this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
1432 points (98.5% liked)

Today I Learned

17867 readers
16 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

During the trial it was revealed that McDonald’s knew that heating their coffee to this temperature would be dangerous, but they did it anyways because it would save them money. When you serve coffee that is too hot to drink, it will take much longer for a person to drink their coffee, which means that McDonald’s will not have to give out as many free refills of coffee. This policy by the fast food chain is the reason the jury awarded $2.7 million dollars in punitive damages in the McDonald's hot coffee case. Punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant for their inappropriate business practice.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

And why do we blame capitalism instead of generic “evil”?

Because capitalism is the system that actively promotes it and is in every facet of our lives.

It’s greed not evil.

Murdering a baby is evil, letting millions starve to death is business.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Okay, maybe you really do think kings and warlords were more virtuous than shareholders or CEOs. Alas, it was not that way. They were buttholes too. Buttholery is not controlled by the economic system of the day.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You seem to think that I wouldn’t also reject authoritarianism?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

There is no system of governance or economy among humans that you wouldn't reject, if you reject every one in which wrongdoing takes place or people enrich themselves unjustly.

That's my point. "I reject capitalism because people can benefit themselves by doing injustice within it" is dopey, because that predicate is not unique to capitalism; in fact it's universal. In every system of the world, people can benefit themselves by doing injustice within that system.

Therefore, the person who reasons this way would reject any conditions under which they might find themselves living.

Whatever "reject" means here, I'm not entirely sure.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Regulation is still useful. You're basically arguing for anarchy with your naive take. When a system advances the idea to exploit people, the system is fundamentally flawed. Will all systems have abuse? Sure. But that doesn't mean "you will dislike all systems, so it's irrelevant if one is better or worse."

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"I reject capitalism because people can benefit themselves by doing injustice within it"

No, we oppose capitalism because it inherently ENCOURAGES people to benefit themselves by doing injustice. That's a crucial difference.

In every system of the world, people can benefit themselves by doing injustice within that system.

It's equally true that people can be violently bigoted against religious, racial and sexual minorities in every system, but only a few actively ENCOURAGE them to.

[–] Quacksalber -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

And what makes capitalism superior to any other form of resource distribution that humanity has tried so far is not that it does or doesn't allow greed, but it lets the greedy use their greed in a way that has at least the potential to benefit the many. And by having a legal avenue for greed to be used, capitalism forces greed to the surface and makes it legal for everyone to discuss.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh yeah, we’re all feeling that trickle down any day now.

[–] Quacksalber 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are missing the point. EU countries also have capitalism and they are far better off. It's not capitalism that sets taxation laws or anti-trust laws, those are what has failed in the US. In the EU, while not perfect, those types of laws are more rigorous and in turn those countries suffer less from corruption and injustice.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Not everyone is American.

Also capitalism is still ticking up the EU, there’s a reason they have to constantly fight against it just to ensure the most basic of freedoms for its citizens.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Did you just "but maybe" somebody about their own beliefs?

[–] Quacksalber -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Capitalism opens an avenue for greed to be used for the benefit of the many, whereas any other form of resource distribution has no place for greed and as such no place for the greedy. At that point it becomes the same kind of discussion as the prohibition discussion. Do you ban it or do you allow and regulate it. Banning greed won't make it go away, it will only force it into hiding and to undermine the current system. Capitalism forces greed to the surface, at which point people can have a discussion about how much greed should be permitted.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

an avenue for greed to be used for the benefit of the many

Wow, that's some impressive horse shit! The very nature of greed means that it will always benefit the few over the many and the nature of capitalism is that greed is elevated to a virtue, inevitably hurting the many to serve the few rich and powerful.

any other form of resource distribution has no place for greed and as such no place for the greedy

First of all, that's false. Pretty much every centrist and right wing structure of government centers the individual and thus caters to the greed of the individual over the needs of the many.

Besides, if that was true, that would be a good thing! Being greedy isn't some inescapable natural urge that must be satisfied or you explode. Making space for the most base parts of human nature isn't good with cruelty, deceitfulness or (except in the ordered and consensual context of sports and even that is a bit iffy in many cases) violent tendencies, so why do you want to nurture and protect greed?

Banning greed won't make it go away

Sure, but just like the other vices I just mentioned, discouraging it and making it disadvantageous to act in a greedy manner will suppress and lessen its impact on society.

Capitalism forces greed to the surface, at which point people can have a discussion about how much greed should be permitted.

Yeah, that's the same thing people said about right wing extremists when Trump emboldened them and look how that turned out..

Bottom line is that capitalism directly encourages greed and in doing so indirectly encourages cruel indifference towards the lives, health and happiness of anyone who stand in the way of greedy people and corporations. This lawsuit is 100% a symptom of how capitalism hurts people.

[–] Quacksalber -1 points 1 year ago

Wow, that’s some impressive horse shit! The very nature of greed means that it will always benefit the few over the many and the nature of capitalism is that greed is elevated to a virtue, inevitably hurting the many to serve the few rich and powerful.

Under capitalism, a greedy person can sate their greed by offering up something many people are willing to pay for. Elon Musk is a shit human being, but his companies revolutionized the EV market, the commercial rocket launch provider market and Star Link now allows for internet access anywhere. Capitalism has turned his greed, at least in part, into a benefit many can profit from. Similarly, with Elon now tanking Twitter, BluSky, Threads and Mastodon can compete for users that have stopped using Twitter.

First of all, that’s false. Pretty much every centrist and right wing structure of government centers the individual and thus caters to the greed of the individual over the needs of the many.

I was talking about systems of resource distribution, the government concerns itself with the judicial system.

Sure, but just like the other vices I just mentioned, discouraging it and making it disadvantageous to act in a greedy manner will suppress and lessen its impact on society.

Just like the prohibition lessened the impact of alcohol on society? Just like the war against drugs lessened the impact of drugs on society? Just like, as evangelicals would claim it, banning contraception and abortions lessens, in their eyes, the negative impact on society. Historically, the greedy have been, through corruption and the like, just as damaging to society as they have been now.

Yeah, that’s the same thing people said about right wing extremists when Trump emboldened them and look how that turned out…

With a bunch of them in jail and with Trump weakening the republican party for years?

Bottom line is that capitalism directly encourages greed and in doing so indirectly encourages cruel indifference towards the lives, health and happiness of anyone who stand in the way of greedy people and corporations. This lawsuit is 100% a symptom of how capitalism hurts people.

Capitalism isn't to blame for the suffering of the ones standing in the way of the big players, western european nations show that quite clearly. While not perfect, they have much stronger protections for the powerless against the powerful, yet they also employ capitalism. This lawsuit is a failure of the judicial system, it wouldn't have happened in a country with stronger laws against abuse.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Just stop at your first sentance, no it doesn't.