"Reddit I started a business drop-shipping delousing agents now people are acusing me of facilitating genocide AITA?"
this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
146 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
521 readers
514 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
look i just rent my “free candy” van to guys on craigslist who don’t have ID as a side hustle. what they do with that van is none of my business.
Concentration camp entrepreneurs are a thing now, huh? 
You ever heard of IBM
Yup. Literally how Oscar Schindler was able to smuggle people out of concentration camps. He was originally an industrialist looking to make easy money by using slave labor. It was only when he was confronted with reality that he began saving people.
Many nazis also found themselves in Schindler's position, except they decided "Somebody has to make money! It might as well be me...."
Extracting rent is exploitation, not consumption, so you can't apply the "no ethical consumption" paradigm to it
I'm even willing to steelman this into no ethical consumption on the grounds of whether you take other peoples money directly or via their exploitation, as with many consumption purchases, doesn't matter but then it still falls apart because for the no ethical consumption paradigm to work it needs some, if nebolous, boundaries and renting out the concentration camp light is indubitably past that.
It's fine to buy the $10 gildan t-shirt, you gotta have clothes, it's how the world works. If there's a second hand store there, maybe hit that up if you can, but it's unreasonable to expect you to go all barrels and suspenders here. Researching minute production line details to figure out where they draw the line of ethical production, be it living wages for the seamsters and don't ask where the cotton comes from, whether it's just straight up grift plastered in 5 different freely purchaseable eco-ethical-labels or whatever is unreasonable. Hell, and bear with me as I steelman this, maybe you need some sort of passive income unless you plan to die at work and that is how the world works. But that'd be like an apartment you rent out, not the concentration camp. No ethical consumption under capitalism can't reasonably include buying the 700ft yacht that runs exclusively on whale oil because you like boating.
it's unreasonable to expect you to go all barrels and suspenders here.
Barrels and suspenders are also produced through exploitation of the global proletariat; fig leaves or nothin'!
so you destroying the local plant life or introducing invasive species here? Huh?
There's already figs here nerd :p
destroying the local plant life it is then
Ahh, but the ones that are here are introduced, just already established before my time
in that case we salute your anti-settler actions
I will continue to fight back against noxious weeds by walking around my community nearly nude
'kind of evil'?
Is it okay for me to exploit my fellow man at any cost solely to make some additional profit? This expert says yes
I mean, if you're exploiting ICE ...
Nobody at ICE is my fellow man
Does that mean it's okay then? Takes notes
archive link: https://archive.ph/NjTC8
spoiler
My husband’s family has a trust that owns rental properties. One of them is a commercial property with several tenants. One of the tenants is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and they use it as a “short-term holding facility” (their description).
We receive income from the trust, which earns money from several other things as well; it’s all bundled together. Figuring out what portion of my rental income comes from the ICE client is not possible, as the family member who manages it declines to go to the trouble, which I understand is considerable.
I feel pretty horrible about getting money from an immigration prison, but I’m the only beneficiary of the trust who cares. I could resign from the trust, but my husband of 50 years would get my share — and anyway, our funds are completely mingled.
I’m not sure you can make me feel any better about this, but I’m curious about the ethics of receiving money from an entity you consider kind of evil. I went to a lot of Catholic schools, including a Jesuit university. I don’t know all the finer points, but it feels unethical. My husband and his family think this is ridiculous. What is your opinion? Is there a correct action? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist: It’s understandable that you’re troubled. Court rulings, investigative reporting and firsthand accounts have shown that ICE has acted in ways that not only harm noncitizens but also erode the rights of citizens.
Even so, the existence of an immigration-enforcement agency isn’t inherently the problem. Most people accept that states have a right to control their borders and that there’s a legitimate role for authorities charged with enforcing immigration policy, especially when it comes to those who have committed serious crimes. ICE also investigates trafficking, smuggling and other transnational offenses that clearly require federal oversight.
The core issue is less the agency’s mandate than its methods. Well-documented abuses — denials of due process, inhumane conditions and politically motivated enforcement — have undermined public trust and raised serious ethical concerns. The worry is not whether immigration law should be enforced but how, and at what human cost.
The holding facilities ICE uses are part of this system: They house people awaiting deportation, court appearances or further investigation. What’s in dispute isn’t the need for such spaces; it’s the treatment of detainees within those spaces. Many facilities have drawn criticism for degrading or dangerous conditions. Still, as a beneficiary of a trust that rents a property to ICE, your leverage is minuscule. You can’t unilaterally break the lease. Even if you could, ICE would simply relocate its facility. And while moral complicity is a serious concern, receiving income from a legal tenant, however problematic, isn’t generally considered an ethical transgression on its own.
We’re all entangled in systems we don’t control. As citizens, we’re already implicated in the actions of government agencies that act in our name and that we help fund. If those actions are shameful, they cast a shadow on all of us. But that shared entanglement also opens the door to shared responsibility — and response.
You mentioned your Jesuit university. You’ll probably remember, then, the emphasis placed on “discernment” — not just abstract moral reasoning but the habit of examining one’s own position in the world, with clarity and courage, and then acting on that understanding. So here’s one constructive path: If this money feels tainted, redirect it. Use it to support organizations that advocate for the rights you believe ICE has violated — groups like the A.C.L.U., the American Immigration Council or local legal-aid nonprofits that provide support for detainees. Back candidates pushing for humane immigration reform. It’s a way to turn your sense of passive complicity into a measure of active redress. You may not be able to change the trust’s lease, but you can choose what your share of the proceeds stands for.
You can’t unilaterally break the lease.
What bullshit. Of course they can terminate the lease. Every lease agreement has a provision about illegal activity. Hate to break it to you, but if your landlord catches you running a meth lab in the unit, they are going to evict you. Or hell, more appropriate here, if you're caught by police using the apartment as a holding area for your human trafficking network, then your landlord can legally evict you.
ICE is flagrantly violating the law, and the highest law of the land, the US Constitution. They're using the rental property for illegal activities. Any landlord is perfectly within their rights to begin immediate eviction proceedings against any ICE property. Evict them for violating the terms of the lease that require them to not use the property for illegal activities.
wtf is wrong with the people writing in?
random snippits
https://archive.ph/Xt18v
My grandchildren love playing Monopoly. The board game has become a great way for me to interact with them, and also a great way for them to see capitalism in all its imperfect glory. The problem: One of the cards a player may draw when landing on Community Chest is “Bank Error in Your Favor. Collect $200.” Right when we first started playing the game together, I removed that card from the set. I did so because it taught the wrong lesson. The proper thing to do when there is a bank error in your favor is to report it and return the money.
It sounds as if you’ve been part of an effort to persuade your condo association to stop using pesticides, herbicides and other chemical treatments that have become commonplace in landscape maintenance. Pesticides that are sold legally are authorized as safe for use if they are applied according to the manufacturer’s instructions and in compliance with the law, which may include a requirement to post warning signs for a defined period after application. (Specific information about pesticides can be found on the E.P.A.’s website.) You and some fellow residents have come to a different conclusion about their safety — fair enough. Your concern for how such substances could affect others and the environment is admirable.
Still, unless your condo association has made a public commitment to chemical-free landscaping, buyers will assume the use of conventional lawn-care methods, the sort of thing you’d find in any big-box-store garden aisle. If the association is violating regulations — say, by failing to post required signage — you can push for compliance or notify the relevant authorities. But the association’s practices aren’t hidden. And when it comes to selling your unit, your responsibility doesn’t extend to reshaping a buyer’s worldview.
As a White Man, Can I Date Women of Color to Advance My Antiracism?
Here’s what’s controversial among my friends: I want to prioritize dating women of color. I’m after a cross-cultural relationship. I believe very strongly that one of the main ways to combat racism is through relationships. Part of me thinks that I will always be somewhat disappointed if what ends up becoming one of the most important relationships in my life is with another white person. If someone is a woman of color, that checks a box for me in a real way. I am seeking to be antiracist in all my relationships.
Our Gardener Wants to Avoid Taxes. Should We Pay Him in Cash?
Beyond that? I get your anger, but the way to fix a flawed system is through democratic reform, not some individual act of noncompliance. Bear in mind, too, that people with truly modest incomes typically face very low effective tax rates and stand a good chance of receiving more back, through refundable credits, than they pay in.
How Do I Discourage My Remote Colleagues from Taking Secret Second Jobs?
Is It OK to Read a Newspaper Online When I’ve Stopped Paying for It?
You should still alert the newspaper. For all you know, the site routinely leaves accounts open for a period — possibly because it takes a while for the system to revoke access, or because they want to remind you of the value of what they provide, or, less honorably, because they want to maintain user-engagement stats for advertisers. But maybe it’s just a glitch which the newspaper needs to fix. Journalism is increasingly dependent on digital subscribers, and if a glitchy system causes the publication to lose out on subscription revenue, their business model could, as the Brits say, go pear-shaped. An honest person would send them a message telling them what has happened. Then, if the account remains open, you can use it in good conscience.
Even so, the fact that you’re still checking the content suggests it has value for you. Could your cancellation be worth reconsidering? These have been brutal times for news organizations, with a very few notable exceptions. While citizen journalism has its place, professional journalism — with its skilled reporters, photographers, editors, illustrators and more — requires real investment. Their work shows us worlds beyond our own and can subject our institutions and systems of governance to critical scrutiny. We’re already seeing the consequences of diminished local reporting, and if more newspapers fold, we’ll all pay the price. The fruits of journalism don’t come free, and they nourish our democracy.
Gulag. All of them.
I dunno, some of them are gross (Mr "my race fetish is antiracism" does indeed get the gulag), but "free newspaper" guy is really just a massive dork, and caring about the chemicals a HOA is exposing people to is pretty good actually, although yeah asking the question rather than just saying something is weird. The responses are the upsetting part more than the letters for those ones imo.
wtf is wrong with the people writing in?
They pay for NYT subscriptions. They have a severe case of liberalism - I'm afraid it's terminal.
"The Ethicist"
