Oh so baity!
You can remove “western democracy” there I guess.
Also nah, I can speak out against my boss, my eventual landlord and protest in the streets, because I live in France, a western democracy.
YMMW.
I bet OP hasn’t actually done any of the things they listed. Reads like an edgy teenager.
Well surely they haven’t under threat of all things listed
Where the hell do they live that the threat actually exists though?
The French are smart enough to burn cars and loot when their government tries to pull some bullshit. I wish Germans were that smart.
And I can do all this in America. Mind you I work somewhere that struggles to keep people and more selective jobs do pull this shit, same with my landlord. And yeah protesting does often go that way if you’re left wing
And yet most of the political forces in France are advocating to remove all these rights. Sindicalists are arrested under terrorist laws, as are eco-activists. And maires trying to enforce price ceiling for lawns in cities are considered like Staline.
Sure and that is bad.
What does it have to do with the discussion though? Or is it “west bad” whatever happens?
So as long as the litteral nazis are not in charge genociding people it’s fine and there’s nothing to worry about? Syndicalistes and ecoactivists being arrested for terrorism is fine already?
So “west bad” it is then.
I mean if the above things are what defines the west then yeah. But I don’t think they do, or at least they don’t have to - I believe we stand for better things than that - for liberty, for democracy and welfare of all and I believe in progress, not complacency and decay thinly veiled by whataboutism.
EDIT: The user above clearly manipulated vote counts. All his comments get an extra 8-12 upvotes, everything that disagrees with him has an extra 8-12 downvotes. Blocked and reported.
Doesn’t matter whether you consider the US a western democracy, they consider themselves one and what OOP says is that that can’t possibly be right for the reasons following. It seems you are in agreement after all.
The US wasn’t even mentioned in the post, implying this as generic problems which is not the case.
eventual landlord
So you’re a child? Lol good luck speaking out against a landlord, don’t you know it’s like a job interview nowadays with references from past landlords and all?
That is completely dependent on country and who you try to rent from. In Norway the most I ever had to do is consent to an automatic check to prove I don’t have any reports of not paying bills.
You ever rent from a private landlord, instead of letting agency?
I’m Finnish, and what you say has been true for me — aside from when my credit got fucked (due to some semiauthoritarian bullshit), when I had to rent from a private landlord.
That was more or less exactly how the earlier commenter describes it; an interview. Luckily I was just over 20 and out of the army as an NCO, so the old couple were really into that and gave me the apartment.
I also used to believe our cops weren’t that bad. Until I was detained and saw how they act behind closed doors.
I’ve only rented from companies as it’s generally safer and you know that they will (most likely) follow the law.
You never know what you get when you rent from people, their professionality and knowledge of the various laws are highly variable. You could get lucky, and you could get very unlucky.
Problem is private dodgy blokes is the only way some people can afford to rent out alone at all, that it be forced like rats into some houseshare dump. Coming from someone who does the same thing you do for the same reasons.
In France you need to earn 3 times the price of the lawn, and you need warrants (garants) : people who will be forced to pay if you ever don’t. To prove you can pay, you need 3 months of salary sheets. You need to prove your job is not a CDD (short determined time). You need to show insurances and prove your identity too of course. Half of those are not legal, but landlords don’t care because you’re in competition : you visit the apartment with a dozen of other people who want a place to sleep too. And the landlord will choose the chosen one as he pleases.
It depends on the place, but Lyon is absolute madness to find an apartment.
That sounds awful. My condolences.
FYI the word you’re looking for is guarantour.
Oh for sure. I’m not french but I’m relatively familiar with the rental laws there as I considered them in depth when I considered moving and they’re not much better than the UK, where it is utter dogshit.
I own my appartement but I have rented over 20 different ones before that.
No need to namecall just because you don’t understand 😊
Oh ok so you haven’t rented in the current market. So actually it’s you who doesn’t understand eh?
Idk what you meant in that case by “eventual landlord”, maybe try actually making sense first and then maybe you won’t get name-called as much. 😊
From what I can tell, France still has essentially no-fault evictions and nowhere near sufficient renter protections, while there is a housing crisis going on. It’s not anywhere near as bad as the UK, but given the regulations as I can see them, I wouldn’t risk speaking out against the landlord in any capacity there either. This doesn’t even touch the fact that France is also fairly centralised, in that job opportunities are richer closer to the city and the bigger the city, and Paris is even worse for living expenses overall than London.
That is totally right. I’m french. Laws protect renters, but not that much, and landlords don’t hesitate to threaten with false pretense. And if you mention anything illegal they’re doing, you simply won’t have the apartment. They ask documents they have no right to see, but if you don’t provide them they won’t even look at your application. Obviously people of colour do have a harder time finding an apartment, but even for engineers it’s hard to find one in a city.
Literally who is downvoting you? Are there landlords on fucking solarpunk memes?
lol ever heard of renter’s rights? it’s incredibly fucking difficult to kick out a renter here in sweden, they have to repeatedly be a massive nuisance to everyone around.
In Sweden yes, maybe, idk, not Swedish. In Europe no, we have heard of renters’ rights, but as a renter I can tell you we have practically none.
For the first 2 points: Don’t use “Western democracies”. This is a US problem. Canada has much stronger labour and home protections.
3rd point: Getting banned online is a “you” problem. Your government has nothing to do with why your shitty opinions get you banned or muted. The fact that you even have the ability to complain about your government online is a luxury many other governments don’t afford to their people.
4th point: Whining about cereal variety makes the entire argument hold less water. Who the fuck cares about brands of cereal. Buy your cereal or don’t, but shut the fuck up about it. This is an empty complaint about capitalism.
5th point: Fair enough.
I don’t directly mean you, OP. Unless you made the meme… In which case I do mean directly you.
I think cereal is brought in to demonstrate the absurdity of the situation, where something so basic as worker’s or renter’s rights are non-existent but somehow energy already has went into something so stupid as cereal, which indeed nobody cares about.
It’s more about how one of the big reasons America is supposed to be great is all the options you have. 40 brands of cereal is worth it all, is it not?
Not to mention the huge variety of great cheeses, wines, beers and deli meats you should be responsible and not waste your money on.
I’d have thought that the emphasis is on the 40 brands vs 3-4 companies. So the theme is partially the illusion of choice but mostly it underlines the inherent problems with current capitalism.
Increasingly your money is being funneled into fewer and fewer hands. While marketing/advertising maintain the illusion of diverse companies with individual character/ethos.
This combination is repeated in some form or other time and again.
The intention here is more variety is more good, but it’s a hollow variety because all of the food is owned by like three corps.
You can’t protest with your dollar if all of the available food will just end up sending your money to the yacht fund.
I think it’s more because in American anti communist propaganda the ability to choose between different brands and varieties of products was often highlighted as one of the great strengths of capitalism. It is certainly a benefit of markets over poorly run centralized economies, but there’s everything from market socialism to centralized economies that place more emphasis on ensuring consumer satisfaction.
But yeah it’s often a thing that new socialists in America mock
First point is definetly a problem in other western democracies. In Sweden there is the “loyalty obligation”, which states that you have to – according to one of the centrist unions here – “put the interest of the company above your own”. It is a strong intrusion in your freedom of speech.
Sweden is a western democracy?
Sounds like that Swedish centrist union should pound sand
deleted by creator
That is absolutely not how the term Western works in a geopolitical context. Alaska almost borders Russia, so by your definition the US isn’t a Western country.
Yes, I am aware. I was making a sarcastic joke that didn’t land. Thanks though
I figured I was misunderstanding some context. Thanks for clarifying.
This still seems to me to be a US-centric post, not something involving all Western democracies.
Everything in Europe west of the old Iron Curtain has been considered “The West”, the Nordic countries are absolutely among them. There have been close ties to the US and UK since WW2, Norway’s old prime minister is currently the NATO general secretary.
Maybe an interesting cultural curiosity, maybe not, but Riot Games had the same misconception as you and made an “EU Nordic and East” server for Scandinavians and Russians to play League of Legends together. The game got huge here, but almost all Scandinavians rejected the EUNE server and chose the “EU West” server instead. Nobody wanted to play with the Russians, including me.
This attitude extends beyond just this one game, but it’s a prime example. Western Europe is a largely English-speaking region, it’s why and how we can relate. Russians usually don’t, with some exceptions. Either you communicate in Russian or you don’t really communicate at all. We generally don’t talk with Russians and don’t relate to them.
Politically, in simple terms, we Northern Europeans often tend to want to pull the rest of the west farther left, but the border to Russia is a hard barrier we don’t want to cross, not for any period of their political history do we want to emulate them. They are bad. They’ve been bad for a very long time. I don’t know what’s wrong with them, but they’ve been thoroughly fucked up for way too long. Maybe the Ukrainians can give a better analysis of the Russian psyche and culture that causes all this shit, when they get done with the current torrent of it.
Sheesh! Talk about a joke that didn’t land. I’m aware of all of this, thank you lmao.
I appreciate seeing your stance on Russia, it’s what I’ve felt for a long time. It was shit under the czars, it was shit as the ussr, it was shit under capitalism, and would you look at that it’s shit under fascism (idk if it actually counts as fascism but holy hell does it look that way from across the ocean). There’s something going on there that leads to bad people keep taking power and using it to hurt others and even when they’re revolting they take it from someone new.
Which of the unions is that? Just so I know which one to avoid.
“Unionen”. I think they focus a lot on like engineers and bosses, and other upper middle class jobs.
I don’t think the union is really to blame there, “loyalty obligation”, lojalitetsplikt, is afaik a set of laws that really does what Unionen says about it. It’s not the union implementing it.
To be frank, I think its quite a refreshingly honest phrasing they are using. A more company-friendly way would be like “we all like to be teamplayers, and that is what the loyalty obligation is all about”, or something like that. Now it sounds like “you are the guy on the track in the trolly problem meme, get fucked”, and to some degree, fair play to you.
From what I could read during my morning fugue state, it seems to me that they’re warning you that the contract you signed when getting hired does not allow you to be disloyal to the company as long as you’re working for it. I could not find anything about it being an actual law, though I’ve been wrong before so it wouldn’t surprise me if I missed something.
Som anställd har du lojalitetsplikt gentemot arbetsgivaren – även under en uppsägningstid. Se upp så att du inte bryter mot LAS eller lagen om företagshemligheter.
Om du då är illojal, kan det betyda att du bryter mot LAS ( Lagen om anställningsskydd)
So it is a colloquial term for those aspects of LAS and lagen om företagshemligheter. Those quotes from Unionen again. There seems to be aspects (the application of this after your employment ends) also regulated in the collective bargening agreements, and those are not laws, that is true.
They complain about cereals because they’ve been fed so much CCP and USSR Propoganda that they think food variety is a bad thing. They’re not one of us.
The point is, all the different brands you see are owned by the same handful of megacorporations So you’re not getting actual choice, just the illusion of choice. You’re like a dog who gets excited when your owner feeds you dog food from his hand instead of the bowl, because you think it’s a treat.
I thought the meme was clear about that, but the average American reads at a third grade level, so I understand reading comprehension can be difficult for you.
I only have an illusion of choice because I can pick between corn flakes and chocolate cereal instead of corn flakes from a mega corp or locally produced corn flakes?
I have been played for an absolute fool!
(also, this is an non-issue in Sweden, which apparently is not a western country)
Pretty shitty thing to say, but anyway…
Just because a few big corporations make cereal, doesn’t mean you have an “illusion of choice”. It’s kind of how the system works. A company that makes 1 brand of cereal also makes dozens of hundreds more. They are using processes and equipment already in place to make a slight variation on existing products. It’s kind of just how things work. Same with companies like Asus making dozens of hundreds of variations of monitors. I don’t think that’s illusion of choice. That’s actual choices, with actual differences.
Anecdotally, where I live, large corporations stock the grocery shelves with all their cereals, but local companies do make it in as well. I think in my situation, I do have access to items produced locally.
If you want to make an argument that some dickhead company like Mondelez owns fucking everything, I’m right with you, but whining about cereal variety makes the argument really weak.
My point is that oppressed CCP advocates hyperfixate on the 74 different largescale cereal companies based in the USA (and also many international brands available) because it is wholly opposed to their own reality.
I agree with the fish that what you say is USA only isn’t.
Basically where economy (power) is dominated by the few such problems exist.But I would just like to add that I still cringed when you brought up Canada as the counterpoint to USA. Its not that I disagree with what you wanted to compare, its just that to me those two countries are such an extremely similar shade of late stage systems they seem the same unless in direct comparison.
Canada is very different from the US in many ways relevant to this post.
Canada doesn’t have “at will” work. Medicine is purchased by the government with immense buying power. Canada has anti-hate laws that supercede free speech, and still have the right to protest and assemble (which has basically been removed in the US). Women’s health is protected, and hopefully soon they will offer free hygiene products for women. Maternity/paternity leave is protected. No abortion bans here. Weed is legal, and harm reduction therapy is a common thing.
I could go on but i feel like you just wanted to cringe at people who don’t think the US is a proper “developed” country.
You are also wrong about the economy being controlled by a few. When there is actually only a few, like dictators, they come and take your entire crops for almost nothing, which is an unthinkable tax rate for democracies. You don’t get education, and you don’t get highways or drinking water. These things are offered to you because the government needs productive citizens to make money. It’s The rules for rulers. Democracies are complicated and full of corruption specifically because it takes many people to do anything, not a few.
Tl;dr It takes 2 seconds of research to see you are wrong on every point.
I think you have not understood me when I explicitly agreed with the point - twice in the same post.
What did you even “research” (and why/how was that new to you)?
Ok try not to trip over backpedaling there.
You said you cringed at comparing the US to Canada because it’s the same shade of grey. It’s not. That’s what we’re talking about, it doesn’t matter that you agree with the post in general.
I didn’t need to research, because I’m not an ignorant idiot who speaks about countries they know nothing about. You on the other hand, could have done some research before making shit up. There’s literally a 20 minute educational video in my link, watch it, that’s considered researching this information…
Even if not in direct comparison, they aren’t the same shade of grey at all. Canada is comparable to Europe, not the US. And yes they are all late stage capitalistic nations, congrats on that astute observation. It doesn’t mean you aren’t wrong
Side topic: I find it very interesting that mods will not act against toxic comments like these that obviously use ad hominem but will remove a lot of comments that are critical of ideas that the mods support simply for existing. Go figure.
The rules are pretty clear. It’s okay to say someone is acting like an idiot, and it’s not ok to call someone an idiot… i dont necessarily agree, but them are the rules
When they say they “cringe” at what the person said, it means they feel second hand embarrassment. It’s saying theyre embarassing. Is that some toxic ad hominem that should get you banned?
No, no, the redditor has got a point, I am not disputing the fact that I’m an idiot at all.
(But yes about that you said. Then again I don’t know much about mod tools, like if there is word flagging, or even how many mods there are.)
And you’re using “the redditor” not as a toxic ad hominem right?
I’m not a redditor anymore, i left the very day RIF stopped working.
Canada is comparable to Europe, not the US.
I didn’t need to research, because I’m not an ignorant idiot who speaks about countries they know nothing about.
:)
Unless by “Europe” you mean UK, which Im again going to bunch in with Canada and USA.
So now youre going to dismiss everything you said, and make a new point.
Tell us, oh wise one, why what I just said doesn’t compare to other European countries except the UK? Tell me why I don’t understand these other countries I’ve lived? The other comparisons here were France. Tell.me the democratic differences between france and canada? Germany? Spain? Italy?
Or just ridicule yourself again and make a different point.
If youre thinking about sweden and finland, that’s not “most european countries”.
Oh noo, I ridiculed myself by, um, making a point about what you pointed out in such a civilised manner?
Also what new point?
I was reapplying to “the first two points” (labour laws and housing), this is what this whole thread is about.Otherwise due to historical reasons one could bunch Europe countries in the previous centuries in roughly two groups, one that went way into what became capitalism (mostly fueled & sustained by colonialism) and the other bunch that invested into state socialism (what Bismarck did or his vision was & countries modeled their policies by). Ofc there were wars, rise & fall of dictatorships/one-party systems, and each country is a separate unique story with its own nuances, but the general division kinda stayed (it’s hard to take away rights from people) and is still evident: wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending.
It makes all the difference how the policies are implemented and used. Like ‘how much’ social security covers, how much is done on housing policies/projects, etc. Or - eg payed maternity (or even sick) leave, sure you can group by ‘can has’ and ‘can not has’, but a difference between one week and year(s) is basically a different system and culture altogether. I mention this specifically as iirc Canada generally takes care of it’s moms to come slightly closer to what your are saying in and effort to be good at communicating & not leaving (accidentally) negative feelings all around.
:)
Okay fair enough. Then as a Canadian, what’s your experience like?
For the first 2 points: Don’t use “Western democracies”. This is a US problem. Canada has much stronger labour and home protections.
It’s a Capitalism problem, Canada suffers from much of the same issues. It isn’t as bad, but it is bad.
In the US, maybe. But that’s considered a flawed democracy and getting worse all the time. Only 8% of the nations on earth are full democracies where none of that is true.
Germany on “full democracy” at the same time it bans symbols of Palestinian support and uses the state’s violence to contain such manifestations.
Germany bans stuff al the time. It’s a consequence of our history and the historic leniency towards extremist edges. Your example is debatable in it’s execution, the general thought however is not.
Nobody’s perfect, and if you’re in Germany you should reach out to your politicians about it.
Protesting IS exactly that. Keep licking that boot.
I didn’t say not to protest.
In fact protesting is incredibly useful when the calls of many go unheard or ignored.
And having an effective protest is only possible if you can get a lot of people together, so it’s best to not shit on people from hello for saying exactly what you think is the “right” thing.
Not to mention having a large community of people reaching out before having to protest is also helpful, so doing good community building is also important.
I’d like to know your sources, because to my knowledge there is no such ban in Germany.
Are you implying that this hasn’t also happened recently in the US?
Are you implying two things can’t both be wrong?
??? I am allowed to fly the Palestinian flag, attend the marches, and say the chants whenever I want. The only thing we really cannot do in America is disrupt college campuses while classes are in session and riot. The three things I listed earlier are completely banned in Germany.
It was pro-Israel protesters that rioted and pro-Palestine/anti-genocide protesters that paid the price.
Haha! Australia is a full democracy? What a joke!
Australia is America’s bitch. Even if our politicians gave a shit, they couldn’t do anything.
deleted by creator
It must be very convenient to assume everyone to your left is a Russian shill. Means you don’t have to waste a single second thinking about what they have to say.
URUGUAY MENTIONED🇺🇾🇺🇾🇺🇾🇺🇾WHAT THE CRAP IS AN UNSTABLE COUNTRY
UK is a full democracy? That’s a fucking joke, literally all of this applies here. Including no-fault (read: spoke out against landlord or asked for repairs) evictions.
Finland is also a fucking joke.
Reminds me of the time that Madventures bros were in India, talking to a local policeman, and said “Finland is said to be the least corrupt nation in the world” and the Indian policeman laughed so heartily into his moustache I almost fell off my chair.
You can do all of the shit mentioned in the post without getting the consequences.
“Finland is said to be the least corrupt nation in the world” and the Indian policeman laughed so heartily into his moustache
Which country did the policeman think was less corrupt if we rank so low in his opinion?
Which country did the policeman think was less corrupt if we rank so low in his opinion?
Youre genuinely asking me what some person I saw on TV thinks? How would I know? Even Professor X would have trouble reading someone’s mind through TV.
The point is the blind faith in that there’s no corruption, which is kept up by corruption.
I too used to think you we have just the most wonderful country. Then I grew up. You wouldn’t believe half the shit I can tell you about corruption in Finland, but here’s something at least you’ll find challenging to refute, as there’s supreme court documents on it.
https://www.hs.fi/suomi/art-2000009654524.html
That article is about me. I have the original video to prove it. And that’s basically the mildest offence they did that day, and it only saw consequences because I actually had the video. The video and photos the cops had of everything magically vanished when I wanted them to be brought to court.
Youre genuinely asking me what some person I saw on TV thinks? How would I know? Even Professor X would have trouble reading someone’s mind through TV.
I’m pointing how silly it was of him to laugh about it.
The point is the blind faith in that there’s no corruption, which is kept up by corruption.
It’s least corrupted country. It’s a comparative to other countries, always has been. If someone misunderstands that to mean that there’s no corruption then that’s on them.
Now I know you’re a Russian shill. What an insane claim.
You reported him based on him stating an opinion. I ought to ban you for making me click a button.
Simply: the “report” button is not for this function. I am a lazy and malicious mod. Don’t make me do work.
Russian disinformation bots do express opinions I guess, so you have a point.
I did browse his profile to see what you were getting at, and I couldn’t find anything supporting this claim. If you have examples, great - I am open-minded and willing to change a stance. I’m not, however, doing a deep dive into a Lemmy user’s past history. I don’t like virtual fishing expeditions, and found this kind of ‘gotcha-ism’ is what made Reddit so toxic.
Further, even if this person is moderately pro-russian, as long as they aren’t actively condoning the invasion of Ukraine, or actually spreading propaganda, that’s ok in my book. People are welcome to their opinions, and there many, many, shades of grey.
I’ll save you time. I’m Finnish, an NCO in the army reserves. I’ll DM you my sotilaspassi if you want to, lol.
He just simply doesn’t like me, and hasn’t the werewithall to actually compose an argument of any type. If you look at his profile, you’ll see it’s filled with “now I know you’re an X troll” comments. His lack of imagination is — as the kids say — cringe.
I’m in no way pro-Russian. I actually had a point in my comment. Something I can back up with legally documented personal experiences. I think he just simps Finland and doesn’t actually know what goes around here, so he leaves those asinine oneliners.
Yeah. Must be.
Can’t be that you, an American, would be ignorant of what is going on in other countries. That would simply be unheard of. /s
Here’s some aftermath of my personal experience.
https://www.hs.fi/suomi/art-2000009654524.html
Obviously you’re gonna need to use a translator, as even though I can communicate in your language, you can’t do so in mine.
The only Russian shill spreading misinformation here is you, Ivan. Go back to Kamchatka.
Technically, it isn’t clear if the crown could take back the rights given by them to parlaiment to govern the UK, but currently all decisions are handled by parlaiment including budget allotted to royals who are actually a net possitive from tourism.
For any Tankies in here, Tourism is a thing where people come from far away to share their resources in order to experience food and culture. China unfortunately is such an oppressive and bleak place that nobody wants to go there unless they have to or if they’re doing so accidentally by not realizing what happened to Hong Kong.
My guess would be the crown can totally take those powers back, but then the monarchy would be quickly overthrown as their only accepted role these days is to look pretty, draw in tourism, and entertain foreign dignitaries.
China unfortunately is such an oppressive and bleak place that nobody wants to go there unless they have to or if they’re doing so accidentally by not realizing what happened to Hong Kong.
That’s counterfactual and undermines your argument, the amount of tourists from Japan, the US and EU alone is immense and I fear most of them know, but don’t give a shit about Hong Kong (though they really, really should).
Are these tankies in the room with us right now? Fuck the CCP, but we’re talking about the west right now, stop trying to divert attention.
all decisions are handled by parlaiment
Who is backed by the undemocratic FPTP system, extremely pro-establishment press owned by capitalists waging open class war and a literal house of “lords” who have direct and legal legislative influence, not even lobbying. Imagine if Elon musk could reject legislation. Yeah, democratic af.
It’s a ruse you fell for, nothing more.
who are actually a net possitive from tourism.
Myth. Many countries do not have geriatrics riding around on golden thrones amidst record food bank use while having far more tourism than the UK, and I mean western European nations, not typical global south tourist destinations.
A reminder that the report button is not for ‘waaah I don’t like what you said’.
Cracks knuckles idly
This infographic is produced by a capitalist propaganda network, Visual Capitalist, using data from a capitalist think tank, EIU (Economic Intelligence Unit). I would download the report and scrutinize their methodology but it requires you enter a ton of personal information.
Jesus fuck this map is a joke.
How the fuck made that chart that put USA on top of Brazil, here the president isn’t immune to prison just because he has money
The infographic was produced by a company called Visual Capitalist. Influence of money on the political process doesn’t factor into their calculations. Hell, it probably gives the score a boost.
“Western Countries good, everyone else bad” what a farce.
Oh look, it’s the Country the Map Maker Likes Index Map
deleted by creator
Wait until they find out about non-American western countries
Believe it or not, straight to jail.
Guilty until proven innocent.
Innocent being paying your way out of jail, of course :)
The more you pay, the more freedom you got!
Except they tend to have higher union participation so it’s harder to fire you and more permissible to speak out about your boss.
Everyone knows that democracy is when you vote for President every four years, and Totalitarian Fascism is when you vote for your union contract every five years.
I do not understand why you used the word except here
Perhaps but it’s less permissible to speak out against the government.
Nobody complains
if I speak out online I could be muted or banned
Do you have any idea what social platforms look like when this is not the case?
The random board on 4chan is a good indicator for how that would look like (very NSFW and depending on your location illegal content there)
Believe it or not, even 4chan has some standards. The 8 variants, on the other hand…
Hint: it starts with a number
Not solar.
Not punk.
This is grade 8 social studies.
If you think living in a non “western democracy” allows you to shit talk your boss or the government… I invite you to try.
I hope this won’t be banned for wishing death on someone.
More like: I am so happy I live in america.
Everywhere else you have job protection and renters protection
You’re kinda right, but the law at least in the UK still has no fault evictions, and the legislation proposed to get around that doesn’t penalise made/bad “faults”. Same with jobs, it’s easy enough to manufacture an excuse
Also, lots of state and local governments in the US have strong renter protections.
Imagine being unironically anti-democracy and also claiming to be a socialist.
Not all socialists are Stalin-loving tankies, thankfully.
Are we talking about American Democracy, where the police have carte blanche to brutalize protesters for objecting to police brutality and a SCOTUS majority can overturn a popular election?
Or Chinese Democracy where you can be in any party you want, but only the CCP gets to hold any real power? Or the Taiwanese Parliament, where politicians form gangs that attempt to beat up each other’s members?
Or Thai Democracy, where the courts are selected by the King and regularly disband majority governments for committing Lese Majesty?
Are we talking about Apartheid Israeli Democracy, where over half the population is disenfranchised for being Palestinian?
How about Iranian Democracy, where the Supreme Council gets to decide who can run for office?
Do we like the Brazilian style of Democracy, where an elected Prime Minister can be deposed by the AG and a fascist can fuck around massacring indigenous people for a Presidential term, while the former PM gets the charges dropped and has to run for his old seat?
Are we big fans of the DPRK, where a single family has dominated the federal government since the country’s founding? Or are we more inclined towards the Republic of Korea, which continues to send up the children and friends of the old 1970s Dictatorship to run the country, because 90% of the economy is controlled by six billionaire families?
Like, you can’t just say “anti-democracy”. Cuba claims to be a democracy. Argentina claims to be a democracy. The UK claims to be a democracy. Russia claims to be a democracy. What kind of democracy are we actually against?
If you want to fix things I’m all for it, but lets not pretend that the notion of “Western Democracies” being responsible for their problems has any merit whatsoever.
lets not pretend that the notion of “Western Democracies” being responsible for their problems has any merit whatsoever.
The problems tend to be anti-democratic in nature. The cozy relationship between mass media and corporate interests restricts information to the voting public. Privatization of public spaces forces candidates to raise enormous amounts of money just to secure space to host a rally or get a minute of TV coverage. And the legal means by which private party leadership can restrict access to a primary, combined with the broader public limits on who can participate in an election as an independent, help dictate the quality of candidates that voters have to choose from.
“Western Democracy” has always consisted, first and foremost, as a bunch of backroom deals and handshake arrangements. JD Vance didn’t get the VP slot under Trump because he was the second most popular Republican in the primaries. Neither Mike Johnson nor Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House because they were the nation’s most beloved Congressfolks. Nobody on the current Supreme Court cares what the electorate thinks of them. None of this is small-d democratic. And all of it contributes to the basket of problems that plague our dysfunctional domestic policy.
Primaries aren’t restrictive, its just that nobody actually votes in them. I think the highest turnout in USA history was 36.9 Million people in a primary election, chosen to represent 81 Million DNC Voters and again to represent 329.5 Million Americans total.
There is a huge problem with campaign finance laws in the USA, despite our many laws regulating it, and admittedly not having a democracy would fix that specific problem, but it sure as fuck won’t make any American’s lives better.
Primaries aren’t restrictive
Parties in the US are considered private organizations and party chairs have enormous power, as a result.
Utah Republican Accused of Trying to ‘Steal an Election’ by GOP
Currently in the courts, because this degree of infighting is cutting across a number of people with real power and influence. But for less high-profile candidates, this is absolutely something a party official can (and periodically will) do, when the party leadership doesn’t want a contested primary.
There is a huge problem with campaign finance laws in the USA, despite our many laws regulating it, and admittedly not having a democracy would fix that specific problem
I would argue that having the problem makes the system undemocratic. When you can buy your way onto a ticket and buy your competition off of it, the end voter has far less real electoral choice. And when districts bloat to the size of 600k-700k voters in the case of national House Reps and as much as 40M for Senate seats, the idea of representative democracy is stretched to its functional limit.
How does a pair California Senator seriously represent the diverse views of a state this large and varied? And not even a split pair? It isn’t as though you’re electing the 1st and 2nd place winners. You’ve got two individuals who rose to the rank largely based on how much money they could raise from friends in domestic industry. Not based on their popularity or the popularity of their policies in any meaningful sense.
(Supposedly) Defending their rights in a court of law and participating in fair elections appears as “infighting” to you, lol.
Defending their rights in a court of law
Getting stripped off the ballot by an unelected official and having to run to a court of other unelected officials to be reinstated does not sound like any kind of democracy to me.
Anarchist types prefer consensus-based decision making processes to democracy. We want the entire community to agree on a course of action, not just let 51% order 49% around.
Consensus sounds difficult when you have absolute morons who believe that farming isn’t real or boiling water erases it’s memory.
The atomization of decision-making allows entrenched interests to disrupt progress. If you’ve ever been to a city planning meeting, you can see how NIMBY homeowners block transit upgrades or affordable housing. Sometimes consensus is impossible
believe that farming isn’t real or boiling water erases it’s memory.
What? What¿
There are some people with completely absurd beliefs out there. “Water memory” is a pretty mainstream pseudo-science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory
“Farming isn’t real” is something I saw someone joke posting about but I wouldn’t be surprised if people took it on seriously.
Wouldn’t that just lead to no action being taken and eventually falling to a system of government, likely invaders, who are capable of taking organized actions?
You know, like every power vacuum ever recorded for all of human history?
Hypothetically perfectly organized invaders, or invaders from the rival majority-rule system? More “action” isn’t necessarily better - it includes massive subsidies and bailouts for the 0.1%, a huge source of inefficiency.
If it’s the latter, then each soldier will be in various 49% groups. Our army today is half wage conscripts.
No, not perfectly organized invaders, literally any heierarchal group. Because the locals cannot do anything together without consensus. Defence would bw difficult, counter attacking would be impossible or ineffective because the local group would splinter.
Anarchists always seem to ignore the fact that out of the plethora of governmental forms that have been tested by various human civilisations throughout the millennia, anarchism is not one that has ever survived prolonged contact with other civilisations with a different form of government.
They said the same thing about democracy before the French Revolution.
They did? They said that about a governmental form that was documented as 2000 years old at the time, and which has been used in some shape or form by some human civilisation for as long as we have had civilisation?
There is more than one kind of socialism. And democratic socialism is a thing.
Anarchist types and unrealistic idealism, name a more iconic duo
Consider starting a discussion instead of low-effort, snarky remarks. The latter is just toxic.
How young are you to think you’ll get a full consensus in any place in the country
Once the standard is full consensus, you can find politics adjust accordingly. That said, when a situation grows dire and the mechanics of elections no longer deliver beneficial reforms, people resort to politics by other means.
The purpose of a democracy is to diffuse tensions and cultivate a placid population. Stricter standards for advancing reform allow more people to feel included, but they also inhibit more radical change.
When too many people no longer have faith in the Democratic institutions, that’s when you start seeing real social upheaval. And that can happen in both high consensus and low consensus models.
*world
Have you ever actually tried large numbers consensus? And by large numbers I mean 15+ people. Even if everyone is committed at that point it gets really difficult
What do you think about how Swiss direct democracy works?
You do realise that most functional democracies are consensus based, and not based on 51 % ruling 49 %?
In a functional democracy, you have representatives of various groups forming coalitions, such that most cases are passed by a relatively large majority. Of course, some stuff is pushed through by a slim majority as well, but if it’s sufficiently unpopular it’ll just be reversed after the next election cycle. In most cases, the part(y/ies) that hold the majority seek support from at least one opposition party to ensure that their bills aren’t immediately reversed once they lose power.
Consensus is at the absolute core of a functioning democracy, just not the absolute consensus that anarchists for some reason push for. You can’t have one person in a population of millions blocking a resolution. What about ten? One thousand? A well functioning democracy naturally finds this limit through the formation of coalitions that pass bills with a broad enough consensus that they more often than not survive when power changes hands.
The consensus of the reasonable, educated, and mentally stable? Yes. The consensus of the walmart wildlife? Ehhh…
Such blatant classism.
Do you find that the types of people who seek authority over others are reasonable, educated, and mentally stable?
Dehumanizing groups of people as “wildlife” though… That’s kinda messed up.
The consensus of the walmart wildlife?
Obviously, your right to vote should be dictated by where you do your retail shopping. Maybe we should also factor in your taste in movies/music and your fashion sense.
FFS, Americans deserve another Trump presidency if people actually think like this. It sounds like what one of those MAGA maniacs would say about Tim Walz. “Don’t vote for him, he’s one of those fat old poors who shops at Walmart!”
A lot of these comments reek of boot polish…
Those fucking tankies.
Your instance, Lemmy.today, federates with Hexbear. We don’t. Not all criticism of capitalism is in the service of dictatorship.
Anarchists invented the term ‘tankie’ to describe authoritarian defenders of the USSR in our fight for survival against attack, imprisonment, and assassination by agents of the Bolshevik state. This is an anarchist meme, posted by an anarchist, on a Lemmy instance run by anarchists. You’re using the word wrong.
If you see authoritarianism whenever people criticize neoliberal government, the problem is you. Fix your brain rot.
It’s an anti-democracy and anti-western-powers meme by a “Socialist”, self identifying in the tags. This is core Tanky-ism.
You wouldn’t know a tankie if one rolled over you with tracked treads.
The core of the term ‘tankie’ comes from when the USSR sent tanks into Hungary in 1956 to institute a pro-Warsaw Pact regime change. Western governments are also big fans of sending mechanized infantry to install dictators. If you are an ideological partisan of western ‘democracy’ you have more in common with tankies than the poster does.
Oh OK Boomer, sorry for using the word Tankie to describe anybody other than a 1948 Hungarian/Bulgarian USSR sympathizer. /s
You’re doing a really bad job of concealing your fascist sympathies.
Lmao
Insulting Hexbear for actual Fascism is what Fascism is to you?
You live in USA, stop comparing your shit democracy with the rest of us
I live in Europe and the whole post resonated hard with me. Not sure in which lala land you live in.
- I found that on European platforms, you can speak anonymously and A LOT more candidly about topics censored on American ones, e.g. SH, nearly all “adult” topics covered in great detail, and what have you.
- My landlord would have a very hard time kicking me out for almost any reason, even if I turned the entire apartment into a swamp.
In fact, the only item from OP’s list that rings true to me is the boss one. They will always find a way of getting back to you, legal or not.
In Germany, there’s rent control which doesn’t get enforced because tenants are afraid (e.g. to be declined or thrown out) when they bring it up. Landlords are cancer.
Not every european country is the same
Yeah totally should do that in an autocratic country, lets go with Russia and lets see how long it would take before the original poster is on their way to a Siberian gulag
Hey, my house has a lot things that need repaired. I should probably bring up these issues with my family, and get to work on fixing them.
Oh, the house down the road is on fire? Guess I should be fine my house is only falling into disrepair.
Whataboutism isn’t necessary
Or in China, I’m sure they could at least say their concerns once before they’re social credit is shit and they get disappeared.
That’s the “in Africa kids are starving and you’re refusing to eat your broccoli” level of argument. Yes, it’s bad in Russia, but that doesn’t mean everything is perfect in their country. And that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t strive to make the situation better. Moreover, without any push back it can only get worse.
If that is the bar we have to pass humanity isn’t doing too well now is it? I myself would like to hold a modern country to even a little bit higher standards.
Fuck borders, everyone deserves freedom, not just people on my side of a line on the map
And they can vote for a better future. Last UK election we got a labour victory but 8% fewer people voted. Thats crazy.
Of topic, i agree with that, country borders are what making people xenophobic
While I do see your point, I think the main idea behind this post is that we’re told that we live in civilized free western world, but once we rebel, speak ill or become in any way a ‘threat’ to people on top (while staying within the rules of society of course), that’s when you get punished for it.
Something I’ll give to autocratic countries is that even though you have no freedom, at least you’re fully aware of it. In western countries, you have some freedom but are led to believe you actually have more, if not full, freedom.
Except only the last point really has anything to do with the government. It’s freedom from government control, not freedom to do anything you want with no consequences.
I like the 1 comma in that whole paragraph…
Nothing infuriates me more than missing punctuation
.
At least they didn’t write “brand’s”, so there’s that.
What disgusts me most about conservative voters and capitalists is most of them are so ignorant to admit that capitalism requires balance by virtue. You cannot exist in an environment where everyone is free to have money and buy things with that money and there will always ben enough supply for demand without serious guardrails to ensure it. What MAGA stands for is the idea that capitalism should be highly regulated, highly balanced, and highly fair. These people believe that to their core. They just… don’t vote that way. They’re so arrogant, so propagandized, they’ll continue to vote for the people that wish to continue destabilizing the balance.
I pity conservative voters. They’ve been brainwashed by Fox News for decades if not their entire lives
I actually find that both MAGA folks and modern conservatives are big on Laissez-faire capitalism.
I still believe that fits the definition:
- An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.
I add the highlighting to point out that in order for a society to stay fair, it must be regulated. If they believe that a free market should be everlasting, they should also believe that enabling the capitalist overclass would be detrimental to that goal. They tend to vote, however, for that same overclass that seeks to destroy the balance, and destroy any semblance of a “laissez-faire” market.
Like, an example. Trump says he wants to add a 10-20% tariff on all imports. Is that a “laissez-faire” government? However, if you explained to these people, without Fox News, what that meant… rhey’d clearly say it was some planned-economy Argentine shit.
What MAGA stands for is the idea that capitalism should be highly regulated, highly balanced, and highly fair.
Oh fuck right off, no they do not.
That’s market socialism you’re describing, and MAGA bigots definitely don’t stand for it, much less understanding that “capitalism” isn’t synonymous with “market economy”, much much less caring about actual economics, and more just getting to be in a group of likeminded bigots.
I agree, in that most MAGA don’t really believe in much of anything, if a belief must stand a rigorous showing of competence. However, America has been a country championing socialist policy for almost 100 years. Even those spouting Trumpian garbage believe in liberalism. They just have labels and made-up feelings provided to them by the capitalist overclass, convincing them to destroy themselves.
However, America has been a country championing socialist policy for almost 100 years.
Uh, what?
You have horrible social security and labour laws. If anyone has been “championing socialist policies”, it’s the Nordics, or if talking labour rights especially, France definitely more than the US.
The American anti-socialist rhetoric is so bad it has its own name. Even very moderate socialist policies are often disparaged as “communism”.
There’s so much libertarianism online now, mostly affected by said American rhetoric, that I’ve actually met an idiot here in Finland who genuinely argued that homelessness and unemployment is a conscious choice by anyone suffering either.
You sound a bit like Peter Thiel in this clip (played on John Oliver) where he is pretending Trump’s rhetoric has deeper meaning.
Since most aren’t gonna listen here’s the transcript:
Peter Thiel: I think a lot of the voters who vote for Trump, take Trump seriously, but not literally. And so when they hear things like the Muslim comment or the wall comment or things like that, It’s not, the question is not, you know, are you gonna build a wall like the Great Wall of China, or, you know, how exactly are you gonna enforce these tests? What they hear is, we’re gonna have, we’re gonna have a saner, more sensible immigration policy.
Cut back to John Oliver
Oliver: Oh, yeah, that is definitely the sense I got from watching those Trump rallies. Yes, while we are all furiously chanting, “build that wall”, we all understand in this context, wall is a clever use of metonymy, or a figure of speech in which 1 word, wall in this example, is used as a stand-in for a saner, more sensible immigration policy. Now, if you will, let’s unpack “Trump the bitch”.
So you just downvote me, because you didn’t quite understand.
Brother, I’m happy the government of Finland is strong in the face of Russian fascists. But Republicans are not. And in America today, waving around John Oliver clips about “how obviously America is trash for 18 reasons” only exists to destroy a narrative with Trumpian citizens — those same citizens that wish to use their voting power to demolish the institution. They already have SCOTUS. Technically, they’ve already won the election.
So you just downvote me, because you didn’t quite understand.
Made my drink spill out my nose for laughing so hard.
No, “brother”, it’s you who doesn’t understand. And this not understanding — willfully so even — is a hallmark of the American spirit.
Saying “the US has been championing socialist policies for 100 years” is the same as saying “China has been championing personal freedom for 100 years”.
“Waving around John Oliver America Bad clips” = “I don’t have the cognitive capabilities to pay attention to an award winning journalistic show that sources it’s claims so thus everything addressed in it is shit”
The US still doesn’t have a direct presidential election, I don’t think you’ve quite understood what that means.
You’re right, the phrasing is generous. I mean even 100 years ago, it’d be far more about championing white rights. If reconstruction went better… but that’s my point. I think we have differing definitions of the word “championing”. It does not mean to be the best, but rather the support for exists. And America has been pushing for these ideals. In comparison to so some other country, that isnt inundated with capitalist cowboys and slave stories — sure, nice. Even some countries that have those were able to. But still, those in America have championed for social rights, and fundamental programs exist that prove that. You just think it means “best in the world”, and after watching all the Olympics, I forgive you.
I think we have differing definitions of the word “championing”.
No, we don’t. You’re trying to pretend we do, to get out of having said something utterly silly.
It’s far sillier to try those sort of semantical shenanigans than just admitting to having said something silly in the first place.
And America has been pushing for these ideals
You had segregation just 60 years ago, you still don’t have limitless sickleave or even mandatory maternity leave. You have homeless people — who actually have jobs — shitting on the streets and dying from completely treatable things like infections, because they can’t afford the insane prices of healthcare. Education is more or less a joke, you’re literally burning books.
America has been actively suppressing socialist policies (and complete governments). That’s a fact. Not an argument. Not an opinion. And definitely not up to semantics.
You’ve never heard of Social Security? I personally think it’s important to highlight the fundamental pieces of government that already work using systems people could classify as “socialist”. You pay in. You get you cut. The government uses everyones money as leverage.
The context, is the current population is quite literally on the precipice of throwing out modern liberal democracy all together.
I agree, of course, there are many other components to being human in America that the government isn’t properly established to deal with. But people who already hate the idea of socialism, they should understand that America grew to what it is, what it was, in part because of those policies.
It’s also a much better story to wrap yourself in than WW2 dominance and trickle-down horse-shit, and the ever-constant reminder of failed reconstruction and native demolition. America came together once, in the darkness of the Depression, to build a foundation. The last several generations, even those that existed when these programs were established, have existed to destroy and steal and gut. But Reagan told us all it was the government’s fault, and in the golden hue of the 1980s, who the fuck needed Social Security? It was those same government programs that saved Americas cities, that built Americas roads. Many of the tracks may be gone, but they’ve all been replaced with internet cables — similarly a public enterprise.
America is not a socialist country, it’s constitution needs rewritten. But so much of what makes America what it is, what Americans understand America to be, is solely because of social liberalism. And all of these people that are voting Trump, they should understand that. Because Trump literally stands for demolishing all of it.
Ok yes. In the 1930s the United States came shockingly close to socialist revolution over the Great Depression and as such we won massive concessions that have been in the process of being eroded since the end of wwii, but especially since the 80s. Such a massive propaganda campaign combined with anti communist crackdowns happened that we basically surrendered social security and couldn’t implement universal healthcare
See this guy understands what I’m saying.
To say that America is “number 1” is not what I was saying, it was that at the heart of the American governmental systems lies a true socialist foundation. That’s why it’s been hammered for so long, because it’s what should have propelled America into the 21st century.
Like I’m often the defender of the American socialist tradition both on Lemmy and over in America, but I wouldn’t call it a foundation. We have deep socialist roots for sure, but they’re concessions and arguments. It’s the foundational conflict of our nation: a slave empire built on the idea that all men are created equal. It resulted in a breeding ground for anarchists and fascists.
Those concessions are important and they led to a lot of prosperity, but don’t forget that by the 50s we had McCarthy. We should’ve toppled it and showed the ussr what communism can be
You’ve never heard of Social Security?
Oh, you’ve never heard of the The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea? As you can see from the name, they’re definitely democratic.
The US social security is a bad joke compared to other developed nations.
To say “USA has been championing socialist policies for 100 years” is on the same level as saying “China has been championing personal freedom for 100 years”.
The US doesn’t even have direct presidential elections, which by the standard of developed democratic nations is extremely weird.
There’s a lot there I don’t need to comment on. I’m challenging you on your “America has been championing socialist policies for 100 years” comment.
Compared to European social security and labour laws, US socialist policies and labour laws are pretty much on the level of developing nations — if that.
Case in point; Among 41 countries, only U.S. lacks paid parental leave
Are you honestly trying to use public roads as an example of “having championed socialist policies”? Not exactly the most novel or progressive policy, I would say.
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver - Homelessness
https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/social-security-benefits-are-modest
Social Security benefits in the United States are lower than many other developed countries.
You have people who are employed full time, some even in two jobs, who still have to live and shit on the street.
“Championing socialist policies” lol
Literal strawman nonsense, look at this man go. I think you should understand that America is attempting to erode a woman’s right to vote. That’s what I’m saying. That all these people that think America should continue down the path of abandoning modern democracy should look into Americas past and understand the points in time in which it has championed for rights.
Thats the way you use that word. You’re literally admitting you’re ESL and can’t use English as well as I can. You’ve built a massive strawman on this simple fact. Other commentors can see my point. You can’t. Sorry.
Like I actually can’t believe you’ve built this massive of a strawman, it’s incredible. All because you don’t know the definition of a word. That’s literally all you go back to, as well. Nothing else I say matters. You just masturbate to your strawman, Mr Fin.
You don’t understand what a strawman argument is.
ESL? No, that’s “English as a second language”. Mine is technically third. My English is better than 60% native speakers (a large 60min test by a professional). And that counts countries which aren’t on the level of developing nations when it comes to literacy figures
America is attempting to erode a woman’s right to vote.
America has been championing socialist policies for 100 years.
So which one do you believe in this one?
It’s quite hilarious how often I end up teaching Americans English. While this is my third language, I’m fairly sure I’ve used it longer, more and in more academic contexts than you have. That’s why I don’t make up meanings for words when someone proves me wrong.
champion verb
vigorously support or defend the cause of.
“he championed the rights of the working class and the poor”
Once I answered your arse-ignorant “well when did your country” bullshit you got shaken and started shifting your asinine goalposts. The US has never CHAMPIONED socialist policies, let alone even using them. Still don’t.
It’s incredibly ironic how you think saying “you got the wrong definition” will work, and how “other commentors can see”. Yes, they can. They will be able to even check the definition (which I’ve linked btw, but you ofc haven’t, as your definition of the word is made up) and see that “champion” doesn’t exactly mean what you pretend it does. :)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/champion
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/champion
Even if you forgo the most used definitions, and try to find a niche one that’s even remotely similar to how you’re using it…? Nah. The closest ones still will have at least “enthusiastic” in them. The way you use it to say “America has been championing socialist policy for 100 years” is incorrect.
America has been actively suppressing socialist policies, socialist movements and even socialist countries. These are facts.
So I don’t know what “English” you’re using, but here in the real world “champion” doesn’t mean “actively fighting against”.
“Mr. Fin”
See you can’t even write Finn, which is the demonym for a Finnish person. You use the noun which means a literal fin. Like those things fish have. :D
“championing socialist policy”
If it wasn’t so worrying that people like you exist, it’d be kinda hilarious.
I also said a century. I mean when was Social Security setup in your country? I don’t think you understand the ideological war being fought in America.
I mean when was Social Security setup in your country?
So nothing I showed matters, the Red Scare doesn’t matter, the current situation doesn’t matter, you ignore (willfully) literally everything that proves your sentence to be insanely inaccurate and very ironic.
Most actual paying social security systems started right around WWII. Do you think your “championed for a century” will be correct with the first US social security starting in 1940?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_in_Finland
In the last years of the nineteenth century, Finnish social policy had as its goal the lessening of class friction. The few existing pieces of social legislation addressed the needs of specific groups rather than of society as a whole.
According to the Finnish sociologist Erik Allardt, the hallmark of the Nordic welfare systems is their comprehensiveness. Unlike the welfare systems of the United States or most West European countries, those of the Nordic countries cover the entire population, and they are not limited to those groups unable to care for themselves.
We don’t have people (who are employed even) shitting on the streets. We have guaranteed maternity leaves, limitless sick days.
Just how brainwashed or ignorant does one need to be to say the US was more a “champion of socialist policies” than the Nordics…?
In 1906, the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland, which later became the Republic of Finland, was the first country in the world to give all women and all men both the right to vote and the right to run for office. Finland was also the first country in Europe to give women the right to vote.[5][6] The world’s first female members of parliament were elected in Finland the following year.
You still had segregation less than 61 years ago. And still don’t have the labour laws that are considered utterly basic in most developed nations.
I do understand the ideological war fought in America, because I exist on the internet and a significant portion of it deals with US politics.
The only reason we’re speaking English now is because you only know English. Ie I know more than you and are accommodating your level of knowledge and trying to get you to improve it.
coercive relationships are the root of evil
