There are plenty of published articles depicting the working conditions at amazon warehouses.
there are worker willing to unionize (which is a hard and difficult thing to do) calling out on these conditions.
You picked a single piece of the narrative, the pay and its relation to the minimum wage. And pretty much ignored the rest of the narrative.
This is the bias I was talking about. The information exists, but you seemed to pick the part of the information that coincide with your POV, this is called bias.
Bias is normal and benign. calling out the bias is not meant to dismiss your opinion, it's meant to maybe cause you to be aware of it.
When someone shows me how I ignore facts because of my biases, I might feel uncomfortable, but I'm happy for that to happen. For me, this is the best kind of dialog.
You didn't show me anything though. I've read those articles, I mentioned one point (actually I mentioned at least 2) but I've surely considered the others and many of the articles you mention are in fact cherry picked to cast Amazon in a bad light. Which is why I mentioned they don't make up systematic abuse.
That fact that you're trying to position this as you showing me the error of my ways when, no, in actuality I've considered the angles and still very much disagree with those positions says a lot more about you than it does me. I'm against unions, pro corporate in many cases and think Amazon goes above what they even have to.
I find this interaction pretty representative of the problems in online discourse. Namely that because I hold a widely different position to you, you assume I must not have considered multiple sources or am letting my biases talk for me. I assure you I'm pretty well considered in everything I write.
Please take your "virtue" elsewhere.
Edit: In fact thinking more about it I think your assumption even violates one of the guidelines here on HN which is to hold your opponent's thoughts in the most charitable light. That is it's on you to assume that I have put the thought in and considered multiple narratives instead of me being intellectually lazy.
The fact that you generalize the mentioned reports also reveals your own bias. We have a limited view on a very small section of a very big issue. Having any beliefs on this topic reflect a willingness to over-generalize from limited information; the directionality reveals the bias.
I hope that I have made you happily uncomfortable.
You picked a single piece of the narrative, the pay and its relation to the minimum wage. And pretty much ignored the rest of the narrative. This is the bias I was talking about. The information exists, but you seemed to pick the part of the information that coincide with your POV, this is called bias. Bias is normal and benign. calling out the bias is not meant to dismiss your opinion, it's meant to maybe cause you to be aware of it.
When someone shows me how I ignore facts because of my biases, I might feel uncomfortable, but I'm happy for that to happen. For me, this is the best kind of dialog.