First off, I was just framing the parent’s post in the modern usage of “exception that proves the rule” and not making any claims myself, so perhaps reconsider who’s making unfounded assumptions here.

> You have no idea what other people in pay disputes end up doing.

But also this is a super weak argument. I don’t have “no idea”—I have an educated guess that most people don’t have family friends who work at Google. Most people don’t have the resources to sue an employer over a few hours of unpaid labor. Wage theft is one of the most extensive unprosecuted crimes, that’s been studied and shown many times.

Are you suggesting that one should assume that most low-level employees in pay disputes get happy outcomes? That seems…naive.

The question people are asking is "How would your relative have gotten paid if you hadn't worked at Google"?

This kind of pedantry about which words people use to make an argument is literally garbage.

To continue the spirit of the many nested comments now going back and forth:

Metaphorically.

People who have high regard for it are literally queer. Reference: myself.

What's 'it' here, I can't tell if you have high regard for pedantry about words or if you have high regard for semantic drift.

It's beautiful and full of stars.

The latter

I appreciate the compliment.

I think you mean figuratively garbage. Words can only be literally garbage if they're printed on a page which is then disposed of.

I mean, while we're being pedantic we may as well get it right.

People are allowed to use a phrase for its literal meaning instead of the traditional idiomatic meaning.

"beg the question" does not have a literal meaning. It makes no sense unless you're so used to hearing it used that way.

"beg" often means "beg for". "This situation begs for the question:" is a completely reasonable way to start a sentence.

Or to go with synonyms. Solicits the question. Entreats the question. These are the literal meanings of the words, and they work fine.