Comment by dj_mc_merlin | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dj_mc_merlin | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I can't say I agree fully with the original video either but this is just blatantly trying to reframe the same facts presented in said video, but placing the blame on consumers rather than businesses, which is a really dirty tactic.

> Sysco serves poor quality products. They also serve great quality products. Remember, if restaurants are buying poor quality products, it’s because it’s all you, the consumer, will pay for.

"feel bad about being poor"

> Again, animal welfare is not a Sysco issue. Sysco offers countless sources for humanely-raised meat. And, as always, as a consumer, if you want to be really sure: stop eating meat, and tell everyone you know to do so as well.

"feel bad about eating meat"

> Ironically, the foods analyzed in the video as a sign of “quality” are fried pickles, jalapeño poppers, and funnel cake fries. These are inherently low-quality processed foods that no one in their right sobriety should be eating.

"feel bad about food choices"

> The More Perfect Union narrative stops just short of calling Sysco a monopoly. They’re not. They only control 35% of the market

"only 35%"

I mean, c'mon.. was this written by a real person or Adam Smith come back from the grave?

>"feel bad about being poor"

Getting rid of Sysco isn't going to magically make them able to afford pricier options either.

>"feel bad about eating meat"

Feeling bad about eating meat feels bad, but if meat production is ethically and environmentally questionable why should we let the consumers off the hook? Should we let gas guzzling SUV drivers off the hook as well for their choices because it might make them feel bad? Better blame a faceless corporation instead so we can feel smug while not changing our lifestyles at all. After all, ExxonMobil could have theoretically synthesized carbon neutral gasoline, rather than pumping it out of the ground (never mind the cost), so the blame lies with them.

>"only 35%"

What's your preferred market share then?

My point was that this is just the same tactic that corporations have been using for decades. For example, rather than fix systemic issues that cause them to dump mass amounts of greenhouse gases or toxic waste, they instead reframe the issue so that the consumer is at fault: "you don't recycle enough". This is the same, it's just reframing corporations cutting costs wherever they can as the fault of the consumer rather than just plain entshittification. For the record I agree with your point about eating meat and such, it's just not relevant to the discussion at hand and used just as a cheap appeal to emotion/shame.

>For example, rather than fix systemic issues that cause them to dump mass amounts of greenhouse gases or toxic waste, they instead reframe the issue so that the consumer is at fault: "you don't recycle enough".

This is a strawman. Even before "recycling is a lie" entered into the zeitgeist a few years ago, approximately nobody thought people failing to recycle led to greenhouse gas or toxic waste, or that recycling was going to prevent those things. At best they did it out of some vague sense of "environment". If pressed they'll probably say something about landfill space or sea turtles, but I doubt they thought recycling was going to stop global warming, or clean up the polluted rivers in China/India.

>This is the same, it's just reframing corporations cutting costs wherever they can as the fault of the consumer rather than just plain entshittification.

To some extent it is the fault of the consumer. Restaurants are a competitive market with low barriers to entry. If consumers actually want unique local flavors an non-frozen foods, and are willing to pay a premium for it, sysco would have never gotten a foothold. Sure, cheap frozen food is objectively bad and you'd have a tough time finding someone who'd explicitly say "yes, I do want reheated frozen food at restaurants", but if people are willingly choosing it, then it's just demonstrating expressed preference vs revealed preference. The fact that mcdonalds serves cheap low quality food (compared to even something like olive garden) can't be blamed on "plain entshittification".

> If consumers actually want unique local flavors an non-frozen foods, and are willing to pay a premium for it, sysco would have never gotten a foothold.

This is rooted in the assumption that capitalism provides what people want, rather than the worst that they will still accept. Endlessly cutting costs and then blaming the tastes of the consumer is why people put out anti-corporation pieces like the original video. That is not to say that Sysco is not operating logically.. but if the best move in a system leads to an unfavourable outcome for those that should benefit from it, then the system itself is the problem. Or another way to phrase it: there is a reason why that video resonated with many people that goes beyond trying to blame others for your problems.

>This is rooted in the assumption that capitalism provides what people want, rather than the worst that they will still accept.

Can you really say people "want" more expensive/unique/non-frozen food when they choose the cheap one every time? It's like with flights. People complain about how shitty flying is, but most people are also sorting by price and buying the cheapest.

I think it's kind of a lemon market effect. I could pay 50 more for a flight but how do I know I'll have more leg room anyway? Maybe they'll just upcharge me. Same for restaurants if you're a traveler and don't have time to get familiar with the reputation.

You can go off marketing, but every place will try to present it's food as unique and well crafted even if it's premade.

>but how do I know I'll have more leg room anyway?

google flights literally has a legroom indicator.

>Maybe they'll just upcharge me.

the common upchargeable items (eg. baggage) can either be found on google flights, or are easily searchable.

>Same for restaurants if you're a traveler and don't have time to get familiar with the reputation.

That's basically a perennial problem with tourist trap restaurants, no need to invoke "enshittification" or corporation bashing.

I actually don't really care about the SUV drivers themselves and care far more about the companies that stopped selling other types of car, because of government policies that incentivized them to do so.

Individuals can't reasonably be blamed for systemic problems.

> I mean, c'mon.. was this written by a real person or Adam Smith come back from the grave?

It does smell a little AI-assisted.

From now until the death of humanity, someone is going to make this statement every day, about every post, until I just can't take it anyone and pass away from exhaustion.

I abhor AI, and did not use a single bit of it.

BTW, despite disagreeing with you on this topic, I read other parts of your blog and, as somebody else who experiences manic episodes, I actually more or less 100% agree with your "Core Beliefs" section. I've seen this before in other people I've met like me, but it does make me wonder about the nature of manic states and nature/nurture. Do these beliefs trigger individuals to enter manic states, or is predisposition to manic states something that makes individuals adopt this set of beliefs? The subtitle of your blog is "wired differently", but the weird part is many people are wired differently but in vastly similar ways.

I think the two are uncorrelated. I don't think that most people prone to mania would agree with our beliefs. I think it has more to do with us posting on HackerNews thus being interested in similar topics.

Very well could be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com