Mastodon doesn't have a billionaire backer.
This account looks pretty sus. Lots of click-bait and rage-bait questions and contradictions in a short time.
Shoppers treats their pharmacists like they're robots, and worse, pressures them to upsell services that customers don't need, and cheat on billing. They give the pharmacists low budgets and make it hard to hire staff,and thus the staff are overworked. Every good pharmacist I've ever known at a shoppers has left and started their own pharmacy.
Personally, I've directly found my local Shoppers pharmacy wasn't pleasant, with rude treatment, and not taking time to listen to my concerns or questions. Plus Shoppers is the most expensive place by far (except maybe 7-eleven) to buy almost anything that isn't steeply discounted on sale, and their dispensing fees specifically are super high.
I can see your predicament but I would try the small pharmacy. You might end up appreciating the more personal touch and taking the sacrifice of the less convenient hours. Even better, try talking to the pharmacist about it. They might even have a way to accommodate you. It I find I only need to go to the actual pharmacy now for pickups, but even then I like talking to my pharmacist so I'll walk over. (I'm fortunate to have many many options in walking distance.)
Note that I'm not even totally anti-Loblaw. I will go out of my way to walk to No Frills to get the lower-priced No Name products and other (on sale, usually) deals. And I find the staff at No Frills to be super friendly and helpful.
I just really don't like the shoppers pharmacy and would highly recommend avoiding it.
Mmmm, yeasty.
Yeah I was going to say, "sounds familiar".
I think their idea has some validity, but the approach and reasoning are problematic. I would love to explore it more, but alas, I'm not worthy.
How many billions did they lose on this deal (using DOGE math, please)
Good idea, block people on your side just because you disagree with them on how the message is being sent.
#ignorant
Yes, it does.
If the title was "Linking the Delta crash to DEI", then it would be amplifying the lies. (And would be click-baity to boot.)
Maybe if the title was "Right-wing journalist links Delta crash to DEI" you might be able to argue that it was an amplifier, but the insertion of "right-wing" is clearly indicsting out that there is a bias involved that is being called out.
Adding "gross" cannot be more clear. If you are unable to comprehend that this is saying that linking the two is disgusting and unfactual, then you will never comprehend anything that is written to indicate that, whether it's before or after the the statement.
You are now erroneously calling out two people (the youtuber and the OP here) who are clearly calling out the terrible behaviour of the person making the link, instead of praising them for standing up to that "media host".
But the post is using the title from the video, which is standard practice. Personally I think the "gross" and "right-wing" make it pretty clear what the title is saying.
Isn't that the point of the posted video?
You'll be the first to know. Or last?