this post was submitted on 04 May 2024
-14 points (23.1% liked)

Canada

7210 readers
395 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Universities

πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping

πŸ—£οΈ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
-14
Is the Loblaw boycott privileged? Here's why some people aren't shopping around (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 6 months ago by RandAlThor@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RandAlThor@lemmy.ca 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

For some with limited choices, this would be a challenge. Living in a large metropolitan area, I am fortunate to have alternatives.

[–] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Not to mention, the 'privilege' is given by whether or not you have a monopoly in the area. That's not decided by the person, but by whether or not our societal systems have bothered to prevent said monopoly.

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

At the same time, attacking an organized effort to do that thing we're repeatedly told is our only option ("vote with your wallet") by pointing out that some people have no options isn't something done in good faith.

No one is expecting people with no ability to shop elsewhere to do so, nor to starve. It's a strawman argument.

[–] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

No one is expecting people with no ability to shop elsewhere to do so, nor to starve. It’s a strawman argument.

100% agree, if anything it proves the point -- they have a monopoly in many areas, and that should be illegal.