This is the entire problem I pointed out with my first comment. The entire joke hinges on “some jobs are not legitimate,” and if any of us bring up any potential examples you can simply say “well I can picture it so no it’s fine.” It’s a convenient on/off switch that makes the claim invincible because the target can be moved at any time to any location.
At the end of the day the problem is simple: we should generally not look down on people just trying to pay their bills. Yes we can hand wave it away with [insert super moray dubious job] but that’s not what this post is pointing to.
The question isn’t whether someone in the comments section can imagine the job, it’s whether the same ‘you’ who does the job can imagine the job being done by a pig in a children’s book.
Also, if you’re complaining about it being unfalsibiable, don’t give more examples for them to judge, ask the people defending the joke for counterexamples. That’s just logical (in the literal mathematical sense). That is to say, jobs that can’t be pictured as something done by pigs in children’s books.
There I would say hedge fund managers, health insurance coverage evaluators, and telemarketers.
As for looking down on people for just trying to pay their bills, how do you come to that conclusion? Unemployed people and chronically disabled people don’t have real jobs either. Do you look down on them? If not, why assume people are looking down on people who do fake jobs to pay the bills?
Why do you think this post isn’t pointing to super morally dubious jobs?
I think you’re giving a very generous interpretation to this post in an attempt to win an internet argument.
It’s a flawed joke. The ambiguity lends itself to the interpretation that certain work is more legitimate than others without giving a real definition, meaning people will likely insert their own prejudices. Especially because of the moving target aspect.
Basically this feels like another flavor of boomer humor.
This is the entire problem I pointed out with my first comment. The entire joke hinges on “some jobs are not legitimate,” and if any of us bring up any potential examples you can simply say “well I can picture it so no it’s fine.” It’s a convenient on/off switch that makes the claim invincible because the target can be moved at any time to any location.
At the end of the day the problem is simple: we should generally not look down on people just trying to pay their bills. Yes we can hand wave it away with [insert super moray dubious job] but that’s not what this post is pointing to.
The question isn’t whether someone in the comments section can imagine the job, it’s whether the same ‘you’ who does the job can imagine the job being done by a pig in a children’s book.
Also, if you’re complaining about it being unfalsibiable, don’t give more examples for them to judge, ask the people defending the joke for counterexamples. That’s just logical (in the literal mathematical sense). That is to say, jobs that can’t be pictured as something done by pigs in children’s books.
There I would say hedge fund managers, health insurance coverage evaluators, and telemarketers.
As for looking down on people for just trying to pay their bills, how do you come to that conclusion? Unemployed people and chronically disabled people don’t have real jobs either. Do you look down on them? If not, why assume people are looking down on people who do fake jobs to pay the bills?
Why do you think this post isn’t pointing to super morally dubious jobs?
I think you’re giving a very generous interpretation to this post in an attempt to win an internet argument.
It’s a flawed joke. The ambiguity lends itself to the interpretation that certain work is more legitimate than others without giving a real definition, meaning people will likely insert their own prejudices. Especially because of the moving target aspect.
Basically this feels like another flavor of boomer humor.