• TJDetweiler@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    For the first 2 points: Don’t use “Western democracies”. This is a US problem. Canada has much stronger labour and home protections.

    3rd point: Getting banned online is a “you” problem. Your government has nothing to do with why your shitty opinions get you banned or muted. The fact that you even have the ability to complain about your government online is a luxury many other governments don’t afford to their people.

    4th point: Whining about cereal variety makes the entire argument hold less water. Who the fuck cares about brands of cereal. Buy your cereal or don’t, but shut the fuck up about it. This is an empty complaint about capitalism.

    5th point: Fair enough.

    I don’t directly mean you, OP. Unless you made the meme… In which case I do mean directly you.

    • halvar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think cereal is brought in to demonstrate the absurdity of the situation, where something so basic as worker’s or renter’s rights are non-existent but somehow energy already has went into something so stupid as cereal, which indeed nobody cares about.

    • mumblerfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      First point is definetly a problem in other western democracies. In Sweden there is the “loyalty obligation”, which states that you have to – according to one of the centrist unions here – “put the interest of the company above your own”. It is a strong intrusion in your freedom of speech.

        • mumblerfish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          “Unionen”. I think they focus a lot on like engineers and bosses, and other upper middle class jobs.

          I don’t think the union is really to blame there, “loyalty obligation”, lojalitetsplikt, is afaik a set of laws that really does what Unionen says about it. It’s not the union implementing it.

          To be frank, I think its quite a refreshingly honest phrasing they are using. A more company-friendly way would be like “we all like to be teamplayers, and that is what the loyalty obligation is all about”, or something like that. Now it sounds like “you are the guy on the track in the trolly problem meme, get fucked”, and to some degree, fair play to you.

          • OhShitSon@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            From what I could read during my morning fugue state, it seems to me that they’re warning you that the contract you signed when getting hired does not allow you to be disloyal to the company as long as you’re working for it. I could not find anything about it being an actual law, though I’ve been wrong before so it wouldn’t surprise me if I missed something.

            • mumblerfish@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Som anställd har du lojalitetsplikt gentemot arbetsgivaren – även under en uppsägningstid. Se upp så att du inte bryter mot LAS eller lagen om företagshemligheter.

              Om du då är illojal, kan det betyda att du bryter mot LAS ( Lagen om anställningsskydd)

              So it is a colloquial term for those aspects of LAS and lagen om företagshemligheter. Those quotes from Unionen again. There seems to be aspects (the application of this after your employment ends) also regulated in the collective bargening agreements, and those are not laws, that is true.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      They complain about cereals because they’ve been fed so much CCP and USSR Propoganda that they think food variety is a bad thing. They’re not one of us.

      • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        The point is, all the different brands you see are owned by the same handful of megacorporations So you’re not getting actual choice, just the illusion of choice. You’re like a dog who gets excited when your owner feeds you dog food from his hand instead of the bowl, because you think it’s a treat.

        I thought the meme was clear about that, but the average American reads at a third grade level, so I understand reading comprehension can be difficult for you.

        • TJDetweiler@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Pretty shitty thing to say, but anyway…

          Just because a few big corporations make cereal, doesn’t mean you have an “illusion of choice”. It’s kind of how the system works. A company that makes 1 brand of cereal also makes dozens of hundreds more. They are using processes and equipment already in place to make a slight variation on existing products. It’s kind of just how things work. Same with companies like Asus making dozens of hundreds of variations of monitors. I don’t think that’s illusion of choice. That’s actual choices, with actual differences.

          Anecdotally, where I live, large corporations stock the grocery shelves with all their cereals, but local companies do make it in as well. I think in my situation, I do have access to items produced locally.

          If you want to make an argument that some dickhead company like Mondelez owns fucking everything, I’m right with you, but whining about cereal variety makes the argument really weak.