the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
And what does it matter if someone is doing "relatively well" if they're still literally living paycheck to paycheck? Or if they're saving such a meager amount compared to inflation that they know for certain they'll never retire?
Exactly. I would argue that if "relatively well" means you're paycheck to paycheck with no end in sight, then it doesn't matter that you're doing as well as or better than your peers. Your financial health relative to the average is irrelevant if the average person is also doing poorly. If most people had cancer, you could argue that having a melanoma is better than having stage 4 pancreatic, but you wouldn't say that you're healthy just because your cancer is less detrimental than the average.
It's an extremely "let them eat cake" statement.