise the reasonning as sound. I am just pretty sure there were and still are additional contributing factors, especially when not focusing on the USA. I do agree with thu counter examples. (Again, not with how these were given.)

permalink

fedilink

source

parent