Yes, it is. It’s why they moderated that they did it as “very intentionally, just trying to get through”. Moving someone or their stuff without permission is an act of physical aggression. I’m not saying they punched them or anything, but there were aggressive in a physical manner.

Such a great piece of fiction that the phenomenon I just recounted has been lived by real people before

https://www.reddit.com/r/blackladies/comments/1202192/asked_reddit_why_white_people_dont_move_for/

Am… am I god?/s

Yes, that’s what I mean. I’m unintentionally aggressive, but attempting to moderate that causes me to shutdown and not say anything instead. I’m making the conscious effort to speak instead of give into the obsession of over-moderating what I say to the point where I stop talking. So by making the choice to talk regardless, I’m intentionally being aggressive rather than quiet.

Dude was twisting my words and using fallacies to protect his paper thin “argument”. I did my best without directly insulting him. Well, until that last comment. Shouldn’t have done that.

So, you attempted regular social cues to communicate what you wanted, and when that failed you escalated to physical aggression and then got upset that the other person got upset?

Like, not trying to throw you under the bus or anything, you both miscommunicated in that situation but you were the one to escalate. If the other person didn’t know what they were doing wrong, couldn’t you have just told them “I’m so sorry, but I can’t get my cart around yours” when they didn’t get why you couldn’t get past?

It really sounds like you were both tired and didn’t have the grace in that moment for each other, rather than some failing on either of your parts.

I feel like you don’t understand the position because there is nothing in what you’re saying that implies that you do.

I’m going to play this conversation as it occurred from my perspective to see if you see what I mean.

Your first response is “you’re taking an absurdist position, so I’ll take the opposite absurdist position to demonstrate the problem. Could we eliminate all racist rules, of course not. Car rules can be racist, but we can’t just not have car rules”

I reply “yeah, but we can not have cars. Cars aren’t a requirement for society”

You reply “but rules would still apply to those who do the not-car transport”

I reply “yes, but that wouldn’t exclude them from society. They would still be able to participate, unlike those kicked out of the hypothetical store”

To which you reply “but the grocery store wouldn’t apply to everywhere”

And I retort “no, but if they had any popularity, they would expand in order to deny disadvantaged people groceries at these ‘better’ stores”

And then your latest reply, which I can’t summarize without it becoming a straw man (my failing, not necessarily yours).

This grocery store isn’t “people extending basic decency” it’s “people not inconveniencing others on threat of permanent removal”. One is a social contract extended by and agreed to by others (basic decency) and the other is a threat enforced by the system, in this case the grocery store. You’re arguing that systems need rules. I’m arguing that using systems when it could just be standard human interaction is insane. Do you see the disconnect now?

Systems should be built to accommodate humans, not replace human interaction. Jane paying with a checkbook isn’t a reason she be barred from a public service. Christ on bikes, man.

Yeah, just like it was an Italian man that first called them Indians. Wouldn’t make it Italy’s fault if Americans called it Indialand, though.

Agreed. Fuck cars and accept that other people aren’t going to be perfect and that that’s okay for them to be.

Separate but equal, eh? Gonna introspect on that, or nah?

Someone in this thread went the extra mile and even called them “the shitty” stores. Which is nice. Brings the warm and cozies, that /s

People walking towards each other on the sidewalk usually subconsciously move out of each other’s ways. But there’s a hierarchy to these interactions that you’re probably only aware of if you’re at the bottom of it. White people tend to resist deferring to people of color. White women will rarely defer to anyone, expecting everyone to get it of their way. People of color will defer to white people, etc, etc.

If you break this subconscious hierarchy, people notice and assume you’re being rude or weird. Like if you move enough out of a white women’s way so that she, too, can move a little out of your way so that you both avoid each other (like equals would do), she might just walk into you. Or cuss you out for being rude. Or when I, a white man, defer to a person of color, it trips them up for a second.

Since this hypothetical grocery store is nothing but “don’t break unspoken rules about rudeness or you get kicked out” it means that a black person would need to act meek and submissive in order to avoid scrutiny and thus be able to stay. Meaning the rules would be more stringent against people of color, thus less people of color would be accepted, thus justifying their usual exclusion.

Ableism is super easy. Since this hypothetical prioritizes convenience over people, if you’re slow at something or need more accommodation, you’d get kicked out.

Lol, you think Karens would be kept out of Karen heaven. Lmao, even.

Yes. I made the choice to be like that rather be perceived as polite. Apologies that that wasn’t clear. I’d rather spend my time thinking through things rather than making my words nice for others. I’m neurodivergent, I’ve spent a lifetime trying to mold myself into the box of etiquette and it drove me mad and made me quiet. I’m choosing now to say what needs to be said in how I need to say it.

Like saying that something would be used to further racism and ableism and then checking the people who don’t like to be confronted with that idea.

If this idea was implemented and had any amount of popularity it would spread everywhere like wild fire cause it’d be one more thing to crush the poor with cater to white people who can’t be fucked to talk to people don’t want to be inconvenienced. People usually don’t have much choice in what stores they have access to (see food deserts)

Yeah, I tend to be perceived that way. I’d rather be seen as aggressive than be a polite asshole

Yes, because that would be their job and they wouldn’t be excluded from society if they fail to live up to that. They’d just take public transit like anyone else.

I’m saying “systems need to be oriented towards people and how they act, rather than punishing people for being unable to act in a way that they’re not wired for”. This hypothetical grocery store punishes people for being minorly thoughtless to spare other people the indignity of having to say something or silently suffer with the minor inconvenience.

It takes a human interaction with low stakes and turns it into a systemic interaction where harm to people becomes an abstract thing, so harm tends to become more prolific.

Yeah, the solution is to orient society in such a way where the operation of a deadly, several ton method of conveyance isn’t a requirement to participate in the world. Public transit, biking, and people-oriented spaces. Fuck cars

Bruh, I got autism. This person decided to create a hypothetical grocery store instead of just saying “what’s the deal with people in grocery stores? Why are they always in my way?”

You make a hypothetical system as a funny observation, I’m going to shit on the hypothetical before anyone thinks its an actually good idea. Cause people do that shit. Like a whole lot. Check the person who’s trying to defend it as a good idea for an example

Demi Adejuyigbe made a parody of racism in his stand-up special “Demi Adejuyigbe is going to do one (1) back-flip” where he said all Latina women were 6’2" and people started parroting that shit back to him with no introspection on what the fuck they were saying.

Wow, false dichotomy much? I get it, you liked the idea and think me attacking it is like me attacking you. Once you grow up, you’ll realize that not everything is about you.

Sorry, I meant if you grow up.

Not what I’m fucking saying, but good try. Something being used to justify racism isn’t saying “this is on its face racism” its saying “racists will use the stringent, strict rules of this place to deny people of color access to this space”. All of these complaints are things that everyone does to some extent, you just get frustrated by them when you’re probably already frustrated.

People of color take up more space in white people’s heads, so they get more policing of their behavior even if it isn’t justified. A group of white boys being loud in a grocery store get head shakes and “boys will be boys” comments. A group of black boys being loud in a grocery store get followed around by security and white women clutching their purses.

Also fun how you sidestepped the ableism I brought up in that same sentence. Cause you know there’s no fucking argument there, huh?

I know the point of this thread is “ugh, people, man” and it’s not really meant to be engaged with deeper than that, but this is a really bad idea. It would be used to justify racism and ableism and would be a really unpleasant place to be in, too. Karen city, with no one to speak out about it.

Imagine that spike of anxiety at the check-out where you feel rushed because you’re at the front of the line, but instead of it being mostly in your head it’s now a real thing with real consequences. That’s my nightmare

English speakers call Deutschland Germany, don’t give us all the credit here. And it’s called that cause the UK hated keeping track of what y’all were calling yourselves, so they chose bigotry instead (a common theme for England). The rest of us usually don’t know the history and just have a word with no context as to why it is that way.

For those Americans who don’t understand, calling it Germany is like calling First Nation land “Indialand” because “how can anyone keep track of what they call it? It’s always changing!”