I like this article but this is actually a good point. "The rich" is mostly used in a negative way.
I'd argue this is because most attempts to reduce large groups of people to an idea like "the rich" or "the poor" are done in bad faith.
A support of this would be, within academic sociology or economics these terms will be used in a non slur way and it's because they actually have a reason to be thinking in terms of these groups instead of throwing them out as stawmen for some argument
The entire top level point of the article, the part that is literally the focus of the title, is a recommendation not to call groups by names they don't like.
Did you read the article? Or did you read the first two paragaphs and decide it was wrong thought and go to yell to the internet?
No that's just the point of the first two paragraphs. Everything past that is claiming that we're taking this idea too far. It specifically used the hypothetical situation of Asian folks deciding that being called "Asian" was bad and that they should be called something like "People of Asia" (I forget the exact replacement phrase and the article isn't loading for me right now) as something that shouldn't be respected. I believe the point was something like the slur for Japanese folk was rooted in actual discrimination and so that's an understandable reason for not liking the term, but if a group of people just decide they want a different term, that's bad and we shouldn't respect their wishes because it makes life harder for white people.
In fact, the point of the article is an attempt to reason about the mechanism that determine why groups prefer that others don’t use this or that word to describe them—not to argue in favor of doing it.
It used to be roughly that not too long ago, so it's not surprising that that's still the exchange rate people have in mind. I don't think it's worth making an issue out of or being upset by.
I had a look at trends over time (https://www.macrotrends.net/2550/dollar-yen-exchange-rate-hi...) and looked back by decades. In 2013 it was 97.6, in 2003 it was 115.94, 1993 it was 111.08. So roughly around a hundred yen per usd. Before that it was 237.55 in 1983.
You are just encouraging fake news. Please don't ask people to substantiate anecdotes. It's better to just accept the narrative if it fits the consensus.
This obsession with "proof" and "data" is anti scientific.
Imagine being simple enough to buy this narrative wholesale.
There's one objectively correct version of understanding the world and the important idea is to camp people into binary groups of "believes correct news" or "believes fake news"
There are entire news organizations which pump nothing but "Fake News".
It's easy to run a study on their followers.
Now - it's never been possible to have a news organization which specializes in "100% not fake news", because every organization is going to have some slant or bias. For organizations which really with the best intentions try to present the absolute truth, you're never going to convince everyone you're not "fake news", on account of there not being such a thing as 100% objective reality. All observers are flawed.
