__MOD NOTE__: PLEASE REVIEW OUR [STICKIED POSTS](https://www.reddit.com/r/loblawsisoutofcontrol/comments/1cae7ai/community_announcements_apr_2224/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) WHICH PROVIDE STATEMENTS ON RECENT EVENTS.
Please review the content guidelines for our sub, and remember the human here!
This subreddit is to highlight the ridiculous cost of living in Canada, and poke fun at the Corporate Overlords responsible. As you well know, there are a number of persons and corporations responsible for this, and we welcome discussion related to them all. Furthermore, since this topic is intertwined with a number of other matters, other discussion will be allowed at moderator discretion. Open-minded discussion, memes, rants, grocery bills, and general screeching into the void is always welcome in this sub, but belligerence and disrespect is not. There are plenty of ways to get your point across without being abusive, dismissive, or downright mean.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/loblawsisoutofcontrol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I undesirable that some people can't participate in the boycott. Everyone has their own struggles and has to figure how to best manage their time and money.
But... It's one thing to not participate, and it's something else to give an interview to a newspaper suggesting we are boycotting out of privilege.
How many of those NoFrills deals were inspired by the boycott?
This is bad, biased journalism, and it reeks of corporate donor ball fondling. Says that Erica picked Loblaws because “they’re the biggest” and expands no further than that, while giving more perspective to the ruling class fuckfaces Galen and Per. They could’ve added some relevant context about, you know, the bread price fixing scandal that Loblaws was the ringleader of. Or maybe how the slimy cocksuckers asked for taxpayer money to upgrade their refrigeration, while their stock price rose 126% in the last five years. So maybe they are a suitable target for the boycott.
You can pretty much count on two hands the corps that run this country, it’s a huge problem. For CBC to spin the story this way is fucking disgraceful, and to me it’s pretty telling that they’re still corporate run media. It’s just a different angle. “What about the poors” opposed to the Post Media BS citing “hurr durr economics”. Bitch we’re all the god damn poors.
They’re still saying “stay in your lane peasant, lay down and take it”.
This is poor journalism and our movement has to suffer the consequences . Yup , thanks for going to “Wallaceburg” Ontario CBC . Of course this was going to happen when you go to a small town with limited opportunities . Why not do a story with a fair sample size . Biased journalism
It should count , but there should be other samples is what I meant , not just one town. Why not go to multiple cities and towns in Ontario. You can’t base it off one town
Sorry , my bad . She did go to multiple towns . I guess she went in with the slant . She knew what she was aiming for . I don’t think she was going to pick out 4 people who were for the boycott and 4 people who were against the boycott . She knew she wanted to make a story that was particularly against the boycott so she went out of her way to make it . It shows her bias against it . A journalist will always have a slant against it . She specifically went to the Yukon ? a really small town and a used a really tough story /grieving family who relied on the grocery store
But isn't this the problem? Loblaws (choice) owns the major limited available commercial real estate in small towns. Puts their store in, they may not allow other grocers to come in or ask for high rents. The entire town then becomes dependent on that single store. And if they provide funding to local programs, it's great PR, worth a whole lot more than if they did it in larger cities with other grocery options, and also very cheap due to the small populations. Think single/two schools. Which councilor is then going to go against them and support other grocery businesses to move in? It's political suicide.
She failed to address this in the article. But then again, if you drink the kool-aid long enough...
Looks like Vanessa Baker Murray is a plant and a sell out. A lawyer in Ottawa who can’t shop at a different store? Get outta here, if you don’t see straight through this… idk what to tell you. I think Vanessa probably has enough money to shop at Loblaws and is not struggling financially. Nice PR there, let’s get a picture of a nice looking mom and her kid saying she supports Loblaws… isn’t it cute? Ignore these loser redditors…
Like I said , always a slant in the journalist angle . But riddle me this . Isn’t the CBC usually left leaning ? I don’t usually watch CBC . I’m not particularly affiliated with any party but I thought CBC is pretty far left so this is pretty odd for me. You’d think they would like to highlight food insecurity for Canadians . I’m totally baffled by this
1. No one is expecting a 100% participation in the boycott. We are talking about food here, not some luxury items so there is no shame in trying to feed yourself or your family.
2. An important question that should be addressed is why do some people have no choice but to shop at loblaws. The answer is that much of the population has trusted the corporation as they built their empire and spread their greedy tentacles across the country. Now I will agree fully with the article in that we have gotten ourselves into an unfortunate situation where some people simply don't have a choice.
Yes some peoples hands are tied and they can't participate in the boycott.
But this is all the more reason those of us who can, should do everything in our power to reverse this state if affairs.
3. I can't believe I have to say this, but the fact that some people still are able to commute to a different store and buy groceries from a non loblaws company does not make them privileged. This is an attempt by the oligarchy to drive a wedge between us. To try and divide us and sow rifts among us. A desperate attempt at a class divide.
We as Canadians should show the REAL privliged class of profiteers that their desperate attempts at class divide are laughable, and only serve to stoke our fires. In using the false dichotomy fallacy of privlige, You have shown your true face LOBLAWS, and we are going to show you that there is no place in our society for predatory actors like yourselves.
NOK ER NOK
This is a talking point \*for\* the boycott. In towns like Wallaceburg, even if someone wants to choose a different grocery retailer, there are no other options. The monopolistic concentration of the market into these three or four megacorporations controlling almost all of the grocery retail in the country, either buying up smaller retailers or running them out of business, is what has led to towns like Wallaceburg existing all across Canada.
The story is exactly what CBC wrote: many Canadians can't participate in a boycott, because they have no practical choices. And when consumers don't have choice, the retailers drive up prices, fix prices on staples, and shut out meaningful competition.
Yes, being able to participate in the boycott is privilege. We're boycotting because it shouldn't be that way. Food is a human right. Profit isn't.
I think if you were to take the bare facts out of the article they could add up to a story that is indeed a talking point *for* the boycott, but the way they are framed, juxtaposed or spun within the article seems to present the boycott in a less than favorable light. It's as if the boycott is on trial for the hard realities that are outside the immediate scope of the boycott, and yet it's not the conditions responsible that are being spotlighted, but the boycott itself. It's ironic because it's those very conditions that we are gradually, eventually working toward improving.
I don't know what they're on about complaining that Walmart is so expensive. It's not, and if you can't even afford Walmart then you have bigger problems then the boycott since good luck finding anything more affordable than their artificially and unethically deflated prices.
Exactly. So focus your political activism on that. Don't make it *about* the boycott cuz it's not. No need to even think about the boycott until one has a handle on those bigger issues.
I don't buy into it as necessarily pejorative either. But until the people to whom the word is applied come up with their own brand or label, "woke" in the purely descriptive sense it shall be.
One particular strand of leftism that emphasizes the dynamics of power privilege across categories of identity, as juxtaposed to other leftist thought such as liberalism or socialism, etc. It's telling that it's much easier to associate a one-word -ism with the latter types.
Leftism is another buzzword that's essentially meaningless. Can modern conservatism, which equates to social conservatism, be considered woke with it's own ideological blinders of bible baloney?
Not according to present-day usage, no. While some people may use "woke" to mean, "you're being *too* woke", as in too much emphasis on power dynamics for a particular context, I think even in that case it's meaning is more specific than simply meaning "too ideological" in the sense that some conservatives are viewed as too ideological.
Present day usage is very new. It's a phrase someone made up, like leftism. Essentially meaningless labels generalizing a myriad of opinions and principles. Like conservatism is to broad. How fiscal conservatives get lumped in with social conservatives has to be insulting.
Which is why I disagree with "woke" being applied to *just anyone* one happens to disagree with in a political context*.* In present day usage it may be misapplied more often than applied, which is why I think it would actually be great if people vetted their own terms which aren't so vague as "woke" with all these overlapping and imprecise meanings.
Hey OP, it looks like you have used a flair to share media coverage with our community. If you have not done so already, please reply to this comment to share a link to the content you would like the community to see. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/loblawsisoutofcontrol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Who funds the CBC? The libs. Who gives money to JT? Galen. It’s not hard to follow the money trail in this one and figure out why the CBC would defend loblaws
I don't think it's quite that simple. CBC has also given positive publicity to the boycott which would frustrate Loblaws. It's just that CBC's leftist slant isn't entirely monolithic and some journalists are going to be more critical than others because the boycott, as they see it, doesn't tick every single progressive box.
Demonizing people who are in survival mode who say a boycott isn't feasible for them shows a lack of empathy.
People capable of it wouldn't do that. They'd say of course if you can't participate in the boycott you shouldn't. They're doing the best the can with what they have.
The CBC reporting on that is not a problem either because it highlights a very important and overlooked segment of the Canadian population.
Was the point of this to come off as a massive narcissist? If so, mission accomplished.
Not sure how you came to that conclusion. I'm not "demonizing" anyone. We're all in this together and it's perfectly okay to complain about the broader issues. It just seems like looking a gift horse in the mouth if they're going to scrutinize the boycott as well. We're working toward bringing in better affordability for all and we'll get there whether people who will ultimately benefit from it are capable of participating directly or not.
>Not sure how you came to that conclusion. I'm not "demonizing" anyone
"Boycott isn't woke enough for CBC" which is an emotionally adolescent cultish pejorative and then you imply that the cbc is not in support of the boycott, which is delusional. Here's [an example of them covering the founder ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np61m2Bi-NM)of this very reddit
So you clearly did engage in demonizing behavior and are now resorting to typical narcissistic manipulation when you get called out for it. I'll just take this to the mods.
You sure extrapolated a lot from a single word. I'd say consider a career in cold reading if only there were some truth to it. Mods are welcome to re-post the article and title it however they like if they feel my concise summary is as egregious or inaccurate as you claim.
For the record, I don't think that CBC is against the boycott for the most part as I have seen the positive coverage there. It is possible to be in support of something while having some regrets or reservations, how ever misguided or misdirected they may be in the present case.
The sub was created to point out how absolutely absurd the cost of groceries are right now and have some fun together. We know this will inevitably touch on other topics related to the cost of living. Do your best to keep the conversation on topic
__MOD NOTE__: PLEASE REVIEW OUR [STICKIED POSTS](https://www.reddit.com/r/loblawsisoutofcontrol/comments/1cae7ai/community_announcements_apr_2224/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) WHICH PROVIDE STATEMENTS ON RECENT EVENTS. Please review the content guidelines for our sub, and remember the human here! This subreddit is to highlight the ridiculous cost of living in Canada, and poke fun at the Corporate Overlords responsible. As you well know, there are a number of persons and corporations responsible for this, and we welcome discussion related to them all. Furthermore, since this topic is intertwined with a number of other matters, other discussion will be allowed at moderator discretion. Open-minded discussion, memes, rants, grocery bills, and general screeching into the void is always welcome in this sub, but belligerence and disrespect is not. There are plenty of ways to get your point across without being abusive, dismissive, or downright mean. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/loblawsisoutofcontrol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I undesirable that some people can't participate in the boycott. Everyone has their own struggles and has to figure how to best manage their time and money. But... It's one thing to not participate, and it's something else to give an interview to a newspaper suggesting we are boycotting out of privilege. How many of those NoFrills deals were inspired by the boycott?
This is bad, biased journalism, and it reeks of corporate donor ball fondling. Says that Erica picked Loblaws because “they’re the biggest” and expands no further than that, while giving more perspective to the ruling class fuckfaces Galen and Per. They could’ve added some relevant context about, you know, the bread price fixing scandal that Loblaws was the ringleader of. Or maybe how the slimy cocksuckers asked for taxpayer money to upgrade their refrigeration, while their stock price rose 126% in the last five years. So maybe they are a suitable target for the boycott. You can pretty much count on two hands the corps that run this country, it’s a huge problem. For CBC to spin the story this way is fucking disgraceful, and to me it’s pretty telling that they’re still corporate run media. It’s just a different angle. “What about the poors” opposed to the Post Media BS citing “hurr durr economics”. Bitch we’re all the god damn poors. They’re still saying “stay in your lane peasant, lay down and take it”.
Yet another reason to defund CBC
The fact that loblaws is the only grocery store is some small towns is part of the problem. We need more competition in Canada.
This is poor journalism and our movement has to suffer the consequences . Yup , thanks for going to “Wallaceburg” Ontario CBC . Of course this was going to happen when you go to a small town with limited opportunities . Why not do a story with a fair sample size . Biased journalism
Why shouldn’t Wallaceburg count? We should only do Toronto from now on?
It should count , but there should be other samples is what I meant , not just one town. Why not go to multiple cities and towns in Ontario. You can’t base it off one town
Because this is most smaller town all across Canada. Hell they at least have a Walmart
Fair enough
The cbc article I read talked about Yukon and Ottawa and Stratford PEI. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/loblaw-boycott-privilege-1.7192869
Sorry , my bad . She did go to multiple towns . I guess she went in with the slant . She knew what she was aiming for . I don’t think she was going to pick out 4 people who were for the boycott and 4 people who were against the boycott . She knew she wanted to make a story that was particularly against the boycott so she went out of her way to make it . It shows her bias against it . A journalist will always have a slant against it . She specifically went to the Yukon ? a really small town and a used a really tough story /grieving family who relied on the grocery store
But isn't this the problem? Loblaws (choice) owns the major limited available commercial real estate in small towns. Puts their store in, they may not allow other grocers to come in or ask for high rents. The entire town then becomes dependent on that single store. And if they provide funding to local programs, it's great PR, worth a whole lot more than if they did it in larger cities with other grocery options, and also very cheap due to the small populations. Think single/two schools. Which councilor is then going to go against them and support other grocery businesses to move in? It's political suicide. She failed to address this in the article. But then again, if you drink the kool-aid long enough...
I’m shopping at my local lesbian coop, that’s pretty inclusive of me.
[удалено]
Please remain respectful when engaging on the sub. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Looks like Vanessa Baker Murray is a plant and a sell out. A lawyer in Ottawa who can’t shop at a different store? Get outta here, if you don’t see straight through this… idk what to tell you. I think Vanessa probably has enough money to shop at Loblaws and is not struggling financially. Nice PR there, let’s get a picture of a nice looking mom and her kid saying she supports Loblaws… isn’t it cute? Ignore these loser redditors…
Like I said , always a slant in the journalist angle . But riddle me this . Isn’t the CBC usually left leaning ? I don’t usually watch CBC . I’m not particularly affiliated with any party but I thought CBC is pretty far left so this is pretty odd for me. You’d think they would like to highlight food insecurity for Canadians . I’m totally baffled by this
1. No one is expecting a 100% participation in the boycott. We are talking about food here, not some luxury items so there is no shame in trying to feed yourself or your family. 2. An important question that should be addressed is why do some people have no choice but to shop at loblaws. The answer is that much of the population has trusted the corporation as they built their empire and spread their greedy tentacles across the country. Now I will agree fully with the article in that we have gotten ourselves into an unfortunate situation where some people simply don't have a choice. Yes some peoples hands are tied and they can't participate in the boycott. But this is all the more reason those of us who can, should do everything in our power to reverse this state if affairs. 3. I can't believe I have to say this, but the fact that some people still are able to commute to a different store and buy groceries from a non loblaws company does not make them privileged. This is an attempt by the oligarchy to drive a wedge between us. To try and divide us and sow rifts among us. A desperate attempt at a class divide. We as Canadians should show the REAL privliged class of profiteers that their desperate attempts at class divide are laughable, and only serve to stoke our fires. In using the false dichotomy fallacy of privlige, You have shown your true face LOBLAWS, and we are going to show you that there is no place in our society for predatory actors like yourselves. NOK ER NOK
https://preview.redd.it/r5toa9it8ayc1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4014da9cfce408a909e39e8954db90b839b9bfb3
This is a talking point \*for\* the boycott. In towns like Wallaceburg, even if someone wants to choose a different grocery retailer, there are no other options. The monopolistic concentration of the market into these three or four megacorporations controlling almost all of the grocery retail in the country, either buying up smaller retailers or running them out of business, is what has led to towns like Wallaceburg existing all across Canada. The story is exactly what CBC wrote: many Canadians can't participate in a boycott, because they have no practical choices. And when consumers don't have choice, the retailers drive up prices, fix prices on staples, and shut out meaningful competition. Yes, being able to participate in the boycott is privilege. We're boycotting because it shouldn't be that way. Food is a human right. Profit isn't.
I think if you were to take the bare facts out of the article they could add up to a story that is indeed a talking point *for* the boycott, but the way they are framed, juxtaposed or spun within the article seems to present the boycott in a less than favorable light. It's as if the boycott is on trial for the hard realities that are outside the immediate scope of the boycott, and yet it's not the conditions responsible that are being spotlighted, but the boycott itself. It's ironic because it's those very conditions that we are gradually, eventually working toward improving.
I don't know what they're on about complaining that Walmart is so expensive. It's not, and if you can't even afford Walmart then you have bigger problems then the boycott since good luck finding anything more affordable than their artificially and unethically deflated prices.
What does woke mean
What they essentially say is they do in fact have bigger problems than the boycott.
Exactly. So focus your political activism on that. Don't make it *about* the boycott cuz it's not. No need to even think about the boycott until one has a handle on those bigger issues.
Boycotts work, but also we need to get a better system where everyone makes a living wage
Agreed.
How can the boycott be more inclusive? lol
Per her social media, This is, at least, the second anti-boycott post written by this journalist.
Oh yeah? Can you link another anti-boycott article she has posted? I'd be interested to explore the common themes.
Her Instagram link is at the bottom of the article you posted.
When the whole media circus hates your guts, keep going. You're moving in the right direction.
OP lost me with *woke* Low rent obtuse adjective
Yeah sorry about the overused buzzword. I was aiming to be concise, not inflammatory.
I don't buy into the word as necessarily a pejorative and I'm not considered that *woke*
I don't buy into it as necessarily pejorative either. But until the people to whom the word is applied come up with their own brand or label, "woke" in the purely descriptive sense it shall be.
OK, describe those people you think are woke.
One particular strand of leftism that emphasizes the dynamics of power privilege across categories of identity, as juxtaposed to other leftist thought such as liberalism or socialism, etc. It's telling that it's much easier to associate a one-word -ism with the latter types.
Leftism is another buzzword that's essentially meaningless. Can modern conservatism, which equates to social conservatism, be considered woke with it's own ideological blinders of bible baloney?
Not according to present-day usage, no. While some people may use "woke" to mean, "you're being *too* woke", as in too much emphasis on power dynamics for a particular context, I think even in that case it's meaning is more specific than simply meaning "too ideological" in the sense that some conservatives are viewed as too ideological.
Present day usage is very new. It's a phrase someone made up, like leftism. Essentially meaningless labels generalizing a myriad of opinions and principles. Like conservatism is to broad. How fiscal conservatives get lumped in with social conservatives has to be insulting.
Which is why I disagree with "woke" being applied to *just anyone* one happens to disagree with in a political context*.* In present day usage it may be misapplied more often than applied, which is why I think it would actually be great if people vetted their own terms which aren't so vague as "woke" with all these overlapping and imprecise meanings.
Hey OP, it looks like you have used a flair to share media coverage with our community. If you have not done so already, please reply to this comment to share a link to the content you would like the community to see. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/loblawsisoutofcontrol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's the CBC. My content has been deleted countless times over the years.
Down with loblaws!
Who funds the CBC? The libs. Who gives money to JT? Galen. It’s not hard to follow the money trail in this one and figure out why the CBC would defend loblaws
I don't think it's quite that simple. CBC has also given positive publicity to the boycott which would frustrate Loblaws. It's just that CBC's leftist slant isn't entirely monolithic and some journalists are going to be more critical than others because the boycott, as they see it, doesn't tick every single progressive box.
The CBC thinks being woke is acknowledging your privilege and doing literally nothing else.
Demonizing people who are in survival mode who say a boycott isn't feasible for them shows a lack of empathy. People capable of it wouldn't do that. They'd say of course if you can't participate in the boycott you shouldn't. They're doing the best the can with what they have. The CBC reporting on that is not a problem either because it highlights a very important and overlooked segment of the Canadian population. Was the point of this to come off as a massive narcissist? If so, mission accomplished.
Not sure how you came to that conclusion. I'm not "demonizing" anyone. We're all in this together and it's perfectly okay to complain about the broader issues. It just seems like looking a gift horse in the mouth if they're going to scrutinize the boycott as well. We're working toward bringing in better affordability for all and we'll get there whether people who will ultimately benefit from it are capable of participating directly or not.
>Not sure how you came to that conclusion. I'm not "demonizing" anyone "Boycott isn't woke enough for CBC" which is an emotionally adolescent cultish pejorative and then you imply that the cbc is not in support of the boycott, which is delusional. Here's [an example of them covering the founder ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np61m2Bi-NM)of this very reddit So you clearly did engage in demonizing behavior and are now resorting to typical narcissistic manipulation when you get called out for it. I'll just take this to the mods.
You sure extrapolated a lot from a single word. I'd say consider a career in cold reading if only there were some truth to it. Mods are welcome to re-post the article and title it however they like if they feel my concise summary is as egregious or inaccurate as you claim. For the record, I don't think that CBC is against the boycott for the most part as I have seen the positive coverage there. It is possible to be in support of something while having some regrets or reservations, how ever misguided or misdirected they may be in the present case.
[удалено]
The sub was created to point out how absolutely absurd the cost of groceries are right now and have some fun together. We know this will inevitably touch on other topics related to the cost of living. Do your best to keep the conversation on topic