0
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 18 Apr 2026
0 points (50.0% liked)
Asklemmy
54075 readers
361 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
And yet that does not absolve us from all personal responsibly.
If someone has two otherwise equal job opportunities, one at a local nonprofit that provides eldercare assistance, and the other at a fortune 500 (two extreme examples to serve the point), I think they should choose the former.
I understand that not everyone has or is able to get these opportunities. But this is effectively the "all consumption under capitalism is unethical" argument, which some people use as an excuse to unnecessarily choose unethically.
yeah, I mean I can't say I consider an oil exec picking new places to exploit to be on the same level as the local car salesperson. Still, the question was ultimately about socialists' positions on middle class insurance salesmen as a category.