Ceauşescu and Kim Il-Sung, North Korea, 1971
being a cishet looks boring why do people do that
Idk maybe bc sexuality/gender isnt based on how cool or interesting an individual wants to look
yeah but why be boring when u can be awesome and not cishet
yeah but why treat lgbt+ identities like some trendy fashion accessory that ppl can just slap on to look cool when u could not act like a complete idiot
Yea like dont tell anyone this secret but did you know you could like be gay or whatever while also having your own personality and not looking like lady gaga crossed with a diseased peacock with the personality of an autistic child on crack? Being a cishet in a suit in much better then that IMO.
you know you can be anti-mass immigration and traditionalist WITHOUT drooling after hitler and the third reich
Indonesian Police shave Punks mohawks.
reminder to everyone that hates the jews but supports christianity: it’s a jewish religion.
Trousers were first used in modern day Kazakhstan, so what?
Why should Christians support…
tibetan society was a caste society that allowed slave ownership and child rape was pretty common in their monasteries
Tibetan buddhism was the basis for a theocracy that allowed peasants to be owned as slaves and receive punishment such as being skinned and having your limps chopped off. Tibetan buddhism also did allow monks to keep young monk apprendices as personal sex slaves inside the monasteries. Also, the Dalai Lama directly benefitted from all of this, never actualy did anything concrete for the good of humanity, and yet western liberals adore him as some messianic figure and he’s regulary invited to speak at UN human rights conferences conferences.
Thanks to mass immigration, more and more Europeans are beginning to feel like strangers in their own countries.
Who cares? Who cares
The Europeans. Who are feeling like strangers in their own countries. And, to an extent, Americans too. My middle school was only about 20% white. I was bullied for being white for about 3 years. It sucks.
Yeh but i still dont see a problem? The kid’s not going to a race or culture specific club, its just a nursery school. Should the immgrants not be allowed to get the same education as the kids native to italy?
Italy is not America, the mythical ~melting pot of immigrants~. Italy is Italy, the homeland of the Italians, and no Italian should have to feel like a stranger in his ancestral homeland. These immigrants should not have gotten to move there in such large numbers in the first place, that’s the point.
i’m a foreigner living in italy – i live here because i got a job in milan before i graduated. my aunt immigrated 10 years ago when she married my (italian) uncle. if this happened at my cousin’s school, we would be outraged, and in fact my aunt hates that within 10 years, she went from being one of the few foreigners in her suburban town to seeing an influx of hordes of “”refugees”“, which wouldn’t be so much of a problem if they didn’t also cause issues. i shouldn’t walk through parts of rome and feel like instead i’m in morocco, because i moved to ITALY, and i personally feel yeah, ITALY should prioritise ITALIANS just as back in my own home i would like INDONESIA to prioritise INDONESIANS. my aunt and uncle have decided to raise their daughter in italy, because they want her to experience her italian culture, which, automatically means, that she should be surrounded by a majority of italians in her school.
i’m a literal foreigner living in italy and i see this as a problem. like what is so hard to understand.
I wrote the book on taking shitty low quality pics and looking as unlawyery as possible at the same time. GOING TO BED NOW K
bringing this back so i can b ashamed
Yea. And not if they’re actively seeking help, but I don’t want taxpayer money to fund the addiction of idiots. Same reason I support drug tests for welfare, if someone’s going to spend the public’s money, the public ought to have some kind of control over what it does and does not pay for.
So basically you support fiscally wasteful policies that further demean and dehumanize addicts? Good show.
Also wtf why do you think keeping an addict in an unstable situation (homelessness) is MORE likely to get them to stop doing the substance that makes them feel stable and forget the instability in their lives? Your logic isn’t very logical.
First off, drug testing or welfare applicants has been tried in a few states and it’s been a failure. Turns out, poor people aren’t all drug addicted idiots like you think. They actually use drugs at a lower rate than the national average. Probably bc they can’t afford them. So the state ends up spending a lot of money processing drug tastes and saving very little money on welfare applicants.
Second, in Charlotte NC they’ve actually started providing housing for homeless people and guess what? It saves money. The money spent providing housing not only helps them get their lives back together but it’s also much cheaper than the cost of keeping them in jail and absorbing their unpaid emergency room visits.
What a surprise, helping a few disadvantaged people actually helps everyone.
Uh, I’m not sure why all the responses here imply that I’m against providing homes for the homeless. That’s literally the opposite of what I said, on this and on other asks - I believe that in a wealthy country like mine, with very high living standards, no one should have to live on the streets.
Except if they’re addicted to drugs, in which case I’d make it a condition that they have to be seeking help in order to receive that. I don’t care if I’m ~dehumanizing~ addicts, it’s their fault and I’m not against helping them, but they have to make the first step, else you’ll only be funding their habits.
I also don’t think it matters that welfare drug tests cost more than they save, I think it’s a matter of principle to do that.
Literally nobody is implying you’re against providing homes for the homeless. We’re all talking about the fact that you’re against providing homes for homeless addicts, which you openly admit you are.
It is not an addict’s fault that some random jackass wants to dehumanize them. And, again, most addicts are self-medicating due to instability in their lives. It is providing them stability that will give them the biggest chance of success, not withholding stability until they stop self-medicating. This is basic logic 101, here.
Also, your views on drug testing welfare recipients are still wrong, and addicts and their families still deserve to eat.
Is “self medicating” the politically correct term from drug addiction now?
Sorry but no, I ain’t playing that. That’s a whole new level of excusing people from any responsibility for their actions. Drugs are neither medication, nor can drug addicts blame their situation on anyone but themselves. You don’t just happen to become drug addicted, it is an active choice. And as long ad they don’t make the active choice to quit it, efforts to help would go to waste.
No, if someone is too morally bankrupt to stay away from drugs in order to feed themselves, then they’ll first have to realize their problem when they don’t have food on their plate. Society had every right to make sure its money doesn’t fund drug habits, and going easy in these cases has never helped.
Self medicating..Jesus christ.
the only way i can see it working would be giving addicts welfare ON THE CONDITION that they seek treatment and make that treatment MANDATORY (just like meeting with your parole officer is mandatory, if these addicts aren’t in an inpatient program their attendance to their treatment sessions have to be monitored etc.)
I lost a few friends IRL for saying this but considering the testimonials of friends who have worked with drug addicts and a doctor, I believe that, yea, while there are a few drug addicts that can be persuaded to treat their addiction through their own force of will, there are drugs that create such a powerful chemical/physiological dependence that it is literally nigh impossible for the addict to stop using them even if he/she really wants to. These people enter a “terminal state” in their addiction in which their bodies and brains really do depend on substance abuse, in such a way that curing them is nigh impossible through any know method. These people are a constant danger to society and themselves since they will literally do anything for the next dosage, which force many into alienation from any sort of family they have, prostitution, criminal activity in general, etc. Which eventually leads them to a slow death in prison.
I have no idea how to humanely deal with these people, but they need to be removed from the streets and put in an institution where they can have a semblance of humanity but with limited liberty because, without restrictions, they will inevitably try to return to their habit. Giving free housing to people who are on the streets because of their drug addiction wont solve ANY problems however, in fact it will just make the problem worse by allowing these people to have even less sense of responsibility in their lives because they will always have their government paid crib to come back to, allowing them to spend even MORE money on drugs.