this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
5 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

5203 readers
2766 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
 
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Books don't gay people. Gay people gay people.

Did I do it right?

[–] negativenull@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The only way to stop a bad gay with a book, is a good gay with a book

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 1 points 9 months ago

The second amendment clearly states that the "right of people to keep and read gay books shall not be infringed"

[–] kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

If the target audience could read, they d be very upset

[–] empireOfLove@lemmy.one 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Being from a very rural area: guns are tools. They provide self defense against wildlife and crazy humans when you're miles outside of law enforcement coverage, they are pest control, and they are a humane way of euthanasia when a farm animal is suffering.

And like most other tools, such as drills, post hole augers, machine lathes, tractors, cars, etc... they can maim and kill indiscriminately when used incorrectly or maliciously. But you cannot simply ban or remove the tool from everywhere because it is still serves a very important purpose. Can they be more controlled, education made mandatory, more stringent confiscation rules in the case of people with mental illness? Yes, and probably should. But you will never eliminate the firearm completely.

I am prepared to recieve the hate and downvotes for providing a measured, reasonable response.

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

The issue here is that it is perceived as a right and not a privilege.

Because of that, anything restricting that "right" at all is perceived as an infringement on the personality of the gun user.

With cars most people are on board with the concept that being caught while DUI leads to a ban on driving.

The same is not true for people handling guns while drunk or in an irresponsible way.

It's also totally understood by people that there are areas where you don't drive (e.g. inside a shopping mall). Again, the same is not true with guns.

And that's the issue here.

The "right" needs to be made into a privilege that is allowed under certain circumstances (e.g. if you need it for work or live in a very remote area). This does not contradict with banning guns in cities, schools, towns or other areas where guns serve no positive purpose.

Your use case is valid, but also many gun owners aren't in your situation.

[–] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The NZ gun laws are largely based on this idea, at least in terms of being a tool for use against animals, less so personal defense against other people.

The implication of this is that some types of gun have few/no practical use as a tool other than for personal defense/offense.

Rifles and shotguns are useful for hunting. Fully automatic & select fire weapons are not, or are at least excessive. They're only useful if you intend to attack people.

Same goes for handguns.

[–] UlfKirsten@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

Another sane approach by NZ.

[–] SeeMinusMinus@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I am proud to be pro gun and pro lgbtq+ ✊

[–] Mr_Blott@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Sorry if you're being sarcastic, but why then do the workers with the guns have the least rights?

[–] SeeMinusMinus@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The bourgeoisie takes rights away from the proletariat. The bourgeoisie have outlived there usefulness and the proletariat should rise up against them.

[–] Mr_Blott@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah but how come workers in Europe, who don't have guns, have 100X the rights of workers in the US, who do have guns?

Is it because people with guns are scared little pussies?

Because, to be honest, that's how it looks!

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What rights do you think European workers have that American workers don't have?

[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Vacation, illness/disability benefits that pay you for sick days regardless of your job, livable retirement benefits which don’t require investment…

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

livable retirement benefits which don’t require investment

I wasn't aware that Europe has such a thing. Which European countries? All of them? Certainly it's being paid for somehow. Americans get retirement in the form of social security. That does require that you pay into it, but I'm assuming the European version does as well, just as a general tax instead of a specific charge. Is the European version based on how much you made while working? What is the program called?

[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I said livable. Social security is not livable.

It’s paid for in Germany through a tax, but not personal investment in a retirement account (maybe my phrasing was unclear). The level of retirement pay is dependent on the time you worked and your pay, but it’s complicated. Someone who works full time for minimum wage will still get enough for healthful survival into old age. Each European country handles things differently.

Also, parental leave, I don’t know how I missed that one.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I was pretty shocked when I learned that Germany offers 6 months of paternity leave, fully paid. When my son was born I got half a Friday off and was back at work on Monday. That isn't most people's experience here though. Most decent jobs have similar benefits to all the ones you mentioned, but they're attached to the job, not workers rights. So those were some good points you made.

[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 0 points 9 months ago

I’m an American immigrant in Germany, and in my work experience in the US, it’s hit or miss. I worked as a server, in a call center, and as an insurance adjuster. As an insurance adjuster, new fathers got two weeks, and new mothers got six months parental leave. As a server, I worked with a woman who came back the day after giving birth. I worked at three different restaurants, and not a one offered anything for parental leave outside of FMLA without pay (nor did the call center). New mothers have the option for disability, but that’s not full pay.

It’s definitely a good job vs. bad job thing, which is really fucked up, IMO, because the “bad jobs” are the ones where people actually need the money/time without paying for childcare. As an insurance adjuster, I could have relatively easily taken unpaid time off, as long as I had warning, because my pay was pretty high for my area (for heavily litigated, high value commercial liability claims, like asbestos exposures- an auto or homeowners insurance adjuster doesn’t make as much). As a server, missing one shift was difficult.

I’m currently working part time in a bakery in Germany, while getting my master’s degree. They just made me a wedding cake for free, which blew my mind. Most of the Germans I’ve told about it feel like it’s expected. That’s not a right that Europeans have, obviously, but workers here are generally valued more by their companies, even in bad jobs (which a part time student job almost always is in the US).

For another example, my boss changed the schedule last week, and I asked in our group chat if anyone could cover my new shift. My boss realized she hadn’t asked me first, and took me off the schedule for that shift. I’ve been called in for a shift in the US with two hours notice and told that if I couldn’t make it work, I would be fired. They can’t do that here because everyone has contracts. They could only fire me without three months notice if I committed a crime against them (because it’s a bakery, but a teacher convicted of, say, pedophilia which occurred outside of their work hours or a heavy equipment operator with a DUI could still be fired for those, because they’re relevant crimes to the job).

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

What rights do you think we don't have in the USA? I can do whatever I want, and I do every day in the USA.