4 ms·

I'm rather well off and I'll still pay attention to the price of my groceries. Especially luxuries like protein bars. If it's too much, I'll either only get the

I'm rather well off and I'll still pay attention to the price of my groceries. Especially luxuries like protein bars. If it's too much, I'll either only get them where they'll cheaper or just outright not buy it. It's nuts that people genuinely believe statements like this.

krackers 8mo ago
>or just outright not buy it Yes, but that is different from going out of your way to purchase the protein bar at the lower price in the place you can find it. You are not going to drive to another supermarket for just the protein bar alone. So there is an intrinsic stickiness. You might hold off on the purchase if you're happening to visit the other store in the near future, but would you drive to a store you've never heard of before /just/ for a bar?
- jahsome 8mo ago
  > but would you drive to a store you've never heard of before /just/ for a bar Some people have no choice. Checking other stores and planning multiple trips is exactly what they do, e.g. those on fixed income, coupon power-users, etc. Outside our comfy bubble here, there are a LOT more folks in that camp than those buying luxury goods.
threethirtytwo 8mo ago
It’s an aspect of the truth. Tons of people don’t price match and tons of people do. Whats nuts about humans is the quickness of judgement and extremity of statements. Think about this, the man who said that is not actually nuts. And you calling him “nuts” is actually the more ludicrously unrealistic statement.
- krackers 8mo ago
  I also did err by making a blanket statement "no one price matches for protein bars", so GP was right to call it out. I do understand and see that there are cases in which one's time preference could be such that it is sensible or necessary to price-match at that granularity even when buying a single unit. However even then there's still other constraints such as cost of transportation & reputation of vendor. Even today you can often find protein bars or name-brand supplements on Amazon for a slightly lower price (including shipping) than supermarkets, but that comes with the risk of adulterated, expired, or tampered products that not everyone will accept for the sake of slightly lower prices.
  - threethirtytwo 8mo ago
    >I also did err by making a blanket statement "no one price matches for protein bars", so GP was right to call it out. This was clearly an error. GP is right to call it out, but not right to characterize it as nuts. It's obvious what you meant.
    - jahsome 8mo ago
      It's not that "nuts" to take the literal meaning of people's own words. Calling it "obvious" someone meant something rather than what they actually typed with their own fingers is pretty nuts though. It might be common for folks to misspeak (mistype), but that by no stretch of the imagination makes their actual meaning obvious. It's quite literally the opposite...
      - threethirtytwo 8mo ago
        So you’re saying I’m nuts? Do you go to peoples faces and say that? You’re not nuts. But you are trying to twist the logic to justify your own situation. The correct word to characterize this is “manipulative”. Clearly, no one is nuts on this thread but some people are just dicks. It’s completely normal for people to not be literal, and to also mistakenly say something.
        jahsome 8mo ago
        I didn't say you are nuts, I said your statement is. The distinction should be "obvious" no? Here's a hint though: normal is a myth.
        threethirtytwo 8mo ago
        [flagged]
        Tadpole9181 8mo ago
        > you're a liar... a dick Oh, I have a perfect response for this! "Let me put it this way, would you say what you said to someones face? Your best friend? You mother? or father and call them a liar and a dick because they said something that was off? Would you go on some holier than thou lecture on intent and deception? You would?" They clearly weren't calling you nuts, for what it's worth. Saying something you said is nuts is not the literal saying "the person who said this is clinically insane and should be locked up". Legitimate question, I don't mean to be insensitive, but are you not a native English speaker or something?
- Tadpole9181 8mo ago
  They said "no one". Not even "most", let alone "half" or "some". Those are their words. To live in a country where tens of millions of people have food insecurity, 50 million rely on food stamps, and the median income is 40,000 while the median rent is 1,700 (20,000/year) and claim no one has to watch their grocery bill to their own inconvenience would be utterly disconnected from the reality of the survival of half of their countrymen. Anyway, the irony is not lost that you simultaneously advocate for the parent being interpreted non-literally, by intent, but my colloquial, common use of the word "nuts" is "unacceptable".
  - threethirtytwo 8mo ago
    >To live in a country where tens of millions of people have food insecurity, 50 million rely on food stamps, and the median income is 40,000 while the median rent is 1,700 (20,000/year) and claim no one has to watch their grocery bill to their own inconvenience would be utterly disconnected from the reality of the survival of half of their countrymen. Stop turning this into some kind of holier than thou angle. He knows, you know we all know. >Anyway, the irony is not lost that you simultaneously advocate for the parent being interpreted non-literally, by intent, but my colloquial, common use of the word "nuts" is "unacceptable". It is, because it's a targetted attack. Let me put it this way, would you say what you said to someones face? Your best friend? You mother? or father and call them nuts because they said something that was off? Would you go on some holier than thou lecture on the amount of people relying on food stamps? You would? Then please continue.
    - Tadpole9181 8mo ago
      > it's a targetted attack What are we, children? You're acting like I insulted their mother and called the police. > would you say what you said to someones face? Yes, of course I would. I have. "That's nuts" or "it's nuts" is such a basic, inoffensive phrase and has no bite. I've also said "incredulous" and "absurd" and "crazy" and a myriad of other adjectives. I've also had my arguments called those things - correctly. Maybe we keep different types of company, but when I'm having an argument/debate with friends or family, they're not so delicate we can't call each other out when one of us is being ridiculous. > Would you go on some holier than thou lecture on the amount of people relying on food stamps? Damn, objective facts and counterpoints related directly to the conversation are holier than thou now? I guess I forgot that when people say things diametrically opposed to basic reality, we're all supposed to just ignore it and let it go. After all, we wouldn't want to be seen as a loon by a random guy on the internet, offended on someone else's behalf over a one syllable word that wasn't even directed at any individual, but an idea. I mean, heck, that actually sounds kinda nuts.

krackers 8mo ago

>or just outright not buy it Yes, but that is different from going out of your way to purchase the protein bar at the lower price in the place you can find it. You are not going to drive to another supermarket for just the protein bar alone. So there is an intrinsic stickiness. You might hold off on the purchase if you're happening to visit the other store in the near future, but would you drive to a store you've never heard of before /just/ for a bar?

jahsome 8mo ago
> but would you drive to a store you've never heard of before /just/ for a bar Some people have no choice. Checking other stores and planning multiple trips is exactly what they do, e.g. those on fixed income, coupon power-users, etc. Outside our comfy bubble here, there are a LOT more folks in that camp than those buying luxury goods.

threethirtytwo 8mo ago

It’s an aspect of the truth. Tons of people don’t price match and tons of people do. Whats nuts about humans is the quickness of judgement and extremity of statements. Think about this, the man who said that is not actually nuts. And you calling him “nuts” is actually the more ludicrously unrealistic statement.

krackers 8mo ago
I also did err by making a blanket statement "no one price matches for protein bars", so GP was right to call it out. I do understand and see that there are cases in which one's time preference could be such that it is sensible or necessary to price-match at that granularity even when buying a single unit. However even then there's still other constraints such as cost of transportation & reputation of vendor. Even today you can often find protein bars or name-brand supplements on Amazon for a slightly lower price (including shipping) than supermarkets, but that comes with the risk of adulterated, expired, or tampered products that not everyone will accept for the sake of slightly lower prices.
- threethirtytwo 8mo ago
  >I also did err by making a blanket statement "no one price matches for protein bars", so GP was right to call it out. This was clearly an error. GP is right to call it out, but not right to characterize it as nuts. It's obvious what you meant.
  - jahsome 8mo ago
    It's not that "nuts" to take the literal meaning of people's own words. Calling it "obvious" someone meant something rather than what they actually typed with their own fingers is pretty nuts though. It might be common for folks to misspeak (mistype), but that by no stretch of the imagination makes their actual meaning obvious. It's quite literally the opposite...
    - threethirtytwo 8mo ago
      So you’re saying I’m nuts? Do you go to peoples faces and say that? You’re not nuts. But you are trying to twist the logic to justify your own situation. The correct word to characterize this is “manipulative”. Clearly, no one is nuts on this thread but some people are just dicks. It’s completely normal for people to not be literal, and to also mistakenly say something.
      - jahsome 8mo ago
        I didn't say you are nuts, I said your statement is. The distinction should be "obvious" no? Here's a hint though: normal is a myth.
        threethirtytwo 8mo ago
        [flagged]
        Tadpole9181 8mo ago
        > you're a liar... a dick Oh, I have a perfect response for this! "Let me put it this way, would you say what you said to someones face? Your best friend? You mother? or father and call them a liar and a dick because they said something that was off? Would you go on some holier than thou lecture on intent and deception? You would?" They clearly weren't calling you nuts, for what it's worth. Saying something you said is nuts is not the literal saying "the person who said this is clinically insane and should be locked up". Legitimate question, I don't mean to be insensitive, but are you not a native English speaker or something?
Tadpole9181 8mo ago
They said "no one". Not even "most", let alone "half" or "some". Those are their words. To live in a country where tens of millions of people have food insecurity, 50 million rely on food stamps, and the median income is 40,000 while the median rent is 1,700 (20,000/year) and claim no one has to watch their grocery bill to their own inconvenience would be utterly disconnected from the reality of the survival of half of their countrymen. Anyway, the irony is not lost that you simultaneously advocate for the parent being interpreted non-literally, by intent, but my colloquial, common use of the word "nuts" is "unacceptable".
- threethirtytwo 8mo ago
  >To live in a country where tens of millions of people have food insecurity, 50 million rely on food stamps, and the median income is 40,000 while the median rent is 1,700 (20,000/year) and claim no one has to watch their grocery bill to their own inconvenience would be utterly disconnected from the reality of the survival of half of their countrymen. Stop turning this into some kind of holier than thou angle. He knows, you know we all know. >Anyway, the irony is not lost that you simultaneously advocate for the parent being interpreted non-literally, by intent, but my colloquial, common use of the word "nuts" is "unacceptable". It is, because it's a targetted attack. Let me put it this way, would you say what you said to someones face? Your best friend? You mother? or father and call them nuts because they said something that was off? Would you go on some holier than thou lecture on the amount of people relying on food stamps? You would? Then please continue.
  - Tadpole9181 8mo ago
    > it's a targetted attack What are we, children? You're acting like I insulted their mother and called the police. > would you say what you said to someones face? Yes, of course I would. I have. "That's nuts" or "it's nuts" is such a basic, inoffensive phrase and has no bite. I've also said "incredulous" and "absurd" and "crazy" and a myriad of other adjectives. I've also had my arguments called those things - correctly. Maybe we keep different types of company, but when I'm having an argument/debate with friends or family, they're not so delicate we can't call each other out when one of us is being ridiculous. > Would you go on some holier than thou lecture on the amount of people relying on food stamps? Damn, objective facts and counterpoints related directly to the conversation are holier than thou now? I guess I forgot that when people say things diametrically opposed to basic reality, we're all supposed to just ignore it and let it go. After all, we wouldn't want to be seen as a loon by a random guy on the internet, offended on someone else's behalf over a one syllable word that wasn't even directed at any individual, but an idea. I mean, heck, that actually sounds kinda nuts.