Stop. Electing. Fraudsters.
Especially when the fraudster is a convicted felon.
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
47 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
1455 readers
19 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm doing better now, but 15 years ago Walmart was the only option I had for food. Local/regional grocery stores were more expensive and I was living paycheck to paycheck with growing debt.
"If people were smart they would stop buying the most cost-efficient option" is really not feasible.
"If people were smart" they would read and stop putting oligarchs in power.
βIf people were smart they would stop buying the most cost-efficient optionβ is really not feasible.
In fact, more and more people don't have the luxury of buying more expensive options.
Of course, stealing is an option, and I think 'If people were smart' they would accept that stealing from Walmart is not an ethical or pragmatic problem, but it's a risky behavior so I wouldn't criticize people for not stealing. [edit: see Fubarberry's reply]
Stealing from walmart also isn't sustainable if many people are doing it. For example there were a ton of walmarts and other stores in the Chicago area that recently closed due to high theft at those locations. Now whole communities there are left without convenient shopping options, which can be a big problem for people with limited transportation options.
That Walmart CLAIMED were closed for high theft.
You can look up videos of some of the stores that were closed, they were basically being straight up looted.
I remember seeing the videos, and thinking to myself how I didn't understand how they could afford to stay in business like that. So when they announced they were closing those stores for theft, I didn't really think the given reason was ever in doubt.
"βThe decision to close a store is never easy,β company officials said in a statement. βThe simplest explanation is that collectively our Chicago stores have not been profitable since we opened the first one nearly 17 years ago.β
The stores lose tens of millions of dollars a year, according to the company, a figure that nearly doubled in the last five years despite numerous strategies to boost performance, including building smaller stores, offering local products and building a Walmart Academy training center."
Doesn't sound like theft was ever the problem here according to them?
Stealing isn't right.
The Walmart near me closed due to high theft. There were actually people stealing from the construction site when the store was being built, so it really was a ticking clock as to how long the store itself would even last.
Some people are just awful.
Stealing isnβt right.
I conditionally disagree. In fact, there are many real situations where stealing is the right option. There are valid reasons why folk lore glorifies figures like Robin Hood. And when it comes to international conglomerates like Walmart, which hoard astronomical wealth while others who can't afford bread starve nearby, theft of the hoard is justice in its most appropriate form (if one values human survival more than legal property rights).
Even stealing from Walmart isn't right.
Why not?
Look. There was a subreddit that got banned because it was a bunch of shoplifters, dumb ones, showcasing what they stole. They all claim that they're doing it to hurt corporations.
If anyone had a clue at all about working retail - that's not how it works. The corporation is going to be sailing just fine. It's you, the worker and the store that's getting hurt.
And that's why these shoplifters are absolute assholes. They steal enough, the store is closed, many jobs lost.
How the fuck is that hurting the corporation?
I'm curious that you said if people were really smart, they would stop giving money to Amazon, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Google, etc., and then suggest that taking their stock without giving them money is bad. This seems contradictory to me. If stealing wouldn't hurt the company, then why would not giving money be a smart thing? If not giving them money is good, stealing would just increase those loses further and also be smart.
They all claim that theyβre doing it to hurt corporations.
Personally, I think hurting dominant anti-social corporations like Walmart is a smart thing for society to do, but that's besides the point. There are plenty of far more accepted reasons to steal, such as preventing starvation (like stealing basic food from supermarkets). I assert that stealing essentials is more socially beneficial than allowing oneself and dependents to starve or die, and it's far more ethical to steal from multi-billion dollar income megacorporations than other households or smaller businesses (the alternatives). I would go as far as to say they are socially obliged to steal, because they are more useful to society alive than dead and the cost to achieve that is trivial to the theft victim.
They steal enough, the store is closed, many jobs lost.
Honestly, if we're talking about companies like Walmart, then I say good that the store is closed, those workers are now forced to enter (or even recreate!) jobs which benefit society rather than destroy other local businesses. This is clearly unfortunate to those who are temporarily unemployed as a result, that's real pain and it's valid, and it's unfortunate, but the store closure is still an overall positive.
How the fuck is that hurting the corporation?
Losing sales isn't profitable. Closing a store certainly isn't profitable. If theft didn't hurt the corporation, they wouldn't spend significant money stopping it.
Furthermore, for a publicly traded company, reputation damage is real financial damage. Reporting high theft and closing stores has a real reputational impact to investors.
Good point. If there aren't other local stores remaining to fill the gaps, then that would be a critical problem.
Walmart, Kroger, etc.'s entire business model is to undercut other local stores to drive them out and become local monopolies. If they exist in a location there likely aren't many, if any, local stores remaining...
But you'll notice that the price comparison is narrowing and Wal-Mart is slowly not looking better off than the competition. It's almost like shopping at Dollar Tree is more feasible, it's what some of us are going to be forced to be doing if not now. Just shopping Dollar Tree almost regularly.
Entirely depends on region. Walmarts strategy is to take a loss in an area until all local competitors are out of business then crank back up until that area is profitable enough to subsidize new areas. In my area Walmart is cheaper than pretty much everyone except dollar stores, and dollar stores treat their employees even worse while having even worse quality food for barely any cheaper.
They'd stop doing capitalism. Entirely. If people in the US were smart, they would have been the vanguard of the communist revolution in the late 1800s when Marxist ideas were starting to spread in the us.
That depends, people can be smart but malicious, non-coorperative, or selfish.
The prisoner's dilemma shows that there are systems where individually, the "smart" individual thing to do is globally non-optimal.
Even smartness and altruism alone isn't enough. Medical professionals are smart and out to help others, but any ER doc/nurse will tell you they have limited trust in their patients (rightly so in the real world).
Does "everyone is smart" also include both "altruism and cooperative trust in others"?
Marxism is critically flawed about surplus value and definitions of egalitarianism unfortunately so while it all sounds nice on paper it never worked in practice
Except it's currently working in practice in many countries, one of which is more successful by every measure than the US. Also Marxist-leninism is responsible for being more people out of poverty than any other system of socioeconomics.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Ignoring the fact that alternative voting systems exist and there can be more then two political parties.
Voting for fascists/not voting
The obvious answer is fossil fuels, right? Few people want to cook the climate, they just can't quite fathom something that abstract and slow-moving, so they do it anyway.
Less obviously, feeding all our most sensitive data to random websites and apps. Again, the threat just doesn't look enough like a sabre-tooth tiger.
Few people want to cook the climate, they just canβt quite fathom something that abstract and slow-moving, so they do it anyway.
I don't think the problem is that people are unaware. Even people who believe they are against cooking the environment have other rationalisations, like "the economy isn't able to shut down all the coal plants yet, it'll collapse". Propaganda is a hell of a drug.
No, it's not that people are unaware, or even don't believe it, it's that they can't reason about it strategically
It's spending now to save later. If that's about military spending or emergency services everyone gets paying taxes for it, but words are as far as most will go to stop nonspecific far future weather. Even when people talk about the situation with climate change, you hear them frame it in moral terms instead of practical terms.
Case in point: Canada has a carbon tax, and a majority want to get rid of it. Denialism is not a prominent part of the campaign, just the fact that it costs something. And not even much, and it's all given back in refunds - doesn't matter, the extra gas cost people will bear is zero.
Fossil fuels is kinda a prisoner's dilemma issue. Everyone cooperating to save the planet is obviously ideal, but realistically there are always going to be companies/countries that won't. And as long as it's cheaper to not be environmentally friendly, there's always going to be someone taking that option.
For example, lets say country A passes new regulations on manufacturing to be more environmentally friendly. The new regulations take the country's manufacturing from low pollution to very low pollution. However the increase in cost causes many companies to stop manufacturing locally, and instead outsource their manufacturing to country B with low regulation and moderate pollution during manufacturing. The end result is more money leaving the local economy of country A, and increased global pollution.
It's a similar prisoner's dilemma for the individual companies involved. If your competitor is able to make their product for cheaper because their process is less environmentally friendly, then they can undercut you and put you out of business.
The tragedy of the commons is definitely part of it, but until recently there was a sort of global consensus anyway. Domestically climate change action - real action - is unpopular.
Thinking that "being smart" means shit. We need to realize that the people who run things aren't necessarily smart. Presidents aren't necessarily smart. Professors aren't necessarily smart.
And being smart doesn't mean you're good. Evil smart is a nightmare, because destroying is so much easier than building.
What would we do if we were good? Now that's a question.
There's smart and then there's cunning.
A lot of people in power aren't smart - they're cunning.
That we haven't learned more from history and keep making the same mistakes over and over.
Drinking alcohol. Lots of people drink way too much and make life ruining decisions.
Thinking that they have the "one simple trick" for everything when most matters are actually a complex network of issues where there isn't one answer.
And not counting for the variables like what could go wrong, short-term gains, long-term gains .etc
Buying and carrying guns.
You're not getting cashback on your credit cards yous daft cunts π You're paying it in advance
Stop driving (pollution, deaths, cost of living etc) and remodel cities and town around PT and AT , restricted gun ownership
How do people living with no PT or AT options stop driving?
Also, the working masses must remain armed to prevent even further class slavery.
I've joined three different unions and the only guns I've used were loaned to me by a representative of my country for a short period decades ago.
Okay I still can't go anywhere without a car tho
OP mentioned remodeling cities around public transport, I think that also goes for more rural areas. There's a solution for every scale : metro, bus, train, shuttle, etc.
I agree there are solutions, I have lived in places with great options. But getting things changed here is very slow and for now you still can't walk or bike, and there are no buses or trains.
Probably leave religion in the past, recognize the oligarchy as the source of most of our woes, legislate for a maximum income, laws to make home ownership by companies illegal, begin providing universal basic income, stop caring about the boarder and just let people in, decriminalize drugs and prostitution, criminalize bribes to politicians, break up the obvious monopolies, nationalize internet access, expand voter access and encourage everyone to vote, release prisoners from prison for non-violent offenses, close private prisons and reform tge whole court system, structure fines for laws broken as a percentage of income making them a deterent even for tge wealthy, ties minimum wage to inflation or tge gdp in some way so it can keep up without further legislation, open a new department that is not police to handle most calls more ethically, cap income within a company so no one can make more than X times more than any other employee of the company, simplify tge tax codes to close most loopholes, empower tge IRS to send citizens a bill instead of paying turbo tax, prevent civil forfeture, remove state ability to fine individuals without an income for not paying fees, expand disability benefits so you can have more than $3k in liquid assets and still get benefits, and so on.
These were all just off the top of my head.
Believing public figures on camera, or on a dais with a mic in front of them.
Payday loans.
The smart part is realizing the havoc payday loans inflict on one's finances.
It's not about "smart" vs "dumb." People's ideas are shaped by their Class Interests and Material Coniditons.
Stop generalising groups of people.
I cannot think of a proper example rn, but I see this everywhere.
meme example
group a does x
also group a: says something contradicting x
This happens across the board, not only in political topics.
Because with stuff like this you cannot simply say "everyone should know better" they don't know btr, they don't care, they don't understand. For a myriad of reasons people will always do stuff counter to best logic, so you cannot ask them to. The only practical way to prevent stuff like this is through regulation and a government that serves the people. Lol it's nice to dream.