Dealing with Paycuts

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Newbie2TLS

New
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 2:04 am

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by Newbie2TLS » Mon May 04, 2020 1:01 pm

JusticeSquee wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
Newbie2TLS wrote:But you did. You literally did. (*In John Oliver voice while staring blankly at the camera with a Jim Halpert stare*)
No, no one did that. Not even figuratively.

It's like talking to a brick wall. And just to be clear: This analogy is not "literally" comparing you to a brick wall. It's comparing the act of trying to explain things to you to the act of talking to a brick wall.
Idk man dude seems like he may literally be a brick wall.

Boomers gonna boom tho
The poster said getting salaries cut “is like” being a victim of emotional abuse. I characterized him as saying that getting salary cuts is “akin to” being emotionally abused.

Akin. Adjective. Meaning of similar character. Example: "something akin to gratitude overwhelmed her." Similar phrases: similar to and like.

Putting aside how bad your reading comprehension must be to misread my post as treating Q as “equating” the two things, Q’s analogy was just bad. Period. That’s what made the post bad. I get it. We’re in a tough situation. And you don’t wanna get your salary cut or offer rescinded or lose your job. But you’re not being helpful to anyone on these forums by hating on anyone who wants to have a legitimate conversation about what’s going on instead of being smug, overly privileged d-bag where getting your salary cut from 190k per year to 150k “is like” getting emotionally and physically abused. Wtf.
Last edited by Newbie2TLS on Mon May 04, 2020 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The Lsat Airbender

Silver
Posts: 1057
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by The Lsat Airbender » Mon May 04, 2020 1:02 pm

PeanutsNJam wrote:Using an analogy as an example of an argument is not equating things.

"Trying to understand Donald Trump's gibberish is like trying to read with a blindfold on" is not comparing Donald Trump to a book or a blindfold.
A lot of people can't tell the difference because their understanding of argument never developed beyond name-calling. They think that analogies are points of contention in their own right and not illustrative tools used to get at some other point of actual relevance.

(Obviously, rhetoric is blurry, and innuendo or stereotypes are often the real motivation behind comparing X to Y. That sort of thing is still worth criticizing.)

Newbie2TLS

New
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 2:04 am

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by Newbie2TLS » Mon May 04, 2020 1:14 pm

The Lsat Airbender wrote:
PeanutsNJam wrote:Using an analogy as an example of an argument is not equating things.

"Trying to understand Donald Trump's gibberish is like trying to read with a blindfold on" is not comparing Donald Trump to a book or a blindfold.
A lot of people can't tell the difference because their understanding of argument never developed beyond name-calling. They think that analogies are points of contention in their own right and not illustrative tools used to get at some other point of actual relevance.

(Obviously, rhetoric is blurry, and innuendo or stereotypes are often the real motivation behind comparing X to Y. That sort of thing is still worth criticizing.)
Ok. Ok. You don’t have to be mean. I get it. Next time I’m before the judge and she asks me to cite analogous precedent in a civil employment law case, I’ll cite a criminal assault and battery case because salary cuts are like emotional and physical abuse, your honor. Totes like that.

User avatar
cavalier1138

Moderator
Posts: 7383
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by cavalier1138 » Mon May 04, 2020 1:18 pm

Newbie2TLS wrote:
The Lsat Airbender wrote:
PeanutsNJam wrote:Using an analogy as an example of an argument is not equating things.

"Trying to understand Donald Trump's gibberish is like trying to read with a blindfold on" is not comparing Donald Trump to a book or a blindfold.
A lot of people can't tell the difference because their understanding of argument never developed beyond name-calling. They think that analogies are points of contention in their own right and not illustrative tools used to get at some other point of actual relevance.

(Obviously, rhetoric is blurry, and innuendo or stereotypes are often the real motivation behind comparing X to Y. That sort of thing is still worth criticizing.)
Ok. Ok. You don’t have to be mean. I get it. Next time I’m before the judge and she asks me to cite analogous precedent in a civil employment law case, I’ll cite a criminal assault and battery case because salary cuts are like emotional and physical abuse, your honor. Totes like that.
...you've never cited to a case in a different area of law when there was nothing directly on point for your proposition? (I mean, this has nothing to do with your failure to read the prior posts, but come on.)

nixy

Gold
Posts: 2650
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by nixy » Mon May 04, 2020 1:24 pm

Oh for goodness' sake. Here's the conversation:
But seriously, why are there so many people in this thread boo hooing. Yes, it sucks to be working more and getting paid less—we can all get behind that. But everyone is making cuts and lots of people are losing their jobs. Just go look on your LinkedIn feeds. Why do attorneys think their law firms are special? It’s just a business in the service industry like any other...
When someone you know complains that they're really hungry, do you always let them know that there are children starving around the world?
Yea, I can't understand that attitude. It's like telling a victim of emotional abuse, "hey, didja realize there are many folks who're being physically AND emotionally abused"? Or telling adult victims of physical and emotional abuse, "hey, you realize there are children being molested out there!" The tragedy of child molestation doesn't mean adult abuse victims aren't victims.
The only comparison between a salary cut and emotional abuse is that they're both bad things. The scenario being analogized is "whenever someone complains about a bad thing in their life, you tell them that other people have it worse." No one is claiming that therefore all the bad things being discussed are equivalent.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


User avatar
PeanutsNJam

Gold
Posts: 4669
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by PeanutsNJam » Mon May 04, 2020 1:37 pm

Newbie2TLS wrote:The poster said getting salaries cut “is like” being a victim of emotional abuse.
No, the poster said that telling a person sad about salary cuts to be happy because other people are starving is like "telling a victim of emotional abuse" to not be upset since some people are "physically AND emotionally abused."

The argument being that there's no reason to tell someone who is upset that they shouldn't be upset because others have it worse.

You're omitting the word "telling," and that's an important word in the analogy.

Excellent117

Bronze
Posts: 375
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 4:44 pm

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by Excellent117 » Mon May 04, 2020 1:40 pm

You all know that you can just, like, stop responding to this argument, right?

User avatar
cavalier1138

Moderator
Posts: 7383
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by cavalier1138 » Mon May 04, 2020 1:57 pm

Excellent117 wrote:You all know that you can just, like, stop responding to this argument, right?
Litigator here, so... no. I can't. It's a serious character flaw that's only gotten worse through positive reinforcement.

nixy

Gold
Posts: 2650
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by nixy » Mon May 04, 2020 2:04 pm

cavalier1138 wrote:
Excellent117 wrote:You all know that you can just, like, stop responding to this argument, right?
Litigator here, so... no. I can't. It's a serious character flaw that's only gotten worse through positive reinforcement.
I feel seen.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Newbie2TLS

New
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 2:04 am

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by Newbie2TLS » Mon May 04, 2020 2:08 pm

Excellent117 wrote:You all know that you can just, like, stop responding to this argument, right?
Totes. It doesn’t accomplish anything. If anyone has gone through any type of abuse, just know that there are people here who understand your challenges and don’t think your struggle is a good example, by any measure, in a conversation about salary cuts to an already overly inflated salary. That’s of course at least my opinion, coming from someone who clerked for 3 federal judges, worked over 5 years at a V50 litigation group, and have seen so many bad analogies made (including one akin to this that my judge and co-clerks railed on back in chambers).

User avatar
cavalier1138

Moderator
Posts: 7383
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by cavalier1138 » Mon May 04, 2020 2:30 pm

Newbie2TLS wrote:
Excellent117 wrote:You all know that you can just, like, stop responding to this argument, right?
Totes. It doesn’t accomplish anything. If anyone has gone through any type of abuse, just know that there are people here who understand your challenges and don’t think your struggle is a good example, by any measure, in a conversation about salary cuts to an already overly inflated salary. That’s of course at least my opinion, coming from someone who clerked for 3 federal judges, worked over 5 years at a V50 litigation group, and have seen so many bad analogies made (including one akin to this that my judge and co-clerks railed on back in chambers).
Oh, now this is downright unfair.

QContinuum

Moderator
Posts: 3594
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by QContinuum » Mon May 04, 2020 2:38 pm

cavalier1138 wrote:
Newbie2TLS wrote:Totes. It doesn’t accomplish anything. If anyone has gone through any type of abuse, just know that there are people here who understand your challenges and don’t think your struggle is a good example, by any measure, in a conversation about salary cuts to an already overly inflated salary. That’s of course at least my opinion, coming from someone who clerked for 3 federal judges, worked over 5 years at a V50 litigation group, and have seen so many bad analogies made (including one akin to this that my judge and co-clerks railed on back in chambers).
Oh, now this is downright unfair.
Significant professional setbacks, including pay cuts and layoffs, can (and do) result in severe emotional trauma. https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/art ... the_office

User avatar
PeanutsNJam

Gold
Posts: 4669
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by PeanutsNJam » Mon May 04, 2020 3:35 pm

Newbie2TLS wrote:
Excellent117 wrote:You all know that you can just, like, stop responding to this argument, right?
Totes. It doesn’t accomplish anything. If anyone has gone through any type of abuse, just know that there are people here who understand your challenges and don’t think your struggle is a good example, by any measure, in a conversation about salary cuts to an already overly inflated salary. That’s of course at least my opinion, coming from someone who clerked for 3 federal judges, worked over 5 years at a V50 litigation group, and have seen so many bad analogies made (including one akin to this that my judge and co-clerks railed on back in chambers).
I don't disagree that it's an analogy made in poor taste, but your analysis of why it's bad (and your deliberate (hopefully deliberate?) mis-characterization of what the original poster said) is something I'd hope federal clerks are above.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


User avatar
cavalier1138

Moderator
Posts: 7383
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by cavalier1138 » Mon May 04, 2020 3:37 pm

PeanutsNJam wrote:
Newbie2TLS wrote:
Excellent117 wrote:You all know that you can just, like, stop responding to this argument, right?
Totes. It doesn’t accomplish anything. If anyone has gone through any type of abuse, just know that there are people here who understand your challenges and don’t think your struggle is a good example, by any measure, in a conversation about salary cuts to an already overly inflated salary. That’s of course at least my opinion, coming from someone who clerked for 3 federal judges, worked over 5 years at a V50 litigation group, and have seen so many bad analogies made (including one akin to this that my judge and co-clerks railed on back in chambers).
I don't disagree that it's an analogy made in poor taste, but your analysis of why it's bad (and your deliberate (?) mis-characterization of what the original poster said) is something I'd hope federal clerks are above.
Maybe one-time federal clerks. But you're talking to a guy who clerked for three--count 'em, three--federal judges! And they worked for a V50, which is a sign of quality that litigators universally find to be very, very important and useful.

Newbie2TLS

New
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 2:04 am

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by Newbie2TLS » Mon May 04, 2020 5:16 pm

PeanutsNJam wrote:
Newbie2TLS wrote:
Excellent117 wrote:You all know that you can just, like, stop responding to this argument, right?
Totes. It doesn’t accomplish anything. If anyone has gone through any type of abuse, just know that there are people here who understand your challenges and don’t think your struggle is a good example, by any measure, in a conversation about salary cuts to an already overly inflated salary. That’s of course at least my opinion, coming from someone who clerked for 3 federal judges, worked over 5 years at a V50 litigation group, and have seen so many bad analogies made (including one akin to this that my judge and co-clerks railed on back in chambers).
I don't disagree that it's an analogy made in poor taste, but your analysis of why it's bad (and your deliberate (hopefully deliberate?) mis-characterization of what the original poster said) is something I'd hope federal clerks are above.
It’s a bad analogy altogether. An analogy should have similarity in the principle and the underlying facts to which the principle is applied. Sure, the analogy used had a similar principle (I.e., pointing to other bad situations to negate someone’s sadness of their own situation), but it was nowhere similar to the underlying facts, which is what I keep pointing out. That’s like saying “don’t tell me millionaire executives shouldn’t pay themselves additional bonuses this year because I can’t tell people living on minimum wage to not want to raise the minimum wage.” It’s clear that the principle is similar (I.e., don’t tell people it’s bad to ask or get paid more money), but the underlying facts crumble the analogy. Of course there’s a difference between not wanting someone already a multi-millionaire from hoarding even more wealth and telling a minimum wage worker they shouldn’t do it. Same thing here. There’s a huge difference between telling someone suffering from abuse about shittier situations to get them to not be sad over theirs and telling someone about shittier situations to get them not to feel bad about a temporary, slight salary cut. The only way you somehow don’t see how bad this analogy really is, is if you really don’t know how analogies work or you actually don’t see that much of a difference between abuse and a temporary, small salary cut. Btw, the reason we didn’t shit on the lawyer in court is we assumed, for his sake, that he didn’t know how analogies worked, and not the much worse situation, that he was such a shitty person to somehow think the underlying facts were similar enough to analogize.

nixy

Gold
Posts: 2650
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by nixy » Mon May 04, 2020 5:26 pm

I feel like "temporary" and "slight" is a pretty contentious way to describe this, though. While I don't think any of the people suffering cuts are exactly going to go hungry, some of the cuts really aren't "slight" (at least I think 20-25% is a decent paycut), and not all firms have committed to them being temporary. There's also the concern that this is the canary in the coalmine of further financial implosions and layoffs.

I get that there are far far FAR worse positions to be in. But given the fairly antagonistic and suspicious relationship between many associates and their firms, it's still hard to fault someone for being upset.

thepsychedelic

Bronze
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 9:28 pm

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by thepsychedelic » Mon May 04, 2020 5:27 pm

Newbie2TLS wrote:
PeanutsNJam wrote:
Newbie2TLS wrote:
Excellent117 wrote:You all know that you can just, like, stop responding to this argument, right?
Totes. It doesn’t accomplish anything. If anyone has gone through any type of abuse, just know that there are people here who understand your challenges and don’t think your struggle is a good example, by any measure, in a conversation about salary cuts to an already overly inflated salary. That’s of course at least my opinion, coming from someone who clerked for 3 federal judges, worked over 5 years at a V50 litigation group, and have seen so many bad analogies made (including one akin to this that my judge and co-clerks railed on back in chambers).
I don't disagree that it's an analogy made in poor taste, but your analysis of why it's bad (and your deliberate (hopefully deliberate?) mis-characterization of what the original poster said) is something I'd hope federal clerks are above.
It’s a bad analogy altogether. An analogy should have similarity in the principle and the underlying facts to which the principle is applied. Sure, the analogy used had a similar principle (I.e., pointing to other bad situations to negate someone’s sadness of their own situation), but it was nowhere similar to the underlying facts, which is what I keep pointing out. That’s like saying “don’t tell me millionaire executives shouldn’t pay themselves additional bonuses this year because I can’t tell people living on minimum wage to not want to raise the minimum wage.” It’s clear that the principle is similar (I.e., don’t tell people it’s bad to ask or get paid more money), but the underlying facts crumble the analogy. Of course there’s a difference between not wanting someone already a multi-millionaire from hoarding even more wealth and telling a minimum wage worker they shouldn’t do it. Same thing here. There’s a huge difference between telling someone suffering from abuse about shittier situations to get them to not be sad over theirs and telling someone about shittier situations to get them not to feel bad about a temporary, slight salary cut. The only way you somehow don’t see how bad this analogy really is, is if you really don’t know how analogies work or you actually don’t see that much of a difference between abuse and a temporary, small salary cut. Btw, the reason we didn’t shit on the lawyer in court is we assumed, for his sake, that he didn’t know how analogies worked, and not the much worse situation, that he was such a shitty person to somehow think the underlying facts were similar enough to analogize.
this is incredible

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


Lamarvelous

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2019 8:42 am

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by Lamarvelous » Mon May 04, 2020 5:31 pm

Can this not be moved to some sub-thread on arguing over inane nonsense? I can’t even remember which side is which.

User avatar
PeanutsNJam

Gold
Posts: 4669
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by PeanutsNJam » Mon May 04, 2020 5:34 pm

Newbie2TLS wrote:It’s a bad analogy altogether. An analogy should have similarity in the principle and the underlying facts to which the principle is applied. Sure, the analogy used had a similar principle (I.e., pointing to other bad situations to negate someone’s sadness of their own situation), but it was nowhere similar to the underlying facts, which is what I keep pointing out. That’s like saying “don’t tell me millionaire executives shouldn’t pay themselves additional bonuses this year because I can’t tell people living on minimum wage to not want to raise the minimum wage.” It’s clear that the principle is similar (I.e., don’t tell people it’s bad to ask or get paid more money), but the underlying facts crumble the analogy. Of course there’s a difference between not wanting someone already a multi-millionaire from hoarding even more wealth and telling a minimum wage worker they shouldn’t do it. Same thing here. There’s a huge difference between telling someone suffering from abuse about shittier situations to get them to not be sad over theirs and telling someone about shittier situations to get them not to feel bad about a temporary, slight salary cut. The only way you somehow don’t see how bad this analogy really is, is if you really don’t know how analogies work or you actually don’t see that much of a difference between abuse and a temporary, small salary cut. Btw, the reason we didn’t shit on the lawyer in court is we assumed, for his sake, that he didn’t know how analogies worked, and not the much worse situation, that he was such a shitty person to somehow think the underlying facts were similar enough to analogize.
It's a bad analogy if your goal is to point to precedent in order to convince a judge to issue a binding ruling in your favor, fair. But that's not the goal here; I believe the original poster's goal was simply to illustrate the underlying principle without putting thought into pointing to a factually analogous precedent.

If he had said "it's bad to tell people sad about salary cuts to stop whining because it's bad to tell abuse victims to stop whining," then sure, that's a terrible argument. I read his post as "telling people experiencing a bad thing to not be sad because others have it worse is bad," and here is an extreme illustrative example, which I think given the context that this is an internet chat board (and not a fed court), is a more reasonable reading.

Literally nobody here thinks a biglaw 20k or whatever salary cut is remotely comparable to emotional abuse, so you're just criticizing a nonexistent thought.
Lamarvelous wrote:Can this not be moved to some sub-thread on arguing over inane nonsense? I can’t even remember which side is which.
What else are we supposed to do while the over-taxed firm VPNs spend about 10 mins to upload/download a 300 page doc. It's a board for lawyers. We're going to quibble over this stuff.

Newbie2TLS

New
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 2:04 am

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by Newbie2TLS » Mon May 04, 2020 5:44 pm

PeanutsNJam wrote:
Newbie2TLS wrote:It’s a bad analogy altogether. An analogy should have similarity in the principle and the underlying facts to which the principle is applied. Sure, the analogy used had a similar principle (I.e., pointing to other bad situations to negate someone’s sadness of their own situation), but it was nowhere similar to the underlying facts, which is what I keep pointing out. That’s like saying “don’t tell me millionaire executives shouldn’t pay themselves additional bonuses this year because I can’t tell people living on minimum wage to not want to raise the minimum wage.” It’s clear that the principle is similar (I.e., don’t tell people it’s bad to ask or get paid more money), but the underlying facts crumble the analogy. Of course there’s a difference between not wanting someone already a multi-millionaire from hoarding even more wealth and telling a minimum wage worker they shouldn’t do it. Same thing here. There’s a huge difference between telling someone suffering from abuse about shittier situations to get them to not be sad over theirs and telling someone about shittier situations to get them not to feel bad about a temporary, slight salary cut. The only way you somehow don’t see how bad this analogy really is, is if you really don’t know how analogies work or you actually don’t see that much of a difference between abuse and a temporary, small salary cut. Btw, the reason we didn’t shit on the lawyer in court is we assumed, for his sake, that he didn’t know how analogies worked, and not the much worse situation, that he was such a shitty person to somehow think the underlying facts were similar enough to analogize.
It's a bad analogy if your goal is to point to precedent in order to convince a judge to issue a binding ruling in your favor, fair. But that's not the goal here; I believe the original poster's goal was simply to illustrate the underlying principle without putting thought into pointing to a factually analogous precedent.

If he had said "it's bad to tell people sad about salary cuts to stop whining because it's bad to tell abuse victims to stop whining," then sure, that's a terrible argument. I read his post as "telling people experiencing a bad thing to not be sad because others have it worse is bad," and here is an extreme illustrative example.

Literally nobody here thinks a biglaw 20k or whatever salary cut is remotely comparable to emotional abuse, so you're just criticizing a nonexistent thought.
But they literally wrote, “it’s like . . . .” And why would someone use an analogy if they don’t want to compare the two situations? Anyway, there’s no point in running around in circles. I concede. I was wrong. There. [Redacted] go back to talking about salary cuts.
Last edited by QContinuum on Mon May 04, 2020 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Sexist language redacted. Poster warned.

JusticeSquee

Bronze
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:29 pm

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by JusticeSquee » Mon May 04, 2020 5:59 pm

Newbie2TLS wrote:
PeanutsNJam wrote:
Newbie2TLS wrote:It’s a bad analogy altogether. An analogy should have similarity in the principle and the underlying facts to which the principle is applied. Sure, the analogy used had a similar principle (I.e., pointing to other bad situations to negate someone’s sadness of their own situation), but it was nowhere similar to the underlying facts, which is what I keep pointing out. That’s like saying “don’t tell me millionaire executives shouldn’t pay themselves additional bonuses this year because I can’t tell people living on minimum wage to not want to raise the minimum wage.” It’s clear that the principle is similar (I.e., don’t tell people it’s bad to ask or get paid more money), but the underlying facts crumble the analogy. Of course there’s a difference between not wanting someone already a multi-millionaire from hoarding even more wealth and telling a minimum wage worker they shouldn’t do it. Same thing here. There’s a huge difference between telling someone suffering from abuse about shittier situations to get them to not be sad over theirs and telling someone about shittier situations to get them not to feel bad about a temporary, slight salary cut. The only way you somehow don’t see how bad this analogy really is, is if you really don’t know how analogies work or you actually don’t see that much of a difference between abuse and a temporary, small salary cut. Btw, the reason we didn’t shit on the lawyer in court is we assumed, for his sake, that he didn’t know how analogies worked, and not the much worse situation, that he was such a shitty person to somehow think the underlying facts were similar enough to analogize.
It's a bad analogy if your goal is to point to precedent in order to convince a judge to issue a binding ruling in your favor, fair. But that's not the goal here; I believe the original poster's goal was simply to illustrate the underlying principle without putting thought into pointing to a factually analogous precedent.

If he had said "it's bad to tell people sad about salary cuts to stop whining because it's bad to tell abuse victims to stop whining," then sure, that's a terrible argument. I read his post as "telling people experiencing a bad thing to not be sad because others have it worse is bad," and here is an extreme illustrative example.

Literally nobody here thinks a biglaw 20k or whatever salary cut is remotely comparable to emotional abuse, so you're just criticizing a nonexistent thought.
But they literally wrote, “it’s like . . . .” And why would someone use an analogy if they don’t want to compare the two situations? Anyway, there’s no point in running around in circles. I concede. I was wrong. There. Girls, go back to talking about salary cuts.
Exhibit A of why this profession sucks.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


nixy

Gold
Posts: 2650
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by nixy » Mon May 04, 2020 6:06 pm

Newbie2TLS wrote:Girls, go back to talking about salary cuts.
This is really rude and stupid.

Newbie2TLS

New
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 2:04 am

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by Newbie2TLS » Mon May 04, 2020 7:28 pm

nixy wrote:
Newbie2TLS wrote:Girls, go back to talking about salary cuts.
This is really rude and stupid.
WHAT? I got a “sexism” warning for that comment!? The point of it was to flip the male-oriented communication style from “guys, go back to talking about salary cuts” to “girls, go back to talking about salary cuts.” How in the world is fighting sexism sexist!? Omg!! Wtf!! Are you so entrenched in male-dominated communication that you can’t handle being part of a group generally referred to as girls, after centuries of girls being called “guys” even when the group doesn’t contain a single guy!?

Women exist!! Deal with it!!

What about the person above who called me “dude.” Where’s that person’s sexism warning?

Hahaha omg and they redacted the word “girls.” How fragile is your masculinity?
Last edited by Newbie2TLS on Mon May 04, 2020 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

nixy

Gold
Posts: 2650
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by nixy » Mon May 04, 2020 7:34 pm

Newbie2TLS wrote:
nixy wrote:
Newbie2TLS wrote:Girls, go back to talking about salary cuts.
This is really rude and stupid.
WHAT? I got a “sexism” warning for that comment!? The point of it was to flip the male-oriented communication style from “guys, go back to talking about salary cuts” to “girls, go back to talking about salary cuts.” How in the world is fighting sexism sexist!? Omg!! Wtf!! Are you so entrenched in male-dominated communication that you can’t handle being part of a group generally referred to as girls, after centuries of girls being called “guys” even when the group doesn’t contain a single guy!?

Women exist!! Deal with it!!
Great doubling down. Really impressive.

(Even if you weren't actually just intending to be insulting by calling male users "girls," which is what it looked like to me, you were insulting for calling grown-ass women "girls." Just don't use gendered labels.)

Newbie2TLS

New
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 2:04 am

Re: Dealing with Paycuts

Post by Newbie2TLS » Mon May 04, 2020 7:36 pm

nixy wrote:
Newbie2TLS wrote:
nixy wrote:
Newbie2TLS wrote:Girls, go back to talking about salary cuts.
This is really rude and stupid.
WHAT? I got a “sexism” warning for that comment!? The point of it was to flip the male-oriented communication style from “guys, go back to talking about salary cuts” to “girls, go back to talking about salary cuts.” How in the world is fighting sexism sexist!? Omg!! Wtf!! Are you so entrenched in male-dominated communication that you can’t handle being part of a group generally referred to as girls, after centuries of girls being called “guys” even when the group doesn’t contain a single guy!?

Women exist!! Deal with it!!
Great doubling down. Really impressive.

(Even if you weren't actually just intending to be insulting by calling male users "girls," which is what it looked like to me, you were insulting for calling grown-ass women "girls." Just don't use gendered labels.)
Oh come on. I get called dude, guy, bro, all the time and I’m not even a guy. I call myself and my friends girls all the time. Don’t try to turn your fragile masculinity’s inability to be referred to as girl ONE time as somehow my fault. By the way, stop assuming I called “male users” girls. It could very well be that everyone here is a girl. That’s the whole point, to eliminate sexist assumptions.

Just to recap, in this thread alone, I’ve been referred to as a boomer (even though I’m not of that generation), a literal brick wall, and a dude, among other things, and that’s fine. But I make a general reference to a group of people which includes at least one girl (me) as girls and I get a citation and the word “girl” is redacted, with an implication that I should’ve instead ignored my gender and said “guys” instead. Ok....

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Legal Employment”