KombatWombat

Honestly I would consider that being a self-employed small business owner.

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.

What I meant was, it's generally legal for someone to do this. The tweet was discussing getting some sort of reimbursement for avoiding costly accidents. Having an investment account you can withdraw from when necessary is a way to do this, and is legal. I understand many people wouldn't be able to afford it.

In the US, most states only require some variation of liability-only auto insurance, which basically says if you cause an accident that is terrible for another person, someone will pony up some money to give them financial restitution. This is practically necessary to avoid situations where drivers risk facing financial ruin for other people's mistakes when the at-fault driver can't pay. Expecting every driver to have a reserve of cash sufficient to cover potentially multiple totaled cars in an accident they cause from the moment they start driving is not feasible.

Beyond that, you can generally use your own savings to cover your personal financial loss from accidents. If you don't already have a decently sized reserve, it's probably best to have some more comprehensive insurance until you've built up enough to mitigate early risk. I think most people would choose to just use comprehensive insurance indefinitely and not worry about it rather than needing to pay for insurance while also building up their personal reserve. But if you can afford to build your personal savings and aren't prone to accidents, self funding would likely save you a lot in the long term.

Insurance is basically a way of spreading out risk. It or some similar system is basically required when people are constantly risking a huge amount of personal wealth, not to mention death or permanent disability.

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.