u/GeckoGecko_

If you're the random Hunter I was just trying to blind-attempt Dual Destiny with after running the Overthrow runs together, I am SO sorry for kicking you!! I was trying to hit the orbit button to signal and suggest we leave to regroup and maybe look up the mechanics and next thing I know you're kicked and I can't find you again. I can't remember your name and you aren't popping up in my recently played with for some reason.

Again, I am so sorry!! If by slim chance you happen to read this post, hmu and I'll gladly run it with you again.

Specifically, I am asking in the context of an Ahamkara using it's own powers for it's own benefit. If they are known to die after granting their own wishes, are they just powerless against anything that doesn't ask them to grant wishes? Surely an Ahamkara would die using its own power to defend itself against another creature, no? Because it's granting its own wish that harm be inflicted upon the attacker? Or am I misunderstanding the lore?

So, here are the names of all of the known Vanguards in the Destiny Universe.

Hunters
-Tallulah Fairwind
-Caliban-8
-Aparajita-4
-Kauko Swiftdriver
-Andal Brask
-Cayde-6
-Crow

Titans
-Saint-14
-Zavala

Warlocks
-Osiris
-Ikora Rey

In order, these characters' names start with the letters "T," "C," "A," "K," "A," "C," "C," "S," "Z," "O," "I,"

This spells out "TCAKACCSZOI." Pretty cool right? It doesn't mean anything, but I think it's pretty cool.

But the best part?

The latest Vanguards have all had names starting with "V," "I," and "C," with Crow replacing Cayde as the next "C." If you turn the letter "V" on its side and add a line, it becomes the letter "N."

What's that spell? "N," "I," "C?" Nic. NIC! NICOTINE!! Bungie is clearly trying to tell us that the Vanguard approved of vaping, and the continued placement of a hunter vanguard who's first name begins with the letter "C" is symbolism, meant to represent their continued support of nicotine consumption even as generations pass.

I can only assume Zavala was allowed to become commander because of the name of his dead son, Nakim, who died so hard that he no longer lives anymore. One could refer to him as deceased, or otherwise lacking in vital life essences.

Anyways, I just thought this was a fun fact, so I figured I'd share!

I'm sure you've met someone like this. Maybe you are someone like this!

But yeah. Those people who insist that they "just keep it real," "call it like it is," or otherwise refuse to adjust the way they speak to/about others, simply lack empathy and have decided that their perspective, their opinion, their truth, is the only one that matters. They frame any effort to change the way they word things as "mincing words" or "sugarcoating," and view the act of doing so as dishonest or not worth the effort.

The funny part is that most of these people tend to be some of the most sensitive, defensive, and reactive individuals on the planet. They can dish it, but they absolutely cannot take it. They're allowed to say whatever they want to you, however they want, whenever they want, but turn it around on them, call them out like they call you out, and suddenly they're crying in the corner because you're being mean and made them feel bad. Only they are allowed to "call it like it is," everyone else has to walk on eggshells around them or risk becoming the bad guy.

When they yell, it's because they hit their breaking point, you brought them there, they deserve to be cut some slack for whatever was said, and it's up to you to make it up to them. When you yell, you're being crazy and delusional, you get judged for everything you did/said, you are in the wrong for losing your cool, and it's up to you to make it up to them. They simply cannot see that what they expect and demand from others, is the very same thing they refuse to offer to others.

A sincerely kind human being with real empathy will always adjust the way they're speaking to accommodate the way the person they're speaking to is going to interpret it. It is always worth "mincing" your words to avoid making someone feel bad or causing a miscommunication. That's basic human decency. You don't get to opt out of basic human decency without objectively being a major asshole to other people in the process. You don't even have to lie, you can simply choose your words carefully. There's a middle ground between "brutal honesty" and "lying to their face." You can and should be honest and kind when and where possible, even about negative or unkind topics/situations. The effort is worth it because you are showing respect for the other person, for their feelings and their well-being.

There's a saying that goes "people who enjoy brutal honesty, enjoy the brutality more than they enjoy the honesty." I think that rings true for most people who live/act like this.

Have you ever met someone who, despite every attempt at being courteous, respectful, kind, welcoming, receptive, etc. they just DO NOT seem to like you? You remain friendly, listen to them when they talk, show interest in their lives when they share, respect their time and space, compliment or otherwise comment positively about them in some way, and yet still they just refuse to respond, might even seem a bit irritated or put off...

Sometimes this just comes down to incompatibility. Clashing personalities/ideals, differences in social expectations, things like that. Some people just don't get along, and that's fine.

But this isn't always the case. Sometimes people will simply dislike you for no discernible reason, and offer no insight into why. You don't particularly clash, you might even just leave them alone most of them time to avoid conflict, and yet they still show you no respect or acknowledgement.

In my experience, beyond the normal "two very different people who do not work well together" dynamic, there are two reasons people act this way.

The first is the expectations.

When someone is kind to you, shows you respect, acts positively towards you, this comes with a social expectation that you will reciprocate and offer them the same kindness and respect. This is natural. You treat people how you want to be treated, as well as how they treat you. Of course when someone is kind to you, it is only proper to be kind back.

For some people, this expectation becomes a burden. Some people don't like being expected to treat others a certain way, and "excessive" kindness places them in a position where they feel obligated to adjust their demeanor or risk being seen as rude. So instead, they respond defensively, avoiding interaction and using their body language and tone to imply to the kind individual that the kindness is not wanted, so there is no expectation of reciprocation. Some people resent expectation so much that they will resort to mistreating and alienating others for natural, humane behavior in order to avoid it.

The second is the suspicion.

Some people view inherent, unconditional respect and kindness with extreme suspicion, under the assumption that a person who is "excessively" kind is only doing so in order to procure a specific reaction or outcome. They are so jaded that, when faced with genuine respect from a sincerely kind person, they simply refuse to believe that the person could be doing so for unselfish or otherwise benevolent reasons. This is especially sad, because it means the individual themselves is no longer capable of being kind without having ulterior motives for doing so. The concept is so foreign to them that they insist others must also share this same vice.

This prompts them to respond to this kindness with negativity, bitterness, and/or outright aggression. They think "this person thinks they're gonna manipulate/get one over on me, well I'll show them!" and proceed to punish innocent people who simply find it prudent to treat others with kindness regardless of context.

It's really sad. Some people on this earth are so unfamiliar with indiscriminate respect and kindness that they respond to it with negativity and suspicion, rather than simply accepting it and passing it forward.

When discussing lore theories, what do you believe counts as valid "evidence" to support a person's perspective/interpretation?

Do you place value only in what is confirmed outright in game? Item descriptions, NPC dialogue/boss voice lines, cutscene/narrative exposition, etc.

Or do you see value in things like environmental storytelling, shared architecture between unique locations, conceptual overlap, irl cultural, historical, or architectural influences & inspiration, repeated symbology, words, or phrases, visual similarities between factions or characters, etc.?

Do you rely solely on what the game tells us directly to form conclusions about the world and it's history, or do you think it's worth looking beyond what we know as objective fact, and using deductive reasoning, cross-examination, and context clues to "read between the lines" such that we can learn about more obscure, hidden truths baked within the game's design itself?

Not going to point out any particular subs here. You know who you are.

But yeah, some subs have such ridiculous banned "megathreads." Like you'll see a post that got removed and in the comments, the mod bot is like "post was removed for violating rule: no megathreads. Topics around life, existence, colors, food, sight, smell, taste, work, internet, media, world affairs, or anything that happens to be relevant to reality in any meaningful way are banned."

Wtf are you even supposed to talk about there?

Just a PSA. When reviving a fallen teammate, you should not use charged heavy attacks, because they deal the same amount of damage to the bar as uncharged heavy attacks. There is literally no difference.

The only exceptions to this are weapons which have multi-hit charged heavies, like the Raider's Colossal Weapon moveset. If your charged heavy is a single hit, please do not use charged heavy attacks to revive allies. Just spam the trigger

These tests, by nature, are meant to be unknowable as to the reasoning behind them, or what you are being tested on, so they are essentially a test of faith. Faith that God is giving you something you can handle, and that what you are going through is part of some grand plan he has for you which you fundamentally cannot understand during your time here on Earth. This cannot be a test of strength, or courage, or patience, or of any other known virtue because in order for it to be a proper/fair test of a specific nature, you would need to know what exactly you're being tested on. A test where it is unclear what you're meant to prove or learn, or what the end-goal or reward is, cannot be anything but a test of faith, because it requires you to put faith in whatever is testing you, that their intentions are good and that you are being judged fairly and reasonably. Faith that this test will ultimately be for your own benefit and that you'll eventually understand what you were being tested on.

The thing is, you should only ever have to test something like a person's faith once. When someone shows you that they trust you, there is no reason to believe they will not continue trusting you in the future, unless you believe you will have done something between now and then to break their trust, or done something you know is likely to illicit suspicion from them. Why would God have any reason to test people multiple times throughout their life? Why is one successful test of faith not enough for him to be satisfied and reassured that a person has faith in his grand plans?

Why would God even test the humans he himself created and gave free will to begin with?? He is meant to be all-knowing, omniscient, omnipotent, and he made humans in his own image. Surely he should not only be able to understand how the people he designed to resemble himself and gave free will on purpose are likely to respond to a given situation, but also be aware of the outcome before ever testing a person in the first place?

I know that the bible talks about how God gave man free will in part because it made the act of placing faith in him anyways more meaningful, as it's up to man to make the choice himself, but I just cannot for the life of me understand how anybody could read that and interpret it positively? Like, God could have just made us all naturally faithful and virtuous, but he gave us free will and the capacity to make the "wrong" decisions (after defining for us himself what "wrong" and "right" are) because it was more meaningful (to him) when we chose to follow him anyways?? Seriously?

Bro is all-powerful, created an entire species of creatures that look and act like him, and instead of just making them all happy, well-behaved, well-adjusted, virtuous, kind, compassionate, and intelligent, he chose instead to grant them the capacity to choose wrong and then goes on to punish us for using the free will he gave us, simply because we aren't using it in what he deems the correct way? Why decide that there is a "right" and "wrong" way to use free will, but then give it to us anyways? Why place expectations upon us that he himself ensured we had the potential to not be able to meet? How could that have possibly benefitted mankind in any way? Surely making man as perfect, happy, inherently good-natured creatures rather than the imperfect, moody, inherently-biased creatures we are, would have been both kinder and more respectful towards the creatures in question, and more conducive to the worship and praise God seems to so cravenly demand from his creations?

It just makes no sense for an all-powerful, all-knowing entity to put creatures he meticulously created by his own hand, in his own image, through petty little trials and tribulations just to see what they'll do, and then either punish or reward them depending on their response. The only reasonable explanation would be that God is cruel, controlling, and so self-centered that he needs to boost his ego by convincing himself he's just so great that his little followers love him and believe in him even when they're experiencing severe loss and hardship by his own making, even when he so graciously gifted them the ability to decide not to.

A loving God would either have designed his creations with love and respect for him built in, or would spend his efforts and his power giving them such a rich, pleasant, and meaningful existence that they would gladly use their free will to believe in him anyways. A loving God would never deliberately put his creations through hardship and then proceed to ask for/demand their blind love and faith in return, despite knowing that he himself made them just imperfect enough to have the ability to choose otherwise, and a loving God would especially never punish mankind, or blame them, for using the free will he gave them to choose not to believe in him.

A truly loving God would only ever use his power to better the lives of his creations and strengthen his connection with them. He would earn/justify their faith by showing them his presence and love in ways he knew they would be able to understand and appreciate, and he would come through for people in times of need, the way they need him, when they need him. He would never place afflictions upon his own creations and then expect them to overcome them to validate his own ego, and even if he did have to place such afflictions upon them for whatever reason, he would never punish them for suffering from or struggling to overcome these afflictions.

A loving God would take ownership of all his creations, regardless of their actions, beliefs, or vices, he would accept his own part in their making and would take responsibility for whatever hardships come about as a result of his creations' flaws. He would not ask them to forgo their own natural instincts and alter their way of thinking to accommodate his expectations, he would adjust his expectations to accommodate their natural instincts and ways of thinking. Because he made them that way, and he made the world they live in. If he truly created everything and everyone, and knows everything and everyone, all things can be traced back to him, such that punishment for bad choices makes no sense. According to the bible, we can only make those bad choices because he deliberately created us that way. Why, then, should we be to blame when we make these bad choices? Why is God not responsible when he was the one who chose to make us this way, for reasons that are only important/beneficial to him??

Why would God ever, *ever* test his followers when he made us, knows us, and supposedly loves us for who we are? Why would a truly loving, sincerely benevolent God's love and acceptance be predicated on absolute worship and blind faith even in the face of hardships he supposedly allows/causes to happen? Especially when it was he who made sure to grant us the ability to decide not to in the first place? Why would a loving God ever fault his creations for faltering in the face of a plan that they, by their very nature (which he himself gave them), cannot comprehend with their mortal minds, or for turning away from that which he has not bothered to make them understand?

If God were truly as benevolent and loving as he is made out to be, he simply would not have instilled his creations with free will, decided on a "right" or "wrong" way to use it, demanded blind faith and worship, then punished them for using the free will he gave them to decide not to worship or have faith in him. Nor would he deliberately subject them to hardship for reasons they cannot understand and then judge them based on whether or not they maintain their faith, after intentionally designing them to be capable of doing so.

There's just no good way to spin it, this idea that God granted free will to man just so it would be more meaningful when they chose to follow him themselves, then went on to test man constantly and judge him based on how he responded. Those are the actions of someone/something that is not mentally well nor capable of (or interested in) acting in the best interests of others.

These tests, by nature, are meant to be unknowable as to the reasoning behind them, or what you are being tested on, so they are essentially a test of faith. Faith that God is giving you something you can handle, and that what you are going through is part of some grand plan he has for you which you fundamentally cannot understand during your time here on Earth. This cannot be a test of strength, or courage, or patience, or of any other known virtue because in order for it to be a proper/fair test of a specific nature, you would need to know what exactly you're being tested on. A test where it is unclear what you're meant to prove or learn, or what the end-goal or reward is, cannot be anything but a test of faith, because it requires you to put faith in whatever is testing you, that their intentions are good and that you are being judged fairly and reasonably. Faith that this test will ultimately be for your own benefit and that you'll eventually understand what you were being tested on.

The thing is, you should only ever have to test something like a person's faith once. When someone shows you that they trust you, there is no reason to believe they will not continue trusting you in the future, unless you believe you will have done something between now and then to break their trust, or done something you know is likely to illicit suspicion from them. Why would God have any reason to test people multiple times throughout their life? Why is one successful test of faith not enough for him to be satisfied and reassured that a person has faith in his grand plans?

Why would God even test the humans he himself created and gave free will to begin with?? He is meant to be all-knowing, omniscient, omnipotent, and he made humans in his own image. Surely he should not only be able to understand how the people he designed to resemble himself and gave free will on purpose are likely to respond to a given situation, but also be aware of the outcome before ever testing a person in the first place?

I know that the bible talks about how God gave man free will in part because it made the act of placing faith in him anyways more meaningful, as it's up to man to make the choice himself, but I just cannot for the life of me understand how anybody could read that and interpret it positively? Like, God could have just made us all naturally faithful and virtuous, but he gave us free will and the capacity to make the "wrong" decisions (after defining for us himself what "wrong" and "right" are) because it was more meaningful (to him) when we chose to follow him anyways?? Seriously?

Bro is all-powerful, created an entire species of creatures that look and act like him, and instead of just making them all happy, well-behaved, well-adjusted, virtuous, kind, compassionate, and intelligent, he chose instead to grant them the capacity to choose wrong and then goes on to punish us for using the free will he gave us, simply because we aren't using it in what he deems the correct way? Why decide that there is a "right" and "wrong" way to use free will, but then give it to us anyways? Why place expectations upon us that he himself ensured we had the potential to not be able to meet? How could that have possibly benefitted mankind in any way? Surely making man as perfect, happy, inherently good-natured creatures rather than the imperfect, moody, inherently-biased creatures we are, would have been both kinder and more respectful towards the creatures in question, and more conducive to the worship and praise God seems to so cravenly demand from his creations?

It just makes no sense for an all-powerful, all-knowing entity to put creatures he meticulously created by his own hand, in his own image, through petty little trials and tribulations just to see what they'll do, and then either punish or reward them depending on their response. The only reasonable explanation would be that God is cruel, controlling, and so self-centered that he needs to boost his ego by convincing himself he's just so great that his little followers love him and believe in him even when they're experiencing severe loss and hardship by his own making, even when he so graciously gifted them the ability to decide not to.

A loving God would either have designed his creations with love and respect for him built in, or would spend his efforts and his power giving them such a rich, pleasant, and meaningful existence that they would gladly use their free will to believe in him anyways. A loving God would never deliberately put his creations through hardship and then proceed to ask for/demand their blind love and faith in return, despite knowing that he himself made them just imperfect enough to have the ability to choose otherwise, and a loving God would especially never punish mankind, or blame them, for using the free will he gave them to choose not to believe in him.

A truly loving God would only ever use his power to better the lives of his creations and strengthen his connection with them. He would earn/justify their faith by showing them his presence and love in ways he knew they would be able to understand and appreciate, and he would come through for people in times of need, the way they need him, when they need him. He would never place afflictions upon his own creations and then expect them to overcome them to validate his own ego, and even if he did have to place such afflictions upon them for whatever reason, he would never punish them for suffering from or struggling to overcome these afflictions.

A loving God would take ownership of all his creations, regardless of their actions, beliefs, or vices, he would accept his own part in their making and would take responsibility for whatever hardships come about as a result of his creations' flaws. He would not ask them to forgo their own natural instincts and alter their way of thinking to accommodate his expectations, he would adjust his expectations to accommodate their natural instincts and ways of thinking. Because he made them that way, and he made the world they live in. If he truly created everything and everyone, and knows everything and everyone, all things can be traced back to him, such that punishment for bad choices makes no sense. According to the bible, we can only make those bad choices because he deliberately created us that way. Why, then, should we be to blame when we make these bad choices? Why is God not responsible when he was the one who chose to make us this way, for reasons that are only important/beneficial to him??

Why would God ever, ever test his followers when he made us, knows us, and supposedly loves us for who we are? Why would a truly loving, sincerely benevolent God's love and acceptance be predicated on absolute worship and blind faith even in the face of hardships he supposedly allows/causes to happen? Especially when it was he who made sure to grant us the ability to decide not to in the first place? Why would a loving God ever fault his creations for faltering in the face of a plan that they, by their very nature (which he himself gave them), cannot comprehend with their mortal minds, or for turning away from that which he has not bothered to make them understand?

If God were truly as benevolent and loving as he is made out to be, he simply would not have instilled his creations with free will, decided on a "right" or "wrong" way to use it, demanded blind faith and worship, then punished them for using the free will he gave them to decide not to worship or have faith in him. Nor would he deliberately subject them to hardship for reasons they cannot understand and then judge them based on whether or not they maintain their faith, after intentionally designing them to be capable of doing so.

There's just no good way to spin it, this idea that God granted free will to man just so it would be more meaningful when they chose to follow him themselves, then went on to test man constantly and judge him based on how he responded. Those are the actions of someone/something that is not mentally well nor capable of (or interested in) acting in the best interests of others.

No, you are not trapped in your house because nobody wants to buy it for what you're offering. You being unwilling to reduce your asking price is what's keeping you stuck there.

Breaking even, or even selling a home at a loss should not be seen as some awful thing to avoid at all costs, or some kind of hardship or struggle to go through. Your home was there when you needed it, while you needed it. That was your profit. You had a home!! Homes shouldn't be seen as investments. The money you put in, you benefit from directly because you get to live there.

Unless you have significantly improved the house in some way, made practical renovations (not just for aesthetic or stylistic purposes) or straight up demolished it and built a new, larger house out of higher-quality materials, why on Earth should you get to make a profit from it once you sell it?? Even if it was kept in good condition over time, at most you should get exactly what you paid for it, and no more. I know inflation means you're technically getting back less than you spent for it, but again. You had a house!! You got from it exactly what you needed while you were there: a place to live.

If you want to move, sell your house for a price people are willing/able to pay for it. Or just enjoy the house you have and appreciate that some people have no home to live in, much less sell at a profit.

There seems to be such a common sentiment on Reddit that people (usually men) with a higher sex drive than their partners are just being immature, whiny, unreasonable, etc. for airing out their grievances, expressing frustration, acting out, or being openly upset.

Any time I see people posting about how their husband/bf is upset because they feel like their needs aren't being met, the comments are just full of negativity, ridicule, and judgement for the man. People have no sympathy, no desire to see it from the man's POV, how it could be affecting him, etc. and it's honestly really sad. I'm not saying anyone owes anyone sex, nor am I saying that being upset because you're horny is a good excuse for shitty behavior, but in situations like that, it's usually down to incompatibility due to having different sex drives, and most people don't handle this situation with respect for the other person, on either side.

It doesn't make the person with the higher drive a bad person to need something more, feel neglected, express frustration, nor does it make the person with the lower sex drive a bad person to say no, maintain their boundaries, be firm. Unless they are deeply dedicated to making it work and willing to compromise and meet each other half way, the best thing for people to do in this situation is to break up. Not because either of them are in the wrong, but because they are not good for each other and to continue the relationship, either one would have to give up a "need" (sex) or the other would have to give up a right (bodily autonomy), which is not healthy either way.

What is wrong, is belittling the other person over it. This goes both ways. If the person with the higher drive is trying to make the person with the lower drive feel guilty for saying no, or "punishes" them with shitty behavior when they say no in hopes that something will change, that's wrong. Likewise, if the person with the lower drive tries to make the person with the higher drive feel guilty for being upset when they say no, or "punishes/rewards" them using sex as a bargaining chip or a carrot on a stick to take advantage of their urges, that is also wrong.

For one to make the other feel as though they are doing something wrong for acknowledging or prioritizing their own needs, is wrong. This means it is entirely reasonable for a person with a higher sex drive to have a have a problem with the lack of intimacy, express frustration, and eventually end the relationship over it. It is equally understandable for this person to, if they are not taken seriously when expressing their frustration, act out in ways they would not normally act.

People do dumb stuff when they're feeling strong emotions, and neglect & rejection (common emotions when denied sexually) are strong emotions, especially for men. No, it doesn't make the behavior acceptable, but it does offer a valid explanation. A good comparison would be women's mood swings during their time of the month. Hormones are responsible for it, everyone knows that, so it's kind of expected that people just give a woman grace for her behavior during that time. Hormones are also responsible for the way men respond when feeling rejected in that way. Why, then, are we not expected or encouraged to give men that same grace? (This is obviously excluding things like abuse or violent outbursts)

Idk, I just think men in these situations deserve a little more grace and patience. It can be rough. You can explain why you said no all you want, but a lot of men will internalize it and become convinced you aren't attracted to them, they aren't attractive, you don't love them, they aren't worthy, etc. and will quickly spiral, doing/saying things they would otherwise never do/say were they in their right mind. Nobody wants to feel like their partner isn't as into them as they are into their partner!

Some people just aren't a good match. Some people are a good match at first, but over time one's libido might increase/decrease, making them a bad match. That is okay! It happens. Best to just respect yourself, respect the other person, and find someone who is a better match. No need to demonize people for feeling natural human emotions in response to an extremely common human problem.

How much weight do you believe reused assets hold when it comes to interpreting lore through environmental storytelling? Does asset reuse push you away from an idea? Or do you see value in recognizing when two places share similar art/architecture/symbols?

I am not just referring to assets found in multiple places throughout the game, but also assets from previous games, like the Farum Azula statues which came from Bloodborne. Does this immediately put you off or do you still believe that there is knowledge to be gained from the placement of these assets in various locations throughout the game?

Personally, I think every single asset and the locations of those assets hold meaning, and that everything is where it is, for a reason. Fromsoft have more than enough assets to work with, such that any instances of asset reuse must be considered intentional, rather than necessary to fill out the world. Even if something were to be placed somewhere simply because they needed to put something in a given area to fill space, there is absolutely significance in what they choose to use, given that they have so many options to choose from. Why put that statue here, and not this statue? Surely it's because, compared to all the other statues they could have placed there, that one came the closest to representing whatever themes or ideas they wanted to communicate to the player in a given area.

I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this

"This has been around for ages"
"How many time am I going to see this on this subreddit"
"Ah yes how original"

Give it a rest!! For the love of God, let people repost what they enjoy. Your comments about the post being a repost, how you've already seen it, etc. are worse than the actual reposts. You're trying to call out unoriginality, but in the process you are copy-pasting the same unoriginal comment that thousands, maybe millions of people have already typed before. Nobody wants to see it! Don't click/tap on the post if you've seen it before. Get off the subreddit if you're bored. Go do something else. Anything but trying to shame people for sharing what they enjoy on a public platform.

If reposts are within the rules and guidelines of a subreddit, just stfu about it. You are not a mod and you gain nothing by shitting on other people for posting memes you've already seen. They aren't going to delete it because you personally don't care to see it anymore

As stated above. For whatever reason, people love to parrot this idea that businesses exist to make money, and use this to justify all kinds of immoral, unjust, and greedy practices. They are not only expected to operate this way, but even encouraged.

No, a business should not ever exist to make maximum profit at minimal expense. A business that operates this way is nothing more than a parasite, sucking the joy and quality of life from any and all who come into contact with it, lowering the quality and availability of the services it pretends to aim to provide.

Businesses should exist to provide a service or product to society, and to create good, stable jobs for their communities. Profit should be used first and foremost to improve a business's ability to do these two things, and assuming there is anything left after doing so, things like raises and bonuses should be distributed equally amongst all staff, regardless of seniority or position.