3 ms·
> And like, all of that aside, even if you meet NONE of those categories, I still, frankly, believe it's not only possible but the only ethical response to all
by brvsft 3y ago
> And like, all of that aside, even if you meet NONE of those categories, I still, frankly, believe it's not only possible but the only ethical response to all of this is: we should have a society that leaves enough room for people to fuck up occasionally without ruining their goddamn lives.
At this point, I don't understand what the fuck you people are talking about. This is an article about people paying for subscriptions they don't use, not people ruining their goddamn lives. The hyperbole is extensive, is this article posted to some Socialist Discord so everyone can raid the comments? Why is this level of bad faith discussion occurring?
- ToucanLoucan 3y agoThe topic of the original post is an article about that. The GP comment we're all replying to took that as a direction to discuss how many people do not take care of their finances, and how you, as an individual, are on your own. Several comments in reply to that person went on to discuss how "take care of your financial health" is only really an applicable statement when the person in question is at least somewhat educated in finance: that tons of people reach adulthood without that knowledge or those skills. And, that situation is complicated still more by the fact that many businesses, quite intentionally, are preying on both that lack of knowledge in general, and on people at large using dark patterns to obfuscate or make canceling subscriptions difficult. Then, off of that, someone else commented saying that they felt a reply was misrepresenting what was said by another, stating that "we all know people who are sloppy with their finances", which is, IMO, a clear and standard example of the appeal to common belief fallacy. To which I challenged, citing numerous experiences to the contrary I have had, and my utter lack of experiences to this common knowledge I have been told is common knowledge: that people, by and large are poor because they fail at money management, and not, which is my contention, that the majority of that time they are not poor because of bad money management, but they are poor because they are poor and are being taken advantage of. This is not hyperbole, this is just an evolving discussion. If you don't like the direction it's taking, you're free to not participate.