this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2026
848 points (97.4% liked)
Work Reform
17870 readers
63 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh, I've read plenty (not all of it, obviously), including compilations and reviews of people whose job is to write about it in peer reviewed settings. Just like climate change, if you ignore 99 people you will find one that agrees with you. But I rather be the guy who doesn't deny genocides.
Hence why Cowbee is citing peer reviewed writers and you've got nothing but "nuh-uh! nuh-uh!" over and over again.
You almost got it right. Writer, singular, just Mark Tauger. Harvard? Lomonosov? Maybe Oxford? Nope, associate professor in West Virginia.
You know why? Because Mark is the only one with this position and it is widely contested and "against the consensus". He's the guy being paid by BP to deny climate change that all facebook uncles cling to.
Here's what his own university has to say about him:
So... Yeah. I'll side with the freaking Russian duma on this one (not something I often say).
And you've cited nobody, you've just asserted that you have consensus on your side based on nothing and demanded to be proven wrong, and then screeching "that doesn't count!" when you are
I'll cite.... The university of West Virginia for instance, because I don't want to copy paste a new quote.
Really respectfully, that's not how citing works. You need to link to the publication/article/book/etc. that you're actually getting your information from (or at least provide the author(s) and title).
I understand that in an academic setting I would need to provide a proper Harvard formatted citation and my bibliography, but I don't have my bibtex collection on my phone (or anywhere, for this topic). This is a social network mostly for shitposting so I don't post with much rigor.
In any case, here's the source for the quote: http://wvutoday-archive.wvu.edu/n/2009/01/07/7391.html
Fair enough but just sort of definitionally if you're citing something there is a minimum bar in providing some manner for the person you're providing the citation too to be able to view the content in question or it's not really a citation.