4 ms·
Not going to get involved in this any further because I still think you're bike shedding. Just -- there's some intense irony in saying someone looks like "emoti
by chaps 3y ago
Not going to get involved in this any further because I still think you're bike shedding. Just -- there's some intense irony in saying someone looks like "emotional moron" to win an argument. Stones, glass houses, etc.
But if France was knowingly shipping arsenic-laden cheese to the US in a way that displaced the local economy to the degree that the only available cheese is poison? That'd, at least, cause some violent diarrhea.
- kortilla 3y agoThe intent of the words is wrong, not the literal meaning. There is no violence to someone offering a cheaper product. You either don’t understand the meaning of “bike shedding” or you think one small portion of the economy struggling to compete on the price is “violent”. Either way, I think you’re confused about the definition of something pretty fundamentally. If it was really the choice between, “you’ll get poisoned and have violent diarrhea if you eat this cheaper option” or “keep buying the previous local option”, both options would stay available. So the point you tried to make really missed the mark. The way that arsenic rice could crush the local market is only if it had essentially no near to mid term side effects. If it was obvious people wouldn’t buy it.
- chaps 3y agoLol, friend. The "mark" I was trying to hit wasn't any point about arsenic or sickness. The entire point of that post was to use "violent" as a flavor word in an attempt to be clever to show that words are wibbly wobbly. Calm down and take a breath.
- kortilla 3y ago“Economic violence” is a real thing though in the non physical sense. This wasn’t it. That’s what makes the use of the term so bad here.