We are defined not by our employment status.
Wooow sooo deep man. I could have never guessed or referenced anything that would have even remotely suggested that to be the case, I’m just utterly shocked for this new information. However can I thank you enough for opening my eyes? Thank god you made me aware with this shitty comic that doesn’t remotely manage to actually make that point, only thinks it does because of it’s naive sophistry that entirely relies on a semantics point that it can’t actually cover.
Yeah, it’s annyoing when people ask you “what do you do” but it’s also annyoing when people use “literally” as emphasis rather than it’s literal meaning. But we can still tell the two apart, and I’m certainly not autistic enough to actually stop a conversation to deadpan someone and say “uh, I think you mean ‘figuratively’”. Sometimes jokingly with a close friend, sure, but like, in public discourse? Nah. Because it’d also be wrong, because linguists agree colloquial language is descriptive instead of prescriptive.
So yeah, attempt to semantically shift the word all you want, I’ll be happy if you succeed, but I really don’t believe anyone will manage it in my lifetime.
Edit also all the things she liste are pretty much things you could do as a job. Even the playing with a puppy bit, as a dog sitter. So even she is employing the word with the context of a job related to it. She doesn’t talk about enjoying time with her puppy, she specifically mentions an activity with it. She doesn’t talk about just relaxing or thinking about pleasant things or enjoying sewing. No no, she specifically mentions labouring to produce clothing and gardening to produce produce (or flowers but a product nonetheless).
We have it in Finnish as well “leipätyö”, literally ~“bread work/job”.