1166
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2026
1166 points (100.0% liked)
Work Reform
17220 readers
583 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
Why would you count "unsure" as "support"?
I don't. Unsure is lacking in support. They don't support him. They are included in the "less than half don't support" of the headline.
For another example of this language, atheist = lacking belief in a god. It does not mean you believe there isn't a god. Non-believers includes those who are anti-theist and atheist. They all lack belief, but one is against and one is neutral. Believers are the other group, who actively believe in one.
70% < 50%?
What?
If 47% view the DSA unfavorably, and 23% are unsure (which you're counting as unsupportive) then we're at 70%.
I'm only discussing the headline posted, not if it's wrong. What it says is that more than half support. I'm not claiming that's correct.
No, the headline says less than half support.
And there's a case to be made for the author to only include those who indicated they were explicitly unfavorable, and not those who were unsure (or agnostic). Otherwise Dan's criticism would have been that they included those to inflate the numbers.
The only thing that there isn't a case for is claiming that more than half do support the DSA.
Alright, this is my last message, but I'll try to explain it. This is an example of DeMorgan's law.
Let's call "support" A, and "50%" B, just so we can move it away from natural language. Not A means "not support" or "don't support".
The headline can be expressed as "not A < B". Using DeMorgan's law, we can change that to an equivalent statement of "A >= B".
Now, convert it back to natural language and that's "support >= 50%".
Again, I'm not making a claim on the validity. I am only expressing what the headline says. Headlines can be wrong, and the article may even contradict it. That doesn't affect the headline though.
I understand your pedantry. And I explained the rationale.
Not sure why you felt the need to restate it, no one is confused.
Damn, y'all two are splitting the dumbest fucking hairs.