this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
665 points (94.5% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

6317 readers
74 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Hatred often makes you want to hurt people, but people hurt peope in the name of greed more often, and not only with less potential for guilt, but is often the cause of delusional accolades and reassurance both from within oneself and from others.

Hypothetical:

A CEO lays off 10,000 employees that helped that company succeed, solely to increase earnings and not because the company is hurting, not only seriously hurting 9,997 people, but causing 3 to commit suicide.

A bumpkin gets in a fight with someone he hates the melanin of because he's a moron and kills them.

Who did more damage to humanity that day? They're both, I want to say evil but evil is subjective, they're both highly antisocial, knowingly harmful behaviors, yet one correctly sends you to prison for a long time if not forever, while the other, far more premeditated and quite literally calculated act, is literally rewarded and partied about. Jim Kramer gives you a shout out on tv, good fucking times amirite!

Edit: and this felt relevant to post after someone tried to lecture me about equating layoffs to murder.

"Coca-Cola killed trade unionists in Latin America. General Motors built vehicles known to catch fire. Tobacco companies suppressed cancer research. And Boeing knew that its planes were dangerous. Corporations don't care if they kill people — as long as it's profitable."

https://jacobin.com/2020/01/corporations-profit-values-murder-culture-boeing

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (47 children)

Hatred is too, yet we recognize that flaw/failing/deficit/defect in ourselves and attempt to minimize it's effects by educating children that it is bad and not socially acceptable and with punishment if practiced to a harmful degree.

I argue practiced greed should be treated similarly. Greed is a vice and a personal failing. Modern society seems to have complety abandoned this fact. It's part of our darker nature right next to hatred. It's one of the most prominent devils on our shoulders, not angels. We should be teaching kids that harming someone else, even if allowed, if it gives them the opportunity to get more or "succeed" is deeply wrong, and even wanting a lot more than others no less deserving than you is wrong, not "rational self-interest."

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Here is the logic issue with your post:

  • person lays off 10k employees to help the bottom line

  • capital responds positively and investment in the company grows

  • company eventually expands to 20k more hires

  • goods reach more people

Every decision the CEO (or whatever officer) made has knockoff effects that make it impossible to prove said person laid people off for their own benefit.

Your example and proposed moral challenges do not align with reality

[–] MinekPo1@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think the "good" of letting 20k people not starve eventually, is outweighed by making 10k starve. This is of course hyperbole, but I hope I get my point across. Besides this strikes me as very similar to effective altruism and long-termism, which are slippery slopes by themselves, but that is besides the point.

Also:

make it impossible to prove said person laid people off for their own benefit.

No. CEOs most often receive bonuses for making the company more profit, so the CEO is most likely not doing this to get good to more people, but for their own pocket.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don't starve when you get laid off lol. You get another job. I got laid off 6 months ago and have an awesome new gig.

[–] MinekPo1@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I stated as such. Being laid off can, but not always is, a source of insecurity and stress. Over half of Americans, cannot afford to loose their job, as it means loosing the roof over their heads. And again, as I stated, my original statement was hyperbole and I stand by the point I wanted to make:

Making 10 000k potentially loose their home, savings, life, is not outweighed by keeping 20 000k just above poverty.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You know how I know you and no one you love has ever been anywhere close to an "average worker?" It's because you think things like this.

People get laid off all the time and yet it is very rarely something shattering to their lives.

Also your belief that most people are "just above poverty" is absurdly offensive. Maybe consider leaving your ivory tower and interacting with people.

[–] MinekPo1@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] SCB@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

Living paycheck to paycheck doesn't mean what you think it means.

You're talking to someone who has lived paycheck to paycheck for most of his life.

load more comments (45 replies)