1200
boytoyrule
(piefedimages.s3.eu-central-003.backblazeb2.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2025
1200 points (98.4% liked)
196
18144 readers
1247 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No she didn't. She was given the choice of A or B. She chose C, and then D, neither of which are on the list. Corporate policy dictates that the worker relist the options of A and B, and that the customer must choose. The worker is following policy, admittedly there is some extremely funny malicious compliance going on. The bigot in the drive thru is refusing to pick from the options that are available.
She was given the choice of A or B. She chose A, twice, and then the employee repeatedly chose to ignore her choice, on purpose.
If the driver had decided to bring the attention to their supervisor, the employee would have been rightfully disciplined for their poor customer service behavior.
Nope. The options of boy toy and girl toy were removed from McDonald's corporate speak as early as 1998-1999 depending on location. Those words were specifically removed from McDonald's corporate speak company wide by 2002. The worker followed company policy to a T.
You are an insufferable bigot.
And yet the OP exists, whether it's a creative writing exercise or not, in which a girl toy and boy toy have clearly been offered to the woman. Regardless of whether the hypothetical restaurant in question is actually a McDonalds, the employee in question would certainly have been disciplined for their actions in the OP if their needlessly antagonistic behavior had made it back to a manager, and that disciplinary action would have been completely warranted.
Believe it or not, many of the people you interact with each day aren't actually bigots. They're just, y'know, reasonable people, which I know must make everyday life very difficult for you.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit I see. She was offered a hot wheel or a barbie. The employee never said the words girl toy or boy toy, because they aren't supposed to call them that.
You even admitted that you're too elitist to work in fast food. Admit that you're wrong and move on. You don't know shit about how corporate language works, clearly.
Also you are defending a bigot, which makes you a bigot
Pragmatics doesn't seem to be your strong suit either.
Also, I literally have worked in fast food, so...
Edit in response to your edit: "Believe it or not, many of the people you interact with each day aren't actually bigots. They're just, y'know, reasonable people, which I know must make everyday life very difficult for you."
Pragmatics doesn't come into play when the employee can be disciplined for breaking corporate policy. Neither I, nor any employee of mine, needs to do anything other than our jobs. The bigot in the window needs to understand that they are viewing the world in an outdated mode of thinking and update their own speech and views. As do you.
Pragmatics literally always comes into play. Humans cannot communicate without pragmatics, because semantics without context doesn't actually exist in the real world.
You know literally nothing about my worldview other than "intentionally being difficult to an innocent customer who probably has no idea why they're being antagonized is usually bad".
Once more for the kids in the back: "Believe it or not, many of the people you interact with each day aren't actually bigots. They're just, y'know, reasonable people, which I know must make everyday life very difficult for you."
I know enough from your absolutely braindead and hostile Karen takes in this thread alone to know that you are an insufferable bigot that enjoys abusing employees that you deem lesser than yourself. I know enough that I can put you into the same group of problem customers that I have had over 20 years of experience kicking your entitled asses out of my restaurants. I know enough that you'd get free food once and told never to come back, as I don't tolerate people abusing my employees.
This comment is an excellent example of an interesting, sill-unsolved question in the Philosophy of Language community: "is it possible to 'know' something that's factually incorrect?"
Researchers seem to be split on the issue, so depending on which researcher you talk to, you could be right!
Claim whatever you want, class traitor.
Assert whatever you like, random person on the internet.
Ohhh ok, you were the asshole manager that everyone made fun of behind their back because they picture themselves as being better than them because they made $10/hr instead of $7
Nope, I was a normal minimum wage employee who worked the counter while I was putting myself through college. I also didn't intentionally antagonize customers who just wanted a happy meal toy for their kid, though, so that may be where the confusion is coming from.
Fuck, dude, why are you so mad at a joke? Stop fucking killing yourself on this hill, you insufferably pointless contrarian fucking moron.
Excellent point, very logical and persuasive. I'm sure this will be the comment that finally changes my mind!
Fuck you, too, then.