this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
88 points (86.7% liked)
Economics
466 readers
271 users here now
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You didn't read my link. Literally disputes those fact checkers.
Confirmation bias is a powerful effect one has to actively fight against. It's a fight against oneself and should be fought for anything that feels too good to be true.
Or not and stay angry at the wrong things for the wrong reasons. Choice is yours.
The first fact checker is not saying anything about this article at all, and is not refuted in the article you linked. What they are saying is that American Institute for Economic Research is an unreliable source. After attempting to read what you linked I'm inclined to agree.
Your article was so poorly written that I couldn't get through it. I did skim enough to determine that the author's main point is: tipping existed before the end of slavery. That fact is not in dispute and has nothing to do with OP's article.
Tip has existed for centuries and did not start because of slavery therefore the very premise that it is a relic of slavery is false given the standard definition of relic.
It is a relic of travelers showing gratitude to their hosts.
It may or may not have been exploited by racist white people but the claim is that tipping is because of slavery and racism. It is not.
But again believe what you want. Enjoy your echo chamber. Pretend it's only the right stuck in one.
The down votes appear to indicate how deeply people want this to be true. I find that far more fascinating.
Read the second paragraph of OP's article. Your arguments do not remotely refute this.
ETA: I agree that the wording could be better, to make it less likely anyone would mistake the claim the way you have.
I cannot find a single claim of this slavery aspect that doesn't trace back to Saru Jayaraman as a source.
They are a fair wage activist. They have an agenda is getting people to believe tipping is evil. They have no credentials as a historian of any kind.
It's really quite ridiculous how much people want to believe things and me having doubts makes them see me as the fool.
"...given my own chosen definition of relic such that the article can be characterized differently"
"It's not us, it's the fact checkers..."
hehehehe
In order to have confirmation bias here I would have to be taking a stance on this.
I have doubts that's be confirming a bias. It would be interesting to me if this were true. It's a conformation bias in your end to have assumed otherwise, funny how that works.
Its quite troubling that others see it as a character flaw how I don't incorporate every factoid I come across because it's sounds cool. Really makes me wonder how much nonsense others carry around in their heads.
I would rather admit to not knowing something that is true than believing something that is false. If that is worthy of your ridicule, that's on you.