4 ms·
It's part of the "war on poor people". Not a coordinated action but an emergent behavior that keeps the bottom rung of society in their place, and makes sure we
by version_five 4y ago
It's part of the "war on poor people". Not a coordinated action but an emergent behavior that keeps the bottom rung of society in their place, and makes sure we keep our servant class in an appropriate level of bondage
- Finnucane 4y agoWhich in this case apparently includes people getting delivery from Whole Foods.
- bko 4y agoThis law is not limited to Whole Foods
- version_five 4y agoIs the joke/sarcasm in your comment that poor people already can't afford Whole Foods, so them adding regressive costs is ok?
- Finnucane 4y agoI merely point out that this is the example used by the writer of the article. Who seems completely unconcerned about poor people.
- orwin 4y agoWhat's get me is 'delivery'. I don't know US brand, but if you're getting food delivered w/o buying in bulk, you aren't poor. Also, i used to be poor and we took cardboard/wood boxes to carry our vegetables, it was used to lit our fireplace. We rarely took single use plastic bags, and it was before 2005
- manuelabeledo 4y agoHow so? I don't see the connection between generating more trash, and punishing the less fortunate. If anything, banning plastic bags would be a better fit for the narrative. Plastic bags are water resistant, and used to be more resilient and thus more reusable than paper bags. In some Asian countries, plastic bags are used to carry food, even soup, replacing more expensive containers.
- kwatsonafter 4y agoHow did you figure out our plan.
- DarkWiiPlayer 4y agoNothing prevents poor people from actually re-using bags, so it seems more like a war on dumb people.
- taurusnoises 4y agoI know plenty of people who fall below the poverty line who appreciate not effing up the environment.