this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026
1032 points (97.4% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
36654 readers
3749 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I love how wanting people to be courteous and respectful of others is racist. I just want people to realize that they're not alone in the world, and to please move your cart to the side of the goddamn aisle.
Can you read? He's talking about enforcing a separate system, not simply "wanting people to be courteous"
You're completely missing the point. The idea can be fine on it's face, but it will very quickly be used to otherize the undesirables.
That's entirely true.
But that's still a double-edged sword we're playing with.
If you want to run towards a an "inevitable conclusion" in the one direction (resegregation... undesirable... are you even alluding to genocide?)
I think it's fair to do the same in the opposite direction too. Is there no lower bound for human interaction and behavior? Is it wrong to set boundaries for how people treat you?
I like how hyper aware people are for things that could be turned into an avenue for bad things. I think that's actually more than half the battle. Doesn't always mean you toss the idea outright, you just know that you gotta watch out.
I, for one, am in favor of a minimal demonstrated set of awareness and capacity to operate a motor vehicle. I also am in favor of not letting people drive drunk. Someone might say this will inevitably turn into a tool of racism. And guess what, THEY'D BE RIGHT! But, the solution probably isn't to ban cars, or to let anyone drive with no rules of the road and drive drunk.
Yeah, the solution is to orient society in such a way where the operation of a deadly, several ton method of conveyance isn't a requirement to participate in the world. Public transit, biking, and people-oriented spaces. Fuck cars
Fine. The person operating the subway train. Should they be drunk? Should they have needed to demonstrate competency in operating a subway?
Yes, because that would be their job and they wouldn't be excluded from society if they fail to live up to that. They'd just take public transit like anyone else.
I'm saying "systems need to be oriented towards people and how they act, rather than punishing people for being unable to act in a way that they're not wired for". This hypothetical grocery store punishes people for being minorly thoughtless to spare other people the indignity of having to say something or silently suffer with the minor inconvenience.
It takes a human interaction with low stakes and turns it into a systemic interaction where harm to people becomes an abstract thing, so harm tends to become more prolific.
I could get behind you on this if the post was saying that all grocery stores must have that limitation. In the subway example, it'd be like saying that the only labour that exists is being a subway driver. The calculus changes when, like you said, it's mandatory.
If this idea was implemented and had any amount of popularity it would spread everywhere like wild fire cause it'd be one more thing to ~~crush the poor with~~ cater to white people who ~~can't be fucked to talk to people~~ don't want to be inconvenienced. People usually don't have much choice in what stores they have access to (see food deserts)
It's incredibly one dimensional to say that people wanting to shop in a place where patrons extend basic human decency to one another would be only be popular because people want to ... crush the poor.
If your only cognitive tool is a hammer, ever idea is going to sound like a nail.
I feel like you think I'm not understanding your position. I am. I hear it ad nauseum.
I'm challenging you to consider if your approach is so narrow that you can't even comprehend the premise. "I don't want to get mashed up by a cart" necessarily translating to "I want to suppress the poor" should be setting off warning alarms that you're not engaging in the idea or discussion with a full toolset.
I feel like you don't understand the position because there is nothing in what you're saying that implies that you do.
I'm going to play this conversation as it occurred from my perspective to see if you see what I mean.
Your first response is "you're taking an absurdist position, so I'll take the opposite absurdist position to demonstrate the problem. Could we eliminate all racist rules, of course not. Car rules can be racist, but we can't just not have car rules"
I reply "yeah, but we can not have cars. Cars aren't a requirement for society"
You reply "but rules would still apply to those who do the not-car transport"
I reply "yes, but that wouldn't exclude them from society. They would still be able to participate, unlike those kicked out of the hypothetical store"
To which you reply "but the grocery store wouldn't apply to everywhere"
And I retort "no, but if they had any popularity, they would expand in order to deny disadvantaged people groceries at these 'better' stores"
And then your latest reply, which I can't summarize without it becoming a straw man (my failing, not necessarily yours).
This grocery store isn't "people extending basic decency" it's "people not inconveniencing others on threat of permanent removal". One is a social contract extended by and agreed to by others (basic decency) and the other is a threat enforced by the system, in this case the grocery store. You're arguing that systems need rules. I'm arguing that using systems when it could just be standard human interaction is insane. Do you see the disconnect now?
Systems should be built to accommodate humans, not replace human interaction. Jane paying with a checkbook isn't a reason she be barred from a public service. Christ on bikes, man.
Not what I'm fucking saying, but good try. Something being used to justify racism isn't saying "this is on its face racism" its saying "racists will use the stringent, strict rules of this place to deny people of color access to this space". All of these complaints are things that everyone does to some extent, you just get frustrated by them when you're probably already frustrated.
People of color take up more space in white people's heads, so they get more policing of their behavior even if it isn't justified. A group of white boys being loud in a grocery store get head shakes and "boys will be boys" comments. A group of black boys being loud in a grocery store get followed around by security and white women clutching their purses.
Also fun how you sidestepped the ableism I brought up in that same sentence. Cause you know there's no fucking argument there, huh?
I thought both arguments were stupid and so I chose to not continue typing. I guess everything can be used to discriminate against someone, so fuck it, let's do nothing! Yawn yawn yawn.
Then shut the fuck up and leave the conversation.
Wow, false dichotomy much? I get it, you liked the idea and think me attacking it is like me attacking you. Once you grow up, you'll realize that not everything is about you.
Sorry, I meant if you grow up.
You're really aggressive, man
Yeah, I tend to be perceived that way. I'd rather be seen as aggressive than be a polite asshole
You tend to be perceived that way because you act that way.
Yes. I made the choice to be like that rather be perceived as polite. Apologies that that wasn't clear. I'd rather spend my time thinking through things rather than making my words nice for others. I'm neurodivergent, I've spent a lifetime trying to mold myself into the box of etiquette and it drove me mad and made me quiet. I'm choosing now to say what needs to be said in how I need to say it.
Like saying that something would be used to further racism and ableism and then checking the people who don't like to be confronted with that idea.
Buddy, neurodivergence isn't an excuse for aggressive behavior when you acknowledge that you're knowingly and willingly acting aggressively.
That's like saying it's fine for someone with anger management issues to be aggressive instead of expecting them to moderate their behavior.
All of us, neurodivergent or not, have to take how we act towards others into account and tailor our behaviors accordingly.
Accidentally behaving aggressively because you didn't realize it would come across as aggressive is a different story.
Yes, that's what I mean. I'm unintentionally aggressive, but attempting to moderate that causes me to shutdown and not say anything instead. I'm making the conscious effort to speak instead of give into the obsession of over-moderating what I say to the point where I stop talking. So by making the choice to talk regardless, I'm intentionally being aggressive rather than quiet.
Dude was twisting my words and using fallacies to protect his paper thin "argument". I did my best without directly insulting him. Well, until that last comment. Shouldn't have done that.
Not sure why you felt I attacked you, but that's fine. We've obviously got different opinions on the matter, and that's okay. If it's because I called the argument stupid, I didn't mean for that to be a reflection of you, it's just the exact kind of false dichotomy you're accusing me of here, and it's tired and overused here and on Reddit.