No, your comment was clear: anyone who doesn’t make whatever level of effort it takes to never shop at Amazon infuriates you. Furthermore, you assume that there are always other choices besides Amazon and Walmart. What you obviously still aren’t getting is that those other choices besides Amazon and Walmart may not be practical for everyone.
Amazon is bad. No one is disagreeing. But if I need a left-handed monkey wrench and my choices are either buy from Amazon or drive 2 hours to the closest major city, go to a big box store that let’s be honest, isn’t really much better than Amazon in terms of economic impact, and then drive 2 hours back, you being infuriated by my choosing to not waste half a day to choose the slightly-greater-of-two-evils is a lovely demonstration of privilege.
And why do you think you have no other choice than Amazon and Walmart in America?
That’s what you said, which is somewhat ambiguous phrasing. It could mean “why do you believe that there are no other choices, because there are?” or it could mean “yes, you have no other choices than those two, but how do you think that happened?”
Given that you started off by arguing that it was infuriating that anyone would ever shop at Amazon, and have been pretty consistent in your other comments that the solution is to just go to “an actual shop”, the first interpretation is much more appropriate to the context.
If you really meant “yes, you have no other choices than those two”, then sure, I’ll accept the back pedaling. It doesn’t change that you are infuriated that anyone would shop at Amazon, and accuse those that do of personally destroying the climate because we are lazy. The fact that you are aware that many people simply don’t have a better option, and yet you still judge them so harshly, only makes you look worse.
It is ambiguous, you’re right. And I already apologized for that.
It’s a vicious cycle. You buy on Amazon, actual stores close, so you buy more on Amazon, thus more actual stores close… And at the end, you have only Amazon and Walmart.
What’s infuriating is not necessarily the fact that people use Amazon. I said that in an other comment. Some people have no other choice. What’s infuriating is people judging normal (I said natural, but it was misinterpreted) to have no other choice that Walmart and Amazon. Or using Amazon where there’s still choice.
And yes, a lot of people can buy groceries in an actual shop. Most people buying them on Amazon can.
And yes, the tyranny of convenience is killing us. Because we are lazy.
Marruk@lemmy.world 1 year ago
No, your comment was clear: anyone who doesn’t make whatever level of effort it takes to never shop at Amazon infuriates you. Furthermore, you assume that there are always other choices besides Amazon and Walmart. What you obviously still aren’t getting is that those other choices besides Amazon and Walmart may not be practical for everyone.
Amazon is bad. No one is disagreeing. But if I need a left-handed monkey wrench and my choices are either buy from Amazon or drive 2 hours to the closest major city, go to a big box store that let’s be honest, isn’t really much better than Amazon in terms of economic impact, and then drive 2 hours back, you being infuriated by my choosing to not waste half a day to choose the slightly-greater-of-two-evils is a lovely demonstration of privilege.
zloubida@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I said explicitly the contrary…
Marruk@lemmy.world 1 year ago
That’s what you said, which is somewhat ambiguous phrasing. It could mean “why do you believe that there are no other choices, because there are?” or it could mean “yes, you have no other choices than those two, but how do you think that happened?”
Given that you started off by arguing that it was infuriating that anyone would ever shop at Amazon, and have been pretty consistent in your other comments that the solution is to just go to “an actual shop”, the first interpretation is much more appropriate to the context.
If you really meant “yes, you have no other choices than those two”, then sure, I’ll accept the back pedaling. It doesn’t change that you are infuriated that anyone would shop at Amazon, and accuse those that do of personally destroying the climate because we are lazy. The fact that you are aware that many people simply don’t have a better option, and yet you still judge them so harshly, only makes you look worse.
zloubida@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It is ambiguous, you’re right. And I already apologized for that.
It’s a vicious cycle. You buy on Amazon, actual stores close, so you buy more on Amazon, thus more actual stores close… And at the end, you have only Amazon and Walmart.
What’s infuriating is not necessarily the fact that people use Amazon. I said that in an other comment. Some people have no other choice. What’s infuriating is people judging normal (I said natural, but it was misinterpreted) to have no other choice that Walmart and Amazon. Or using Amazon where there’s still choice.
And yes, a lot of people can buy groceries in an actual shop. Most people buying them on Amazon can.
And yes, the tyranny of convenience is killing us. Because we are lazy.