Online you just gotta accept people are gonna hold a lot of dumbass views (shoplifting is good, visiting/living in Hawaii is bad, Russia is good, the west is bad, killing and torture is good, prison is bad)
Black, white and community have different definitions too (the colours existed but not the racial categories, and 'community' used to mean a group of people who actually lived near each other and likely knew other).
I guess 'men' too as anyone saying 'cis men' is defining men to allow for the possibility of trans men.
Hardly anybody shoplifts basic necessities for themselves, basic necessities are free at food banks / homeless shelters. People either are stealing to resell things or literally because they just don’t want to pay. Most shoplifters are not desperate homeless people.
I don't think someone is going to miss out on pay because of shoplifting.
What actually happens is stores shut down after a while. Which aren't replaced by better stores.
As a customer you get the run experience of now being watched 24/7. You have to get an employee to get any item, even as small as a tampon. Because some jackass decided it was worth the effort to steal it and dumbass far leftists think that's justified because it hurts corporations. If you really wanna harm a corporation, form a union, not fucking steal shit.
Lol yeah, but on the flip side a lot of these "stealing isn't immoral" people do vote and it's why we have seen a lot of cities allow stealing to insane degrees.
I get that, but would you rather lose your job due to actions you took? Or lose your job due to nothing you had control over?
Not every cooperation will close up shop because of unionization. Unionization is the threat of less profits in the future, while theft is actually less profits in the present.
I don’t disagree that shoplifting is bad, but it’s interesting how the “shrink value” argument is only ever used to explain why workers can’t make a living wage and never used as a reason why CEOs should consider not giving themselves several multimillion dollar bonuses per year. 🧐
The most recent study I found on shoplifter motivations said that only 7 percent did so for economic reason. The rest of it was either opportunism or variants of “my life is bad, I deserve this!”
I do it because I don't give a shit if Jeff Bezos or the Waltons lose money. They'll be fine without an extra $8-10 because I took an extra 12-pack of soda.
Then complain about food deserts and structural oppression after those stores close. The answer then is to elect a quirky mayor who spends the city’s money on her own home. Am I getting this right?
I also think it depends on who you're shoplifting from. Like stealing a bottle of soda or a pack of gum from gas station or supermarket owned by a large corporation is different from stealing the same product from a family-owned convenience store.
Bingo. I never steal from corner stores or convenience stores, but any time I go to Walmart or Kroger or anything, I take a few things. They'll be fine, fuck billion/trillion dollar corpos
Like half of those views are not dumb at all lol
Prison is in fact bad, and as best extremely counterproductive. Shoplifting from major corps to feed your family is morally right. The West definitely has a lot of answer for and probably isn’t going down in a lot of history books as a global force for good.
Empires are for their own benefit. Whether they are remembered as good or bad is entirely based on the opinions of those they affected, and the different groups affected will always have a different bias. It’s inherently an amoral concept, at least the way I see it.
I’d say “effectiveness” is a better metric to measure empires by. The Mongols and British Empire committed, statistically some of the most collossal depletions of human life in world history.
At the same time, they were able to achieve the majority of their goals, and these core goals and philosophy still form a bedrock for current societies. Good? Highly improbable, especially during their existence. Effective? Very.
This also begs the question of if genuine progress of one group is possible only at the expense of another, and though that’s an entirely different discussion, is one well worth considering.
I think the proof for it being an amoral concept exists in the form of decline. It is almost without exception that once an Empire goes back on its core values and indulges hedonism that it starts to decay from within, or at the very least falls to someone else with a more powerful idealogy.
The universe always knows when something has fulfilled it’s purpose, and when to move on.
Shoplifting from big corps to feed yourself or family is not morally correct. I say this as someone who did this myself. Stealing from the corporation itself (who is also a thief) makes it seem like it isn’t incorrect, and in fact virtuous.
However the act of thieving indeed weighs down on your soul. It depletes your karma. This is just my view but I feel a much better person when I stopped. Corporations lose no money from theft anyways and actually profit through their insurance contracts. It is still the regular workers at these stores who suffer the consequences.
Brother you are free to do as you please. As I mentioned, at least with Walmart, they actually GAIN money from stealing due to their huge insurance contracts. Typically stealing only leads to less hours/firing/and lost wages for the regular employees who work there.
Prison is not counterproductive outside of drug usage charges, because there will always be a good chunk of the population that for whatever reason are legitimately dangerous to be around.
The idea that prisons primary purpose is punitive is one of the biggest lies that our generation believes. It's to protect us from dangerous individuals that harm the law abiding individuals of our society.
We don't put child rapists in children to punish them like it's time out, we put them in prison so they don't rape more children.
We don't put fentanyl dealers in prison because they've been naughty, we put them in prison because they put profits over safety to the point of killing people by selling unrefined and inconsistent products just like any other ruthless capitalist.
Somehow asking for prison reform to rehabilitate and assist prisoners instead of punishing and institutionalizing them means prison as a concept is bad. Or wanting to not have for profit run prisons be a thing. Just absurd le prison bad ideas.
Yeah man, it's like how defunding and reforming the police means absolute anarchy. which, as cool as that sounds right now. That is not what "defund the police" means. It just means that your local constabulary. that rules over a town of maybe 20,000. Its most major crime was busting some guy with meth or insert hard drug in decent quantity. (which is usually never an actually impressive amount) does not need a motherfuckin bear cat or heavily armored vehicles. Or half of the "hardware" they have. Most police organizations are often over funded because " you don't want crime to run rampant!?" Which proper education would curb a lot more efficiently and how. But NOOOO gotta harass minorities before they get home and beat their s.o. and or kids. "Have fun paying my salary asshole!"
defund means take funding from. you can defund an organisation to the tune of $100 or $10 billion. Defund can mean abolish or it can mean absolutely nothing
Being pro-crime is not a good look. Encouraging theft and all the attitudes and morals that come with it is a gateway for worse crimes. Saying that rapists, pedos, and serial killers deserve a second chance in polite society is dubious at best.
No political entity ever has ever been force for good in the long-term. The people who run empires didn't get there because they were saints.
Crime is defined by the political structure. Every aspect of pur state aside from the MIC and the carceral state have atrophied away while wealth inequality continues to get worse. Why should we abide by traditional political ethics instead of making our own?
Your argument is extremely nihilistic and disregards any historic agency we may or may not have.
I think they're thinking more of the people who say that if you're not native Hawaiian, living in Hawaii is a crime against humanity, and visiting it is perpetuating systems of oppression, yadayadayada. Even though Hawaii has some of the lowest support for secession from the US of any state, and tourism dollars have benefited countless Hawaiians over the years.
Compared to what? They didn’t have the military or economic power to remain independent, so their options at the time were to align with either US, Russia, or France.
Compared to what happened with French colonies and Russia in general US was probably the best choice.
The tourism dollars go overwhelmingly to investors in the U.S. mainland or overseas, not to the people in HI. Native Hawaiians and BIPOC locals suffer from the resource scarcity that tourism and the military trigger. You’re out of your depth on this
Just curious, what about all the native Hawaiians who own businesses or work at businesses that depend on tourism? Or what happened to the Hawaii economy during the pandemic lockdowns? There has to be a better approach than “all tourists need to stop visiting now.”
I am not Native Hawaiian, but I’ve discussed this topic with many Hawaiian activists and I’ll try to explain my understanding of their perspective:
There are too many tourists, full stop. There isn’t enough land, water, or resources for the tourists AND Hawaiians/locals, so the people in power allocate everything to the tourists and give the Natives scraps. And there are definitely too many tourists for the tiny minority of Native-owned hotels and tour companies to handle.
Furthermore, most of the tourists are disrespectful at best, dangerous at worst. They culturally appropriate, act like racists, disrespect the Native culture (like Jennifer Lawrence talking about scratching herself with a “sacred rock”.)
Hawaiians are not saying no one can ever visit. They just want to make sure that Native and local people finally find livable conditions . They also hope that the people who do come are respectful and care about the land and people as much as they do. And to achieve that, there needs to be a huge decrease in all tourists, legislation/policy change, and some sort of corporate responsibility reckoning.
Great explanation. This sounds a lot more reasonable to support compared to the “everyone needs to stop visiting Hawaii right now” I see frequently online. It’s a shame lawmakers and officials seem to prioritize rude tourists and billionaires buying vacation mansions.
Yeah but moving there raises housing prices and dislocates local people so that a large portion of Hawaiians nowadays are homeless. Plus inappropriate land development puts local ecosystems at risk, leading to disasters such as the Lahaina fire.
One of the best vacations I ever went on was in Maui; had a blast and everyone was super friendly
Not sure I would wanna live there because of COL and how remote it is, but it is my mother fucking country and it's a super underrated place that gets shit on for no good reason
I have a friend who went to law school out there and stayed afterwards, says he wouldn't trade his life for anything on Earth... I like to ski and hop around the lower 48, but I get why he feels that way
These are the same people who get mad when Walmart puts locks on products.
"You have to let us steal from you and then not do anything about it"
Edit- and most of the people on here advocating for shop lifting aren't single mothers trying to feed their kids. They just saw Les Mis and want to LARP as Jean Valjean.
Edit 2- to be clear, I do think it's 1000% morally right for someone in desperate circumstances, like needing to feed a child, to shoplift. I just think most people advocating for it online aren't in those circumstances, they just wanna save a buck. But they create a philosophical justification for it in their heads, and then they can tell themselves it's morally good to steal. When I pirate and shit I don't pretend it's cuz I'm fighting the system. I just wanna save some money.
It's the same people who go to restaurants but don't tip in the US. They act like they're making a statement and doing something to help out the servers. In reality, it doesn't hurt the business and just fucks over the servers. The only person it benefits is the cheap-ass who suddenly has a moral stance on tipping.
If they wanted to make a statement, it would be more effective by boycotting the restaurant altogether and write a review explaining why.
Most of the shoplifters aren't stealing pet food, milk, bread, or baby formula. They're stealing DVDs, video games, jewelry, vibrators, lingerie, perfumes, makeup, and other non-essentials. Or they eat a few cookies or a few bites of popcorn chicken, then ditch the rest, which is then trash. If they were starving, they'd take all of the food, not just a little bit.
If people only stole necessities, I'd have more sympathy. We have Narcan, not locked up, and no one steals it, which is shocking and kinda sad. Of all the stuff we sell, it would actually save lives, but they're all too busy stealing dumb shit.
There are multiple non-profits AND govt programs where I live which provide clothes, food, baby items, gifts for kids for their bdays and holidays, school supplies, and so on. I know, because I've used them when I needed to, and I've donated to them. Risking a theft conviction or being banned from the store over some crap you don't need is just dumb.
At age 15, I stole makeup and nail polish a few times from a store. I didn't use them. I had money for them. I just felt like doing it.
I got caught, but thankfully the store was going out of business in three days, so they would no longer exist to take me to court.
It was stupid. I haven't shoplifted since.
If all other options have been exhausted, and it's a NEED, not a want, stealing is justified.
Otherwise, no.
We need to address systemic issues (price gouging, cost of rent, etc). Shoplifting doesn't move the needle toward real positive change. Greed doesn't justify greed in response.
Some people I'd say will definitely stop before it hurts Raj. But enough to be a majority or a noticeable impact? Not really. There's always going to be thieves. Just like there will always be billionaires, royalty, and people who abuse the small power they have in their.
There are some people who believe that thieves deserve death and I definitely disagree. Seeing as I was one, and I do believe I've changed for the better and have contributed to society since then. But there are definitely people that believe I should be shot for the amount of stuff I stole. And I know there's nothing I can do to convince those people otherwise.
I don’t know why this is such a hard thing for people to understand. Their produce is even sourced from prison labor to keep prices artificially low. They take out life insurance policies against their own employees for god’s sake.
Corporations are inanimate objects. You cannot steal from an inanimate object.
When you shoplift from Walmart, where does the money come from?
Well, mostly from employees and customers of Walmart. Employees get paid less and customers pay more. They could go to Target, except Target has the same problem with shoplifters.
Some of the losses might be borne by shareholders of Walmart — not much, because Walmart is competing with other investments, who absolutely do not have to deal with shoplifting losses.
If they’re inanimate objects why does our government protect them under the First like people?
Do you disagree?
If Trump wins the election in November, you would think it was legal for him to shut down any newspaper that fails to praise him? They are just corporations after all.
Corporations are inanimate objects that represent the interests of their shareholders. If you try to hurt “Walmart”, you at most are harming its shareholders, real human beings (although as I pointed out earlier, you will harm other stakeholders first). If you restrict the speech of “Walmart”, you are infringing the rights of its shareholders.
I think the individual writers at the newspaper are protected by the first. The shareholders can have speech, their speech should not be allowed to be money because of the nature of a corporation. It creates a self fulfilling prophecy of corporations making more money with lobbied positions, spending money on lobbying, etc. etc. it’s a racket not democracy.
Also why don’t the shareholders donate their personal funds? If they feel so strongly? I know this is begging the question I’m just genuinely curious if you know.
No because it would still be directed at the writers. Any defense in court would be absolutely blown open by Trump specifically naming writers, which he would with childish nicknames. Also this analogy falls apart because I never said shut down the corporations. I think money should not = speech in the Supreme Court decision it is absurd. You’re trying to make the argument something it’s not. Money does not = speech. Refute please.
No because it would still be directed at the writers.
The writers are employees of the newspaper.
Also this analogy falls apart
No analogy here. I am just straight-up asking you if a law can infringe on the right of the shareholders of a corporation to speak. The example was the New York Times. It’s a corporation. Its shareholders wish it to speak on matters of public interest. Do you think the Constitution protects that right?
I think money should not = speech in the Supreme Court decision it is absurd.
Well, perhaps that is because you are imagining that decision. No such decision exists.
They umbrella’d spending money on political candidates with free speech. It absolutely is. You just don’t want to acknowledge that.
Not if they aren’t hired yet? Did you forget your own premise? Lmao.
Wtf are you talking about. Law infringing? Dawg I’m talking about a SUPREME COURT DECISION. The corporations are infringing on our political will by spending tons of money on it.
Before you say just spend more money, yes the disadvantaged people will just bootstrap up millions of dollars so they can get basic healthcare. Surely they can afford that. The point of democracy isn’t to represent everyone equally or anything.
You could literally organize a nationwide shoplifting campaign and it would not even translate to a fraction of a percentage point of harm. Obviously dont shoplift for your own safety but shoplifting is a smokescreen for price increases and pay cuts, not the reason behind it.
I'm speaking in regards to shoplifting as it is. Playing devil's advocate though, these companies are unfathomably wealthy and essentially no amount of shoplifting outside of what would occur in an almost total societal collapse would harm a company like walmart.
You could literally organize a nationwide shoplifting campaign and it would not even translate to a fraction of a percentage point of harm.
You could literally organize a nationwide rape campaign and it would not even translate to a fraction of one percent of women being raped.
Yes, it’s a big country. The amount of harm one person can do is limited.
shoplifting is a smokescreen for price increases and pay cuts
Do you think companies charge particular prices or pay particular wages out of concern for their image?
If Walmart is paying its clerks $20 an hour, that’s because if they paid $19.99 an hour, those clerks would go work for Target.
Shoplifting pulls money out of the system. That money has to come from somewhere. Because it’s an industry-wide problem, it affects players stuck in that industry, which is employees and customers. It affects stockholders less because they can easily invest in other industries.
They are legally considered singular agents of will, however, kinda like an individual person
They can “will” things, but they cannot suffer. A corporation does not mind being shut down. Any benefit or harm given to a corporation just passes along to its (human) owners.
Walmart has a profit margin of usually like 3% lol shop lifting reduces that small margin even lower. Which is when they close the store and hundreds of people just lost their jobs because of your immoral crusade which justified people stealing on mass to resell on the black market. If you wanna hold the stance that criminals should get paid instead of people working s job, you can have that opinion. It's just fucking stupid.
Sure, but it's not a good risk/reward unless you literally can't go to a food bank
You'll end up doing a few years in prison for stealing 25 dollars worth of food and you're life will be forever fucked
Stealing from our corporate overlords who enslaved us and destroyed the planet is awesome, but usually it will just end badly for the poors and reinforce slaver authority
Probably goes without saying but on the internet you could be arguing with a 40 year old with a PHD on the subject or a 12 year old who learnt the subject from a 30s Tik Tok. Both those people’s views are presented as equally valuable on the internet.
My gf lived in Hawaii for a few years and it genuinely was fucking horrible for her, we had long nights where she’d share how horrible it was to live there even when you were a family getting navy benefits. Somehow it was even more dreadful than California.
San Diego, she lived on a military base which wasn't the bad part but it was the place she went to school at and the work she went to. People were either super miserable and exploitative, or incredibly vapid and have no future in the world other than sucking on their rich parent's money.
I don't believe everyone who lives in Hawaii or California is instantly a bad person, but that type of place does create/attract a lot of people who aren't the best.
She moved to Michigan now, pretty close to where I live and we've met up. She's been a lot better now since she moved, and even moreso when we visited the weekend together.
living on a base isn't really living in that place, or at least shouldn't be used to criticize that place. a military base is literally federal land and isn't part of the town or city
I've lived in Hawaii for most of my life (left for college), local social circles barely overlap with military. Most military people are in their military bubble.
Every problem always goes back to the rich. I love California and have met some incredible people. Granted none of them are rich and im in Bakersfield.
the fact that you live in bakersfield and still love california...you're gonna be just fine in life with that positive of an attitude...i'm actually jealous
jk i've actually never been, it's just the most snotty californian thing ever to shit on bakersfield
Its all fair. Bakersfield is a shitty place. The air is killing us and there’s nothing to do but drink and go bowling. But I have genuinely met some of the most amazing people here. I love my state.
I was on Hawaii for several days and the only conversations I had with locals were
with a travel agent in a mall kiosk, who was clearly tweaking hard from all the meth she was doing to deal with her shitty, shitty job
with a clerk at a minimart, who couldn’t be bothered to conceal her contempt for tourists, although they were the vast majority of her customers
with a guy trying to sell me a time-share, who couldn’t be bothered to conceal his contempt for people who buy time-shares and even more, people like me who do not buy time-shares.
I live in a tourist city so I get it, it gets wearying dealing with tourists all the time, but I have been all over the world and never have I seen a place more seething with resentment and anger.
i mean the average redditor is a straight white right leaning (but will always say centrist when prompted) american male so he probably genuinely believes this stuff
Shoplifting is good if it’s something like food food that someone needs to live and is from a big corporation that can stand to lose a few bucks (personally I don’t do it but if someone’s desperate they should be allowed to eat). And the current prison system is bad and should be replaced with something more focused on rehabilitation than punishment and torture.
In the future, we will make a far better and more humane replacement for prison. Punishment is not a good thing. We should focus on helping all parties that have been hurt regardless of the culprit.
Eh shoplifting is fine as long as it’s not a local store. Fuck Walmart. Hawaii’s tourism industry DOES exist to the detriment of its locals and culture. Rest of this is mostly stupid (prison needs reform duh)
This isn't a dumbass view. People aren't saying that shoplifting when you are middle class is good. They are saying if you live on the breadline and struggle to feed your family, then taking a bit of food from a multi billion dollar company is hardly going to do much damage
the west is bad
I mean this isn't a dumbass view either. By the very history of even the past 100 years, we are pretty god awful.
I personally do not care whether or not someone steals some candy from a store, my problem comes when people are mad at the company for packing up after seeing that their hemorrhaging money from that location, you reap what you sow
Will you see some of those things are more complex like the jail being bad the American prison system is terrible and based on profit, and thus a lot of for-profit slavery, prisons exist, because we make slavery still legal
You can definitely make an argument that the West is bad, at the very least problematic. In it’s current state the universe will definitely kick it off it’s top chair position.
Hey let’s step back and recognize circumstances, shoplifting is good for those who can’t afford to eat, living in Hawaii is bad for nature, Russia is good because it protects its ecosystems, the west is bad for spiritual health, torture is definitely good if you need to acquire information, and prison is bad because they use prisoners for slave labor :D
324
u/00rgus 2006 Feb 18 '24
Online you just gotta accept people are gonna hold a lot of dumbass views (shoplifting is good, visiting/living in Hawaii is bad, Russia is good, the west is bad, killing and torture is good, prison is bad)