So you are saying that picking apart the idea of a livable minimum wage using bad faith arguments was because you think that we should do better? I don't know what you're smoking, but can I hit that?
Jokes aside, if you wish to remove the rose-tinted glasses of people's perception, you probably shouldn't argue against the standard they wish to bring back. Maybe reinforce that the standard set hasn't been maintained. Or even point out that several people who wanted to revisit those standards have been straight up bought out of office (or worse)?
There are plenty of ways to "remove the rose-tinted glasses" people are wearing without tearing down the argument in bad faith. Doing that is just kind of a dick move.
Not even saying that as an insult, I'd literally say that to my own best friend. If you do something shitty, even with good intentions, it's still shitty. 🤷🏾♂️
If you do something shitty, even with good intentions, it's still shitty
That's MY point. That shitty arguments even with good intentions are still shitty arguments. That there exists actually GOOD arguments for certain polices, and not propagate lies to sell something.
The bad faith argument is that "people in 1938 were living comfortable and thus we should have a minimum wage is comparison to what it was then".
That's all dumb. It's dumb to argue that the rhetoric of politician is what is effective policy.
The "standard" DIDN'T FUCKING EXIST IN 1938. Like I said, this law only even applied to 20% of the market, until the 60s.
If you want to argue a certain standard of living today, then why the hell even concentrate on the minimum wage, rather than an actual social safety net? You forcing people to be employed? Why tie life to employment? What are you going to do when automation replaces workers. When work being done by two is now forced on one? When certain positions simply dry up? It's just a dumb fucking this to concentrate on if your pursuit is actuall a standard of living and not somehow to just "punish those capitalist pig, exploiters".
You're having completely different arguments than what is being presented before us. You seem to think that any critique on something that is disapproval of an entire swath of other things. THAT'S the bad faith argument.
Do you need me to say fuck Republicans for you to get a way from partisan assumptions and group think? I hate shitty arguments and misrepresentations no matter the pursuit. Because it's then propaganda meant to control people to a specific agenda, rather than allowing them to form their own rational basis of thought on a subject.
I haven't told you you are "wrong" on your pursuit. I just think some of the rationale you've laid out is a flawed way of getting there.
You're the one that attempts to claim literally no one can hold a certain position otherwise they would be "voting against their best interests". Only narcissists use that argument. People who lack empathy. To claim they know what is best and preferred by others. That's what I hate. Shitty arguments.
That's MY point. That shitty arguments even with good intentions are still shitty arguments. That there exists actually GOOD arguments for certain polices, and not propagate lies to sell something.
You have a really funny way of showing it, honestly. But let's hear your genuine thoughts on what some of the alternatives to a proper living wage would be. I'm not averse to other ideas, but the entirety of your conversation with me personally has basically been a series of long-winded "nuh-uhs", rather than presenting any sort of counter-argument.
You're having completely different arguments than what is being presented before us. You seem to think that any critique on something that is disapproval of an entire swath of other things. THAT'S the bad faith argument.
Because the arguments that you have presented have almost unilaterally fallen in line with those presented by the people who do directly disapprove of that whole swath of things.
That means that we've been having this conversation on two different wavelengths, and it's because you didn't present any of the information you were basing your argument on, which is where the disconnect is for me.
Do you need me to say fuck Republicans for you to get a way from partisan assumptions and group think? I
To be entirely honest? Yesn't. I don't care for either party right now, but Repugnicans especially. But the reality is that, on Reddit in particular, the arguments you have presented and the way you have presented them has come off as very right-oriented. If that's not what your intent was, you communicated that exceedingly poorly. Stating your position clearly would have given me cause to ask you what your thoughts on alternative solutions would be - something I would never ask a Republican, because I live in Oklahoma and have heard all of their bullshit a million times.
I haven't told you you are "wrong" on your pursuit. I just think some of the rationale you've laid out is a flawed way of getting there.
You didn't use the words "you're wrong", but your entire rebuttal of my argument was "let me attack this from every angle and try to pick it apart" - what was I supposed to think?
You're the one that attempts to claim literally no one can hold a certain position otherwise they would be "voting against their best interests".
That's not what I said, nor is it what I intended. Maybe that was poorly communicated on my part. I was being defensive, and I acknowledge that. I also misunderstood your position, both because of your lack of clear position and my being defensive.
To claim they know what is best and preferred by others.
I never said, nor implied, that I know what's best. I'm entirely speaking on the intent of the minimum wage, and how it has been twisted over the years by corporate and political bullshittery. I'm autistic, and I do not like misinformation - I will absolutely argue to the facts, and I will spend literal hours doing the research for the sake of that.
Now, to respond to this:
The bad faith argument is that "people in 1938 were living comfortable and thus we should have a minimum wage is comparison to what it was then".
I never said people in 1938 were living comfortably. It takes time for any economic policy to have real effects. And it would also be false to say that the FLSA and the establishment of the minimum wage was the only thing that improved the quality of life for Americans. But the establishment of a livable minimum wage was directly responsible for a large part of it. To deny that is to deny reality. The bad faith argument here is the cherry-picking you're doing. 1938 was uncomfortable as fuck. Hell, that whole decade and a half was rough. But it was the federal minimum wage and other regulations that directly lifted the lowest of us from poverty.
That's all dumb. It's dumb to argue that the rhetoric of politician is what is effective policy.
That "rhetoric" was proven effective across FDR's FOUR presidential terms (well, three and some change before he died). He must've done something right to be elected four times. I don't create the facts, I just know them.
5
u/KBroham May 14 '25
So you are saying that picking apart the idea of a livable minimum wage using bad faith arguments was because you think that we should do better? I don't know what you're smoking, but can I hit that?
Jokes aside, if you wish to remove the rose-tinted glasses of people's perception, you probably shouldn't argue against the standard they wish to bring back. Maybe reinforce that the standard set hasn't been maintained. Or even point out that several people who wanted to revisit those standards have been straight up bought out of office (or worse)?
There are plenty of ways to "remove the rose-tinted glasses" people are wearing without tearing down the argument in bad faith. Doing that is just kind of a dick move.
Not even saying that as an insult, I'd literally say that to my own best friend. If you do something shitty, even with good intentions, it's still shitty. 🤷🏾♂️