this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
361 points (94.1% liked)
Not The Onion
16302 readers
1451 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, given that a moon cycle is about 28 days long, each quarter of that is 7 days. Before we had electric lights at night, most people were very aware of the moon phase.
Now I've actually finished the article. That intro just ticked me off enough that I needed to say something before continuing. :-P
The study they cited shows that, surprise surprise, people need a break. That makes total sense. But the whole 55 hours a week thing? They seem to be advocating for people going to work for 55 hours a week, rather than the typical 40 hours for a full-time job. That's total baloney, though. There is so much work to do outside of my job. They mentioned volunteering and child rearing, but what about the basic work to live?
People have to eat, so they have to prepare food. They have to go to the grocery store. They have to do laundry. They have to clean their house. If they have a yard, there is yard work. There is time spent grooming oneself. If a person has kids, they may need to help their kids with homework. People have to shop for other necessities, like clothes. People spend time commuting to and from work. There is so much necessary stuff to do outside of a job that I would consider "work" because it's neither sleeping nor leisure.
So what is the point of this article? "God was right" that people need a break sometimes? Or "God was right" that the break should only be one day in 7? Are they seriously advocating for moving to a 55-hour work week?
The way they read into the scripture verse was really weird, too. They pulled a lot of meaning that's not textually there out of "Six days thou shalt work." The act of working has some inherent value now beyond what you're actually accomplishing? They're also conflating people not wanting to do any work with people not liking their jobs. Sure, a person could find meaning in being a janitor at a hospital, but not all jobs have some net social benefit like that. A person working at a call center to scam people doesn't have any deeper meaning to find and doesn't have to like their job.
The whole thing sounds like they're saying that everyone needs to shut up and be abused at work, working long hours, and if we're not happy about it, it's our own fault for not liking our jobs, and we need to suck it up and get with the program because Fox News said that God said so.
No thanks.
That's exactly what I was thinking reading through the article... Yeah, I'm generally at my best if I spend most of the day doing stuff, with the occasional rest day. People tend to want to work and accomplish things, but when their time is consumed by what feels like meaningless drudgery on top of the other daily necessities, that's a recipe for a mental health crisis. It feels like the author is deliberately omitting the part where your "55 hours" necessarily has to include all the stuff you work on outside of work, including hobbies.
"You can't explain that."
I have never seen that clip before. He was so dumbfounded by O'Reilly's example of a mysterious force that he resorted to sarcasm. Ngl I don't think I could have even responded to that
Interesting to see that take. When it was new, Redditters criticized him for not giving a better response. You know, the response they came up with when they're sitting comfy in their house, and not actually there in the moment.
Which is to say that your take is correct when you have reasonable expectations of ability to improv a response.
I have, unfortunately, been in situations where I needed to convince someone to change their stance only to realize they held that stance out of contrived ignorance. It's one thing to walk into a situation knowing that you are trying to educate, it is quite another to realize that person has already weaponized their education to push a narrative
I would have responded by explaining how the gravitational pull of the moon causes tides, but I'm sure he would have just dismissed it.
Also because its rather optimal for a week length. France tried a 10 day week but it was too long.