comment
stringlengths 1
9.9k
| context
listlengths 0
835
|
|---|---|
>
|
[
"I keep a mio in the door of the fridge for this reason. Just a hint of flavor makes a big difference.",
">\n\nI drink flavored seltzer at night (Ruby Red is my go to) the bubbles and bit of flavor really hit the spot.",
">\n\nBrush your teeth before bed.\nAlso don't mouth breathe while you sleep."
] |
GMMK2
Keycaps- Akko Black Pink
Switches- Akko Radiant Reds
Stabs- Everglide with holee mod
Mods- Tape mod and case foam
Sounds too marbly IMO and looking more for a soft clacky Akko switch. Any recommendations?
|
[] |
>
|
[
"GMMK2\nKeycaps- Akko Black Pink\nSwitches- Akko Radiant Reds\nStabs- Everglide with holee mod\nMods- Tape mod and case foam\nSounds too marbly IMO and looking more for a soft clacky Akko switch. Any recommendations?"
] |
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.
|
[] |
>
People have always worked out, hunting, sports, contests, basic survival. In a way ya we don’t need to do a lot of that but basic survival but we have always tried to be fit, even in ancient Rome and Greece.
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans."
] |
>
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nPeople have always worked out, hunting, sports, contests, basic survival. In a way ya we don’t need to do a lot of that but basic survival but we have always tried to be fit, even in ancient Rome and Greece."
] |
This should be done at the EU leve!
Everyone needs to have full rights on its own body!
|
[] |
>
Good luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!"
] |
>
Unfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections."
] |
>
If only the us was so advanced.
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month."
] |
>
You guys need more strikes
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced."
] |
>
But think of the poor billionaires/s
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes"
] |
>
Could someone familiar with France provide context here?
Suppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?
Just reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?
As of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like "Congress shall make no law" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?
I guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s"
] |
>
I've lived in Paris for 17 years.
Yes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.
If 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.
Support for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.
I don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?"
] |
>
Can we get that in the U.S., too?
Edit: Who got offended by this question?
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years."
] |
>
Only if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?"
] |
>
In fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen."
] |
>
I wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!"
] |
>
Just like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything"
] |
>
Isn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs."
] |
>
Updated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods.
Original one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.",
">\n\nIsn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?"
] |
>
Ty. Wasn’t it fine before? I mean, why is it better at 16 weeks rather than 10? Anyone would be able to tell they’re pregnant after 2 months, am I missing something?
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.",
">\n\nIsn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?",
">\n\nUpdated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods. \nOriginal one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks"
] |
>
Some women have irregular periods and would not necessarily know by 2 months
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.",
">\n\nIsn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?",
">\n\nUpdated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods. \nOriginal one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks",
">\n\nTy. Wasn’t it fine before? I mean, why is it better at 16 weeks rather than 10? Anyone would be able to tell they’re pregnant after 2 months, am I missing something?"
] |
>
Denying life?
What are you talking about?
A life with disabilities or awful disease is a good life or one worth living?
Will these pro-life people take care all their lives for those people with disabilities?
If the answer is no, why don't mind their own business and take care just about their bodies and their lives?
These pro-life people are just pro-bad life or a life in pain.
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.",
">\n\nIsn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?",
">\n\nUpdated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods. \nOriginal one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks",
">\n\nTy. Wasn’t it fine before? I mean, why is it better at 16 weeks rather than 10? Anyone would be able to tell they’re pregnant after 2 months, am I missing something?",
">\n\nSome women have irregular periods and would not necessarily know by 2 months"
] |
>
Wrong.
Ask any pro-lifer and they will tell you a resounding YES!
We will take them. We will help the mothers and fathers. We will vote for funding to child care and fatherhood/motherhood.
You’d have to actually talk to us to know that though.
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.",
">\n\nIsn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?",
">\n\nUpdated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods. \nOriginal one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks",
">\n\nTy. Wasn’t it fine before? I mean, why is it better at 16 weeks rather than 10? Anyone would be able to tell they’re pregnant after 2 months, am I missing something?",
">\n\nSome women have irregular periods and would not necessarily know by 2 months",
">\n\nDenying life?\nWhat are you talking about?\nA life with disabilities or awful disease is a good life or one worth living?\nWill these pro-life people take care all their lives for those people with disabilities?\nIf the answer is no, why don't mind their own business and take care just about their bodies and their lives?\nThese pro-life people are just pro-bad life or a life in pain."
] |
>
That's bullshit!
Please finish with these jokes!
We know very well that pro-life don't care about anything than just to push their distorted views on others.
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.",
">\n\nIsn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?",
">\n\nUpdated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods. \nOriginal one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks",
">\n\nTy. Wasn’t it fine before? I mean, why is it better at 16 weeks rather than 10? Anyone would be able to tell they’re pregnant after 2 months, am I missing something?",
">\n\nSome women have irregular periods and would not necessarily know by 2 months",
">\n\nDenying life?\nWhat are you talking about?\nA life with disabilities or awful disease is a good life or one worth living?\nWill these pro-life people take care all their lives for those people with disabilities?\nIf the answer is no, why don't mind their own business and take care just about their bodies and their lives?\nThese pro-life people are just pro-bad life or a life in pain.",
">\n\nWrong.\nAsk any pro-lifer and they will tell you a resounding YES!\nWe will take them. We will help the mothers and fathers. We will vote for funding to child care and fatherhood/motherhood.\nYou’d have to actually talk to us to know that though."
] |
>
And you base this off of the panic porn on Reddit and the news???
I’m confused because I’ve never met someone in the pro life community that would mirror that statement. So the “We” you refer to must be mistaken, as that’s not part of our movement at all!
I’d rather incentivize mothers to give birth and help them financially and completely for a few years before I’d ever want someone aborted.
I’ll take that trade in a heartbeat (no pun intended).
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.",
">\n\nIsn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?",
">\n\nUpdated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods. \nOriginal one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks",
">\n\nTy. Wasn’t it fine before? I mean, why is it better at 16 weeks rather than 10? Anyone would be able to tell they’re pregnant after 2 months, am I missing something?",
">\n\nSome women have irregular periods and would not necessarily know by 2 months",
">\n\nDenying life?\nWhat are you talking about?\nA life with disabilities or awful disease is a good life or one worth living?\nWill these pro-life people take care all their lives for those people with disabilities?\nIf the answer is no, why don't mind their own business and take care just about their bodies and their lives?\nThese pro-life people are just pro-bad life or a life in pain.",
">\n\nWrong.\nAsk any pro-lifer and they will tell you a resounding YES!\nWe will take them. We will help the mothers and fathers. We will vote for funding to child care and fatherhood/motherhood.\nYou’d have to actually talk to us to know that though.",
">\n\nThat's bullshit!\nPlease finish with these jokes!\nWe know very well that pro-life don't care about anything than just to push their distorted views on others."
] |
>
If only the rest of the world would join the 21st century.
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.",
">\n\nIsn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?",
">\n\nUpdated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods. \nOriginal one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks",
">\n\nTy. Wasn’t it fine before? I mean, why is it better at 16 weeks rather than 10? Anyone would be able to tell they’re pregnant after 2 months, am I missing something?",
">\n\nSome women have irregular periods and would not necessarily know by 2 months",
">\n\nDenying life?\nWhat are you talking about?\nA life with disabilities or awful disease is a good life or one worth living?\nWill these pro-life people take care all their lives for those people with disabilities?\nIf the answer is no, why don't mind their own business and take care just about their bodies and their lives?\nThese pro-life people are just pro-bad life or a life in pain.",
">\n\nWrong.\nAsk any pro-lifer and they will tell you a resounding YES!\nWe will take them. We will help the mothers and fathers. We will vote for funding to child care and fatherhood/motherhood.\nYou’d have to actually talk to us to know that though.",
">\n\nThat's bullshit!\nPlease finish with these jokes!\nWe know very well that pro-life don't care about anything than just to push their distorted views on others.",
">\n\nAnd you base this off of the panic porn on Reddit and the news???\nI’m confused because I’ve never met someone in the pro life community that would mirror that statement. So the “We” you refer to must be mistaken, as that’s not part of our movement at all!\nI’d rather incentivize mothers to give birth and help them financially and completely for a few years before I’d ever want someone aborted. \nI’ll take that trade in a heartbeat (no pun intended)."
] |
>
The French. Always the most progressive. Good stuff.
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.",
">\n\nIsn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?",
">\n\nUpdated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods. \nOriginal one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks",
">\n\nTy. Wasn’t it fine before? I mean, why is it better at 16 weeks rather than 10? Anyone would be able to tell they’re pregnant after 2 months, am I missing something?",
">\n\nSome women have irregular periods and would not necessarily know by 2 months",
">\n\nDenying life?\nWhat are you talking about?\nA life with disabilities or awful disease is a good life or one worth living?\nWill these pro-life people take care all their lives for those people with disabilities?\nIf the answer is no, why don't mind their own business and take care just about their bodies and their lives?\nThese pro-life people are just pro-bad life or a life in pain.",
">\n\nWrong.\nAsk any pro-lifer and they will tell you a resounding YES!\nWe will take them. We will help the mothers and fathers. We will vote for funding to child care and fatherhood/motherhood.\nYou’d have to actually talk to us to know that though.",
">\n\nThat's bullshit!\nPlease finish with these jokes!\nWe know very well that pro-life don't care about anything than just to push their distorted views on others.",
">\n\nAnd you base this off of the panic porn on Reddit and the news???\nI’m confused because I’ve never met someone in the pro life community that would mirror that statement. So the “We” you refer to must be mistaken, as that’s not part of our movement at all!\nI’d rather incentivize mothers to give birth and help them financially and completely for a few years before I’d ever want someone aborted. \nI’ll take that trade in a heartbeat (no pun intended).",
">\n\nIf only the rest of the world would join the 21st century."
] |
>
0 babies are murdered
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.",
">\n\nIsn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?",
">\n\nUpdated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods. \nOriginal one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks",
">\n\nTy. Wasn’t it fine before? I mean, why is it better at 16 weeks rather than 10? Anyone would be able to tell they’re pregnant after 2 months, am I missing something?",
">\n\nSome women have irregular periods and would not necessarily know by 2 months",
">\n\nDenying life?\nWhat are you talking about?\nA life with disabilities or awful disease is a good life or one worth living?\nWill these pro-life people take care all their lives for those people with disabilities?\nIf the answer is no, why don't mind their own business and take care just about their bodies and their lives?\nThese pro-life people are just pro-bad life or a life in pain.",
">\n\nWrong.\nAsk any pro-lifer and they will tell you a resounding YES!\nWe will take them. We will help the mothers and fathers. We will vote for funding to child care and fatherhood/motherhood.\nYou’d have to actually talk to us to know that though.",
">\n\nThat's bullshit!\nPlease finish with these jokes!\nWe know very well that pro-life don't care about anything than just to push their distorted views on others.",
">\n\nAnd you base this off of the panic porn on Reddit and the news???\nI’m confused because I’ve never met someone in the pro life community that would mirror that statement. So the “We” you refer to must be mistaken, as that’s not part of our movement at all!\nI’d rather incentivize mothers to give birth and help them financially and completely for a few years before I’d ever want someone aborted. \nI’ll take that trade in a heartbeat (no pun intended).",
">\n\nIf only the rest of the world would join the 21st century.",
">\n\nThe French. Always the most progressive. Good stuff."
] |
>
Then you have a complete misunderstanding of biology and the abortion procedure.
If you believe it’s a right than that’s your prerogative, but be realistic about what it is.
Genetics and biology say life begins at conception. It is only within the human species that we do not consider conception it’s own individual life.
Abortion is the procedure or process of ending/terminating a pregnancy that is 100% accomplished through the killing and removal of another individual in the womb.
If your argument is that it’s not a baby, you then have to completely redefine what constitutes life. Which would be fine if any pro-abortion person would come up with a logical and scientific definition of what constitutes a human life. To this day, nothing has been presented to the scientific community.
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.",
">\n\nIsn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?",
">\n\nUpdated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods. \nOriginal one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks",
">\n\nTy. Wasn’t it fine before? I mean, why is it better at 16 weeks rather than 10? Anyone would be able to tell they’re pregnant after 2 months, am I missing something?",
">\n\nSome women have irregular periods and would not necessarily know by 2 months",
">\n\nDenying life?\nWhat are you talking about?\nA life with disabilities or awful disease is a good life or one worth living?\nWill these pro-life people take care all their lives for those people with disabilities?\nIf the answer is no, why don't mind their own business and take care just about their bodies and their lives?\nThese pro-life people are just pro-bad life or a life in pain.",
">\n\nWrong.\nAsk any pro-lifer and they will tell you a resounding YES!\nWe will take them. We will help the mothers and fathers. We will vote for funding to child care and fatherhood/motherhood.\nYou’d have to actually talk to us to know that though.",
">\n\nThat's bullshit!\nPlease finish with these jokes!\nWe know very well that pro-life don't care about anything than just to push their distorted views on others.",
">\n\nAnd you base this off of the panic porn on Reddit and the news???\nI’m confused because I’ve never met someone in the pro life community that would mirror that statement. So the “We” you refer to must be mistaken, as that’s not part of our movement at all!\nI’d rather incentivize mothers to give birth and help them financially and completely for a few years before I’d ever want someone aborted. \nI’ll take that trade in a heartbeat (no pun intended).",
">\n\nIf only the rest of the world would join the 21st century.",
">\n\nThe French. Always the most progressive. Good stuff.",
">\n\n0 babies are murdered"
] |
>
You must've had a comfortable life. Your worldview is severely, extremely limited if you're arguing against SOMEONE else's bodily autonomy. You also sound like you misunderstand the abortion procedure if you think what they pull out is a fully formed baby. Are you a woman? No? Then stfu, what do you care. Go care for an already alive baby starving in your back alley! Or better yet, go get pregnant yourself, if you think they're so precious.
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.",
">\n\nIsn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?",
">\n\nUpdated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods. \nOriginal one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks",
">\n\nTy. Wasn’t it fine before? I mean, why is it better at 16 weeks rather than 10? Anyone would be able to tell they’re pregnant after 2 months, am I missing something?",
">\n\nSome women have irregular periods and would not necessarily know by 2 months",
">\n\nDenying life?\nWhat are you talking about?\nA life with disabilities or awful disease is a good life or one worth living?\nWill these pro-life people take care all their lives for those people with disabilities?\nIf the answer is no, why don't mind their own business and take care just about their bodies and their lives?\nThese pro-life people are just pro-bad life or a life in pain.",
">\n\nWrong.\nAsk any pro-lifer and they will tell you a resounding YES!\nWe will take them. We will help the mothers and fathers. We will vote for funding to child care and fatherhood/motherhood.\nYou’d have to actually talk to us to know that though.",
">\n\nThat's bullshit!\nPlease finish with these jokes!\nWe know very well that pro-life don't care about anything than just to push their distorted views on others.",
">\n\nAnd you base this off of the panic porn on Reddit and the news???\nI’m confused because I’ve never met someone in the pro life community that would mirror that statement. So the “We” you refer to must be mistaken, as that’s not part of our movement at all!\nI’d rather incentivize mothers to give birth and help them financially and completely for a few years before I’d ever want someone aborted. \nI’ll take that trade in a heartbeat (no pun intended).",
">\n\nIf only the rest of the world would join the 21st century.",
">\n\nThe French. Always the most progressive. Good stuff.",
">\n\n0 babies are murdered",
">\n\nThen you have a complete misunderstanding of biology and the abortion procedure. \nIf you believe it’s a right than that’s your prerogative, but be realistic about what it is. \nGenetics and biology say life begins at conception. It is only within the human species that we do not consider conception it’s own individual life.\nAbortion is the procedure or process of ending/terminating a pregnancy that is 100% accomplished through the killing and removal of another individual in the womb. \nIf your argument is that it’s not a baby, you then have to completely redefine what constitutes life. Which would be fine if any pro-abortion person would come up with a logical and scientific definition of what constitutes a human life. To this day, nothing has been presented to the scientific community."
] |
>
Yes, there's two bodies. But one body cannot survive without forcibly consuming the other body's energy. The body being used without permission is allowed to free itself from that. It's no different than being forced to donate a kidney to a dying man. You are never obligated to give up your bodily autonomy to someone else, including a fetus.
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.",
">\n\nIsn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?",
">\n\nUpdated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods. \nOriginal one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks",
">\n\nTy. Wasn’t it fine before? I mean, why is it better at 16 weeks rather than 10? Anyone would be able to tell they’re pregnant after 2 months, am I missing something?",
">\n\nSome women have irregular periods and would not necessarily know by 2 months",
">\n\nDenying life?\nWhat are you talking about?\nA life with disabilities or awful disease is a good life or one worth living?\nWill these pro-life people take care all their lives for those people with disabilities?\nIf the answer is no, why don't mind their own business and take care just about their bodies and their lives?\nThese pro-life people are just pro-bad life or a life in pain.",
">\n\nWrong.\nAsk any pro-lifer and they will tell you a resounding YES!\nWe will take them. We will help the mothers and fathers. We will vote for funding to child care and fatherhood/motherhood.\nYou’d have to actually talk to us to know that though.",
">\n\nThat's bullshit!\nPlease finish with these jokes!\nWe know very well that pro-life don't care about anything than just to push their distorted views on others.",
">\n\nAnd you base this off of the panic porn on Reddit and the news???\nI’m confused because I’ve never met someone in the pro life community that would mirror that statement. So the “We” you refer to must be mistaken, as that’s not part of our movement at all!\nI’d rather incentivize mothers to give birth and help them financially and completely for a few years before I’d ever want someone aborted. \nI’ll take that trade in a heartbeat (no pun intended).",
">\n\nIf only the rest of the world would join the 21st century.",
">\n\nThe French. Always the most progressive. Good stuff.",
">\n\n0 babies are murdered",
">\n\nThen you have a complete misunderstanding of biology and the abortion procedure. \nIf you believe it’s a right than that’s your prerogative, but be realistic about what it is. \nGenetics and biology say life begins at conception. It is only within the human species that we do not consider conception it’s own individual life.\nAbortion is the procedure or process of ending/terminating a pregnancy that is 100% accomplished through the killing and removal of another individual in the womb. \nIf your argument is that it’s not a baby, you then have to completely redefine what constitutes life. Which would be fine if any pro-abortion person would come up with a logical and scientific definition of what constitutes a human life. To this day, nothing has been presented to the scientific community.",
">\n\nYou must've had a comfortable life. Your worldview is severely, extremely limited if you're arguing against SOMEONE else's bodily autonomy. You also sound like you misunderstand the abortion procedure if you think what they pull out is a fully formed baby. Are you a woman? No? Then stfu, what do you care. Go care for an already alive baby starving in your back alley! Or better yet, go get pregnant yourself, if you think they're so precious."
] |
>
I think CottonRey hit the nail on the head with his response.
And that would mean that “life and rights” only belong to people who can live individually. What about a toddler? What about an elderly individual? A sick individual who’s on life support? Someone on food stamps and welfare surviving off of the energy and resources collected and created by others?
Life and rights being given based solely off of an individuals ability to survive alone seems like a bad line, too many opportunities for abuse elsewhere and unsupported by science IMO.
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.",
">\n\nIsn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?",
">\n\nUpdated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods. \nOriginal one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks",
">\n\nTy. Wasn’t it fine before? I mean, why is it better at 16 weeks rather than 10? Anyone would be able to tell they’re pregnant after 2 months, am I missing something?",
">\n\nSome women have irregular periods and would not necessarily know by 2 months",
">\n\nDenying life?\nWhat are you talking about?\nA life with disabilities or awful disease is a good life or one worth living?\nWill these pro-life people take care all their lives for those people with disabilities?\nIf the answer is no, why don't mind their own business and take care just about their bodies and their lives?\nThese pro-life people are just pro-bad life or a life in pain.",
">\n\nWrong.\nAsk any pro-lifer and they will tell you a resounding YES!\nWe will take them. We will help the mothers and fathers. We will vote for funding to child care and fatherhood/motherhood.\nYou’d have to actually talk to us to know that though.",
">\n\nThat's bullshit!\nPlease finish with these jokes!\nWe know very well that pro-life don't care about anything than just to push their distorted views on others.",
">\n\nAnd you base this off of the panic porn on Reddit and the news???\nI’m confused because I’ve never met someone in the pro life community that would mirror that statement. So the “We” you refer to must be mistaken, as that’s not part of our movement at all!\nI’d rather incentivize mothers to give birth and help them financially and completely for a few years before I’d ever want someone aborted. \nI’ll take that trade in a heartbeat (no pun intended).",
">\n\nIf only the rest of the world would join the 21st century.",
">\n\nThe French. Always the most progressive. Good stuff.",
">\n\n0 babies are murdered",
">\n\nThen you have a complete misunderstanding of biology and the abortion procedure. \nIf you believe it’s a right than that’s your prerogative, but be realistic about what it is. \nGenetics and biology say life begins at conception. It is only within the human species that we do not consider conception it’s own individual life.\nAbortion is the procedure or process of ending/terminating a pregnancy that is 100% accomplished through the killing and removal of another individual in the womb. \nIf your argument is that it’s not a baby, you then have to completely redefine what constitutes life. Which would be fine if any pro-abortion person would come up with a logical and scientific definition of what constitutes a human life. To this day, nothing has been presented to the scientific community.",
">\n\nYou must've had a comfortable life. Your worldview is severely, extremely limited if you're arguing against SOMEONE else's bodily autonomy. You also sound like you misunderstand the abortion procedure if you think what they pull out is a fully formed baby. Are you a woman? No? Then stfu, what do you care. Go care for an already alive baby starving in your back alley! Or better yet, go get pregnant yourself, if you think they're so precious.",
">\n\nYes, there's two bodies. But one body cannot survive without forcibly consuming the other body's energy. The body being used without permission is allowed to free itself from that. It's no different than being forced to donate a kidney to a dying man. You are never obligated to give up your bodily autonomy to someone else, including a fetus."
] |
>
A toddler and a poor person are still surviving on their own. They breathe their own air and eat their own food. A fetus is quite literally draining the energy from the woman carrying it.
Yes, life and rights are a fine line to walk, but you're missing the woman in the situation. If you want to give a fetus rights to life, that means you have to take away the woman's rights. That is the entire issue. The woman is more important at the end of the day. She is aware, she is sentient, she knows she is suffering. A fetus does not care.
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.",
">\n\nIsn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?",
">\n\nUpdated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods. \nOriginal one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks",
">\n\nTy. Wasn’t it fine before? I mean, why is it better at 16 weeks rather than 10? Anyone would be able to tell they’re pregnant after 2 months, am I missing something?",
">\n\nSome women have irregular periods and would not necessarily know by 2 months",
">\n\nDenying life?\nWhat are you talking about?\nA life with disabilities or awful disease is a good life or one worth living?\nWill these pro-life people take care all their lives for those people with disabilities?\nIf the answer is no, why don't mind their own business and take care just about their bodies and their lives?\nThese pro-life people are just pro-bad life or a life in pain.",
">\n\nWrong.\nAsk any pro-lifer and they will tell you a resounding YES!\nWe will take them. We will help the mothers and fathers. We will vote for funding to child care and fatherhood/motherhood.\nYou’d have to actually talk to us to know that though.",
">\n\nThat's bullshit!\nPlease finish with these jokes!\nWe know very well that pro-life don't care about anything than just to push their distorted views on others.",
">\n\nAnd you base this off of the panic porn on Reddit and the news???\nI’m confused because I’ve never met someone in the pro life community that would mirror that statement. So the “We” you refer to must be mistaken, as that’s not part of our movement at all!\nI’d rather incentivize mothers to give birth and help them financially and completely for a few years before I’d ever want someone aborted. \nI’ll take that trade in a heartbeat (no pun intended).",
">\n\nIf only the rest of the world would join the 21st century.",
">\n\nThe French. Always the most progressive. Good stuff.",
">\n\n0 babies are murdered",
">\n\nThen you have a complete misunderstanding of biology and the abortion procedure. \nIf you believe it’s a right than that’s your prerogative, but be realistic about what it is. \nGenetics and biology say life begins at conception. It is only within the human species that we do not consider conception it’s own individual life.\nAbortion is the procedure or process of ending/terminating a pregnancy that is 100% accomplished through the killing and removal of another individual in the womb. \nIf your argument is that it’s not a baby, you then have to completely redefine what constitutes life. Which would be fine if any pro-abortion person would come up with a logical and scientific definition of what constitutes a human life. To this day, nothing has been presented to the scientific community.",
">\n\nYou must've had a comfortable life. Your worldview is severely, extremely limited if you're arguing against SOMEONE else's bodily autonomy. You also sound like you misunderstand the abortion procedure if you think what they pull out is a fully formed baby. Are you a woman? No? Then stfu, what do you care. Go care for an already alive baby starving in your back alley! Or better yet, go get pregnant yourself, if you think they're so precious.",
">\n\nYes, there's two bodies. But one body cannot survive without forcibly consuming the other body's energy. The body being used without permission is allowed to free itself from that. It's no different than being forced to donate a kidney to a dying man. You are never obligated to give up your bodily autonomy to someone else, including a fetus.",
">\n\nI think CottonRey hit the nail on the head with his response. \nAnd that would mean that “life and rights” only belong to people who can live individually. What about a toddler? What about an elderly individual? A sick individual who’s on life support? Someone on food stamps and welfare surviving off of the energy and resources collected and created by others?\nLife and rights being given based solely off of an individuals ability to survive alone seems like a bad line, too many opportunities for abuse elsewhere and unsupported by science IMO."
] |
>
A toddler cannot survive on its own, I’m not sure how you even argue that. A baby I’m the womb does take sustenance from the mother, yes. That’s basic knowledge, just like that getting pregnant can result in a pregnancy.
The mother had a choice to sleep with a man, had a choice to make him wear a condom, had a choice to take a pill or any of the other various forms of birth control, etc. Because she chose to do that irresponsibly doesn’t mean she has the right to actively take a life. We need some accountability here.
You started at survival, went to the ability to eat yourself, and ended at sentience. That’s three separate ideas of what constitutes life, all of which could easily be used in places other than abortion to place less worth on an individuals life.
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.",
">\n\nIsn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?",
">\n\nUpdated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods. \nOriginal one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks",
">\n\nTy. Wasn’t it fine before? I mean, why is it better at 16 weeks rather than 10? Anyone would be able to tell they’re pregnant after 2 months, am I missing something?",
">\n\nSome women have irregular periods and would not necessarily know by 2 months",
">\n\nDenying life?\nWhat are you talking about?\nA life with disabilities or awful disease is a good life or one worth living?\nWill these pro-life people take care all their lives for those people with disabilities?\nIf the answer is no, why don't mind their own business and take care just about their bodies and their lives?\nThese pro-life people are just pro-bad life or a life in pain.",
">\n\nWrong.\nAsk any pro-lifer and they will tell you a resounding YES!\nWe will take them. We will help the mothers and fathers. We will vote for funding to child care and fatherhood/motherhood.\nYou’d have to actually talk to us to know that though.",
">\n\nThat's bullshit!\nPlease finish with these jokes!\nWe know very well that pro-life don't care about anything than just to push their distorted views on others.",
">\n\nAnd you base this off of the panic porn on Reddit and the news???\nI’m confused because I’ve never met someone in the pro life community that would mirror that statement. So the “We” you refer to must be mistaken, as that’s not part of our movement at all!\nI’d rather incentivize mothers to give birth and help them financially and completely for a few years before I’d ever want someone aborted. \nI’ll take that trade in a heartbeat (no pun intended).",
">\n\nIf only the rest of the world would join the 21st century.",
">\n\nThe French. Always the most progressive. Good stuff.",
">\n\n0 babies are murdered",
">\n\nThen you have a complete misunderstanding of biology and the abortion procedure. \nIf you believe it’s a right than that’s your prerogative, but be realistic about what it is. \nGenetics and biology say life begins at conception. It is only within the human species that we do not consider conception it’s own individual life.\nAbortion is the procedure or process of ending/terminating a pregnancy that is 100% accomplished through the killing and removal of another individual in the womb. \nIf your argument is that it’s not a baby, you then have to completely redefine what constitutes life. Which would be fine if any pro-abortion person would come up with a logical and scientific definition of what constitutes a human life. To this day, nothing has been presented to the scientific community.",
">\n\nYou must've had a comfortable life. Your worldview is severely, extremely limited if you're arguing against SOMEONE else's bodily autonomy. You also sound like you misunderstand the abortion procedure if you think what they pull out is a fully formed baby. Are you a woman? No? Then stfu, what do you care. Go care for an already alive baby starving in your back alley! Or better yet, go get pregnant yourself, if you think they're so precious.",
">\n\nYes, there's two bodies. But one body cannot survive without forcibly consuming the other body's energy. The body being used without permission is allowed to free itself from that. It's no different than being forced to donate a kidney to a dying man. You are never obligated to give up your bodily autonomy to someone else, including a fetus.",
">\n\nI think CottonRey hit the nail on the head with his response. \nAnd that would mean that “life and rights” only belong to people who can live individually. What about a toddler? What about an elderly individual? A sick individual who’s on life support? Someone on food stamps and welfare surviving off of the energy and resources collected and created by others?\nLife and rights being given based solely off of an individuals ability to survive alone seems like a bad line, too many opportunities for abuse elsewhere and unsupported by science IMO.",
">\n\nA toddler and a poor person are still surviving on their own. They breathe their own air and eat their own food. A fetus is quite literally draining the energy from the woman carrying it.\nYes, life and rights are a fine line to walk, but you're missing the woman in the situation. If you want to give a fetus rights to life, that means you have to take away the woman's rights. That is the entire issue. The woman is more important at the end of the day. She is aware, she is sentient, she knows she is suffering. A fetus does not care."
] |
>
I specifically said "breathe and eat on their own." They can function as an individual.
The mother had a choice to sleep with a man
AH! And there it is! It always boils down to this with pro-lifers. Punishment. You think because a woman made a choice you don't like, she should be forced to be pregnant against her will. Because in your books birth control never fails, rape never happens, health issues never appear. It's always because the woman did a naughty thing that makes you feel icky, and you want her to suffer for it.
Have a good day.
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.",
">\n\nIsn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?",
">\n\nUpdated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods. \nOriginal one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks",
">\n\nTy. Wasn’t it fine before? I mean, why is it better at 16 weeks rather than 10? Anyone would be able to tell they’re pregnant after 2 months, am I missing something?",
">\n\nSome women have irregular periods and would not necessarily know by 2 months",
">\n\nDenying life?\nWhat are you talking about?\nA life with disabilities or awful disease is a good life or one worth living?\nWill these pro-life people take care all their lives for those people with disabilities?\nIf the answer is no, why don't mind their own business and take care just about their bodies and their lives?\nThese pro-life people are just pro-bad life or a life in pain.",
">\n\nWrong.\nAsk any pro-lifer and they will tell you a resounding YES!\nWe will take them. We will help the mothers and fathers. We will vote for funding to child care and fatherhood/motherhood.\nYou’d have to actually talk to us to know that though.",
">\n\nThat's bullshit!\nPlease finish with these jokes!\nWe know very well that pro-life don't care about anything than just to push their distorted views on others.",
">\n\nAnd you base this off of the panic porn on Reddit and the news???\nI’m confused because I’ve never met someone in the pro life community that would mirror that statement. So the “We” you refer to must be mistaken, as that’s not part of our movement at all!\nI’d rather incentivize mothers to give birth and help them financially and completely for a few years before I’d ever want someone aborted. \nI’ll take that trade in a heartbeat (no pun intended).",
">\n\nIf only the rest of the world would join the 21st century.",
">\n\nThe French. Always the most progressive. Good stuff.",
">\n\n0 babies are murdered",
">\n\nThen you have a complete misunderstanding of biology and the abortion procedure. \nIf you believe it’s a right than that’s your prerogative, but be realistic about what it is. \nGenetics and biology say life begins at conception. It is only within the human species that we do not consider conception it’s own individual life.\nAbortion is the procedure or process of ending/terminating a pregnancy that is 100% accomplished through the killing and removal of another individual in the womb. \nIf your argument is that it’s not a baby, you then have to completely redefine what constitutes life. Which would be fine if any pro-abortion person would come up with a logical and scientific definition of what constitutes a human life. To this day, nothing has been presented to the scientific community.",
">\n\nYou must've had a comfortable life. Your worldview is severely, extremely limited if you're arguing against SOMEONE else's bodily autonomy. You also sound like you misunderstand the abortion procedure if you think what they pull out is a fully formed baby. Are you a woman? No? Then stfu, what do you care. Go care for an already alive baby starving in your back alley! Or better yet, go get pregnant yourself, if you think they're so precious.",
">\n\nYes, there's two bodies. But one body cannot survive without forcibly consuming the other body's energy. The body being used without permission is allowed to free itself from that. It's no different than being forced to donate a kidney to a dying man. You are never obligated to give up your bodily autonomy to someone else, including a fetus.",
">\n\nI think CottonRey hit the nail on the head with his response. \nAnd that would mean that “life and rights” only belong to people who can live individually. What about a toddler? What about an elderly individual? A sick individual who’s on life support? Someone on food stamps and welfare surviving off of the energy and resources collected and created by others?\nLife and rights being given based solely off of an individuals ability to survive alone seems like a bad line, too many opportunities for abuse elsewhere and unsupported by science IMO.",
">\n\nA toddler and a poor person are still surviving on their own. They breathe their own air and eat their own food. A fetus is quite literally draining the energy from the woman carrying it.\nYes, life and rights are a fine line to walk, but you're missing the woman in the situation. If you want to give a fetus rights to life, that means you have to take away the woman's rights. That is the entire issue. The woman is more important at the end of the day. She is aware, she is sentient, she knows she is suffering. A fetus does not care.",
">\n\nA toddler cannot survive on its own, I’m not sure how you even argue that. A baby I’m the womb does take sustenance from the mother, yes. That’s basic knowledge, just like that getting pregnant can result in a pregnancy. \nThe mother had a choice to sleep with a man, had a choice to make him wear a condom, had a choice to take a pill or any of the other various forms of birth control, etc. Because she chose to do that irresponsibly doesn’t mean she has the right to actively take a life. We need some accountability here. \nYou started at survival, went to the ability to eat yourself, and ended at sentience. That’s three separate ideas of what constitutes life, all of which could easily be used in places other than abortion to place less worth on an individuals life."
] |
>
Is that a step as in 12 inches, or are we talking Centimeters? How does one measure a "step" when it comes to legislation? How many steps remain? Is it one step of 100? So 99 to go? What does this even mean? My God you people are pissy today. It's a joke. I guess you are one step away from zero sense of humor.
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.",
">\n\nIsn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?",
">\n\nUpdated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods. \nOriginal one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks",
">\n\nTy. Wasn’t it fine before? I mean, why is it better at 16 weeks rather than 10? Anyone would be able to tell they’re pregnant after 2 months, am I missing something?",
">\n\nSome women have irregular periods and would not necessarily know by 2 months",
">\n\nDenying life?\nWhat are you talking about?\nA life with disabilities or awful disease is a good life or one worth living?\nWill these pro-life people take care all their lives for those people with disabilities?\nIf the answer is no, why don't mind their own business and take care just about their bodies and their lives?\nThese pro-life people are just pro-bad life or a life in pain.",
">\n\nWrong.\nAsk any pro-lifer and they will tell you a resounding YES!\nWe will take them. We will help the mothers and fathers. We will vote for funding to child care and fatherhood/motherhood.\nYou’d have to actually talk to us to know that though.",
">\n\nThat's bullshit!\nPlease finish with these jokes!\nWe know very well that pro-life don't care about anything than just to push their distorted views on others.",
">\n\nAnd you base this off of the panic porn on Reddit and the news???\nI’m confused because I’ve never met someone in the pro life community that would mirror that statement. So the “We” you refer to must be mistaken, as that’s not part of our movement at all!\nI’d rather incentivize mothers to give birth and help them financially and completely for a few years before I’d ever want someone aborted. \nI’ll take that trade in a heartbeat (no pun intended).",
">\n\nIf only the rest of the world would join the 21st century.",
">\n\nThe French. Always the most progressive. Good stuff.",
">\n\n0 babies are murdered",
">\n\nThen you have a complete misunderstanding of biology and the abortion procedure. \nIf you believe it’s a right than that’s your prerogative, but be realistic about what it is. \nGenetics and biology say life begins at conception. It is only within the human species that we do not consider conception it’s own individual life.\nAbortion is the procedure or process of ending/terminating a pregnancy that is 100% accomplished through the killing and removal of another individual in the womb. \nIf your argument is that it’s not a baby, you then have to completely redefine what constitutes life. Which would be fine if any pro-abortion person would come up with a logical and scientific definition of what constitutes a human life. To this day, nothing has been presented to the scientific community.",
">\n\nYou must've had a comfortable life. Your worldview is severely, extremely limited if you're arguing against SOMEONE else's bodily autonomy. You also sound like you misunderstand the abortion procedure if you think what they pull out is a fully formed baby. Are you a woman? No? Then stfu, what do you care. Go care for an already alive baby starving in your back alley! Or better yet, go get pregnant yourself, if you think they're so precious.",
">\n\nYes, there's two bodies. But one body cannot survive without forcibly consuming the other body's energy. The body being used without permission is allowed to free itself from that. It's no different than being forced to donate a kidney to a dying man. You are never obligated to give up your bodily autonomy to someone else, including a fetus.",
">\n\nI think CottonRey hit the nail on the head with his response. \nAnd that would mean that “life and rights” only belong to people who can live individually. What about a toddler? What about an elderly individual? A sick individual who’s on life support? Someone on food stamps and welfare surviving off of the energy and resources collected and created by others?\nLife and rights being given based solely off of an individuals ability to survive alone seems like a bad line, too many opportunities for abuse elsewhere and unsupported by science IMO.",
">\n\nA toddler and a poor person are still surviving on their own. They breathe their own air and eat their own food. A fetus is quite literally draining the energy from the woman carrying it.\nYes, life and rights are a fine line to walk, but you're missing the woman in the situation. If you want to give a fetus rights to life, that means you have to take away the woman's rights. That is the entire issue. The woman is more important at the end of the day. She is aware, she is sentient, she knows she is suffering. A fetus does not care.",
">\n\nA toddler cannot survive on its own, I’m not sure how you even argue that. A baby I’m the womb does take sustenance from the mother, yes. That’s basic knowledge, just like that getting pregnant can result in a pregnancy. \nThe mother had a choice to sleep with a man, had a choice to make him wear a condom, had a choice to take a pill or any of the other various forms of birth control, etc. Because she chose to do that irresponsibly doesn’t mean she has the right to actively take a life. We need some accountability here. \nYou started at survival, went to the ability to eat yourself, and ended at sentience. That’s three separate ideas of what constitutes life, all of which could easily be used in places other than abortion to place less worth on an individuals life.",
">\n\nI specifically said \"breathe and eat on their own.\" They can function as an individual.\n\nThe mother had a choice to sleep with a man\n\nAH! And there it is! It always boils down to this with pro-lifers. Punishment. You think because a woman made a choice you don't like, she should be forced to be pregnant against her will. Because in your books birth control never fails, rape never happens, health issues never appear. It's always because the woman did a naughty thing that makes you feel icky, and you want her to suffer for it.\nHave a good day."
] |
>
Its in cm since it’s France and it’s one step out of two , so halfway
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.",
">\n\nIsn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?",
">\n\nUpdated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods. \nOriginal one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks",
">\n\nTy. Wasn’t it fine before? I mean, why is it better at 16 weeks rather than 10? Anyone would be able to tell they’re pregnant after 2 months, am I missing something?",
">\n\nSome women have irregular periods and would not necessarily know by 2 months",
">\n\nDenying life?\nWhat are you talking about?\nA life with disabilities or awful disease is a good life or one worth living?\nWill these pro-life people take care all their lives for those people with disabilities?\nIf the answer is no, why don't mind their own business and take care just about their bodies and their lives?\nThese pro-life people are just pro-bad life or a life in pain.",
">\n\nWrong.\nAsk any pro-lifer and they will tell you a resounding YES!\nWe will take them. We will help the mothers and fathers. We will vote for funding to child care and fatherhood/motherhood.\nYou’d have to actually talk to us to know that though.",
">\n\nThat's bullshit!\nPlease finish with these jokes!\nWe know very well that pro-life don't care about anything than just to push their distorted views on others.",
">\n\nAnd you base this off of the panic porn on Reddit and the news???\nI’m confused because I’ve never met someone in the pro life community that would mirror that statement. So the “We” you refer to must be mistaken, as that’s not part of our movement at all!\nI’d rather incentivize mothers to give birth and help them financially and completely for a few years before I’d ever want someone aborted. \nI’ll take that trade in a heartbeat (no pun intended).",
">\n\nIf only the rest of the world would join the 21st century.",
">\n\nThe French. Always the most progressive. Good stuff.",
">\n\n0 babies are murdered",
">\n\nThen you have a complete misunderstanding of biology and the abortion procedure. \nIf you believe it’s a right than that’s your prerogative, but be realistic about what it is. \nGenetics and biology say life begins at conception. It is only within the human species that we do not consider conception it’s own individual life.\nAbortion is the procedure or process of ending/terminating a pregnancy that is 100% accomplished through the killing and removal of another individual in the womb. \nIf your argument is that it’s not a baby, you then have to completely redefine what constitutes life. Which would be fine if any pro-abortion person would come up with a logical and scientific definition of what constitutes a human life. To this day, nothing has been presented to the scientific community.",
">\n\nYou must've had a comfortable life. Your worldview is severely, extremely limited if you're arguing against SOMEONE else's bodily autonomy. You also sound like you misunderstand the abortion procedure if you think what they pull out is a fully formed baby. Are you a woman? No? Then stfu, what do you care. Go care for an already alive baby starving in your back alley! Or better yet, go get pregnant yourself, if you think they're so precious.",
">\n\nYes, there's two bodies. But one body cannot survive without forcibly consuming the other body's energy. The body being used without permission is allowed to free itself from that. It's no different than being forced to donate a kidney to a dying man. You are never obligated to give up your bodily autonomy to someone else, including a fetus.",
">\n\nI think CottonRey hit the nail on the head with his response. \nAnd that would mean that “life and rights” only belong to people who can live individually. What about a toddler? What about an elderly individual? A sick individual who’s on life support? Someone on food stamps and welfare surviving off of the energy and resources collected and created by others?\nLife and rights being given based solely off of an individuals ability to survive alone seems like a bad line, too many opportunities for abuse elsewhere and unsupported by science IMO.",
">\n\nA toddler and a poor person are still surviving on their own. They breathe their own air and eat their own food. A fetus is quite literally draining the energy from the woman carrying it.\nYes, life and rights are a fine line to walk, but you're missing the woman in the situation. If you want to give a fetus rights to life, that means you have to take away the woman's rights. That is the entire issue. The woman is more important at the end of the day. She is aware, she is sentient, she knows she is suffering. A fetus does not care.",
">\n\nA toddler cannot survive on its own, I’m not sure how you even argue that. A baby I’m the womb does take sustenance from the mother, yes. That’s basic knowledge, just like that getting pregnant can result in a pregnancy. \nThe mother had a choice to sleep with a man, had a choice to make him wear a condom, had a choice to take a pill or any of the other various forms of birth control, etc. Because she chose to do that irresponsibly doesn’t mean she has the right to actively take a life. We need some accountability here. \nYou started at survival, went to the ability to eat yourself, and ended at sentience. That’s three separate ideas of what constitutes life, all of which could easily be used in places other than abortion to place less worth on an individuals life.",
">\n\nI specifically said \"breathe and eat on their own.\" They can function as an individual.\n\nThe mother had a choice to sleep with a man\n\nAH! And there it is! It always boils down to this with pro-lifers. Punishment. You think because a woman made a choice you don't like, she should be forced to be pregnant against her will. Because in your books birth control never fails, rape never happens, health issues never appear. It's always because the woman did a naughty thing that makes you feel icky, and you want her to suffer for it.\nHave a good day.",
">\n\nIs that a step as in 12 inches, or are we talking Centimeters? How does one measure a \"step\" when it comes to legislation? How many steps remain? Is it one step of 100? So 99 to go? What does this even mean? My God you people are pissy today. It's a joke. I guess you are one step away from zero sense of humor."
] |
>
More like 2 out of 4. The bill passed the Assembly, now it's passed the Senate with an amendment, so now it has to pass the Assembly again, and then it will be put to a national referendum.
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.",
">\n\nIsn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?",
">\n\nUpdated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods. \nOriginal one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks",
">\n\nTy. Wasn’t it fine before? I mean, why is it better at 16 weeks rather than 10? Anyone would be able to tell they’re pregnant after 2 months, am I missing something?",
">\n\nSome women have irregular periods and would not necessarily know by 2 months",
">\n\nDenying life?\nWhat are you talking about?\nA life with disabilities or awful disease is a good life or one worth living?\nWill these pro-life people take care all their lives for those people with disabilities?\nIf the answer is no, why don't mind their own business and take care just about their bodies and their lives?\nThese pro-life people are just pro-bad life or a life in pain.",
">\n\nWrong.\nAsk any pro-lifer and they will tell you a resounding YES!\nWe will take them. We will help the mothers and fathers. We will vote for funding to child care and fatherhood/motherhood.\nYou’d have to actually talk to us to know that though.",
">\n\nThat's bullshit!\nPlease finish with these jokes!\nWe know very well that pro-life don't care about anything than just to push their distorted views on others.",
">\n\nAnd you base this off of the panic porn on Reddit and the news???\nI’m confused because I’ve never met someone in the pro life community that would mirror that statement. So the “We” you refer to must be mistaken, as that’s not part of our movement at all!\nI’d rather incentivize mothers to give birth and help them financially and completely for a few years before I’d ever want someone aborted. \nI’ll take that trade in a heartbeat (no pun intended).",
">\n\nIf only the rest of the world would join the 21st century.",
">\n\nThe French. Always the most progressive. Good stuff.",
">\n\n0 babies are murdered",
">\n\nThen you have a complete misunderstanding of biology and the abortion procedure. \nIf you believe it’s a right than that’s your prerogative, but be realistic about what it is. \nGenetics and biology say life begins at conception. It is only within the human species that we do not consider conception it’s own individual life.\nAbortion is the procedure or process of ending/terminating a pregnancy that is 100% accomplished through the killing and removal of another individual in the womb. \nIf your argument is that it’s not a baby, you then have to completely redefine what constitutes life. Which would be fine if any pro-abortion person would come up with a logical and scientific definition of what constitutes a human life. To this day, nothing has been presented to the scientific community.",
">\n\nYou must've had a comfortable life. Your worldview is severely, extremely limited if you're arguing against SOMEONE else's bodily autonomy. You also sound like you misunderstand the abortion procedure if you think what they pull out is a fully formed baby. Are you a woman? No? Then stfu, what do you care. Go care for an already alive baby starving in your back alley! Or better yet, go get pregnant yourself, if you think they're so precious.",
">\n\nYes, there's two bodies. But one body cannot survive without forcibly consuming the other body's energy. The body being used without permission is allowed to free itself from that. It's no different than being forced to donate a kidney to a dying man. You are never obligated to give up your bodily autonomy to someone else, including a fetus.",
">\n\nI think CottonRey hit the nail on the head with his response. \nAnd that would mean that “life and rights” only belong to people who can live individually. What about a toddler? What about an elderly individual? A sick individual who’s on life support? Someone on food stamps and welfare surviving off of the energy and resources collected and created by others?\nLife and rights being given based solely off of an individuals ability to survive alone seems like a bad line, too many opportunities for abuse elsewhere and unsupported by science IMO.",
">\n\nA toddler and a poor person are still surviving on their own. They breathe their own air and eat their own food. A fetus is quite literally draining the energy from the woman carrying it.\nYes, life and rights are a fine line to walk, but you're missing the woman in the situation. If you want to give a fetus rights to life, that means you have to take away the woman's rights. That is the entire issue. The woman is more important at the end of the day. She is aware, she is sentient, she knows she is suffering. A fetus does not care.",
">\n\nA toddler cannot survive on its own, I’m not sure how you even argue that. A baby I’m the womb does take sustenance from the mother, yes. That’s basic knowledge, just like that getting pregnant can result in a pregnancy. \nThe mother had a choice to sleep with a man, had a choice to make him wear a condom, had a choice to take a pill or any of the other various forms of birth control, etc. Because she chose to do that irresponsibly doesn’t mean she has the right to actively take a life. We need some accountability here. \nYou started at survival, went to the ability to eat yourself, and ended at sentience. That’s three separate ideas of what constitutes life, all of which could easily be used in places other than abortion to place less worth on an individuals life.",
">\n\nI specifically said \"breathe and eat on their own.\" They can function as an individual.\n\nThe mother had a choice to sleep with a man\n\nAH! And there it is! It always boils down to this with pro-lifers. Punishment. You think because a woman made a choice you don't like, she should be forced to be pregnant against her will. Because in your books birth control never fails, rape never happens, health issues never appear. It's always because the woman did a naughty thing that makes you feel icky, and you want her to suffer for it.\nHave a good day.",
">\n\nIs that a step as in 12 inches, or are we talking Centimeters? How does one measure a \"step\" when it comes to legislation? How many steps remain? Is it one step of 100? So 99 to go? What does this even mean? My God you people are pissy today. It's a joke. I guess you are one step away from zero sense of humor.",
">\n\nIts in cm since it’s France and it’s one step out of two , so halfway"
] |
>
|
[
"This should be done at the EU leve!\nEveryone needs to have full rights on its own body!",
">\n\nGood luck not getting vetoed by Poland, at least until their next elections.",
">\n\nUnfortunately PiS is more then likely going to win again looking surveys but hey let's hope something will change in next few month.",
">\n\nIf only the us was so advanced.",
">\n\nYou guys need more strikes",
">\n\nBut think of the poor billionaires/s",
">\n\nCould someone familiar with France provide context here?\n\nSuppose the amendment passes. Does France have a strong judicial system that could prevent implementation of an anti-abortion law, if the law had strong support among French voters?\nJust reading Wikipedia, it appears that amending the French constitution is easier than in America. In America, you need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass an amendment. In France you would need is a simple majority in both house of Parliament, followed by a simple majority in public referenda. Is there anything to stop a future Parliament from re-amending the constitution voters turned against abortion rights?\nAs of 2023, support for abortion rights is strong in France. It's possible that in the future, public opinion will turn on abortion. So it can make sense, from an abortion rights perspective, to limit the ability of future Parliaments to restrict abortion.But is this idea, that future democracies will not always respect our rights, a popular one in France? In America, we intentionally limited the scope of democracy through things like \"Congress shall make no law\" amendments. Does France also have an intellectual tradition of distrusting democracy?\n\nI guess what I'm asking is, this the kind of thing that could protect abortion for hundreds of years, the way the American second amendment has protected gun rights for hundreds of years? Or is it more of a symbolic victory, that could easily be overturned if the political winds change?",
">\n\nI've lived in Paris for 17 years.\n\nYes there is a strong judicial system, in particular the Conseil Constitutionnel has rejected quite a few laws that were judged to be contrary to the Constitution.\nIf 2/3 of the Assemblee and Senat agree, nothing stops the Constitution from being re-amended. The Constitution of France is a little more flexible (there have been 24 amendments since 1958) but that has usually been a good thing.\nSupport for limiting future regimes is not a popular idea, as there is a strong support for progress in France, and that is supposed to be done through democracy. Liberty is a fundamental concept in French culture but is quite different from American freedom. Rather than stressing individual and economic freedoms, it stresses a sort of collective freedom centered around a strong and transparent representative democracy.\n\nI don't think it makes much sense for the public opinion to turn against abortion in France but conceptually it could happen. If so, I trust the people to know what they're doing. French people aren't easily swayed against progress (without ever rejecting tradition), although security is a very strong subject that got the Front National close to the Presidency (but far from the Parliament) 3 times in 21 years.",
">\n\nCan we get that in the U.S., too?\nEdit: Who got offended by this question?",
">\n\nOnly if you donate to your area's democratic nominee and vote blue really hard! One of these days we could get a majority in the House and Senate and have a Democrat president, and it still won't fucking happen.",
">\n\nIn fact we did do that and for 2 years it didn’t happen!",
">\n\nI wouldn't count Manchin and Sinema with Democrats, they prevented the party from doing anything",
">\n\nJust like how our fanatical fascist types call every Republican who somehow knows better than to support our forty-fifth president a RINO, I would honestly call those two DINOs.",
">\n\nIsn’t it already legal up to 6 weeks?",
">\n\nUpdated law: 14weeks of pregnancy, 16weeks after last periods. \nOriginal one (Law Veil from 1975) was 10weeks",
">\n\nTy. Wasn’t it fine before? I mean, why is it better at 16 weeks rather than 10? Anyone would be able to tell they’re pregnant after 2 months, am I missing something?",
">\n\nSome women have irregular periods and would not necessarily know by 2 months",
">\n\nDenying life?\nWhat are you talking about?\nA life with disabilities or awful disease is a good life or one worth living?\nWill these pro-life people take care all their lives for those people with disabilities?\nIf the answer is no, why don't mind their own business and take care just about their bodies and their lives?\nThese pro-life people are just pro-bad life or a life in pain.",
">\n\nWrong.\nAsk any pro-lifer and they will tell you a resounding YES!\nWe will take them. We will help the mothers and fathers. We will vote for funding to child care and fatherhood/motherhood.\nYou’d have to actually talk to us to know that though.",
">\n\nThat's bullshit!\nPlease finish with these jokes!\nWe know very well that pro-life don't care about anything than just to push their distorted views on others.",
">\n\nAnd you base this off of the panic porn on Reddit and the news???\nI’m confused because I’ve never met someone in the pro life community that would mirror that statement. So the “We” you refer to must be mistaken, as that’s not part of our movement at all!\nI’d rather incentivize mothers to give birth and help them financially and completely for a few years before I’d ever want someone aborted. \nI’ll take that trade in a heartbeat (no pun intended).",
">\n\nIf only the rest of the world would join the 21st century.",
">\n\nThe French. Always the most progressive. Good stuff.",
">\n\n0 babies are murdered",
">\n\nThen you have a complete misunderstanding of biology and the abortion procedure. \nIf you believe it’s a right than that’s your prerogative, but be realistic about what it is. \nGenetics and biology say life begins at conception. It is only within the human species that we do not consider conception it’s own individual life.\nAbortion is the procedure or process of ending/terminating a pregnancy that is 100% accomplished through the killing and removal of another individual in the womb. \nIf your argument is that it’s not a baby, you then have to completely redefine what constitutes life. Which would be fine if any pro-abortion person would come up with a logical and scientific definition of what constitutes a human life. To this day, nothing has been presented to the scientific community.",
">\n\nYou must've had a comfortable life. Your worldview is severely, extremely limited if you're arguing against SOMEONE else's bodily autonomy. You also sound like you misunderstand the abortion procedure if you think what they pull out is a fully formed baby. Are you a woman? No? Then stfu, what do you care. Go care for an already alive baby starving in your back alley! Or better yet, go get pregnant yourself, if you think they're so precious.",
">\n\nYes, there's two bodies. But one body cannot survive without forcibly consuming the other body's energy. The body being used without permission is allowed to free itself from that. It's no different than being forced to donate a kidney to a dying man. You are never obligated to give up your bodily autonomy to someone else, including a fetus.",
">\n\nI think CottonRey hit the nail on the head with his response. \nAnd that would mean that “life and rights” only belong to people who can live individually. What about a toddler? What about an elderly individual? A sick individual who’s on life support? Someone on food stamps and welfare surviving off of the energy and resources collected and created by others?\nLife and rights being given based solely off of an individuals ability to survive alone seems like a bad line, too many opportunities for abuse elsewhere and unsupported by science IMO.",
">\n\nA toddler and a poor person are still surviving on their own. They breathe their own air and eat their own food. A fetus is quite literally draining the energy from the woman carrying it.\nYes, life and rights are a fine line to walk, but you're missing the woman in the situation. If you want to give a fetus rights to life, that means you have to take away the woman's rights. That is the entire issue. The woman is more important at the end of the day. She is aware, she is sentient, she knows she is suffering. A fetus does not care.",
">\n\nA toddler cannot survive on its own, I’m not sure how you even argue that. A baby I’m the womb does take sustenance from the mother, yes. That’s basic knowledge, just like that getting pregnant can result in a pregnancy. \nThe mother had a choice to sleep with a man, had a choice to make him wear a condom, had a choice to take a pill or any of the other various forms of birth control, etc. Because she chose to do that irresponsibly doesn’t mean she has the right to actively take a life. We need some accountability here. \nYou started at survival, went to the ability to eat yourself, and ended at sentience. That’s three separate ideas of what constitutes life, all of which could easily be used in places other than abortion to place less worth on an individuals life.",
">\n\nI specifically said \"breathe and eat on their own.\" They can function as an individual.\n\nThe mother had a choice to sleep with a man\n\nAH! And there it is! It always boils down to this with pro-lifers. Punishment. You think because a woman made a choice you don't like, she should be forced to be pregnant against her will. Because in your books birth control never fails, rape never happens, health issues never appear. It's always because the woman did a naughty thing that makes you feel icky, and you want her to suffer for it.\nHave a good day.",
">\n\nIs that a step as in 12 inches, or are we talking Centimeters? How does one measure a \"step\" when it comes to legislation? How many steps remain? Is it one step of 100? So 99 to go? What does this even mean? My God you people are pissy today. It's a joke. I guess you are one step away from zero sense of humor.",
">\n\nIts in cm since it’s France and it’s one step out of two , so halfway",
">\n\nMore like 2 out of 4. The bill passed the Assembly, now it's passed the Senate with an amendment, so now it has to pass the Assembly again, and then it will be put to a national referendum."
] |
So weird to watch the GOP cheer on Russian expansionism . . .
Weren't the Republicans the ones who pledged to "keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies?"
If by "keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies" the GOP meant "we shall perform endless fellatio for Putin's fascists,"
well, the GOP has certainly kept up their end of the deal.
|
[] |
>
Russia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. It's essentially the ideal example of what white supremacists say they want in a country. The rich and powerful take all the treasure and are free to do whatever they want. Anyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.
When Republicans dream about the sort of country they want, that is what they dream of.
|
[
"So weird to watch the GOP cheer on Russian expansionism . . . \nWeren't the Republicans the ones who pledged to \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies?\"\nIf by \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies\" the GOP meant \"we shall perform endless fellatio for Putin's fascists,\"\nwell, the GOP has certainly kept up their end of the deal."
] |
>
Russia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy.
It's the same people doing the same things the've been doing only now they're allowed to get rich doing it.
Westerners never understand that there was nothing socialist about Soviet Russia. The system didn't change.
Anyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.
Pretty much everything has been true since the tsars' times.
|
[
"So weird to watch the GOP cheer on Russian expansionism . . . \nWeren't the Republicans the ones who pledged to \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies?\"\nIf by \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies\" the GOP meant \"we shall perform endless fellatio for Putin's fascists,\"\nwell, the GOP has certainly kept up their end of the deal.",
">\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. It's essentially the ideal example of what white supremacists say they want in a country. The rich and powerful take all the treasure and are free to do whatever they want. Anyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\nWhen Republicans dream about the sort of country they want, that is what they dream of."
] |
>
To be honest, the one thing you can't say about the Soviet leadership was that they weren't big kleptocrats, imho.
Lots of them did enjoy a bunch of luxeries most Sovjet citizens could not, like a big dacha/foreign films/good food etc. And their children did get better jobs then average.
But they weren't fleecing the system for billions of private wealth like Putin did. They nor their children didn't flee to Dubai or such with coffers full of cash/gold like so many other dictators have done.
On the whole the Soviets' leadership was brutal, murderous and evil. But not big thiefs.
|
[
"So weird to watch the GOP cheer on Russian expansionism . . . \nWeren't the Republicans the ones who pledged to \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies?\"\nIf by \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies\" the GOP meant \"we shall perform endless fellatio for Putin's fascists,\"\nwell, the GOP has certainly kept up their end of the deal.",
">\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. It's essentially the ideal example of what white supremacists say they want in a country. The rich and powerful take all the treasure and are free to do whatever they want. Anyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\nWhen Republicans dream about the sort of country they want, that is what they dream of.",
">\n\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. \n\nIt's the same people doing the same things the've been doing only now they're allowed to get rich doing it.\nWesterners never understand that there was nothing socialist about Soviet Russia. The system didn't change.\n\nAnyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\n\nPretty much everything has been true since the tsars' times."
] |
>
But they weren't fleecing the system for billions of private wealth like Putin did.
Yes, because then the Soviet system didn't generate billions. They were absolute thieves - this is why the soviet system was so inefficient.
|
[
"So weird to watch the GOP cheer on Russian expansionism . . . \nWeren't the Republicans the ones who pledged to \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies?\"\nIf by \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies\" the GOP meant \"we shall perform endless fellatio for Putin's fascists,\"\nwell, the GOP has certainly kept up their end of the deal.",
">\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. It's essentially the ideal example of what white supremacists say they want in a country. The rich and powerful take all the treasure and are free to do whatever they want. Anyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\nWhen Republicans dream about the sort of country they want, that is what they dream of.",
">\n\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. \n\nIt's the same people doing the same things the've been doing only now they're allowed to get rich doing it.\nWesterners never understand that there was nothing socialist about Soviet Russia. The system didn't change.\n\nAnyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\n\nPretty much everything has been true since the tsars' times.",
">\n\nTo be honest, the one thing you can't say about the Soviet leadership was that they weren't big kleptocrats, imho. \nLots of them did enjoy a bunch of luxeries most Sovjet citizens could not, like a big dacha/foreign films/good food etc. And their children did get better jobs then average.\nBut they weren't fleecing the system for billions of private wealth like Putin did. They nor their children didn't flee to Dubai or such with coffers full of cash/gold like so many other dictators have done.\nOn the whole the Soviets' leadership was brutal, murderous and evil. But not big thiefs."
] |
>
You're both right and wrong I think...
The soviet system was the second biggest economy up to the late 80's, so there was plenty of money to steal. The problem indeed was, where you are right in, that so many people did steal/fleeced the system that the end result of it suffered overall.
I'm now reading up more about it, and do find some interesting nuggets of information:
My original post would have been over just Stalin, of whom I know he was particularly anti corruption, but he utterly failed to maintain checks and balances in the system to prevent it within the system. But he himself didn't steal much, and his children weren't particularly well of. (Not for example like with the Kim dynasty in North Korea or the Marcos in the Philippines).
Of the later Party chiefs, Krushcev lived of on small old pension after his removal.
Brezhnev was horrified by his daughters corruption, but didn't do much about it and she was investigated for it.
The later ones too, Andropov and Gorbatshov children didn't seem to gain to much from corruption, and the first lead an anti-corruption campaign.
Yeltsin onwards they are fully corrupt again, yeltsins daughter is connected to Deripesha, and Putin is just one big ball of corruption and self enrichment.
|
[
"So weird to watch the GOP cheer on Russian expansionism . . . \nWeren't the Republicans the ones who pledged to \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies?\"\nIf by \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies\" the GOP meant \"we shall perform endless fellatio for Putin's fascists,\"\nwell, the GOP has certainly kept up their end of the deal.",
">\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. It's essentially the ideal example of what white supremacists say they want in a country. The rich and powerful take all the treasure and are free to do whatever they want. Anyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\nWhen Republicans dream about the sort of country they want, that is what they dream of.",
">\n\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. \n\nIt's the same people doing the same things the've been doing only now they're allowed to get rich doing it.\nWesterners never understand that there was nothing socialist about Soviet Russia. The system didn't change.\n\nAnyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\n\nPretty much everything has been true since the tsars' times.",
">\n\nTo be honest, the one thing you can't say about the Soviet leadership was that they weren't big kleptocrats, imho. \nLots of them did enjoy a bunch of luxeries most Sovjet citizens could not, like a big dacha/foreign films/good food etc. And their children did get better jobs then average.\nBut they weren't fleecing the system for billions of private wealth like Putin did. They nor their children didn't flee to Dubai or such with coffers full of cash/gold like so many other dictators have done.\nOn the whole the Soviets' leadership was brutal, murderous and evil. But not big thiefs.",
">\n\n\nBut they weren't fleecing the system for billions of private wealth like Putin did. \n\nYes, because then the Soviet system didn't generate billions. They were absolute thieves - this is why the soviet system was so inefficient."
] |
>
Not terribly surprising that those that are loyal to Trump have to be loyal to Putin. Its a package deal
|
[
"So weird to watch the GOP cheer on Russian expansionism . . . \nWeren't the Republicans the ones who pledged to \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies?\"\nIf by \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies\" the GOP meant \"we shall perform endless fellatio for Putin's fascists,\"\nwell, the GOP has certainly kept up their end of the deal.",
">\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. It's essentially the ideal example of what white supremacists say they want in a country. The rich and powerful take all the treasure and are free to do whatever they want. Anyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\nWhen Republicans dream about the sort of country they want, that is what they dream of.",
">\n\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. \n\nIt's the same people doing the same things the've been doing only now they're allowed to get rich doing it.\nWesterners never understand that there was nothing socialist about Soviet Russia. The system didn't change.\n\nAnyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\n\nPretty much everything has been true since the tsars' times.",
">\n\nTo be honest, the one thing you can't say about the Soviet leadership was that they weren't big kleptocrats, imho. \nLots of them did enjoy a bunch of luxeries most Sovjet citizens could not, like a big dacha/foreign films/good food etc. And their children did get better jobs then average.\nBut they weren't fleecing the system for billions of private wealth like Putin did. They nor their children didn't flee to Dubai or such with coffers full of cash/gold like so many other dictators have done.\nOn the whole the Soviets' leadership was brutal, murderous and evil. But not big thiefs.",
">\n\n\nBut they weren't fleecing the system for billions of private wealth like Putin did. \n\nYes, because then the Soviet system didn't generate billions. They were absolute thieves - this is why the soviet system was so inefficient.",
">\n\nYou're both right and wrong I think...\nThe soviet system was the second biggest economy up to the late 80's, so there was plenty of money to steal. The problem indeed was, where you are right in, that so many people did steal/fleeced the system that the end result of it suffered overall.\nI'm now reading up more about it, and do find some interesting nuggets of information:\nMy original post would have been over just Stalin, of whom I know he was particularly anti corruption, but he utterly failed to maintain checks and balances in the system to prevent it within the system. But he himself didn't steal much, and his children weren't particularly well of. (Not for example like with the Kim dynasty in North Korea or the Marcos in the Philippines).\nOf the later Party chiefs, Krushcev lived of on small old pension after his removal.\nBrezhnev was horrified by his daughters corruption, but didn't do much about it and she was investigated for it.\nThe later ones too, Andropov and Gorbatshov children didn't seem to gain to much from corruption, and the first lead an anti-corruption campaign.\nYeltsin onwards they are fully corrupt again, yeltsins daughter is connected to Deripesha, and Putin is just one big ball of corruption and self enrichment."
] |
>
Those Fox News ads are paying off for Russia
|
[
"So weird to watch the GOP cheer on Russian expansionism . . . \nWeren't the Republicans the ones who pledged to \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies?\"\nIf by \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies\" the GOP meant \"we shall perform endless fellatio for Putin's fascists,\"\nwell, the GOP has certainly kept up their end of the deal.",
">\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. It's essentially the ideal example of what white supremacists say they want in a country. The rich and powerful take all the treasure and are free to do whatever they want. Anyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\nWhen Republicans dream about the sort of country they want, that is what they dream of.",
">\n\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. \n\nIt's the same people doing the same things the've been doing only now they're allowed to get rich doing it.\nWesterners never understand that there was nothing socialist about Soviet Russia. The system didn't change.\n\nAnyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\n\nPretty much everything has been true since the tsars' times.",
">\n\nTo be honest, the one thing you can't say about the Soviet leadership was that they weren't big kleptocrats, imho. \nLots of them did enjoy a bunch of luxeries most Sovjet citizens could not, like a big dacha/foreign films/good food etc. And their children did get better jobs then average.\nBut they weren't fleecing the system for billions of private wealth like Putin did. They nor their children didn't flee to Dubai or such with coffers full of cash/gold like so many other dictators have done.\nOn the whole the Soviets' leadership was brutal, murderous and evil. But not big thiefs.",
">\n\n\nBut they weren't fleecing the system for billions of private wealth like Putin did. \n\nYes, because then the Soviet system didn't generate billions. They were absolute thieves - this is why the soviet system was so inefficient.",
">\n\nYou're both right and wrong I think...\nThe soviet system was the second biggest economy up to the late 80's, so there was plenty of money to steal. The problem indeed was, where you are right in, that so many people did steal/fleeced the system that the end result of it suffered overall.\nI'm now reading up more about it, and do find some interesting nuggets of information:\nMy original post would have been over just Stalin, of whom I know he was particularly anti corruption, but he utterly failed to maintain checks and balances in the system to prevent it within the system. But he himself didn't steal much, and his children weren't particularly well of. (Not for example like with the Kim dynasty in North Korea or the Marcos in the Philippines).\nOf the later Party chiefs, Krushcev lived of on small old pension after his removal.\nBrezhnev was horrified by his daughters corruption, but didn't do much about it and she was investigated for it.\nThe later ones too, Andropov and Gorbatshov children didn't seem to gain to much from corruption, and the first lead an anti-corruption campaign.\nYeltsin onwards they are fully corrupt again, yeltsins daughter is connected to Deripesha, and Putin is just one big ball of corruption and self enrichment.",
">\n\nNot terribly surprising that those that are loyal to Trump have to be loyal to Putin. Its a package deal"
] |
>
GOP gonna split if this fascism doesn’t end. My big question is who keeps the GOP title and who forms a new party.
|
[
"So weird to watch the GOP cheer on Russian expansionism . . . \nWeren't the Republicans the ones who pledged to \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies?\"\nIf by \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies\" the GOP meant \"we shall perform endless fellatio for Putin's fascists,\"\nwell, the GOP has certainly kept up their end of the deal.",
">\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. It's essentially the ideal example of what white supremacists say they want in a country. The rich and powerful take all the treasure and are free to do whatever they want. Anyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\nWhen Republicans dream about the sort of country they want, that is what they dream of.",
">\n\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. \n\nIt's the same people doing the same things the've been doing only now they're allowed to get rich doing it.\nWesterners never understand that there was nothing socialist about Soviet Russia. The system didn't change.\n\nAnyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\n\nPretty much everything has been true since the tsars' times.",
">\n\nTo be honest, the one thing you can't say about the Soviet leadership was that they weren't big kleptocrats, imho. \nLots of them did enjoy a bunch of luxeries most Sovjet citizens could not, like a big dacha/foreign films/good food etc. And their children did get better jobs then average.\nBut they weren't fleecing the system for billions of private wealth like Putin did. They nor their children didn't flee to Dubai or such with coffers full of cash/gold like so many other dictators have done.\nOn the whole the Soviets' leadership was brutal, murderous and evil. But not big thiefs.",
">\n\n\nBut they weren't fleecing the system for billions of private wealth like Putin did. \n\nYes, because then the Soviet system didn't generate billions. They were absolute thieves - this is why the soviet system was so inefficient.",
">\n\nYou're both right and wrong I think...\nThe soviet system was the second biggest economy up to the late 80's, so there was plenty of money to steal. The problem indeed was, where you are right in, that so many people did steal/fleeced the system that the end result of it suffered overall.\nI'm now reading up more about it, and do find some interesting nuggets of information:\nMy original post would have been over just Stalin, of whom I know he was particularly anti corruption, but he utterly failed to maintain checks and balances in the system to prevent it within the system. But he himself didn't steal much, and his children weren't particularly well of. (Not for example like with the Kim dynasty in North Korea or the Marcos in the Philippines).\nOf the later Party chiefs, Krushcev lived of on small old pension after his removal.\nBrezhnev was horrified by his daughters corruption, but didn't do much about it and she was investigated for it.\nThe later ones too, Andropov and Gorbatshov children didn't seem to gain to much from corruption, and the first lead an anti-corruption campaign.\nYeltsin onwards they are fully corrupt again, yeltsins daughter is connected to Deripesha, and Putin is just one big ball of corruption and self enrichment.",
">\n\nNot terribly surprising that those that are loyal to Trump have to be loyal to Putin. Its a package deal",
">\n\nThose Fox News ads are paying off for Russia"
] |
>
Based on some of the "never trust establishment GOP" nonsense, I'm leaning toward MAGA forming into our home-grown Nazi party leaving the GOP to go all business all the time pulling in the non-Q libertarians and "centrist" Democrats.
|
[
"So weird to watch the GOP cheer on Russian expansionism . . . \nWeren't the Republicans the ones who pledged to \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies?\"\nIf by \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies\" the GOP meant \"we shall perform endless fellatio for Putin's fascists,\"\nwell, the GOP has certainly kept up their end of the deal.",
">\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. It's essentially the ideal example of what white supremacists say they want in a country. The rich and powerful take all the treasure and are free to do whatever they want. Anyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\nWhen Republicans dream about the sort of country they want, that is what they dream of.",
">\n\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. \n\nIt's the same people doing the same things the've been doing only now they're allowed to get rich doing it.\nWesterners never understand that there was nothing socialist about Soviet Russia. The system didn't change.\n\nAnyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\n\nPretty much everything has been true since the tsars' times.",
">\n\nTo be honest, the one thing you can't say about the Soviet leadership was that they weren't big kleptocrats, imho. \nLots of them did enjoy a bunch of luxeries most Sovjet citizens could not, like a big dacha/foreign films/good food etc. And their children did get better jobs then average.\nBut they weren't fleecing the system for billions of private wealth like Putin did. They nor their children didn't flee to Dubai or such with coffers full of cash/gold like so many other dictators have done.\nOn the whole the Soviets' leadership was brutal, murderous and evil. But not big thiefs.",
">\n\n\nBut they weren't fleecing the system for billions of private wealth like Putin did. \n\nYes, because then the Soviet system didn't generate billions. They were absolute thieves - this is why the soviet system was so inefficient.",
">\n\nYou're both right and wrong I think...\nThe soviet system was the second biggest economy up to the late 80's, so there was plenty of money to steal. The problem indeed was, where you are right in, that so many people did steal/fleeced the system that the end result of it suffered overall.\nI'm now reading up more about it, and do find some interesting nuggets of information:\nMy original post would have been over just Stalin, of whom I know he was particularly anti corruption, but he utterly failed to maintain checks and balances in the system to prevent it within the system. But he himself didn't steal much, and his children weren't particularly well of. (Not for example like with the Kim dynasty in North Korea or the Marcos in the Philippines).\nOf the later Party chiefs, Krushcev lived of on small old pension after his removal.\nBrezhnev was horrified by his daughters corruption, but didn't do much about it and she was investigated for it.\nThe later ones too, Andropov and Gorbatshov children didn't seem to gain to much from corruption, and the first lead an anti-corruption campaign.\nYeltsin onwards they are fully corrupt again, yeltsins daughter is connected to Deripesha, and Putin is just one big ball of corruption and self enrichment.",
">\n\nNot terribly surprising that those that are loyal to Trump have to be loyal to Putin. Its a package deal",
">\n\nThose Fox News ads are paying off for Russia",
">\n\nGOP gonna split if this fascism doesn’t end. My big question is who keeps the GOP title and who forms a new party."
] |
>
I think it depends on who holds the majority of the existing platform, if MAGA stays somewhat predominant then the “sane” pieces of shit will have to make some decisions.
|
[
"So weird to watch the GOP cheer on Russian expansionism . . . \nWeren't the Republicans the ones who pledged to \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies?\"\nIf by \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies\" the GOP meant \"we shall perform endless fellatio for Putin's fascists,\"\nwell, the GOP has certainly kept up their end of the deal.",
">\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. It's essentially the ideal example of what white supremacists say they want in a country. The rich and powerful take all the treasure and are free to do whatever they want. Anyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\nWhen Republicans dream about the sort of country they want, that is what they dream of.",
">\n\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. \n\nIt's the same people doing the same things the've been doing only now they're allowed to get rich doing it.\nWesterners never understand that there was nothing socialist about Soviet Russia. The system didn't change.\n\nAnyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\n\nPretty much everything has been true since the tsars' times.",
">\n\nTo be honest, the one thing you can't say about the Soviet leadership was that they weren't big kleptocrats, imho. \nLots of them did enjoy a bunch of luxeries most Sovjet citizens could not, like a big dacha/foreign films/good food etc. And their children did get better jobs then average.\nBut they weren't fleecing the system for billions of private wealth like Putin did. They nor their children didn't flee to Dubai or such with coffers full of cash/gold like so many other dictators have done.\nOn the whole the Soviets' leadership was brutal, murderous and evil. But not big thiefs.",
">\n\n\nBut they weren't fleecing the system for billions of private wealth like Putin did. \n\nYes, because then the Soviet system didn't generate billions. They were absolute thieves - this is why the soviet system was so inefficient.",
">\n\nYou're both right and wrong I think...\nThe soviet system was the second biggest economy up to the late 80's, so there was plenty of money to steal. The problem indeed was, where you are right in, that so many people did steal/fleeced the system that the end result of it suffered overall.\nI'm now reading up more about it, and do find some interesting nuggets of information:\nMy original post would have been over just Stalin, of whom I know he was particularly anti corruption, but he utterly failed to maintain checks and balances in the system to prevent it within the system. But he himself didn't steal much, and his children weren't particularly well of. (Not for example like with the Kim dynasty in North Korea or the Marcos in the Philippines).\nOf the later Party chiefs, Krushcev lived of on small old pension after his removal.\nBrezhnev was horrified by his daughters corruption, but didn't do much about it and she was investigated for it.\nThe later ones too, Andropov and Gorbatshov children didn't seem to gain to much from corruption, and the first lead an anti-corruption campaign.\nYeltsin onwards they are fully corrupt again, yeltsins daughter is connected to Deripesha, and Putin is just one big ball of corruption and self enrichment.",
">\n\nNot terribly surprising that those that are loyal to Trump have to be loyal to Putin. Its a package deal",
">\n\nThose Fox News ads are paying off for Russia",
">\n\nGOP gonna split if this fascism doesn’t end. My big question is who keeps the GOP title and who forms a new party.",
">\n\nBased on some of the \"never trust establishment GOP\" nonsense, I'm leaning toward MAGA forming into our home-grown Nazi party leaving the GOP to go all business all the time pulling in the non-Q libertarians and \"centrist\" Democrats."
] |
>
Putin Wing of the GOP.
|
[
"So weird to watch the GOP cheer on Russian expansionism . . . \nWeren't the Republicans the ones who pledged to \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies?\"\nIf by \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies\" the GOP meant \"we shall perform endless fellatio for Putin's fascists,\"\nwell, the GOP has certainly kept up their end of the deal.",
">\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. It's essentially the ideal example of what white supremacists say they want in a country. The rich and powerful take all the treasure and are free to do whatever they want. Anyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\nWhen Republicans dream about the sort of country they want, that is what they dream of.",
">\n\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. \n\nIt's the same people doing the same things the've been doing only now they're allowed to get rich doing it.\nWesterners never understand that there was nothing socialist about Soviet Russia. The system didn't change.\n\nAnyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\n\nPretty much everything has been true since the tsars' times.",
">\n\nTo be honest, the one thing you can't say about the Soviet leadership was that they weren't big kleptocrats, imho. \nLots of them did enjoy a bunch of luxeries most Sovjet citizens could not, like a big dacha/foreign films/good food etc. And their children did get better jobs then average.\nBut they weren't fleecing the system for billions of private wealth like Putin did. They nor their children didn't flee to Dubai or such with coffers full of cash/gold like so many other dictators have done.\nOn the whole the Soviets' leadership was brutal, murderous and evil. But not big thiefs.",
">\n\n\nBut they weren't fleecing the system for billions of private wealth like Putin did. \n\nYes, because then the Soviet system didn't generate billions. They were absolute thieves - this is why the soviet system was so inefficient.",
">\n\nYou're both right and wrong I think...\nThe soviet system was the second biggest economy up to the late 80's, so there was plenty of money to steal. The problem indeed was, where you are right in, that so many people did steal/fleeced the system that the end result of it suffered overall.\nI'm now reading up more about it, and do find some interesting nuggets of information:\nMy original post would have been over just Stalin, of whom I know he was particularly anti corruption, but he utterly failed to maintain checks and balances in the system to prevent it within the system. But he himself didn't steal much, and his children weren't particularly well of. (Not for example like with the Kim dynasty in North Korea or the Marcos in the Philippines).\nOf the later Party chiefs, Krushcev lived of on small old pension after his removal.\nBrezhnev was horrified by his daughters corruption, but didn't do much about it and she was investigated for it.\nThe later ones too, Andropov and Gorbatshov children didn't seem to gain to much from corruption, and the first lead an anti-corruption campaign.\nYeltsin onwards they are fully corrupt again, yeltsins daughter is connected to Deripesha, and Putin is just one big ball of corruption and self enrichment.",
">\n\nNot terribly surprising that those that are loyal to Trump have to be loyal to Putin. Its a package deal",
">\n\nThose Fox News ads are paying off for Russia",
">\n\nGOP gonna split if this fascism doesn’t end. My big question is who keeps the GOP title and who forms a new party.",
">\n\nBased on some of the \"never trust establishment GOP\" nonsense, I'm leaning toward MAGA forming into our home-grown Nazi party leaving the GOP to go all business all the time pulling in the non-Q libertarians and \"centrist\" Democrats.",
">\n\nI think it depends on who holds the majority of the existing platform, if MAGA stays somewhat predominant then the “sane” pieces of shit will have to make some decisions."
] |
>
because russian government was idiotic, so they shouldn't have been sticking with republicans
|
[
"So weird to watch the GOP cheer on Russian expansionism . . . \nWeren't the Republicans the ones who pledged to \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies?\"\nIf by \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies\" the GOP meant \"we shall perform endless fellatio for Putin's fascists,\"\nwell, the GOP has certainly kept up their end of the deal.",
">\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. It's essentially the ideal example of what white supremacists say they want in a country. The rich and powerful take all the treasure and are free to do whatever they want. Anyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\nWhen Republicans dream about the sort of country they want, that is what they dream of.",
">\n\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. \n\nIt's the same people doing the same things the've been doing only now they're allowed to get rich doing it.\nWesterners never understand that there was nothing socialist about Soviet Russia. The system didn't change.\n\nAnyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\n\nPretty much everything has been true since the tsars' times.",
">\n\nTo be honest, the one thing you can't say about the Soviet leadership was that they weren't big kleptocrats, imho. \nLots of them did enjoy a bunch of luxeries most Sovjet citizens could not, like a big dacha/foreign films/good food etc. And their children did get better jobs then average.\nBut they weren't fleecing the system for billions of private wealth like Putin did. They nor their children didn't flee to Dubai or such with coffers full of cash/gold like so many other dictators have done.\nOn the whole the Soviets' leadership was brutal, murderous and evil. But not big thiefs.",
">\n\n\nBut they weren't fleecing the system for billions of private wealth like Putin did. \n\nYes, because then the Soviet system didn't generate billions. They were absolute thieves - this is why the soviet system was so inefficient.",
">\n\nYou're both right and wrong I think...\nThe soviet system was the second biggest economy up to the late 80's, so there was plenty of money to steal. The problem indeed was, where you are right in, that so many people did steal/fleeced the system that the end result of it suffered overall.\nI'm now reading up more about it, and do find some interesting nuggets of information:\nMy original post would have been over just Stalin, of whom I know he was particularly anti corruption, but he utterly failed to maintain checks and balances in the system to prevent it within the system. But he himself didn't steal much, and his children weren't particularly well of. (Not for example like with the Kim dynasty in North Korea or the Marcos in the Philippines).\nOf the later Party chiefs, Krushcev lived of on small old pension after his removal.\nBrezhnev was horrified by his daughters corruption, but didn't do much about it and she was investigated for it.\nThe later ones too, Andropov and Gorbatshov children didn't seem to gain to much from corruption, and the first lead an anti-corruption campaign.\nYeltsin onwards they are fully corrupt again, yeltsins daughter is connected to Deripesha, and Putin is just one big ball of corruption and self enrichment.",
">\n\nNot terribly surprising that those that are loyal to Trump have to be loyal to Putin. Its a package deal",
">\n\nThose Fox News ads are paying off for Russia",
">\n\nGOP gonna split if this fascism doesn’t end. My big question is who keeps the GOP title and who forms a new party.",
">\n\nBased on some of the \"never trust establishment GOP\" nonsense, I'm leaning toward MAGA forming into our home-grown Nazi party leaving the GOP to go all business all the time pulling in the non-Q libertarians and \"centrist\" Democrats.",
">\n\nI think it depends on who holds the majority of the existing platform, if MAGA stays somewhat predominant then the “sane” pieces of shit will have to make some decisions.",
">\n\nPutin Wing of the GOP."
] |
>
|
[
"So weird to watch the GOP cheer on Russian expansionism . . . \nWeren't the Republicans the ones who pledged to \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies?\"\nIf by \"keep us safe from the Dirty Russkies\" the GOP meant \"we shall perform endless fellatio for Putin's fascists,\"\nwell, the GOP has certainly kept up their end of the deal.",
">\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. It's essentially the ideal example of what white supremacists say they want in a country. The rich and powerful take all the treasure and are free to do whatever they want. Anyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\nWhen Republicans dream about the sort of country they want, that is what they dream of.",
">\n\n\nRussia transformed from a Communism to a Kleptocracy. \n\nIt's the same people doing the same things the've been doing only now they're allowed to get rich doing it.\nWesterners never understand that there was nothing socialist about Soviet Russia. The system didn't change.\n\nAnyone who criticizes them can be thrown into a Siberian prison. The police are nakedly corrupt. There is no rule of law, no equal protection, just the pure distillation of might makes right.\n\nPretty much everything has been true since the tsars' times.",
">\n\nTo be honest, the one thing you can't say about the Soviet leadership was that they weren't big kleptocrats, imho. \nLots of them did enjoy a bunch of luxeries most Sovjet citizens could not, like a big dacha/foreign films/good food etc. And their children did get better jobs then average.\nBut they weren't fleecing the system for billions of private wealth like Putin did. They nor their children didn't flee to Dubai or such with coffers full of cash/gold like so many other dictators have done.\nOn the whole the Soviets' leadership was brutal, murderous and evil. But not big thiefs.",
">\n\n\nBut they weren't fleecing the system for billions of private wealth like Putin did. \n\nYes, because then the Soviet system didn't generate billions. They were absolute thieves - this is why the soviet system was so inefficient.",
">\n\nYou're both right and wrong I think...\nThe soviet system was the second biggest economy up to the late 80's, so there was plenty of money to steal. The problem indeed was, where you are right in, that so many people did steal/fleeced the system that the end result of it suffered overall.\nI'm now reading up more about it, and do find some interesting nuggets of information:\nMy original post would have been over just Stalin, of whom I know he was particularly anti corruption, but he utterly failed to maintain checks and balances in the system to prevent it within the system. But he himself didn't steal much, and his children weren't particularly well of. (Not for example like with the Kim dynasty in North Korea or the Marcos in the Philippines).\nOf the later Party chiefs, Krushcev lived of on small old pension after his removal.\nBrezhnev was horrified by his daughters corruption, but didn't do much about it and she was investigated for it.\nThe later ones too, Andropov and Gorbatshov children didn't seem to gain to much from corruption, and the first lead an anti-corruption campaign.\nYeltsin onwards they are fully corrupt again, yeltsins daughter is connected to Deripesha, and Putin is just one big ball of corruption and self enrichment.",
">\n\nNot terribly surprising that those that are loyal to Trump have to be loyal to Putin. Its a package deal",
">\n\nThose Fox News ads are paying off for Russia",
">\n\nGOP gonna split if this fascism doesn’t end. My big question is who keeps the GOP title and who forms a new party.",
">\n\nBased on some of the \"never trust establishment GOP\" nonsense, I'm leaning toward MAGA forming into our home-grown Nazi party leaving the GOP to go all business all the time pulling in the non-Q libertarians and \"centrist\" Democrats.",
">\n\nI think it depends on who holds the majority of the existing platform, if MAGA stays somewhat predominant then the “sane” pieces of shit will have to make some decisions.",
">\n\nPutin Wing of the GOP.",
">\n\nbecause russian government was idiotic, so they shouldn't have been sticking with republicans"
] |
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.
|
[] |
>
Reminds me of how in Boruto, the main ladies of Naruto took a collective pregnancy pact to birth children in the same year.
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans."
] |
>
I got the impression that Wonka had pretty elaborate plans for the kids, and selected them specifically to teach them lessons?
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nReminds me of how in Boruto, the main ladies of Naruto took a collective pregnancy pact to birth children in the same year."
] |
>
Exactly. He chose Charlie, it was just the final test.
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nReminds me of how in Boruto, the main ladies of Naruto took a collective pregnancy pact to birth children in the same year.",
">\n\nI got the impression that Wonka had pretty elaborate plans for the kids, and selected them specifically to teach them lessons?"
] |
>
In real life if we had some global coke ticket thing, it would be presumably a requirement to know English.
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nReminds me of how in Boruto, the main ladies of Naruto took a collective pregnancy pact to birth children in the same year.",
">\n\nI got the impression that Wonka had pretty elaborate plans for the kids, and selected them specifically to teach them lessons?",
">\n\nExactly. He chose Charlie, it was just the final test."
] |
>
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.",
">\n\nReminds me of how in Boruto, the main ladies of Naruto took a collective pregnancy pact to birth children in the same year.",
">\n\nI got the impression that Wonka had pretty elaborate plans for the kids, and selected them specifically to teach them lessons?",
">\n\nExactly. He chose Charlie, it was just the final test.",
">\n\nIn real life if we had some global coke ticket thing, it would be presumably a requirement to know English."
] |
McCarthy's district is not competitive. He won last election by like 35 points.
|
[] |
>
TIL that McCarthy's district is home to the third largest oil well in the United States.
Shocking.
|
[
"McCarthy's district is not competitive. He won last election by like 35 points."
] |
>
It would make me so happy to see McCarthy booted now that he finally became speaker. 15 votes and giving all his limited influence and respect away only to get shown the door.
In Neverland, I'd be able to fly with this thought.
|
[
"McCarthy's district is not competitive. He won last election by like 35 points.",
">\n\nTIL that McCarthy's district is home to the third largest oil well in the United States. \nShocking."
] |
>
Neverland is a fitting name for the non-existent world in which this would ever happen
|
[
"McCarthy's district is not competitive. He won last election by like 35 points.",
">\n\nTIL that McCarthy's district is home to the third largest oil well in the United States. \nShocking.",
">\n\nIt would make me so happy to see McCarthy booted now that he finally became speaker. 15 votes and giving all his limited influence and respect away only to get shown the door.\nIn Neverland, I'd be able to fly with this thought."
] |
>
Yeah... But I can dream.
|
[
"McCarthy's district is not competitive. He won last election by like 35 points.",
">\n\nTIL that McCarthy's district is home to the third largest oil well in the United States. \nShocking.",
">\n\nIt would make me so happy to see McCarthy booted now that he finally became speaker. 15 votes and giving all his limited influence and respect away only to get shown the door.\nIn Neverland, I'd be able to fly with this thought.",
">\n\nNeverland is a fitting name for the non-existent world in which this would ever happen"
] |
>
i wish him luck!
|
[
"McCarthy's district is not competitive. He won last election by like 35 points.",
">\n\nTIL that McCarthy's district is home to the third largest oil well in the United States. \nShocking.",
">\n\nIt would make me so happy to see McCarthy booted now that he finally became speaker. 15 votes and giving all his limited influence and respect away only to get shown the door.\nIn Neverland, I'd be able to fly with this thought.",
">\n\nNeverland is a fitting name for the non-existent world in which this would ever happen",
">\n\nYeah... But I can dream."
] |
>
McCarthy's district is not competitive. He won last election by like 35 points.
|
[
"McCarthy's district is not competitive. He won last election by like 35 points.",
">\n\nTIL that McCarthy's district is home to the third largest oil well in the United States. \nShocking.",
">\n\nIt would make me so happy to see McCarthy booted now that he finally became speaker. 15 votes and giving all his limited influence and respect away only to get shown the door.\nIn Neverland, I'd be able to fly with this thought.",
">\n\nNeverland is a fitting name for the non-existent world in which this would ever happen",
">\n\nYeah... But I can dream.",
">\n\ni wish him luck!"
] |
>
TIL that McCarthy's district is home to the third largest oil well in the United States.
Shocking.
|
[
"McCarthy's district is not competitive. He won last election by like 35 points.",
">\n\nTIL that McCarthy's district is home to the third largest oil well in the United States. \nShocking.",
">\n\nIt would make me so happy to see McCarthy booted now that he finally became speaker. 15 votes and giving all his limited influence and respect away only to get shown the door.\nIn Neverland, I'd be able to fly with this thought.",
">\n\nNeverland is a fitting name for the non-existent world in which this would ever happen",
">\n\nYeah... But I can dream.",
">\n\ni wish him luck!",
">\n\nMcCarthy's district is not competitive. He won last election by like 35 points."
] |
>
It would make me so happy to see McCarthy booted now that he finally became speaker. 15 votes and giving all his limited influence and respect away only to get shown the door.
In Neverland, I'd be able to fly with this thought.
|
[
"McCarthy's district is not competitive. He won last election by like 35 points.",
">\n\nTIL that McCarthy's district is home to the third largest oil well in the United States. \nShocking.",
">\n\nIt would make me so happy to see McCarthy booted now that he finally became speaker. 15 votes and giving all his limited influence and respect away only to get shown the door.\nIn Neverland, I'd be able to fly with this thought.",
">\n\nNeverland is a fitting name for the non-existent world in which this would ever happen",
">\n\nYeah... But I can dream.",
">\n\ni wish him luck!",
">\n\nMcCarthy's district is not competitive. He won last election by like 35 points.",
">\n\nTIL that McCarthy's district is home to the third largest oil well in the United States. \nShocking."
] |
>
Neverland is a fitting name for the non-existent world in which this would ever happen
|
[
"McCarthy's district is not competitive. He won last election by like 35 points.",
">\n\nTIL that McCarthy's district is home to the third largest oil well in the United States. \nShocking.",
">\n\nIt would make me so happy to see McCarthy booted now that he finally became speaker. 15 votes and giving all his limited influence and respect away only to get shown the door.\nIn Neverland, I'd be able to fly with this thought.",
">\n\nNeverland is a fitting name for the non-existent world in which this would ever happen",
">\n\nYeah... But I can dream.",
">\n\ni wish him luck!",
">\n\nMcCarthy's district is not competitive. He won last election by like 35 points.",
">\n\nTIL that McCarthy's district is home to the third largest oil well in the United States. \nShocking.",
">\n\nIt would make me so happy to see McCarthy booted now that he finally became speaker. 15 votes and giving all his limited influence and respect away only to get shown the door.\nIn Neverland, I'd be able to fly with this thought."
] |
>
Yeah... But I can dream.
|
[
"McCarthy's district is not competitive. He won last election by like 35 points.",
">\n\nTIL that McCarthy's district is home to the third largest oil well in the United States. \nShocking.",
">\n\nIt would make me so happy to see McCarthy booted now that he finally became speaker. 15 votes and giving all his limited influence and respect away only to get shown the door.\nIn Neverland, I'd be able to fly with this thought.",
">\n\nNeverland is a fitting name for the non-existent world in which this would ever happen",
">\n\nYeah... But I can dream.",
">\n\ni wish him luck!",
">\n\nMcCarthy's district is not competitive. He won last election by like 35 points.",
">\n\nTIL that McCarthy's district is home to the third largest oil well in the United States. \nShocking.",
">\n\nIt would make me so happy to see McCarthy booted now that he finally became speaker. 15 votes and giving all his limited influence and respect away only to get shown the door.\nIn Neverland, I'd be able to fly with this thought.",
">\n\nNeverland is a fitting name for the non-existent world in which this would ever happen"
] |
>
i wish him luck!
|
[
"McCarthy's district is not competitive. He won last election by like 35 points.",
">\n\nTIL that McCarthy's district is home to the third largest oil well in the United States. \nShocking.",
">\n\nIt would make me so happy to see McCarthy booted now that he finally became speaker. 15 votes and giving all his limited influence and respect away only to get shown the door.\nIn Neverland, I'd be able to fly with this thought.",
">\n\nNeverland is a fitting name for the non-existent world in which this would ever happen",
">\n\nYeah... But I can dream.",
">\n\ni wish him luck!",
">\n\nMcCarthy's district is not competitive. He won last election by like 35 points.",
">\n\nTIL that McCarthy's district is home to the third largest oil well in the United States. \nShocking.",
">\n\nIt would make me so happy to see McCarthy booted now that he finally became speaker. 15 votes and giving all his limited influence and respect away only to get shown the door.\nIn Neverland, I'd be able to fly with this thought.",
">\n\nNeverland is a fitting name for the non-existent world in which this would ever happen",
">\n\nYeah... But I can dream."
] |
>
|
[
"McCarthy's district is not competitive. He won last election by like 35 points.",
">\n\nTIL that McCarthy's district is home to the third largest oil well in the United States. \nShocking.",
">\n\nIt would make me so happy to see McCarthy booted now that he finally became speaker. 15 votes and giving all his limited influence and respect away only to get shown the door.\nIn Neverland, I'd be able to fly with this thought.",
">\n\nNeverland is a fitting name for the non-existent world in which this would ever happen",
">\n\nYeah... But I can dream.",
">\n\ni wish him luck!",
">\n\nMcCarthy's district is not competitive. He won last election by like 35 points.",
">\n\nTIL that McCarthy's district is home to the third largest oil well in the United States. \nShocking.",
">\n\nIt would make me so happy to see McCarthy booted now that he finally became speaker. 15 votes and giving all his limited influence and respect away only to get shown the door.\nIn Neverland, I'd be able to fly with this thought.",
">\n\nNeverland is a fitting name for the non-existent world in which this would ever happen",
">\n\nYeah... But I can dream.",
">\n\ni wish him luck!"
] |
What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?
|
[] |
>
The problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.
Outside of context, nothing would be wrong.
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?"
] |
>
is chicken and waffles a stereotype?
I'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong."
] |
>
It had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.
They could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that."
] |
>
Chicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.
I get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.
😂
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue."
] |
>
The black students at the middle school took issue with it. That's where the push came from and it was specifically regarding adding watermelon to it.
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.",
">\n\nChicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.\nI get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.\n😂"
] |
>
If the black kids took this at a dig at them, I should imagine it's not a school where they feel valued most other days either
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.",
">\n\nChicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.\nI get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.\n😂",
">\n\nThe black students at the middle school took issue with it. That's where the push came from and it was specifically regarding adding watermelon to it."
] |
>
Honoring Black History month by emphasizing stereotypes is pretty tone deaf.
Shit man, I will fuck up some chicken, waffles and watermelon. Just can't imagine someone thought that was a good idea for the first day of black history.
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.",
">\n\nChicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.\nI get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.\n😂",
">\n\nThe black students at the middle school took issue with it. That's where the push came from and it was specifically regarding adding watermelon to it.",
">\n\nIf the black kids took this at a dig at them, I should imagine it's not a school where they feel valued most other days either"
] |
>
This.
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.",
">\n\nChicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.\nI get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.\n😂",
">\n\nThe black students at the middle school took issue with it. That's where the push came from and it was specifically regarding adding watermelon to it.",
">\n\nIf the black kids took this at a dig at them, I should imagine it's not a school where they feel valued most other days either",
">\n\nHonoring Black History month by emphasizing stereotypes is pretty tone deaf.\nShit man, I will fuck up some chicken, waffles and watermelon. Just can't imagine someone thought that was a good idea for the first day of black history."
] |
>
For those asking what the problem is with chicken and waffles -
They served something different from what was planned for the day, and the meal is attached to stereotypes.
They went out of their way to serve a watermelon dessert, which has been confirmed as being an extremely rare item.
The company did something similar in 2018, and terminated employees who organized it, indicating there was at least something going on that shouldn't have occurred. [src]
They also had an issue in 2011 (I wasn't aware of it until reading this article, only the 2018 issue) with UC California-Irvine.
If it had already been planned and was a common meal, I don't think there'd have been an issue. But for them to change the planned meal on the first day of Black History Month and to include items that were outside the norm is a really bad look for the company and its employees at that school.
It's also telling that this is the third time (that we know of) that this has occurred with the same company.
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.",
">\n\nChicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.\nI get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.\n😂",
">\n\nThe black students at the middle school took issue with it. That's where the push came from and it was specifically regarding adding watermelon to it.",
">\n\nIf the black kids took this at a dig at them, I should imagine it's not a school where they feel valued most other days either",
">\n\nHonoring Black History month by emphasizing stereotypes is pretty tone deaf.\nShit man, I will fuck up some chicken, waffles and watermelon. Just can't imagine someone thought that was a good idea for the first day of black history.",
">\n\nThis."
] |
>
Were green meals used to subjugate and disparage an entire race like watermelon was?
What about pasta-stuffed pizza, or tacos? Either of those specifically used to disparage an entire race?
No? Then none of those examples compare.
Aww, what's wrong? Don't like being called out for using the argument racist people do?
Too fucking bad.
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.",
">\n\nChicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.\nI get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.\n😂",
">\n\nThe black students at the middle school took issue with it. That's where the push came from and it was specifically regarding adding watermelon to it.",
">\n\nIf the black kids took this at a dig at them, I should imagine it's not a school where they feel valued most other days either",
">\n\nHonoring Black History month by emphasizing stereotypes is pretty tone deaf.\nShit man, I will fuck up some chicken, waffles and watermelon. Just can't imagine someone thought that was a good idea for the first day of black history.",
">\n\nThis.",
">\n\nFor those asking what the problem is with chicken and waffles -\n\nThey served something different from what was planned for the day, and the meal is attached to stereotypes.\nThey went out of their way to serve a watermelon dessert, which has been confirmed as being an extremely rare item.\nThe company did something similar in 2018, and terminated employees who organized it, indicating there was at least something going on that shouldn't have occurred. [src]\nThey also had an issue in 2011 (I wasn't aware of it until reading this article, only the 2018 issue) with UC California-Irvine.\n\nIf it had already been planned and was a common meal, I don't think there'd have been an issue. But for them to change the planned meal on the first day of Black History Month and to include items that were outside the norm is a really bad look for the company and its employees at that school.\nIt's also telling that this is the third time (that we know of) that this has occurred with the same company."
] |
>
Not the person you responded to, and I am still learning American history as I go. How did white Americans use watermelons to disparage black Americans?
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.",
">\n\nChicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.\nI get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.\n😂",
">\n\nThe black students at the middle school took issue with it. That's where the push came from and it was specifically regarding adding watermelon to it.",
">\n\nIf the black kids took this at a dig at them, I should imagine it's not a school where they feel valued most other days either",
">\n\nHonoring Black History month by emphasizing stereotypes is pretty tone deaf.\nShit man, I will fuck up some chicken, waffles and watermelon. Just can't imagine someone thought that was a good idea for the first day of black history.",
">\n\nThis.",
">\n\nFor those asking what the problem is with chicken and waffles -\n\nThey served something different from what was planned for the day, and the meal is attached to stereotypes.\nThey went out of their way to serve a watermelon dessert, which has been confirmed as being an extremely rare item.\nThe company did something similar in 2018, and terminated employees who organized it, indicating there was at least something going on that shouldn't have occurred. [src]\nThey also had an issue in 2011 (I wasn't aware of it until reading this article, only the 2018 issue) with UC California-Irvine.\n\nIf it had already been planned and was a common meal, I don't think there'd have been an issue. But for them to change the planned meal on the first day of Black History Month and to include items that were outside the norm is a really bad look for the company and its employees at that school.\nIt's also telling that this is the third time (that we know of) that this has occurred with the same company.",
">\n\nWere green meals used to subjugate and disparage an entire race like watermelon was?\nWhat about pasta-stuffed pizza, or tacos? Either of those specifically used to disparage an entire race?\nNo? Then none of those examples compare.\nAww, what's wrong? Don't like being called out for using the argument racist people do?\nToo fucking bad."
] |
>
This is unacceptable! Under no circumstances should anyone ever apologize for serving chicken and waffles. The only acceptable apology is for not serving more chicken and waffles.
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.",
">\n\nChicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.\nI get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.\n😂",
">\n\nThe black students at the middle school took issue with it. That's where the push came from and it was specifically regarding adding watermelon to it.",
">\n\nIf the black kids took this at a dig at them, I should imagine it's not a school where they feel valued most other days either",
">\n\nHonoring Black History month by emphasizing stereotypes is pretty tone deaf.\nShit man, I will fuck up some chicken, waffles and watermelon. Just can't imagine someone thought that was a good idea for the first day of black history.",
">\n\nThis.",
">\n\nFor those asking what the problem is with chicken and waffles -\n\nThey served something different from what was planned for the day, and the meal is attached to stereotypes.\nThey went out of their way to serve a watermelon dessert, which has been confirmed as being an extremely rare item.\nThe company did something similar in 2018, and terminated employees who organized it, indicating there was at least something going on that shouldn't have occurred. [src]\nThey also had an issue in 2011 (I wasn't aware of it until reading this article, only the 2018 issue) with UC California-Irvine.\n\nIf it had already been planned and was a common meal, I don't think there'd have been an issue. But for them to change the planned meal on the first day of Black History Month and to include items that were outside the norm is a really bad look for the company and its employees at that school.\nIt's also telling that this is the third time (that we know of) that this has occurred with the same company.",
">\n\nWere green meals used to subjugate and disparage an entire race like watermelon was?\nWhat about pasta-stuffed pizza, or tacos? Either of those specifically used to disparage an entire race?\nNo? Then none of those examples compare.\nAww, what's wrong? Don't like being called out for using the argument racist people do?\nToo fucking bad.",
">\n\nNot the person you responded to, and I am still learning American history as I go. How did white Americans use watermelons to disparage black Americans?"
] |
>
I worked in NYC schools for a while. What they should be apologizing for at most schools is serving a couple frozen processed chicken nuggets on a half-toasted eggo and calling it "chicken and waffles".
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.",
">\n\nChicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.\nI get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.\n😂",
">\n\nThe black students at the middle school took issue with it. That's where the push came from and it was specifically regarding adding watermelon to it.",
">\n\nIf the black kids took this at a dig at them, I should imagine it's not a school where they feel valued most other days either",
">\n\nHonoring Black History month by emphasizing stereotypes is pretty tone deaf.\nShit man, I will fuck up some chicken, waffles and watermelon. Just can't imagine someone thought that was a good idea for the first day of black history.",
">\n\nThis.",
">\n\nFor those asking what the problem is with chicken and waffles -\n\nThey served something different from what was planned for the day, and the meal is attached to stereotypes.\nThey went out of their way to serve a watermelon dessert, which has been confirmed as being an extremely rare item.\nThe company did something similar in 2018, and terminated employees who organized it, indicating there was at least something going on that shouldn't have occurred. [src]\nThey also had an issue in 2011 (I wasn't aware of it until reading this article, only the 2018 issue) with UC California-Irvine.\n\nIf it had already been planned and was a common meal, I don't think there'd have been an issue. But for them to change the planned meal on the first day of Black History Month and to include items that were outside the norm is a really bad look for the company and its employees at that school.\nIt's also telling that this is the third time (that we know of) that this has occurred with the same company.",
">\n\nWere green meals used to subjugate and disparage an entire race like watermelon was?\nWhat about pasta-stuffed pizza, or tacos? Either of those specifically used to disparage an entire race?\nNo? Then none of those examples compare.\nAww, what's wrong? Don't like being called out for using the argument racist people do?\nToo fucking bad.",
">\n\nNot the person you responded to, and I am still learning American history as I go. How did white Americans use watermelons to disparage black Americans?",
">\n\nThis is unacceptable! Under no circumstances should anyone ever apologize for serving chicken and waffles. The only acceptable apology is for not serving more chicken and waffles."
] |
>
That's not chicken and waffles! That's a being poor and just eating whatever you have in the freezer kind of meal.
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.",
">\n\nChicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.\nI get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.\n😂",
">\n\nThe black students at the middle school took issue with it. That's where the push came from and it was specifically regarding adding watermelon to it.",
">\n\nIf the black kids took this at a dig at them, I should imagine it's not a school where they feel valued most other days either",
">\n\nHonoring Black History month by emphasizing stereotypes is pretty tone deaf.\nShit man, I will fuck up some chicken, waffles and watermelon. Just can't imagine someone thought that was a good idea for the first day of black history.",
">\n\nThis.",
">\n\nFor those asking what the problem is with chicken and waffles -\n\nThey served something different from what was planned for the day, and the meal is attached to stereotypes.\nThey went out of their way to serve a watermelon dessert, which has been confirmed as being an extremely rare item.\nThe company did something similar in 2018, and terminated employees who organized it, indicating there was at least something going on that shouldn't have occurred. [src]\nThey also had an issue in 2011 (I wasn't aware of it until reading this article, only the 2018 issue) with UC California-Irvine.\n\nIf it had already been planned and was a common meal, I don't think there'd have been an issue. But for them to change the planned meal on the first day of Black History Month and to include items that were outside the norm is a really bad look for the company and its employees at that school.\nIt's also telling that this is the third time (that we know of) that this has occurred with the same company.",
">\n\nWere green meals used to subjugate and disparage an entire race like watermelon was?\nWhat about pasta-stuffed pizza, or tacos? Either of those specifically used to disparage an entire race?\nNo? Then none of those examples compare.\nAww, what's wrong? Don't like being called out for using the argument racist people do?\nToo fucking bad.",
">\n\nNot the person you responded to, and I am still learning American history as I go. How did white Americans use watermelons to disparage black Americans?",
">\n\nThis is unacceptable! Under no circumstances should anyone ever apologize for serving chicken and waffles. The only acceptable apology is for not serving more chicken and waffles.",
">\n\nI worked in NYC schools for a while. What they should be apologizing for at most schools is serving a couple frozen processed chicken nuggets on a half-toasted eggo and calling it \"chicken and waffles\"."
] |
>
I mean that's more or less the kind of budget public schools are working with. Not to mention that the people working in these kitchens are paid extremely poorly as well. Like 99% of problems in education in the USA, the solution is "we need more money". But hey as long as we can make sure grown men get paid millions of dollars to throw balls around and Jeff Bezos can play astronaut who cares about kids, right?
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.",
">\n\nChicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.\nI get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.\n😂",
">\n\nThe black students at the middle school took issue with it. That's where the push came from and it was specifically regarding adding watermelon to it.",
">\n\nIf the black kids took this at a dig at them, I should imagine it's not a school where they feel valued most other days either",
">\n\nHonoring Black History month by emphasizing stereotypes is pretty tone deaf.\nShit man, I will fuck up some chicken, waffles and watermelon. Just can't imagine someone thought that was a good idea for the first day of black history.",
">\n\nThis.",
">\n\nFor those asking what the problem is with chicken and waffles -\n\nThey served something different from what was planned for the day, and the meal is attached to stereotypes.\nThey went out of their way to serve a watermelon dessert, which has been confirmed as being an extremely rare item.\nThe company did something similar in 2018, and terminated employees who organized it, indicating there was at least something going on that shouldn't have occurred. [src]\nThey also had an issue in 2011 (I wasn't aware of it until reading this article, only the 2018 issue) with UC California-Irvine.\n\nIf it had already been planned and was a common meal, I don't think there'd have been an issue. But for them to change the planned meal on the first day of Black History Month and to include items that were outside the norm is a really bad look for the company and its employees at that school.\nIt's also telling that this is the third time (that we know of) that this has occurred with the same company.",
">\n\nWere green meals used to subjugate and disparage an entire race like watermelon was?\nWhat about pasta-stuffed pizza, or tacos? Either of those specifically used to disparage an entire race?\nNo? Then none of those examples compare.\nAww, what's wrong? Don't like being called out for using the argument racist people do?\nToo fucking bad.",
">\n\nNot the person you responded to, and I am still learning American history as I go. How did white Americans use watermelons to disparage black Americans?",
">\n\nThis is unacceptable! Under no circumstances should anyone ever apologize for serving chicken and waffles. The only acceptable apology is for not serving more chicken and waffles.",
">\n\nI worked in NYC schools for a while. What they should be apologizing for at most schools is serving a couple frozen processed chicken nuggets on a half-toasted eggo and calling it \"chicken and waffles\".",
">\n\nThat's not chicken and waffles! That's a being poor and just eating whatever you have in the freezer kind of meal."
] |
>
Keep in mind if you're looking at that and going "wow that's actually a good pay" keep in mind this is New York City, one of the most expensive spots in the country to live in. I was a high school special education teacher there for five years (and lived there before with even lower paying jobs for 7-8 years). Even if you're at the upper level of that pay scale you're pretty much putting 50% of your income straight into rent, even if you live in a cheap area.
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.",
">\n\nChicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.\nI get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.\n😂",
">\n\nThe black students at the middle school took issue with it. That's where the push came from and it was specifically regarding adding watermelon to it.",
">\n\nIf the black kids took this at a dig at them, I should imagine it's not a school where they feel valued most other days either",
">\n\nHonoring Black History month by emphasizing stereotypes is pretty tone deaf.\nShit man, I will fuck up some chicken, waffles and watermelon. Just can't imagine someone thought that was a good idea for the first day of black history.",
">\n\nThis.",
">\n\nFor those asking what the problem is with chicken and waffles -\n\nThey served something different from what was planned for the day, and the meal is attached to stereotypes.\nThey went out of their way to serve a watermelon dessert, which has been confirmed as being an extremely rare item.\nThe company did something similar in 2018, and terminated employees who organized it, indicating there was at least something going on that shouldn't have occurred. [src]\nThey also had an issue in 2011 (I wasn't aware of it until reading this article, only the 2018 issue) with UC California-Irvine.\n\nIf it had already been planned and was a common meal, I don't think there'd have been an issue. But for them to change the planned meal on the first day of Black History Month and to include items that were outside the norm is a really bad look for the company and its employees at that school.\nIt's also telling that this is the third time (that we know of) that this has occurred with the same company.",
">\n\nWere green meals used to subjugate and disparage an entire race like watermelon was?\nWhat about pasta-stuffed pizza, or tacos? Either of those specifically used to disparage an entire race?\nNo? Then none of those examples compare.\nAww, what's wrong? Don't like being called out for using the argument racist people do?\nToo fucking bad.",
">\n\nNot the person you responded to, and I am still learning American history as I go. How did white Americans use watermelons to disparage black Americans?",
">\n\nThis is unacceptable! Under no circumstances should anyone ever apologize for serving chicken and waffles. The only acceptable apology is for not serving more chicken and waffles.",
">\n\nI worked in NYC schools for a while. What they should be apologizing for at most schools is serving a couple frozen processed chicken nuggets on a half-toasted eggo and calling it \"chicken and waffles\".",
">\n\nThat's not chicken and waffles! That's a being poor and just eating whatever you have in the freezer kind of meal.",
">\n\nI mean that's more or less the kind of budget public schools are working with. Not to mention that the people working in these kitchens are paid extremely poorly as well. Like 99% of problems in education in the USA, the solution is \"we need more money\". But hey as long as we can make sure grown men get paid millions of dollars to throw balls around and Jeff Bezos can play astronaut who cares about kids, right?"
] |
>
Definitely, it’s not easy to live here.
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.",
">\n\nChicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.\nI get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.\n😂",
">\n\nThe black students at the middle school took issue with it. That's where the push came from and it was specifically regarding adding watermelon to it.",
">\n\nIf the black kids took this at a dig at them, I should imagine it's not a school where they feel valued most other days either",
">\n\nHonoring Black History month by emphasizing stereotypes is pretty tone deaf.\nShit man, I will fuck up some chicken, waffles and watermelon. Just can't imagine someone thought that was a good idea for the first day of black history.",
">\n\nThis.",
">\n\nFor those asking what the problem is with chicken and waffles -\n\nThey served something different from what was planned for the day, and the meal is attached to stereotypes.\nThey went out of their way to serve a watermelon dessert, which has been confirmed as being an extremely rare item.\nThe company did something similar in 2018, and terminated employees who organized it, indicating there was at least something going on that shouldn't have occurred. [src]\nThey also had an issue in 2011 (I wasn't aware of it until reading this article, only the 2018 issue) with UC California-Irvine.\n\nIf it had already been planned and was a common meal, I don't think there'd have been an issue. But for them to change the planned meal on the first day of Black History Month and to include items that were outside the norm is a really bad look for the company and its employees at that school.\nIt's also telling that this is the third time (that we know of) that this has occurred with the same company.",
">\n\nWere green meals used to subjugate and disparage an entire race like watermelon was?\nWhat about pasta-stuffed pizza, or tacos? Either of those specifically used to disparage an entire race?\nNo? Then none of those examples compare.\nAww, what's wrong? Don't like being called out for using the argument racist people do?\nToo fucking bad.",
">\n\nNot the person you responded to, and I am still learning American history as I go. How did white Americans use watermelons to disparage black Americans?",
">\n\nThis is unacceptable! Under no circumstances should anyone ever apologize for serving chicken and waffles. The only acceptable apology is for not serving more chicken and waffles.",
">\n\nI worked in NYC schools for a while. What they should be apologizing for at most schools is serving a couple frozen processed chicken nuggets on a half-toasted eggo and calling it \"chicken and waffles\".",
">\n\nThat's not chicken and waffles! That's a being poor and just eating whatever you have in the freezer kind of meal.",
">\n\nI mean that's more or less the kind of budget public schools are working with. Not to mention that the people working in these kitchens are paid extremely poorly as well. Like 99% of problems in education in the USA, the solution is \"we need more money\". But hey as long as we can make sure grown men get paid millions of dollars to throw balls around and Jeff Bezos can play astronaut who cares about kids, right?",
">\n\nKeep in mind if you're looking at that and going \"wow that's actually a good pay\" keep in mind this is New York City, one of the most expensive spots in the country to live in. I was a high school special education teacher there for five years (and lived there before with even lower paying jobs for 7-8 years). Even if you're at the upper level of that pay scale you're pretty much putting 50% of your income straight into rent, even if you live in a cheap area."
] |
>
Definitely isn't. I lived there 2006-2019, ended up landing in Michigan after a brief stint in North Carolina, I'm happy I spent such a large chunk of formative adult years there (I moved there right after college) because as someone who grew up in a small, non-diverse New England rural town it was a huge contrast. These days though when people ask if I miss NYC my answer is "all the things I miss I can get when I go visit".
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.",
">\n\nChicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.\nI get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.\n😂",
">\n\nThe black students at the middle school took issue with it. That's where the push came from and it was specifically regarding adding watermelon to it.",
">\n\nIf the black kids took this at a dig at them, I should imagine it's not a school where they feel valued most other days either",
">\n\nHonoring Black History month by emphasizing stereotypes is pretty tone deaf.\nShit man, I will fuck up some chicken, waffles and watermelon. Just can't imagine someone thought that was a good idea for the first day of black history.",
">\n\nThis.",
">\n\nFor those asking what the problem is with chicken and waffles -\n\nThey served something different from what was planned for the day, and the meal is attached to stereotypes.\nThey went out of their way to serve a watermelon dessert, which has been confirmed as being an extremely rare item.\nThe company did something similar in 2018, and terminated employees who organized it, indicating there was at least something going on that shouldn't have occurred. [src]\nThey also had an issue in 2011 (I wasn't aware of it until reading this article, only the 2018 issue) with UC California-Irvine.\n\nIf it had already been planned and was a common meal, I don't think there'd have been an issue. But for them to change the planned meal on the first day of Black History Month and to include items that were outside the norm is a really bad look for the company and its employees at that school.\nIt's also telling that this is the third time (that we know of) that this has occurred with the same company.",
">\n\nWere green meals used to subjugate and disparage an entire race like watermelon was?\nWhat about pasta-stuffed pizza, or tacos? Either of those specifically used to disparage an entire race?\nNo? Then none of those examples compare.\nAww, what's wrong? Don't like being called out for using the argument racist people do?\nToo fucking bad.",
">\n\nNot the person you responded to, and I am still learning American history as I go. How did white Americans use watermelons to disparage black Americans?",
">\n\nThis is unacceptable! Under no circumstances should anyone ever apologize for serving chicken and waffles. The only acceptable apology is for not serving more chicken and waffles.",
">\n\nI worked in NYC schools for a while. What they should be apologizing for at most schools is serving a couple frozen processed chicken nuggets on a half-toasted eggo and calling it \"chicken and waffles\".",
">\n\nThat's not chicken and waffles! That's a being poor and just eating whatever you have in the freezer kind of meal.",
">\n\nI mean that's more or less the kind of budget public schools are working with. Not to mention that the people working in these kitchens are paid extremely poorly as well. Like 99% of problems in education in the USA, the solution is \"we need more money\". But hey as long as we can make sure grown men get paid millions of dollars to throw balls around and Jeff Bezos can play astronaut who cares about kids, right?",
">\n\nKeep in mind if you're looking at that and going \"wow that's actually a good pay\" keep in mind this is New York City, one of the most expensive spots in the country to live in. I was a high school special education teacher there for five years (and lived there before with even lower paying jobs for 7-8 years). Even if you're at the upper level of that pay scale you're pretty much putting 50% of your income straight into rent, even if you live in a cheap area.",
">\n\nDefinitely, it’s not easy to live here."
] |
>
There's nothing wrong with chicken and waffles on any day.
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.",
">\n\nChicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.\nI get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.\n😂",
">\n\nThe black students at the middle school took issue with it. That's where the push came from and it was specifically regarding adding watermelon to it.",
">\n\nIf the black kids took this at a dig at them, I should imagine it's not a school where they feel valued most other days either",
">\n\nHonoring Black History month by emphasizing stereotypes is pretty tone deaf.\nShit man, I will fuck up some chicken, waffles and watermelon. Just can't imagine someone thought that was a good idea for the first day of black history.",
">\n\nThis.",
">\n\nFor those asking what the problem is with chicken and waffles -\n\nThey served something different from what was planned for the day, and the meal is attached to stereotypes.\nThey went out of their way to serve a watermelon dessert, which has been confirmed as being an extremely rare item.\nThe company did something similar in 2018, and terminated employees who organized it, indicating there was at least something going on that shouldn't have occurred. [src]\nThey also had an issue in 2011 (I wasn't aware of it until reading this article, only the 2018 issue) with UC California-Irvine.\n\nIf it had already been planned and was a common meal, I don't think there'd have been an issue. But for them to change the planned meal on the first day of Black History Month and to include items that were outside the norm is a really bad look for the company and its employees at that school.\nIt's also telling that this is the third time (that we know of) that this has occurred with the same company.",
">\n\nWere green meals used to subjugate and disparage an entire race like watermelon was?\nWhat about pasta-stuffed pizza, or tacos? Either of those specifically used to disparage an entire race?\nNo? Then none of those examples compare.\nAww, what's wrong? Don't like being called out for using the argument racist people do?\nToo fucking bad.",
">\n\nNot the person you responded to, and I am still learning American history as I go. How did white Americans use watermelons to disparage black Americans?",
">\n\nThis is unacceptable! Under no circumstances should anyone ever apologize for serving chicken and waffles. The only acceptable apology is for not serving more chicken and waffles.",
">\n\nI worked in NYC schools for a while. What they should be apologizing for at most schools is serving a couple frozen processed chicken nuggets on a half-toasted eggo and calling it \"chicken and waffles\".",
">\n\nThat's not chicken and waffles! That's a being poor and just eating whatever you have in the freezer kind of meal.",
">\n\nI mean that's more or less the kind of budget public schools are working with. Not to mention that the people working in these kitchens are paid extremely poorly as well. Like 99% of problems in education in the USA, the solution is \"we need more money\". But hey as long as we can make sure grown men get paid millions of dollars to throw balls around and Jeff Bezos can play astronaut who cares about kids, right?",
">\n\nKeep in mind if you're looking at that and going \"wow that's actually a good pay\" keep in mind this is New York City, one of the most expensive spots in the country to live in. I was a high school special education teacher there for five years (and lived there before with even lower paying jobs for 7-8 years). Even if you're at the upper level of that pay scale you're pretty much putting 50% of your income straight into rent, even if you live in a cheap area.",
">\n\nDefinitely, it’s not easy to live here.",
">\n\nDefinitely isn't. I lived there 2006-2019, ended up landing in Michigan after a brief stint in North Carolina, I'm happy I spent such a large chunk of formative adult years there (I moved there right after college) because as someone who grew up in a small, non-diverse New England rural town it was a huge contrast. These days though when people ask if I miss NYC my answer is \"all the things I miss I can get when I go visit\"."
] |
>
No, but there's a huge fucking issue with serving watermelon to black students on the first day of BHM...you know, the actual issue.
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.",
">\n\nChicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.\nI get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.\n😂",
">\n\nThe black students at the middle school took issue with it. That's where the push came from and it was specifically regarding adding watermelon to it.",
">\n\nIf the black kids took this at a dig at them, I should imagine it's not a school where they feel valued most other days either",
">\n\nHonoring Black History month by emphasizing stereotypes is pretty tone deaf.\nShit man, I will fuck up some chicken, waffles and watermelon. Just can't imagine someone thought that was a good idea for the first day of black history.",
">\n\nThis.",
">\n\nFor those asking what the problem is with chicken and waffles -\n\nThey served something different from what was planned for the day, and the meal is attached to stereotypes.\nThey went out of their way to serve a watermelon dessert, which has been confirmed as being an extremely rare item.\nThe company did something similar in 2018, and terminated employees who organized it, indicating there was at least something going on that shouldn't have occurred. [src]\nThey also had an issue in 2011 (I wasn't aware of it until reading this article, only the 2018 issue) with UC California-Irvine.\n\nIf it had already been planned and was a common meal, I don't think there'd have been an issue. But for them to change the planned meal on the first day of Black History Month and to include items that were outside the norm is a really bad look for the company and its employees at that school.\nIt's also telling that this is the third time (that we know of) that this has occurred with the same company.",
">\n\nWere green meals used to subjugate and disparage an entire race like watermelon was?\nWhat about pasta-stuffed pizza, or tacos? Either of those specifically used to disparage an entire race?\nNo? Then none of those examples compare.\nAww, what's wrong? Don't like being called out for using the argument racist people do?\nToo fucking bad.",
">\n\nNot the person you responded to, and I am still learning American history as I go. How did white Americans use watermelons to disparage black Americans?",
">\n\nThis is unacceptable! Under no circumstances should anyone ever apologize for serving chicken and waffles. The only acceptable apology is for not serving more chicken and waffles.",
">\n\nI worked in NYC schools for a while. What they should be apologizing for at most schools is serving a couple frozen processed chicken nuggets on a half-toasted eggo and calling it \"chicken and waffles\".",
">\n\nThat's not chicken and waffles! That's a being poor and just eating whatever you have in the freezer kind of meal.",
">\n\nI mean that's more or less the kind of budget public schools are working with. Not to mention that the people working in these kitchens are paid extremely poorly as well. Like 99% of problems in education in the USA, the solution is \"we need more money\". But hey as long as we can make sure grown men get paid millions of dollars to throw balls around and Jeff Bezos can play astronaut who cares about kids, right?",
">\n\nKeep in mind if you're looking at that and going \"wow that's actually a good pay\" keep in mind this is New York City, one of the most expensive spots in the country to live in. I was a high school special education teacher there for five years (and lived there before with even lower paying jobs for 7-8 years). Even if you're at the upper level of that pay scale you're pretty much putting 50% of your income straight into rent, even if you live in a cheap area.",
">\n\nDefinitely, it’s not easy to live here.",
">\n\nDefinitely isn't. I lived there 2006-2019, ended up landing in Michigan after a brief stint in North Carolina, I'm happy I spent such a large chunk of formative adult years there (I moved there right after college) because as someone who grew up in a small, non-diverse New England rural town it was a huge contrast. These days though when people ask if I miss NYC my answer is \"all the things I miss I can get when I go visit\".",
">\n\nThere's nothing wrong with chicken and waffles on any day."
] |
>
Where do you even get fresh watermelon from in February? It's not in season until the end of summer.
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.",
">\n\nChicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.\nI get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.\n😂",
">\n\nThe black students at the middle school took issue with it. That's where the push came from and it was specifically regarding adding watermelon to it.",
">\n\nIf the black kids took this at a dig at them, I should imagine it's not a school where they feel valued most other days either",
">\n\nHonoring Black History month by emphasizing stereotypes is pretty tone deaf.\nShit man, I will fuck up some chicken, waffles and watermelon. Just can't imagine someone thought that was a good idea for the first day of black history.",
">\n\nThis.",
">\n\nFor those asking what the problem is with chicken and waffles -\n\nThey served something different from what was planned for the day, and the meal is attached to stereotypes.\nThey went out of their way to serve a watermelon dessert, which has been confirmed as being an extremely rare item.\nThe company did something similar in 2018, and terminated employees who organized it, indicating there was at least something going on that shouldn't have occurred. [src]\nThey also had an issue in 2011 (I wasn't aware of it until reading this article, only the 2018 issue) with UC California-Irvine.\n\nIf it had already been planned and was a common meal, I don't think there'd have been an issue. But for them to change the planned meal on the first day of Black History Month and to include items that were outside the norm is a really bad look for the company and its employees at that school.\nIt's also telling that this is the third time (that we know of) that this has occurred with the same company.",
">\n\nWere green meals used to subjugate and disparage an entire race like watermelon was?\nWhat about pasta-stuffed pizza, or tacos? Either of those specifically used to disparage an entire race?\nNo? Then none of those examples compare.\nAww, what's wrong? Don't like being called out for using the argument racist people do?\nToo fucking bad.",
">\n\nNot the person you responded to, and I am still learning American history as I go. How did white Americans use watermelons to disparage black Americans?",
">\n\nThis is unacceptable! Under no circumstances should anyone ever apologize for serving chicken and waffles. The only acceptable apology is for not serving more chicken and waffles.",
">\n\nI worked in NYC schools for a while. What they should be apologizing for at most schools is serving a couple frozen processed chicken nuggets on a half-toasted eggo and calling it \"chicken and waffles\".",
">\n\nThat's not chicken and waffles! That's a being poor and just eating whatever you have in the freezer kind of meal.",
">\n\nI mean that's more or less the kind of budget public schools are working with. Not to mention that the people working in these kitchens are paid extremely poorly as well. Like 99% of problems in education in the USA, the solution is \"we need more money\". But hey as long as we can make sure grown men get paid millions of dollars to throw balls around and Jeff Bezos can play astronaut who cares about kids, right?",
">\n\nKeep in mind if you're looking at that and going \"wow that's actually a good pay\" keep in mind this is New York City, one of the most expensive spots in the country to live in. I was a high school special education teacher there for five years (and lived there before with even lower paying jobs for 7-8 years). Even if you're at the upper level of that pay scale you're pretty much putting 50% of your income straight into rent, even if you live in a cheap area.",
">\n\nDefinitely, it’s not easy to live here.",
">\n\nDefinitely isn't. I lived there 2006-2019, ended up landing in Michigan after a brief stint in North Carolina, I'm happy I spent such a large chunk of formative adult years there (I moved there right after college) because as someone who grew up in a small, non-diverse New England rural town it was a huge contrast. These days though when people ask if I miss NYC my answer is \"all the things I miss I can get when I go visit\".",
">\n\nThere's nothing wrong with chicken and waffles on any day.",
">\n\nNo, but there's a huge fucking issue with serving watermelon to black students on the first day of BHM...you know, the actual issue."
] |
>
Likely grown in south America somewhere.
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.",
">\n\nChicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.\nI get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.\n😂",
">\n\nThe black students at the middle school took issue with it. That's where the push came from and it was specifically regarding adding watermelon to it.",
">\n\nIf the black kids took this at a dig at them, I should imagine it's not a school where they feel valued most other days either",
">\n\nHonoring Black History month by emphasizing stereotypes is pretty tone deaf.\nShit man, I will fuck up some chicken, waffles and watermelon. Just can't imagine someone thought that was a good idea for the first day of black history.",
">\n\nThis.",
">\n\nFor those asking what the problem is with chicken and waffles -\n\nThey served something different from what was planned for the day, and the meal is attached to stereotypes.\nThey went out of their way to serve a watermelon dessert, which has been confirmed as being an extremely rare item.\nThe company did something similar in 2018, and terminated employees who organized it, indicating there was at least something going on that shouldn't have occurred. [src]\nThey also had an issue in 2011 (I wasn't aware of it until reading this article, only the 2018 issue) with UC California-Irvine.\n\nIf it had already been planned and was a common meal, I don't think there'd have been an issue. But for them to change the planned meal on the first day of Black History Month and to include items that were outside the norm is a really bad look for the company and its employees at that school.\nIt's also telling that this is the third time (that we know of) that this has occurred with the same company.",
">\n\nWere green meals used to subjugate and disparage an entire race like watermelon was?\nWhat about pasta-stuffed pizza, or tacos? Either of those specifically used to disparage an entire race?\nNo? Then none of those examples compare.\nAww, what's wrong? Don't like being called out for using the argument racist people do?\nToo fucking bad.",
">\n\nNot the person you responded to, and I am still learning American history as I go. How did white Americans use watermelons to disparage black Americans?",
">\n\nThis is unacceptable! Under no circumstances should anyone ever apologize for serving chicken and waffles. The only acceptable apology is for not serving more chicken and waffles.",
">\n\nI worked in NYC schools for a while. What they should be apologizing for at most schools is serving a couple frozen processed chicken nuggets on a half-toasted eggo and calling it \"chicken and waffles\".",
">\n\nThat's not chicken and waffles! That's a being poor and just eating whatever you have in the freezer kind of meal.",
">\n\nI mean that's more or less the kind of budget public schools are working with. Not to mention that the people working in these kitchens are paid extremely poorly as well. Like 99% of problems in education in the USA, the solution is \"we need more money\". But hey as long as we can make sure grown men get paid millions of dollars to throw balls around and Jeff Bezos can play astronaut who cares about kids, right?",
">\n\nKeep in mind if you're looking at that and going \"wow that's actually a good pay\" keep in mind this is New York City, one of the most expensive spots in the country to live in. I was a high school special education teacher there for five years (and lived there before with even lower paying jobs for 7-8 years). Even if you're at the upper level of that pay scale you're pretty much putting 50% of your income straight into rent, even if you live in a cheap area.",
">\n\nDefinitely, it’s not easy to live here.",
">\n\nDefinitely isn't. I lived there 2006-2019, ended up landing in Michigan after a brief stint in North Carolina, I'm happy I spent such a large chunk of formative adult years there (I moved there right after college) because as someone who grew up in a small, non-diverse New England rural town it was a huge contrast. These days though when people ask if I miss NYC my answer is \"all the things I miss I can get when I go visit\".",
">\n\nThere's nothing wrong with chicken and waffles on any day.",
">\n\nNo, but there's a huge fucking issue with serving watermelon to black students on the first day of BHM...you know, the actual issue.",
">\n\nWhere do you even get fresh watermelon from in February? It's not in season until the end of summer."
] |
>
The one I got over the weekend said it came from Chile.
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.",
">\n\nChicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.\nI get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.\n😂",
">\n\nThe black students at the middle school took issue with it. That's where the push came from and it was specifically regarding adding watermelon to it.",
">\n\nIf the black kids took this at a dig at them, I should imagine it's not a school where they feel valued most other days either",
">\n\nHonoring Black History month by emphasizing stereotypes is pretty tone deaf.\nShit man, I will fuck up some chicken, waffles and watermelon. Just can't imagine someone thought that was a good idea for the first day of black history.",
">\n\nThis.",
">\n\nFor those asking what the problem is with chicken and waffles -\n\nThey served something different from what was planned for the day, and the meal is attached to stereotypes.\nThey went out of their way to serve a watermelon dessert, which has been confirmed as being an extremely rare item.\nThe company did something similar in 2018, and terminated employees who organized it, indicating there was at least something going on that shouldn't have occurred. [src]\nThey also had an issue in 2011 (I wasn't aware of it until reading this article, only the 2018 issue) with UC California-Irvine.\n\nIf it had already been planned and was a common meal, I don't think there'd have been an issue. But for them to change the planned meal on the first day of Black History Month and to include items that were outside the norm is a really bad look for the company and its employees at that school.\nIt's also telling that this is the third time (that we know of) that this has occurred with the same company.",
">\n\nWere green meals used to subjugate and disparage an entire race like watermelon was?\nWhat about pasta-stuffed pizza, or tacos? Either of those specifically used to disparage an entire race?\nNo? Then none of those examples compare.\nAww, what's wrong? Don't like being called out for using the argument racist people do?\nToo fucking bad.",
">\n\nNot the person you responded to, and I am still learning American history as I go. How did white Americans use watermelons to disparage black Americans?",
">\n\nThis is unacceptable! Under no circumstances should anyone ever apologize for serving chicken and waffles. The only acceptable apology is for not serving more chicken and waffles.",
">\n\nI worked in NYC schools for a while. What they should be apologizing for at most schools is serving a couple frozen processed chicken nuggets on a half-toasted eggo and calling it \"chicken and waffles\".",
">\n\nThat's not chicken and waffles! That's a being poor and just eating whatever you have in the freezer kind of meal.",
">\n\nI mean that's more or less the kind of budget public schools are working with. Not to mention that the people working in these kitchens are paid extremely poorly as well. Like 99% of problems in education in the USA, the solution is \"we need more money\". But hey as long as we can make sure grown men get paid millions of dollars to throw balls around and Jeff Bezos can play astronaut who cares about kids, right?",
">\n\nKeep in mind if you're looking at that and going \"wow that's actually a good pay\" keep in mind this is New York City, one of the most expensive spots in the country to live in. I was a high school special education teacher there for five years (and lived there before with even lower paying jobs for 7-8 years). Even if you're at the upper level of that pay scale you're pretty much putting 50% of your income straight into rent, even if you live in a cheap area.",
">\n\nDefinitely, it’s not easy to live here.",
">\n\nDefinitely isn't. I lived there 2006-2019, ended up landing in Michigan after a brief stint in North Carolina, I'm happy I spent such a large chunk of formative adult years there (I moved there right after college) because as someone who grew up in a small, non-diverse New England rural town it was a huge contrast. These days though when people ask if I miss NYC my answer is \"all the things I miss I can get when I go visit\".",
">\n\nThere's nothing wrong with chicken and waffles on any day.",
">\n\nNo, but there's a huge fucking issue with serving watermelon to black students on the first day of BHM...you know, the actual issue.",
">\n\nWhere do you even get fresh watermelon from in February? It's not in season until the end of summer.",
">\n\nLikely grown in south America somewhere."
] |
>
Apologize for what. This is stupid.
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.",
">\n\nChicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.\nI get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.\n😂",
">\n\nThe black students at the middle school took issue with it. That's where the push came from and it was specifically regarding adding watermelon to it.",
">\n\nIf the black kids took this at a dig at them, I should imagine it's not a school where they feel valued most other days either",
">\n\nHonoring Black History month by emphasizing stereotypes is pretty tone deaf.\nShit man, I will fuck up some chicken, waffles and watermelon. Just can't imagine someone thought that was a good idea for the first day of black history.",
">\n\nThis.",
">\n\nFor those asking what the problem is with chicken and waffles -\n\nThey served something different from what was planned for the day, and the meal is attached to stereotypes.\nThey went out of their way to serve a watermelon dessert, which has been confirmed as being an extremely rare item.\nThe company did something similar in 2018, and terminated employees who organized it, indicating there was at least something going on that shouldn't have occurred. [src]\nThey also had an issue in 2011 (I wasn't aware of it until reading this article, only the 2018 issue) with UC California-Irvine.\n\nIf it had already been planned and was a common meal, I don't think there'd have been an issue. But for them to change the planned meal on the first day of Black History Month and to include items that were outside the norm is a really bad look for the company and its employees at that school.\nIt's also telling that this is the third time (that we know of) that this has occurred with the same company.",
">\n\nWere green meals used to subjugate and disparage an entire race like watermelon was?\nWhat about pasta-stuffed pizza, or tacos? Either of those specifically used to disparage an entire race?\nNo? Then none of those examples compare.\nAww, what's wrong? Don't like being called out for using the argument racist people do?\nToo fucking bad.",
">\n\nNot the person you responded to, and I am still learning American history as I go. How did white Americans use watermelons to disparage black Americans?",
">\n\nThis is unacceptable! Under no circumstances should anyone ever apologize for serving chicken and waffles. The only acceptable apology is for not serving more chicken and waffles.",
">\n\nI worked in NYC schools for a while. What they should be apologizing for at most schools is serving a couple frozen processed chicken nuggets on a half-toasted eggo and calling it \"chicken and waffles\".",
">\n\nThat's not chicken and waffles! That's a being poor and just eating whatever you have in the freezer kind of meal.",
">\n\nI mean that's more or less the kind of budget public schools are working with. Not to mention that the people working in these kitchens are paid extremely poorly as well. Like 99% of problems in education in the USA, the solution is \"we need more money\". But hey as long as we can make sure grown men get paid millions of dollars to throw balls around and Jeff Bezos can play astronaut who cares about kids, right?",
">\n\nKeep in mind if you're looking at that and going \"wow that's actually a good pay\" keep in mind this is New York City, one of the most expensive spots in the country to live in. I was a high school special education teacher there for five years (and lived there before with even lower paying jobs for 7-8 years). Even if you're at the upper level of that pay scale you're pretty much putting 50% of your income straight into rent, even if you live in a cheap area.",
">\n\nDefinitely, it’s not easy to live here.",
">\n\nDefinitely isn't. I lived there 2006-2019, ended up landing in Michigan after a brief stint in North Carolina, I'm happy I spent such a large chunk of formative adult years there (I moved there right after college) because as someone who grew up in a small, non-diverse New England rural town it was a huge contrast. These days though when people ask if I miss NYC my answer is \"all the things I miss I can get when I go visit\".",
">\n\nThere's nothing wrong with chicken and waffles on any day.",
">\n\nNo, but there's a huge fucking issue with serving watermelon to black students on the first day of BHM...you know, the actual issue.",
">\n\nWhere do you even get fresh watermelon from in February? It's not in season until the end of summer.",
">\n\nLikely grown in south America somewhere.",
">\n\nThe one I got over the weekend said it came from Chile."
] |
>
They changed the menu to serve Chicken and Waffles and Watermelon in honor of BHM.
|
[
"What’s wrong with chicken and waffles?",
">\n\nThe problem is when someone responds to Black History Month by pushing stereotypes.\nOutside of context, nothing would be wrong.",
">\n\nis chicken and waffles a stereotype?\nI'm honestly asking. I've never heard of that.",
">\n\nIt had way less to do with Chicken and Waffles being served, and them serving it with watermelon.\nThey could have served it with any other fruit and it would be a non-issue.",
">\n\nChicken waffles and watermelon are all delicious. As a black person this seems kind of a hyperbolic complaint.\nI get the thought behind it but unless they served it in black face I don’t see the issue.\n😂",
">\n\nThe black students at the middle school took issue with it. That's where the push came from and it was specifically regarding adding watermelon to it.",
">\n\nIf the black kids took this at a dig at them, I should imagine it's not a school where they feel valued most other days either",
">\n\nHonoring Black History month by emphasizing stereotypes is pretty tone deaf.\nShit man, I will fuck up some chicken, waffles and watermelon. Just can't imagine someone thought that was a good idea for the first day of black history.",
">\n\nThis.",
">\n\nFor those asking what the problem is with chicken and waffles -\n\nThey served something different from what was planned for the day, and the meal is attached to stereotypes.\nThey went out of their way to serve a watermelon dessert, which has been confirmed as being an extremely rare item.\nThe company did something similar in 2018, and terminated employees who organized it, indicating there was at least something going on that shouldn't have occurred. [src]\nThey also had an issue in 2011 (I wasn't aware of it until reading this article, only the 2018 issue) with UC California-Irvine.\n\nIf it had already been planned and was a common meal, I don't think there'd have been an issue. But for them to change the planned meal on the first day of Black History Month and to include items that were outside the norm is a really bad look for the company and its employees at that school.\nIt's also telling that this is the third time (that we know of) that this has occurred with the same company.",
">\n\nWere green meals used to subjugate and disparage an entire race like watermelon was?\nWhat about pasta-stuffed pizza, or tacos? Either of those specifically used to disparage an entire race?\nNo? Then none of those examples compare.\nAww, what's wrong? Don't like being called out for using the argument racist people do?\nToo fucking bad.",
">\n\nNot the person you responded to, and I am still learning American history as I go. How did white Americans use watermelons to disparage black Americans?",
">\n\nThis is unacceptable! Under no circumstances should anyone ever apologize for serving chicken and waffles. The only acceptable apology is for not serving more chicken and waffles.",
">\n\nI worked in NYC schools for a while. What they should be apologizing for at most schools is serving a couple frozen processed chicken nuggets on a half-toasted eggo and calling it \"chicken and waffles\".",
">\n\nThat's not chicken and waffles! That's a being poor and just eating whatever you have in the freezer kind of meal.",
">\n\nI mean that's more or less the kind of budget public schools are working with. Not to mention that the people working in these kitchens are paid extremely poorly as well. Like 99% of problems in education in the USA, the solution is \"we need more money\". But hey as long as we can make sure grown men get paid millions of dollars to throw balls around and Jeff Bezos can play astronaut who cares about kids, right?",
">\n\nKeep in mind if you're looking at that and going \"wow that's actually a good pay\" keep in mind this is New York City, one of the most expensive spots in the country to live in. I was a high school special education teacher there for five years (and lived there before with even lower paying jobs for 7-8 years). Even if you're at the upper level of that pay scale you're pretty much putting 50% of your income straight into rent, even if you live in a cheap area.",
">\n\nDefinitely, it’s not easy to live here.",
">\n\nDefinitely isn't. I lived there 2006-2019, ended up landing in Michigan after a brief stint in North Carolina, I'm happy I spent such a large chunk of formative adult years there (I moved there right after college) because as someone who grew up in a small, non-diverse New England rural town it was a huge contrast. These days though when people ask if I miss NYC my answer is \"all the things I miss I can get when I go visit\".",
">\n\nThere's nothing wrong with chicken and waffles on any day.",
">\n\nNo, but there's a huge fucking issue with serving watermelon to black students on the first day of BHM...you know, the actual issue.",
">\n\nWhere do you even get fresh watermelon from in February? It's not in season until the end of summer.",
">\n\nLikely grown in south America somewhere.",
">\n\nThe one I got over the weekend said it came from Chile.",
">\n\nApologize for what. This is stupid."
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.