I think their argument just needs to be rephrased a bit. An English teacher would put an “awk” on that one.
“By referring to a population as food workers, we’re reinforcing a culture of class warfare still prevalent today. Illegal immigrants will never break free of poverty in this system designed to keep them economically oppressed, but incentivized enough to keep performing the job our society needs.”
It’s not just awkward, it’s flat out incorrect in it’s characterization of the post.
The post said “food workers” and included the statement that 20% of them are illegal immigrants. That means most food workers are not illegal immigrants.
Further it made no implication that the only jobs illegal immigrants are doing is in the food industry. So it doesn’t imply a single purpose for that group of people either.
There’s no whiff of declaring an “if and only if” sort of relation.
Could complain that we seem to be so cool with sub-legal labor class to let the industry skirt labor laws in the name of “affordability”, but griping about “food workers” is asinine.
By referring to a population as food workers, we’re reinforcing a culture of class warfare still prevalent today.
Indeed! We shall hence forth refer to them as sustenance craftspeople. Perhaps even alimentation artisan. That will make everything better!
IOW, I got that I just think that the wording betrayed the ridiculousness of the argument. Not to mention an acceptance of the systemic bias against people who do this work. Fuck that. Food is good! Workers are good!
Any chance you could reformulate that as a coherent sentence?
They’re trying to sound way smarter than they are. All that work with a thesaurus and yet they started their sentence with a fucking conjunction.
I think their argument just needs to be rephrased a bit. An English teacher would put an “awk” on that one.
“By referring to a population as food workers, we’re reinforcing a culture of class warfare still prevalent today. Illegal immigrants will never break free of poverty in this system designed to keep them economically oppressed, but incentivized enough to keep performing the job our society needs.”
It’s not just awkward, it’s flat out incorrect in it’s characterization of the post.
The post said “food workers” and included the statement that 20% of them are illegal immigrants. That means most food workers are not illegal immigrants.
Further it made no implication that the only jobs illegal immigrants are doing is in the food industry. So it doesn’t imply a single purpose for that group of people either.
There’s no whiff of declaring an “if and only if” sort of relation.
Could complain that we seem to be so cool with sub-legal labor class to let the industry skirt labor laws in the name of “affordability”, but griping about “food workers” is asinine.
Indeed! We shall hence forth refer to them as sustenance craftspeople. Perhaps even alimentation artisan. That will make everything better!
IOW, I got that I just think that the wording betrayed the ridiculousness of the argument. Not to mention an acceptance of the systemic bias against people who do this work. Fuck that. Food is good! Workers are good!
Signed,
A Food Worker