Written to Toni:
You're not dumb either, ...
You are intelligent but people make mistakes.
...so why did you ask a question that presupposes facts not in evidence?
I don't think that things are being presupposed. There is some context, though. I would say that it is common for Derec to do what is called "punching down" at a class of people. To use phrases and insults directed at those classes of people. The classes of people go beyond ideological identity, i.e. they are often protected classes. This is a pattern that comes up sometimes. YOU are of course a different person and while you may make some jokes about socialists or individuals, I don't see you doing that with protected classes in posts. So anyway, a context of how a person ordinarily writes is a thing to consider upon reading the next thing the person writes.
Derec didn't indicate he resents burger flipping ...
Full stop. The phrase "burger flipping" is a recognized popularized insult. It's a derogatory term. Even if not, it's a minimization of the scope and effort put forth by a cook in the fast food industry. I had posted a link earlier in the thread to this and so it is an established fact that people know the phrase is perceived this way. Now, based on Derec's pattern of posts "punching down" it is reasonable to infer he is likely punching down again at those persons because of the knowledge this is an insult. That isn't using facts not in evidence exactly but instead an extrapolation or inductive reasoning. However, based on your repeated usage of the phrase and in the context of _your_ posting history, it is reasonable to infer that you are being literal.
...and cashiers getting paid $20/hr. Quite the reverse -- he directed no bitterness or indignation toward the workers,
The sentence appears not to be a robotic literal thing as you are interpreting it, but more an emotional expression because of the minimization of occupations. It's like saying, "Pfft. Burger Flipping. $20/hr?! *roll eyes*"
...and he raised no objection to the ones mentioned upthread who got it in Pasadena because that's what the market can bear there, or the ones mentioned upthread who got it in Denmark because McDonald's made a deal with their union.
First, I think that these things could be worth a lot of discussion. Second, I think that attaching them to Derec's sentence or silence is a distraction and counterproductive at best. Derec could be silent for a number of reasons we do not know. He's human like all of us and we ought not assume that he is in the middle of a debate and that all silence on something means he accepts it because he hasn't refuted it. Perhaps, he is very busy, perhaps he is letting you argue for him, or perhaps he began to realize his ideas are not as perfect as he thought and doesn't know how to respond. Thirdly, --I don't have a third. I just want to repeat the first point--these fine points about the market and wages could be worth a discussion.
His issue, obviously, was with the government coercion, and with the fact that those who tried to justify the coercion by claiming burger flippers and cashiers should get that level of pay hadn't shown their work. Declining to believe something without evidence is not resentment.
We humans often mesh things together with emotion and logic. Politics is no different and these days there is a big focus on identity in the mix as well. So, I do not see how these things are necessarily mutually exclusive, ie, people may tend to focus more on particular issues of logic as they apply to groups or things they may dislike or be emotional about.
Maybe an analogy will help. Suppose you said you didn't understand why claiming to identify as a woman should give a man the right to use women's bathrooms whether women want him there or not. Suppose a TRA heard you say this and responded "You seem to resent transgendered people getting to use bathrooms they feel safe in. Can you explain that, please?". If a TRA said that to you, would you think that was a fair question? Wouldn't you think it was up to the guy to explain why self-ID was enough, and that he was just using a personal attack on you to evade his burden-of-proof?
I am not reading into these questions a lot because the foundation for your question is not aligned with (a) context of Derec's posts nor (b) the phrase of "burger flippers" etc being a punch-down insult. It would probably be an interesting exercise to include those two things in the hypothetical question(s).
I will also repeat the point that I think deserves greater focus--Derec's sentence and reaction to it is a distraction. There are some things that would be interesting for me to read and lurk in the thread. On a personal note, I have had some problems with "launching" my older son out into the world. One issue he is having right now is his wages are really not a lot but he also is in a trade. It's not considered unskilled work but it's also not extremely highly skilled. In any case, his pay isn't great and we don't live in California with prices THAT high but things are still very expensive, like healthcare. Even if my son got himself a wife and they lived together in an apartment, both working full-time, I don't think they could financially make it. We talk about a living wage, but the prices of various other things are also completely insane (like healthcare and some utilities and some foods). There's also, of course, an issue of revenue vs wage. How much is my son, for example contributing to revenue each hour vs how much he can make? Then, what about twits like Elon Musk or even 23andme CEO? Do they really deserve their pay?
I lost you. Are you suggesting that "Derec resents them. Therefore burger flipping and cashiering should get you $20/hour." would be a logical argument? The words "...you seem to resent people earning enough money..." are plainly referencing Derec's personal characteristics rather than the moral and/or economic merits of "burger flipping and cashiering should...". So how the heck do you infer that it's not an ad hominem argument? Show your work.
