Ligma balls

Well the willing suspension of disbelief is adjusted based on the story being told. If you say there’s a made-up kingdom where animals talk in the exposition, that’s fine. But if you say it takes place in a world that’s basically our own, then one person can randomly shoot lasers from their eyes, you should give some explanation. It doesn’t even have to be a particularly good one, but even in-universe people would be asking about that.

Whatever a “Kroger” might be

Kroger is a supermarket chain in much of the US, but some of their stores use different branding. I just meant it to be a recognizable example of somewhere you might get your groceries.

And I’m not frustrated, it’s not about the money, it’s the principle.

When I said frustrated, I meant in a general sense about the economy, as in higher grocery prices. But I guess I did misunderstand your motivation for this. So it’s not about how much suppliers/stores are actually charging, just that they raised prices at all? And you view that as stealing?

Someone in the chain did raise prices for items I can’t boycott, I don’t care who.

And I guess that’s the problem in my eyes. If you intend to punish someone, it should be focussed on whoever is responsible. I’m sure you would agree it is unreasonable to yell at a cashier when your card gets declined for example. I’m also skeptical that you can’t boycott, but without specifics I’ll have to take your word for it.

Also I don’t need justification. To whom should I justity? to you? lol.

I judged you because you shared this with other people on the thread, which I view as inviting feedback. But you are right that my opinion isn’t important. What matters is that you can justify your actions to yourself. Whatever your morals are, I doubt it includes indiscriminate punishment. Maybe ask yourself things like, “What would it be like if everyone acted the way I do?” or “Will this lead to things getting better or worse?”.

Well said. To be clear, I agree with your outlook on human nature, but I try to check myself on not being optimistic to the point of ignoring people’s history. People do change, but we can’t presume in which direction that will be. We must remember improvement is a hope and a genuine possibility, but not an expectation. On the other hand, Orwell is regarded as insightful for good reason but of course he is also very cynical about people and the future.

A catspaw is just a term for someone who is used as a tool of another to their detriment. It comes from a French fable where a monkey convinces a cat to grab some roasting chestnuts for them to eat, but the monkey eats them all while the cat ends up burning its paw.

Edit: This is the fable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkey_and_the_Cat

People tend to approve of their own representatives, and blame others in Congress for unsolved issues. We have become good at identifying problems while minimizing our own contributions to them. And in general, as a country we are very divided on the way things should be changing.

For presidential candidates especially, I’ve found people tend to latch on to reasons to dislike someone and ignore positive things, except perhaps for their favorite candidate. It’s a form of tribalism. But from what I remember Trump and Hilary were both considered distinctly weak candidates at the time.

Yeah, I view them as catspaws. They are assisting someone working against their interests without understanding how they are being used. You can show sympathy for them while nonetheless opposing them.

And you’re right that everyone should have the humility to accept they also sabotage themselves sometimes. But electing who will lead the country is high stakes and some accountability is fair.

You were correct in the first half then you fell right off.

I was going to comment that as well. They’ve identified the problem correctly, but rather than trying to fix it they decide to cement it in. We want people to be able to accept they were wrong and think (and vote) differently going forward. That sort of growth is how things get better. This vindictiveness just makes people defensive and want to double down on mistakes when doubt and regret could have lead to character development.

By all means, hold people accountable, but if you don’t allow them to change you are giving up hope entirely.

Your local Kroger isn’t robbing you. Neither are their suppliers in general, but even so you are not punishing them by shoplifting. The store already paid the producer for it regardless of whether the item is sold or stolen, meaning they don’t care either way.

If you want to steal, that’s your prerogative, but don’t pretend that you’re morally justified to take out your frustrations on someone unrelated.

He doubled down on it when it wasn’t really acknowledged. After he said he wasn’t paying, she responded with an explanation for why her friend was coming. I mean she did say ok, but that might be agreement or just a way to move on the conversation. Like, “Ok, but what if I told you…”

It’s not clear if the new explanation was meant to change his mind, but the only change between that and the fake explanation before is his statement that he wasn’t paying under the first situation. So it may have been a negotiation tactic. Either way, if this was real she should explicitly agree that he isn’t expected to pay for her friend and he should obviously not be so crass about it.

That’s ridiculous. We would make terrible roommates.

Has to be H, because I live there and if I had to get every meal imported to me that would be very annoying.

I’m glad someone mentioned the 2008 financial crisis. Banks need to be fairly confident the person they are giving the mortgage to can afford the payment now and for the next thirty years. There are plenty of unfair reasons why someone may not be able to buy a home today, but not being able to afford a down payment is not one of them.

It would depend on what definition of vegan you use

Providing a counterexample to a claim is not whataboutism.

Whataboutism involves derailing a conversation with an ad-hominem to avoid addressing someone’s argument, like what you just did.

You got me wondering, and it seems like opinion is mixed among US adults

Overall, we saw mixed emotions around the rise of AI. 39% of Americans feel positive about AI while 20% feel negative. The most commonly expressed emotion was curiosity, followed by interest and worry.

It seems to hold true internationally too

People are most likely to say they are concerned (32%), curious (30%), and hopeful (27%) about artificial intelligence. … 24% of respondents said AI will make our lives better. 41% of respondents think AI will make our lives both better and worse. Only 10% of respondents think AI will only make our lives worse

We live in a society

Well I was trying to say something like “slightly a victim” but it didn’t sound right. So I thought saying they suffered a small injustice was close enough

Ban the people obfuscating. Don’t assume guilt based on gender.

Being discriminated from a community based on gender is a small injustice, but it is an injustice nonetheless. At the very least, it’s a policy choice worthy of discussion.

If it’s predominantly the men making shit comments, it should be easy enough to identify and ban them. Assuming they will make a bad comment based on them being a man is simply bad moderation.

The analogy doesn’t really fit though. Houses and parties are presumed to be invite-only by default. That’s not true for lemmy communities that federate with the general user base. It’s more like being told you can’t buy anything from a store after seeing others being able to do so.