Comment by jtrn
8 days ago
Makes sense. It’s already illegal to even attempt to commit suicide here, so compared to that, this is just another small way the state micromanages your entire life.
Sarcasm aside, I wonder if they calculated how much we save by not trashing these items, versus the cost in time, bureaucracy, and administration this will demand. There is an episode of Freconomics that covered this. Managing and getting rid of free stuff is very expensive and hard. But that someone else's problem.
You're confusing being sarcastic with sardonic. It's also a grossly dishonest comparison.
> Managing and getting rid of free stuff is very expensive and hard. But that someone else's problem.
While I think we deeply disagree with what "hard" means, it does feel like its the kind of cost a reasonable organization would willingly take on. I compare it to the chefs, or restauranteers who after they're done cooking for the day bring all the food that they have to a local food bank or shelter instead of throwing it away. That's an equally expensive endevor, just on different scale. I think it's reasonable to expect all organizations to act with some moral character, and given larger companies have demonstrated they lack moral character, and would otherwise hyper optimize into a negative sum game they feel they can win. I think some additional micromanaging is warranted. You don't?
Everyone should be discouraged from playing a negative sum game.
I agree that "sardonic" is a better word. It’s just not used much, and it didn’t even come to mind. It's similar to how people misuse "ironic." But people usually understand what is meant.
The general thrust of the underlying messagr is not dishonest just because you say so. The general pattern is that there are degrees of governmental control over people's lives at the core. I don’t think it’s dishonest because my point is that bureaucracy has no limit on what it tries to control given enough time, even though my framing is vulgar.
and should we do stuff to reduce waist and help the environmen? Absolutely!! should we do this? if this worked, it would be a good thing. But if you just want to virtue signal without caring about reality, I think we disagree on more than just definitions.
My reference to "Freakonomics" is a collection of real contradictions to your theory. Since you didn't consider it, here are the expanded findings:
Most of the "recycled" material collected under these new laws is being "downcycled" into insulation, mattress stuffing, or industrial rags—markets that are already saturated and low-value. Reports show these organizations were overwhelmed with low-quality fast fashion that they could not sell. Instead of companies paying to burn it, the charities now had to pay to store or manage it.
The fines are real. France has set fines of up to €15,000 per infraction for companies caught destroying unsold goods. This is why companies are dumping the stock on charities rather than risking the fine. I’m giving how you speak about corporation. I’m guessing you have absolutely no empathy for people who run small single person or small team business and our overwhelmed by all the regulatory traps they can fall into at any point in time.
Then The Freakonomics data (Sanford, Maine case study) showed that when you charge people for trash, they generate less trash, but illegal dumping often spikes, forcing the city to spend more on cleanup patrols.
To pay for this new collection and sorting system, brands pay an "Extended Producer Responsibility" (EPR) fee. In 2025, this fee for textiles in systems like France/Netherlands ranged roughly from €0.12 to €0.50 per kilogram of clothing put on the market. In other words, the cost ultimately falls back on consumers.
So in general, no, I don’t agree at all. I think you are discounting the massive cost to not just corporations but also individuals when it comes to micromanagement. On a second layer, I’m not even against micromanagement, just bad micromanagement, especially micromanagement that is at best naïve regarding effectiveness, and at worst purely virtue signaling.
In short, we should focus on what works, not what you feel is righteously good.
> In short, we should focus on what works, not what you feel is righteously good.
These are not mutually exclusive. But i'm glad you're considering shareholder value!
> I’m guessing you have absolutely no empathy for people who run small single person or small team business and our overwhelmed by all the regulatory traps they can fall into at any point in time.
Sigh... yeah, lack of empathy is the core problem here.
> The general thrust of the underlying messagr is not dishonest just because you say so.
Comparing suicide of an individual to administrative fines on a corporation for needlessly destroying textiles is rhetorically dishonest. There's so many disparities and meaningful differences that trying to equate them without discussing any of them is counter productive to a beneficial conversation. It's a cheap impotent shot trying to stir up an emotional reaction where one doesn't belong. Or given how strongly you seem to feel, a completely different reaction is deserved. Making a misleading or inappropriate comparison is dishonest, not because I say it is, but because being misleading, even carelessly, lacks rhetorical integrity, or honesty.
Four more examples, of rhetorical dishonesty suggesting I'm acting in bad faith, and lack empathy, or sympathy for the balance of weight for smaller companies (without cause)
Saying again without argument or evidence that my position is a self righteous one devoid of pragmatic function.
Mischaracterizating my opposition to your comments as shallow or opinionated rather than a different core issue you've been unable to identify or reply to.
And then my top reply to yours, suggesting that all you care about is shareholder value. But at least I'm only saying so because it's become a common joke, but also because your first comment feels irreverent towards S/SI, or humans. And the sum total of your next reply ignores the core point of my objections, and drones on about the financial cost towards companies. So maybe it's not that dishonest.
Where? According to Wikipedia, suicide is no longer illegal anywhere in Europe.
you’re correct. I was just using it to emphasize how all encompassing regulation sometimes feel. I was annoyed and didn’t think; when seeing just another European regulation piling on then endless sea of things you can get fined for here.
Cypress was the last placed in Europe to remove laws against suicide in 2021 it seems.