←back to thread

Eggs US – Price – Chart

(tradingeconomics.com)
643 points throwaway5752 | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.222s | source
Show context
slothtrop[dead post] ◴[] No.42951197[source]
[flagged]
thinkingtoilet ◴[] No.42951280[source]
That's not it at all and it's hard to see how you interpreted it that way. Trump promised to bring down egg prices and grocery prices on day one. It was an obvious lie and now that it has been proven it was a lie it's important to let people know the current president lied to them flagrantly.

>"I don't care that working people find things expensive"

Literally no one is saying that.

replies(1): >>42951415 #
1. slothtrop ◴[] No.42951415[source]
> It was an obvious lie

It wasn't obvious to the voters. And at the risk of repeating myself, calling people stupid is not effective.

> it's hard to see how you interpreted it that way.

Try in good faith.

> Literally no one is saying that.

"but egg prices!!!". They might as well be.

replies(4): >>42951449 #>>42951734 #>>42951994 #>>42952462 #
2. happytoexplain ◴[] No.42951734[source]
>They might as well be.

I disagree. The egg criticism, while sarcastic (something almost universally bad) is not unclear. It obviously does not imply people should never care about grocery store prices. Effectively nobody makes that argument - obviously.

And just as obviously, political opponents of the people making these jokes will characterize them that way, as always (something both sides do all the time). So, you may certainly make the argument that people shouldn't be making these jokes for politically strategic reason, to avoid that comparison. But to suggest that the comparison is rational and honest isn't convincing to me.

This is a very common line of disconnect in tribalism. Another high profile example was people saying that the phrase "BLM" meant that other lives don't matter. When a tribe has a catch-phrasified position, the opposing tribe is motivated to convince those in their tribe of a bad-faith interpretation. The degree to which the bad-faith interpretation is genuinely, mistakenly believed, vs a knowing uncharitable interpretation, is certainly arguable. But it's not convincing to argue that the bad-faith interpretation is broadly true.

3. thinkingtoilet ◴[] No.42951994[source]
>"but egg prices!!!". They might as well be.

Again, not at all. It's said when instead of actually working to help the average American this administration is starting trade wars with our allies and taking time out of their day to remove gender identity language from all federal websites. Try in good faith is some advice you might try to follow your self.

4. lcnPylGDnU4H9OF ◴[] No.42952462[source]
> calling people stupid is not effective

Nobody is disagreeing with this and I can see only a single [flagged] [dead] comment which actually does this.

replies(1): >>42977588 #
5. slothtrop ◴[] No.42977588[source]
Obviously since I brought up the topic, I'm not referring to behavior in the thread I had just then created.

> Nobody is disagreeing with this

Perhaps, but they obtusely cling on to the idea that there's no possible way that snark couldn't be well interpreted.