30
The shopping cart is the ultimate test of a good person
(lemmy.world)
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 23 Feb 2026
30 points (94.1% liked)
Dank Memes
7845 readers
5 users here now
This is the place to be on the interweb when Reddit irreversibly becomes a meme itself and implodes
If you are existing mods from r/dankmemes, you should be mod here too, kindly DM me on either platform
The many rules inherited from
- Be nice, don't be not nice
- No Bigotry or Bullying
- Don't be a dick!
- Censor any and all personal information from posts and comments
- No spam, outside links, or videos.
- No Metabaiting
- No brigading
- Keep it dank!
- Mark NSFW and spoilers appropriately
- NO REEEEEEE-POSTS!
- No shitposting
- Format your meme correctly. No posts where the title is the meme caption!
- No agenda posting!
- Don't be a critic
- Karma threshold? What's that?
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Nah. "Don't cause unnecessary harm", job done, you're a good person now.
Well now we have to discuss what harm we consider "necessary", and that's where things get pretty tricky.
Anything where the goal is objectively to help the other person. Pain caused by the dentist, for instance. That's technically harm, but it's necessary, and it's objectively helping the person being subjected to pain.
Anything ideology-related (like conversion camps) is unnecessary harm, because ideology (or morality, for that matter) is subjective.
Locking someone in prison is necessary harm - you're protecting other people from the harm caused by the person locked up, and that's an objective fact.
Killing someone in a defensive war is necessary harm - you're the one being invaded, you can either defend yourself or get killed.
To me, it's all fairly simple.
You’re following the same train of thought that justifies a lot of the rich futurists’ actions. It’s objectively better to help 20 million people down the line even if it costs 1 million lives today, right? I mean, net 19 million. To me, that’s simple.
No, because rich futurists base their actions solely on the belief in a subjective theory. There are many ways to achieve what they're after, and many of those ways do not require anyone's hurt.
The subjective theory that there will be a future? Or their subjective theory on what to do about it, which you are pitting against your own subjective theory on what to do about it? What is objective about your claim that there are many ways to help as many people as possible that don’t involve any hardships?