907
tHaT's SoCiaLiSm!!! (lemmy.world)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] XOXOX@lemmy.world 63 points 1 month ago

Their sentiment is that these young women should be saving themselves for their future husbands, and if they don't, they're whores who are getting what they deserve. It goes towards their belief that a man has a right to a woman because she is less than him.

[-] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago

I had so many people try to tell me why free lunch for children is bad and it never came down to anything but I don't like paying for other people's kids.

[-] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

I believe part of free lunch was pushed by Eisenhower, who didn't want malnourished troops. Odd for the patriotic to not see this any more.

[-] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

Because poor desperate people is easier to convince to fight petty oil wars. They learn you can only push to far with conscriptions before people start rebeling.

[-] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago

Which is extra hilarious when you realize all we have to do is start actually charging wealthy people taxes and regular people wouldn't have to pay for anything

[-] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Raise the standard deduction and poverty line to 100k. Set income tax at a flat 10%.

Also, the richest person every year has 50% of their net worth redistributed, and we build a statue in their honor.

[-] FarFarAway@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Theres a neighbor that doesnt want to add more ambulances only cause they dont want to pay more taxes. Like dude, we have 4 ambulances for 100,000 people.

Some people just dont care, even when they know they'll benefit from it, too.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If you want the ideological underpinnings of these arguments, there are a few.

The biggest one always boils down to the assertion that Government Is Paying For The Abortions. And that this is bad because it creates an incentive for young people to go out and have unmarried sex.

But there's a second, arguably more insidious argument that you see crop up on the libertarian-right, which asserts the idea of "negative rights". These are obligations of inaction that a state can impose on an individual or group, on the grounds that is makes others more free. In this case, the argument is that the fetus has a negative right with respect to the mother. Once you're pregnant, you no longer have rights to your own body because another person is occupying it. This reasoning stems from the claim that fathers have an equal share in the property that is the child. This community property needs to be protected from a woman who wants to discharge her obligations prematurely at a loss to the man.

Pregnancy becomes a kind of debt that an impregnated woman owes to the impregnating man (and, by extension, the man's family who also gets some degree of claim to the fetus). The woman is in debt bondage until the pregnancy is over. And the state - which libertarian ideology asserts should exist only to enforce property rights - has an obligation to obstruct the woman from evading payment of what is owed.

By contrast, all those state liabilities - health care, education, social services for children - are "positive rights". Libertarians assert that these rights are actually an unlawful infringement on one human by another, because they must be paid for out of a communal set of resources. The mother cannot demand any recompense for her maternal state. The child cannot demand any basic standard of living as a minor. These all have to come from another adult (in a libertarian patriarchy, that means the father) and that once again infringes on his property.

It really does just boil down to the idea of Communism Bad.

[-] nifty@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Once you’re pregnant, you no longer have rights to your own body because another person is occupying it.

Except that a clump of a cells is not a person, so I am not sure how this argument holds.

This reasoning stems from the claim that fathers have an equal share in the property that is the child.

So, does that mean all sperm a man is carrying is also subject to community property rights? Don’t masturbate and destroy shared property, or you can be sued 😂 Sex cells and their less-developed products are not humans and as such not subject to any rights.

By contrast, all those state liabilities - health care, education, social services for children - are “positive rights”. Libertarians assert that these rights are actually an unlawful infringement on one human by another, because they must be paid for out of a communal set of resources.

These kind of services and rights are the reason why people formed civilizations in the first place, that is more organized allocation of resources. They didn’t form civilizations and societies to make some billionaire assholes richer. They don’t maintain social contracts out of the goodness of their hearts or because they’re weak, but because civilization and society provides for them in meaningful and substantial ways. Otherwise it’s slavery, and they have the right to eat the assholes who oppress them.

[-] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Once you’re pregnant, you no longer have rights to your own body because another person is occupying it.

Let's harvest the bodies of people believing in this for healthy organs and blood, to save world-class violinists from dying! /s

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 32 points 1 month ago

Who wants to bail out every private for-profit corporation that we allowed to get so big it threatens our economy and national security?

[-] cynar@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

If it's too big to fail, it's too big to exist. If the government needs to step in to save them, it should be expected that they will either be broken up or taken partially into government ownership.

[-] TriflingToad@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

>too big to fail
>look inside
>government bailout

[-] WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago
[-] mxcory@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago

I could instantly hear his voice.

[-] buzz86us@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago

Yeah children would be much more attainable if our system was more like Norway where the baby can basically be with mom for 18 months before she returns to work.

In the US they basically expect you back as soon as they baby has left the womb

[-] dustyData@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

“Do you really need to go to the hospital for this? I mean, we are still in the middle of the meeting, can't the baby like…wait, or something”

[-] HowManyNimons@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Having a baby is a personal matter. Please do it on your own time.

[-] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

We're having an in-office birth to avoid the cost of going to the hospital.

[-] Stern@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago

"Who wants Voter ID?"

Hands up, cheering

"Who wants to give free ID's to people?"

Awkward silence

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 1 month ago

"Okay, fair enough, hands of the market and such. How about Federal IDs paid for just like your driver's license?"

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

There already exists a national ID card. It's called a passport card and costs $30 to apply for. You can apply by post but it's cumbersome because you need proof of citizenship, a passport photo, and it takes several weeks to receive.

It's called a "passport card" because it's also valid for international travel by land or sea within North America and the Caribbean.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 2 points 1 month ago

Literally never heard of this! I'm pretty sure a conservative would shoot you for trying to use it to vote.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

The passport card is legally equivalent to a passport book within the United States. It's also conclusive proof of citizenship (rather than presumptive proof, like a birth certificate).

It's popular in the border regions because it's cheaper than a passport book and can be used to enter Canada or Mexico by car.

[-] RidderSport@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago

That is exactly the same as an I.D. in Germany for example

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yep. The passport card is the American national identity card.

Americans have several forms of identity cards. There's the famous green card for non-citizen permanent residents, passports and passport cards, military IDs for military personnel, school and university ID cards, and ID cards issued by states.

Passport books in America work the same as passports in every other country. You apply for one and it's a little booklet that lets you travel internationally.

A passport card is a national identity card that is legally identical to a passport book for identity and citizenship verification purposes.

Green cards are cards issued to immigrants who have been granted permanent residency.

The most popular form of identification card is an identification card issued by a state's motor vehicle agency. These function as identification cards only and are not proof of nationality or immigration status. If the holder is also licensed to drive, the words "identification card" are replaced with the words "driving license". The card is otherwise the same.

Military ID cards are issued by the military to soldiers and civilian staff members.

Student ID cards are issued by educational institutions to their pupils.

All of these documents are valid identity documents and can be used for any purpose (except that student ID cards are generally not valid for voting, buying alcohol, opening bank accounts, admission into casinos, or anything that requires the holder to be of adult age). Domestic airplane flights require a "REAL ID"-compliant identity card, which includes everything except student ID cards old state-issued identity cards, because those cards generally are valid for 10 years or more, and some are very old and lack security features present in newer cards.

The passport book and passport card can be used for land and sea travel within North America. The other documents cannot.

The disgusting thing is that other than university and school ID cards and military ID cards, none of these documents are issued for free. All of them require a fee to be paid before they are issued, which is why voter ID laws are controversial in the USA; they discriminate against those who cannot afford to pay the fees for an identity card and the offices where people can apply for them generally aren't located in the poorer areas of cities. Applying for a state-issued ID card is also generally an all-day affair as queues at the motor vehicle agency offices are very, very long.

[-] RidderSport@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago

The thing I tried pointing out is that there's barely any difference between Germany and USA when it comes to IDs, they may have a different name but do the same thing, except for air travel, you'll need an actual ID or passport for that. And you have to pay for most of them.

The only thing that is different is that you don't habe a voter's ID here, you vote by showing your voting invitation that is sent to registered Adress automatically and verifying your identity by presenting your ID or passport. The idea that you have to pay for voting is inherently idiotic, it is counter-logical

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

"Voter ID" refers to the fact that the voter must have an ID card. You can use any ID and some ID-like documents as well (such as a firearms license). In states where these laws are in place, voters who do not possess an ID card or passport book when they go to the polling station will not be allowed to vote. The part I highlight is that there are no acceptable ID cards for voting that can be easily obtained free of charge. Some states that have voter ID laws will allow people to obtain a "voter identity certificate" that can be used to vote, however, obtaining one usually requires a trip to the motor vehicle agency.

This is a voter suppression tactic. The goal is to make it more difficult for people whose political leanings you want to discriminate against to vote. In all cases in the US, these tactics are used against left-leaning voters or those who live in left-leaning areas. A common voter suppression scheme usually has these properties:

  1. You must register to vote. This involves filling out a form and submitting it to the local elections authority. In some states, you cannot submit the form electronically and must send it by post to the elections office.
  2. People who register to vote but don't vote will have their registrations cancelled and must register again. Voters who vote for right-leaning parties generally vote every single election so this will not affect them as much.
  3. Polling stations are open for one day during normal working hours (usually 09:00 to 18:00). The goal is to make it difficult for people who have to work during these hours to vote. Election day is always on a Tuesday and is not a public holiday.
  4. Postal voting is restricted. You must apply to receive a postal ballot and provide an excuse as to why you cannot vote in person. The elections office can reject your application if they do not like your excuse. Left-leaning voters generally prefer postal voting while right-leaning voters prefer to vote in person, thus the goal is to make postal voting harder.
  5. The number of polling stations are reduced in large cities because large cities generally vote for left-leaning politicians and parties.
  6. All election material is published in English only. Citizens who do not speak English and only speak another language typically are left-leaning and thus the goal is to make it more difficult for them to vote.
  7. You must bring an acceptable identity document to vote
    1. State-issued ID cards can be obtained from the motor vehicle agency. The motor vehicle agency offices are deliberately located far away from minority neighbourhoods and are only open during normal working hours. The queues are also very long, meaning it is an all-day affair to obtain an ID card. The purpose is to discriminate against the poor, who are less likely to be able to take a day off to go obtain one. There is also a fee to obtain an ID card.
    2. Passports and passport cards can be obtained by post but cost a lot to obtain if you haven't had one before (165 USD for passport book or 65 USD for passport card). Poor people tend to lean left and generally don't have a passport because they can't afford international travel.
    3. Military ID cards are acceptable. This voter group happens to lean right.
    4. The elderly are allowed to use expired documents. This voter group happens to lean right.
    5. Student ID cards issued by universities are not acceptable. This voter group happens to lean left.
    6. Firearms licenses are acceptable. This voter group happens to lean right.
  8. Electoral boundaries are drawn by the legislature to favour one political party.
  9. The election authority can invalidate ballots for trivial reasons (e.g. the square next to the candidate's name is not completely filled in, the voter use the wrong colour ink or used pencil, the voter forgot to write the date next to their signature on a postal ballot, a ballot punched by a machine did not fully punch through the paper, etc.)
  10. The ballot design is deliberately confusing.
  11. The legislature reserves the right to overturn election results if they believe fraud has occurred. This action cannot be challenged in the courts.
[-] RidderSport@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago

Ok yeah that's a different story, also the prices for passport and passport ID for first issues are ridiculous, that is twice as much as I'd have to pay to have my passport-issuing expedited, which I already find ridiculous. First issuing is done when you are mandated to be able to present an ID, i.e. at 14, and it's free of charge as far as I can remember, everything after is a renewal. Having to register to vote is in and of itself, the self-proclaimed origin and beacon of democracy is an opt-in democracy which throws logs in your way to hinder you from voting apparently.

Voting by mail is also much simpler here, you just apply, a few weeks later you get the forms, no reason required - it is your constitutional right to vote after all.

And in any case, voting is always on a Sunday, which is always a mandatory holiday, most of the population doesn't work that day. Hours are the same though. And I believe that all the IDs you have listed besides an actual ID and a passport are not enough to vote here. I am not sure if election papers are translated, but since the communal elections are the only ones open to non-Germans i.e. EU-citizens that live here, and speaking German is mandatory to get a citizenship, that is not that mich of an issue. Frankly speaking, while I see the point you raise, nowadays with camera translations, that is generally not that much of a hurdle.

Polling stations reflect the election areas, whereas each one represents one distinct area. They are directly linked to the population density.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

What's free ID's? You there in hamburgerland of the free can live your lives without documents?

I mean, I need mine for any interaction with the governmental stuff.

[-] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Legally... yes. Practically, no.

[-] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 month ago

Someone did a surprisingly good job shopping those hats in

[-] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

The authoritarians are the party of telling people "No". Want body autonomy? No. Want control on whether to raise a healthy child? No. Want help with the child? No.

[-] crawancon@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago

I think we would all love to fund all of that...but Americas problem is it'll take tax payer money and devote 99 cents of every dollar towards "defense". all that is really needed is a halfing of the military/dod budget and reallocate funds similar to what is requested.

...but who votes for that....

[-] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

If we actually taxed billionaires and millionaires and large corporations like we used to, we could fund it easily.

[-] Frog@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 month ago

All that money goes to the pockets of billionaires that give politicians money. That's why government contracts for companies are so high.

We are paying taxes and a large chunk of it goes to wealthy.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Voters influenced by foreign actors…

Because we can afford both.

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

How 'bout we compromise? No reproductive rights or universal healthcare for conservatives. We'll call it "Democratic Healthcare". Anyone can opt in. Conservatives can choose to stay the fuck out of it and cling to their proud fascist ideals all the way to their graves.

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 7 points 1 month ago

Thought it was all about the states choosing 🤪

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
907 points (99.2% liked)

Political Memes

5431 readers
1816 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS