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.

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.

I am returning to Hollow Knight thanks to the Silksong hype. I had dropped it before because I was unsure where I needed to go to progress and was getting sick of running around the map trying to figure out which paths were actually available to me and which needed some equipment I didn’t have. Well, I did figure it out and basically have everything important unlocked so now I am enjoying it again.

If you do pick it up again, I have some advice. First, there’s a relic in an area called the Hive that will give you passive health regen if there’s a long enough gap between instances of damage. This means you can keep messing up a platforming section and as long as you don’t rush it you can heal back after messing up without needing new sources of soul. Second, there are some sections that are traversable with minimal equipment but become trivial with more. Deepnest was really annoying to me when I went through it and I frankly would have probably enjoyed it if I had one really helpful item unlocked (or even just a bit more health). Third, don’t worry too much about money. Normal enemies don’t give you much from farming and I think I’ve run out of stuff to spend it on mostly from other sources. So don’t be afraid to let it go. If you’ve unlocked the fast travel thing, just head back to vendors when you’ve noticed you accumulated a decent amount.

Like I said, I’m enjoying the game again after years away, but I really wish they had a better way of letting you know where you should go next and what isn’t available to you. Needing to go through zones again to check if something is now unlocked or not is tiresome. The pins help but they are not enough, and I didn’t think to reserve certain colors for certain types of obstacles the first time.

I’m glad someone mentioned the 2008 financial crisis. Banks need to be fairly confident the person they are giving the mortgage to can afford the payment now and for the next thirty years. There are plenty of unfair reasons why someone may not be able to buy a home today, but not being able to afford a down payment is not one of them.

I think this is the right explanation, assuming the story is true. Dry noodles expand when put in hot water, and I would think that includes gastric acids in the human body. The boy started having symptoms in half an hour and died soon after. That’s too fast for something like food poisoning, and they didn’t find anything wrong with the noodles being sold. So it sounds like pressure buildup from them expanding inside him caused damage.

OP, I would be careful not to eat too much at once, and eat slowly. The boy ate three packets at once. Maybe eat some other stuff with it so the noodles can’t build up a large mass of just noodles.

I think the undo button was Android-only

How can you think it’s proven as the only reason for their objection? And why do you think I’m a threat to women? Just because we’ve both been saying it’s bad that men have this unfortunate stereotype?

At best, you would still only have correlation implying causation. But seriously, nothing in these comments shows your accusations as reasonable, let alone true.

This analogy is specifically from the perspective of crewmates. It is wrong for crewmates to die, actually, because this brings your team closer to defeat. I think you might also think that I view the crewmates as women?

No, I didn’t think you were making the crewmates just women. My point was, it’s not morally wrong for the imposters to kill in the game, because unlike real life, the sides are diametrically opposed and all players want their opponents to earnestly try to win. Crewmates don’t want imposters to just let them do tasks because then there would be no game. In that sense, killing crewmates is cooperating by making it a fun challenge for everyone. By the same token, it’s not morally wrong for crewmates to make accusations against people in meetings or otherwise treat them suspiciously, it’s how everyone wants others to play. But the moral weight to accusations in real life means it’s not ok to make them casually. There is a burden of proof to overcome.

If the game were programmed such that red crewmates were exclusively the ones chosen to be imposters, regardless of how this might damage the video game’s fun, don’t you think that being near a red crew member would set off some alarm bells? Wouldn’t you think of green crew members as more safe?

I don’t know where you are going with this. I guess my level of caution would depend on frequency of imposters. If half of red crewmates were imposters, sure. If it’s 1 in 1000, I wouldn’t be alarmed. But that’s not representative of real life either. Neither predators nor victims of sexual crimes are exclusive to any group. We could talk about statistics but this is about perception of threat and fear. They’re only very loosely tied to reality, especially when it comes to small samples like individual encounters with strangers.

Again, you cannot assume that they chose to call it unfair simply as a self-defense mechanism. Imagine someone accused your family of being murderers, then said the only reason you would be upset by that is if you really did have murderous proclivities and felt self-conscious about it.

And frankly, even if that was their entire motivation for calling it unfair in the first place, it does not mean they are wrong.

Well yeah, but presumably if you have a partner already, you aren’t going on too many dates with strangers.

You risk life and limb crossing the street. It is reasonable to take some precautions like looking both ways or waiting on a walk signal. It is not reasonable to assume every driver will swerve into you when they see an opportunity.

Take care to prepare for the worst for your own safety, but don’t assume the worst in others.

Your analogy doesn’t include some important details for the subject. In the game, crewmates and imposters are on different teams and only one of them can win. It’s not “wrong” for an imposter to kill a crewmate because that’s how they play. All players support imposters killing crewmates because it’s what they signed up for. But in real life, we are on the same team. We are all crewmates doing our tasks, although I guess we have the option to kill each other. Acting as if someone doing their tasks near you wants to kill you is then a more meaningful personal judgement rather than just the impersonal scrutiny expected in a social deduction game.

More importantly, it’s relevant that this is one group of people making a judgement about another group of people based on group membership. So it would be like green crewmates assuming a red crewmate is an imposter on the basis of them being red, not any suspicious activity they have noticed. If crewmates had equal innate suspicion towards each other regardless of color (as should happen in the game) then there is no issue.