So...I've see this a lot. And it reminds me of the "Stanford marshmallow experiment" where if children didn't eat a treat (marshmallow) immediately, they would get another later.
It was used as a method to determine success in adulthood - if the children had enough "impulse control" and "discipline" to resist the treat knowing there is a greater reward they were smart and would be successful.
It was an intelligence test. Dumb kids ate, smart kids waited.
Since the experiment, in the 1970s, the inherent bias has come to light.
The children dealing with food insecurity ate the marshmallow right away because they couldn't be sure they would have another chance to eat, even when told they would.
The children without that experience and who had access to treats were able to wait.
So - what's this post saying?
Should be taken at face value, shaming those who take 3 slices while the righteous take 1 to prove their sacrfice is for the greater good and the greedy take more.
Or is it that the people who take 1 slice do so because they have access to resources and want others can take what they need.
Or are the people taking 1 slice the ones who need more but don't want to be shamed for taking anything, even if they needed it.
Or is it stating we have been led to believe we can't get more pizza if we run out because have been conditioned to judge those accessing resources as greedy, shameful and bad.
I'd say: I'm not the pizza police. Take what you need without shame at my pizza party. And take some home to those who couldn't attend or because you need or want them.
Let's stop assuming someone who takes more needs less and those who take less dont need more.
