this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2024
918 points (97.6% liked)
memes
10567 readers
5208 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Uhhh?
These people stripped shelves empty, causing many babies to go hungry because nothing was in stock.
I feel like taking a whole shelf of baby food is a bit noticable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_infant_formula_shortage
Notice how theft, shoplifting, or resale aren't present anywhere on that page. The media overstates claims of the prevalence of shoplifting all the time. The claims around shoplifting are bullshit
The question is about which is worse: do you what kids to suffer to make sure nobody can enrich themselves. Or do you allow some scumbags through the net but no child goes hungry?
Ideally of course you could have both but that would first require a few guillotined politicians and capitalists.
Unless you’re that store’s manager, you should be more upset that people who are hungry aren’t being fed to the point they resort to theft.
Actually, you should be more upset by that either way. I understand not wanting to support theft of food just to eat but something is wrong when you condemn it.
I support theft of food to eat.
I don’t support organised crime denying babies food.
you cannot know which one is which when you see a person shoplifting
if you snitch on them, there are two outcomes:
whoever organised the crime of stealing baby formula doesn't get their daily quota from the person they told to do it, and either helps or punishes the person desperate enough to go and do the actual shoplifting for them. You helped a corporation avoid theft
a baby goes without food, and an already impoverished parent is financially, legally, or socially punished. You helped a corporation avoid theft
is it worth it to possibly make a mother cry as her baby goes hungry, to try to help a corporation?
In fairness to their argument, I have actually seen serious consequences from the mass theft of baby formula. When I worked in a children's hospital, we had babies coming in with malnutrition problems because they required a special formula that was completely unavailable. The parents couldn't buy the formula because it was out of stock at every store they were able to get to with the transportation and time available to them.
People stealing massive amounts of formula cause massive problems because the specialty formulas are hard to find to begin with, and these people are clearing out store shelves to sell it overseas.
The wealthy parents that live in nicer neighborhoods with fancier stores and fewer problems with shoplifting don't run into this issue. It the poor families in food deserts that are most impacted by this kind of mass theft, and they're the families least able to work around it by just going to another store to buy it.
I think it would be a net zero for babies getting access to food because it's not like it's being stolen to be destroyed or processed into something that won't eventually get fed to some baby.
Though it might be equivalent to scalping if the goal is to create a shortage to sell at a higher price in the same area. But I'd bet that if it's being sold locally, it's at a discount.