[dj_mc_merlin]

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?

[gruez]

>"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?

[dj_mc_merlin]

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.

[queenkjuul]

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.

[TimorousBestie]

> 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.

[esseph]

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.

[liface]

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