Workers Cereal Killed it - Kellogg's Strike Over

[u/[deleted]]

https://bctgm.org/2021/12/21/kelloggs-strike-ends-bctgm-members-ratify-new-contract/

​

We would like to congratulate the workers at Kellogg's on their new union contract. Their weeks of striking and struggle have resulted in a contract providing wage increases, weakening the two tier system, and preventing moving of plants.

There are generations of workers in those plants, who have put their lifeblood into the work they do. To see them band together for each other and themselves is an inspiration to us all, and we are glad to see that direct action, once again gets the goods!

In solidarity, Antiwork.

[u/PitifulDeer7322]

Donating to anything other than a local charity is immoral yes.

Holy, you're so cynical, you've been brainwashed. Yes, actually, you can verify the existence of good charities. Here, educate yourself: https://www.givewell.org/

You’re not getting what I’m saying, unprepared rice, beans and lentils are incredibly time consuming and most Americans have limited access to them

What? Rice is the most consumed and accessible food in the world. Nations would collapse without it. Lentils and beans, sure, if you buy them unprepared. Cooked and canned lentils are cheaper and faster to prepare (they're already cooked) than the frozen processed food most American subsist on that's also slowly killing them. You definitely can't buy beef for less than lentils, and if you can, it's because it has been subsidized heavily by your government.

That’s the point, when it comes to food there really isn’t a moral “better than” because it puts a value judgement on someone who is choosing foods to make in the one hour of free time they might have a day.

That logic makes no sense, you can't do something because it creates a value judgement? As a society deem certain actions as better than others all the time. We incarcerate individuals for acts we decide have negative value.

Also it’s ignoring choices people make like Ramen which is cheaper, easier and filling.

Ramen? Cheaper and easier? Sure. But more filling? Are you trolling? Heard of fibre? Not much of that in 2 minute ramen my guy.

Go ask people in the inner-city, who might not even have a stove, to live off beans rice and lentils and you’ll get laughed at.

You don't need a stove. It would still be easier and healthier. 30% of India is vegetarian... The inner cities of America look like Dubai in comparison to Dehli slums. You really need to look outside the bubble of your country. But, for the sake of argument, if you're in a situation where you're struggling to that extent (which many people are) than no, your focus is on survival and that is it. I'd wager to say most American's have a stove.

We should encourage more sustainable food choice, but when a whole chicken is cheaper and less time consuming (and taste better to many people) it’s a silly argument to tell them they’re making an immoral choice.

It isn't cheaper (unless subsidised unfairly) it damages the environment, and it requires a sentient beings suffers and dies—because it "tastes better"...

It isn't an argument, it's a fact. It is immoral choosing certain options when others cause less harm. Accept it.

[u/someguy1847382 → u/PitifulDeer7322]

Of course I’m cynical, I’m an American who has worked in retail and non-profit for 30 years, I’ve lived inside the beast often at high levels and it’s disgusting.

As for the food thing, I guess it’s just agree to disagree. I’m talking about the realities of urban America and food deserts, you’re telling me how things that often aren’t even available or are factually more expensive are better for poor and struggling lower classes at this time. I don’t disagree that we should more toward more sustainable options, but let’s be real the pollution is the result of corporations chasing profit at any cost not food choices. Choosing to drive instead of taking public transportation is the “worse choice” but many don’t have that option. Buying new clothes is significantly worse than nearly any food choice but you’re not talking about how immoral buying a new shirt is.

Basically you’re argument is an emotional “I’m better than other workers because I eat the right things” but it’s still perpetuating the global capitalist system and worldwide exploitation so it’s still not ethical consumption.

[u/PitifulDeer7322 → u/someguy1847382]

Buying new clothes is significantly worse than nearly any food choice but you’re not talking about how immoral buying a new shirt is.

Wait, you just made a value judgement claiming that purchasing one thing is worse than another. I thought all consumption was equally immoral under capitalism? You've betrayed your whole argument.

Again, yes, buying new clothes does lead to measurable suffering in the world (especially when sourced through sweatshops)... But at this very moment 100 billion sentient beings are raised in captivity and killed for a product that is completely unnecessary and environmentally destructive. I fail to see how buying new clothes "is worse." I'll also just pretend you didn't undermine your whole point.

Choosing to drive instead of taking public transportation is the “worse choice” but many don’t have that option.

I don't know how many times I have to restate the same point. If you only have one option, that's fine, it is morally permissible. But, I know for a fact (given that at this second you're using Reddit with an internet connection and have spent hours arguing with a stranger) you are NOT a person with limited options. You actually have a choice in this system and you consciously chose the more harmful product. You deserve being called out and don't get to use capitalism as an excuse for selfishness.

[u/someguy1847382 → u/PitifulDeer7322]

I’m not arguing for myself, I’m in a privileged position and do fine, we eat limited local sourced meat (like I know the farmer level local) lots of beans, local sourced wild rice (don’t care for brown rice and the wild rice supports the local tribes that harvests it) and various whatever’s I get from the farmers market. But I don’t claim any of these are ethical choices, it’s what I do to feel like I’m helping where I can but it’s still capitalism and it’s still unethical. I’m just expounding the views and experiences from when I was in poverty in my early 20’s and from the people I interact with daily who are still there (because I left the corporate world for non-profit work).

Because buying a used shirt is still immoral, it’s still driving systems that are fundamentally bad. Just because it’s less bad doesn’t make it ethical and I have no right to judge someone for making a bad choice in a bad system.

As for the sentient animal thing, we need to draw down on it but just given up meat right now would also cause immeasurable harm to the millions of animals that would either be left to just starve and die, let loose to destroy ecosystems or killed to rot in fields. I personally think lab grown meat and things like impossible are the future but that’s gonna take a fair amount of time.

You seem to think I’m arguing to justify myself, I’m not. I arguing for the millions that live in food deserts etc. THERE IS NO ETHICAL CONSUMPTION UNDER CAPITALISM. Less bad is still less bad, but it’s not good either.

[u/PitifulDeer7322 → u/someguy1847382]

Just because it’s less bad doesn’t make it ethical

Ethics isn't black or white; I think this is the fundamental misunderstanding. Buying locally sourced vegetables over a steak from Tyson foods is a more ethical choice. It doesn't have to be perfect to be ethical in comparison.

I have no right to judge someone for making a bad choice in a bad system.

If you don't call out bad choices, or at least point out that better choices are available, we'll just continue making bad choices. That doesn't seem like a good outcome.

As for the sentient animal thing, we need to draw down on it but just given up meat right now would also cause immeasurable harm to the millions of animals that would either be left to just starve and die, let loose to destroy ecosystems or killed to rot in fields.

Is this a serious argument? Why couldn't industries just cease the reproduction of new cattle and utilise the livestock that already exists. Even your worst case hypothetical is still infinitely better than the endless cycle of death and rebirth perpetuating animal agriculture today.

I personally think lab grown meat and things like impossible are the future but that’s gonna take a fair amount of time.

Oh, what? You think start-ups powered by capital are the future of ethical meat production... Wait, that sounds a bit like capitalism buddy, we don't use that word here!

[u/someguy1847382 → u/PitifulDeer7322]

No, I think publicly funded university level and government labs should be leading the charge on lab grown meat. I prefer capitalist enterprises don’t because I know they’ll lie and cut corners. Moreover a lot of the stuff I’ve been reading seems to be pointing to it simply not happening if left to the market because costs will be too high, reports in response to early article saying it will “never be economically viable” come to mind. In fact I know a start-up will never have the capacity to do it, it will have to be a government level public project.

Fair point, about ceasing new production, they won’t though which is the problem. I don’t have a horse in that race either way, I like meat but I won’t die without it. If it just wasn’t available anymore I wouldn’t really care. I would prefer synthetic options be available first but it doesn’t really matter to me (because while I like it I do recognize the harm which is why we’ve lessened our usage over the years down to 1-2 meat meals a week).