Not The Onion

16271 readers

758 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

262

Texas man sues Whataburger for nearly $1 million after burger had onions on it (www.kens5.com)

submitted 1 day ago by Chozo@fedia.io to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

87 comments fedilink hide all child comments

HOUSTON — A Houston man is suing Whataburger for nearly $1 million after he says his burger had onions on it.

Turns out he had asked for a no-onions order.

On July 24, 2024, Demery Ardell Wilson had an allergic reaction after eating a burger that had onions on it at Whataburger, court documents say. He alleges that he requested the fast-food chain to take them off before serving him the burger.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

You're talking systemic change. A lawsuit doesn't need to cause systemic change to be worth it for the person who was wronged.

The justice system isn't always about correcting grand social inequities. Sometimes it's literally just conflict resolution and balancing things out. If I break my neighbor's fence, the judge isn't going to try to bankrupt me or have me give money as a punishment to keep me from breaking other fences. They're going to have me pay for fixing my neighbors fence because that's what's fair.

If your goal is to hurt the business, there are certainly better ways than the justice system. If your goal is for them to pay for the damage they did, the justice system is pretty much the only game in town.

[–] madame_gaymes@programming.dev 0 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

You're talking systemic change.

Yes.

If your goal is to hurt the business

Yes.

As far as I'm concerned, fast food, as well as larger corporations outside the food industry, have been hurting the average human being, and nature as a whole, for far too long. We've tried the accountability route and things have only gotten worse (pointing fingers at tariffs/inflation/shrinkflation/taxes/stock market/rich piggies stuff).

So in that context, lawsuits won't do shit but placate the people it hurts long enough for them to keep sodomizing us and get away with it.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

Given that most of the comment thread was about if the lawsuit was justified or not, you can understand how a sudden shift to systemic justice and the morality of corporations might be a little unexpected.

So it sounds like you're saying the people who have been hurt shouldn't recoup their damages, since that just stalls the continued fucking over without consequences, and instead they should... Let them get away with it, embrace getting fucked over, and take the consequences of the company onto themselves? The exact same outcome, except the corporation has even fewer costs?