Make em think their tax money is paying for “Ni–er food” and they’ll burn down the entire education system.
Hell, replace Nword with F-word or Kword honestly doesn’t matter.
Source: What happened to all the public swimming pools after Desegregation? And That one time a Republican signed a strict anti gun law the second the Black community exercised their Second.
Thank you, I was also confused by what the fuck the “K-word” could be. I think we could asterisk out a letter, so meaning is still conveyed, and the impact of the word might still be felt and understood.
I understand your reasoning but I can’t subacribe it.
A word is a word. A word becomes an insult if it is used against someone, with that specific intent.
I specifically used the quotation marks because I wanted to convey the understanding that I was putting the words out with no connection to anything.
Writing on a social media outlet feels more and more like walking through a trap field. Cryptic acronyms, forbidden and self censored words and redacted sentences.
This is the worst kind of censorship I can think of. It blocks the person and others from fully expressing ideas and thoughts and preassigns a default judgement towards who is trying to convey an argument.
The best way to void a word - especially if an insult - is to ignore it. Don’t use it, ignore it in others speech, attack the use of it as an insult.
Who cares about history? This is 2023. People in history would disagree with people today about slavery and marital rape too. Should we reconsider allowing those things?
Well… it’s okay if you don’t want the job. Because I wouldn’t let you near any kids I might have if you actually have to ask that in context of free meals for kids whose only meal comes at school.
It’s this precise lack of empathy that, in my eyes, disqualifies you from caring for other’s kids.
I mean, what kind of person says “we shouldn’t feed starving kids”? Like seriously. That’s what you’re arguing here.
You take care of your own? Congratulations. Want a participation trophy? I think I can spare a bottle cap or something. Too bad they’re no longer shiny…
Yes. Fuck over starving not-rich-kids whose only meal of the day comes from free school lunch programs- because a rich kid “might” get a free lunch.
* golf clap *
Impressive display of empathy there. Oh and by the way… you’re generally wrong about whose getting free lunches. So you’re fucking starving kids over … because of propaganda.
What’s the old adage? It takes a village to raise a child?
As a father of a young child, there is no fucking way that one or two parents can meet all of the child’s development needs. You need everything from Farmers to grow food, teachers to teach, doctors to medicine, grandparents to grandparent, and they need peers and other people to interact with. Every one of those people plays a role, some more important than others.
Ok, parents and grandparents granted, but I don’t think farmers are raising children. I don’t really want teachers raising my children I want them to teach my children.
I think the village to raise a child adage is very much in the dustbin. Once upon a time that would literally be the case and the food would also come from the farmers of the village so it would be quite a different dynamic.
I wish there was more of a community and we could jointly aid in the support of children certainly where I live that is not the case.
Ultimately it is the parent’s job to raise the children, and it’s the parents job to select who the child comes in contact with.
As a parent of a young child, you’re completely delusional if you think parents are in complete control of every person that a child comes into contact with.
Just at my kids school there are probably 250 staff members including teachers and administrative staff who come into contact with the kids on a daily basis. I have zero influence on that!
This doesn’t even touch on mass media in the internet which have a huge impact on not just children, but people like yourself. You yourself are interacting with people on the internet whom you know nothing about.
People who want others to suffer will support this. This will almost only impact low income (mostly minority) populations, the kind that republic voter love to hurt
Kids that grow up hungry are more likely to enter the workforce early, doing the low-wage “essential role” jobs that the capital class desperately needs bodies for. Breaking the cycle of poverty is a big no-no for the 1%.
Yeah it does. The cruelty is the point. They’re trying to punish children and their parents for being (mostly non-White) poor.
At the same time, they’re trying to turbocharge the school to prison pipeline so their owner donors from the prison industrial complex can profit off poverty and perpetuate more themselves, leading to an infinite loop of poverty, misery and demonization for anyone who’s not already a rich cishet white man.
They don’t see a difference between bad and poor. The only exception is the perfect poor republicans - but they’re only temporarily poor, they’re going to be rich one day so all this poor bashing isn’t counter productive to them!
They don’t care if the parents are bad or not, but hey just want to hurt poor people and minorities, to lost republicans those words are the same thing.
The USA is a deeply racist settler colony founded on doing violence to those without the privilege to escape it. The idea that someone “undeserving” might get a benefit from one’s tax payment enrages the Republican voting base which is mostly white men who make over $50k a year.
This chart bothers me because the y-axis is all over the place in terms of range. Sometimes it’s $15k range, sometimes it’s $30k, sometimes it’s $50k. Really skews the data.
I’m a registered Democrat, but that doesn’t stop me disagreeing with the Democratic party on plenty of issues. The vast majority of people don’t adhere 100% to their party’s politics, especially with the big-tent two-party system in the US. I can’t speak for the person to whom you’re responding, but you can’t extrapolate from their disagreement on one issue to disagreement on others.
Yes, but this particular idea is intentionally letting children starve. Would you really want to associate yourself with a group that wanted to do that if you were against it?
It’s like saying, “I’m on their side, but I don’t agree with their ‘kill the asylum seekers’ policy.” (I assume that will be a policy of theirs eventually.) How morally repugnant does a group have to get before you disassociate yourself with them?
It already is policy for some of them, see Abbott’s death trap along the Rio Grande or DeSantis wanting to station his state guard on major crossings to shoot undocumented migrants.
Getting people to think about identifying based on party membership is important to get people to actually think about whether they should be a member of that party. Sure, they might be all in on racist wall building, insurrection, and blowing Trump.
But maybe a nudge can help them be a little introspective and think more broadly about whether they picked the right team if their team wants children to go hungry. Just trying to get them to think about things, not saying every party member needs to agree with everything about their party.
If you only identify yourself as being Republican because you consider yourself to be a conservative then I’ve got good news for you, no need to associate with the wackos, the US Democrats are the conservatives of the countries where there actually exists a political spectrum that extends further left than right of center 👍
By convincing them that their taxes shouldn’t come back to them in any way and should instead be used for a higher purpose. Corporation, that’s the higher purpose.
Because this is a social good that results in ROI over decades. If something is not immediately profitable, it is difficult for the private market to be leveraged to find an optimal solution. Situations like that are typically where government has to step in.
a grossly oversimplied suggestion i would have is 10% of the income, starting from a 10 million USD/month income, up 15 percentual points for each order of magnitude, so 25% if someone gets 100m/mo, 55% if 10b/mo, 70% if 100b/mo etc.
assuming all these people properly pays accurately, that would be about enough to feed people in and out of school.
I don’t think your books will balance. There are not enough billionaires to find this. Also, they will all disappear, I bet they have good lawyers.
And I bet if implemented that threshold would come down and down and down. Let’s talk to a prosperous Ukrainian farmer in the interwar period. Sent to a goo-lag for having a sewing machine perhaps?
i smell double bind. say nothing and the food is taken away, with parents being forced to spit up more money for food. say something and rich people will be sad, which means no money added to pay for food, which will be used to justify taking away the food anyway.
what’s your solution then? you may not need the government to pay for your kids’ food, but there are people who still needs it. you gotta feed people somehow and be careful not to fall into ableist policy (e.g only people who quote unquote, “works hard”, gets the food).
pretty sure the labor of validating all the applications, surveyling who does and does not get the food, and pushing for the othering of people who have applications as well as those who doesn’t but still get the food, is gonna cost more than the actual food, being mostly transportation, cooking and cleaning.
You don’t need the government’s help. I happen to know a lot of families DO. There are kids right now, in the richest fucking country in the world, who might only have one substantial meal in their day, and that’s their school lunch.
poor workers aren’t being taxed. The US has a heavily progressive tax system. Anyone making less than 40-50k pays almost nothing in taxes as a percentage of income, as compared to someone making 300k a year.
These meals help the poor and middle class the most and are paid for mostly by high earners.
How the hell do they want to convince people this is a good thing?
Make em think their tax money is paying for “Ni–er food” and they’ll burn down the entire education system.
Hell, replace Nword with F-word or Kword honestly doesn’t matter.
Source: What happened to all the public swimming pools after Desegregation? And That one time a Republican signed a strict anti gun law the second the Black community exercised their Second.
This town had a lovely swimming pool which was suddenly closed and filled in during the 1960s. I can’t imagine why.
What is the Fword or the Kword?
Gays and jews, I assume.
Holy shit. I couldn’t figure out the K word, despite the fact that I literally wrote a joke that requires it.
…k word?
I believe they referring to “kike”, a slur for jewish people.
With the degree of self censoring and the love acronyms and shortening words, it’s becoming a challenge to follow written text.
Is the fword “faggot”?
the fword is “floating point”, there are a lot of leftist programmers.
I’m a lefty programmer and I do indeed hate floating points. I’ve had it bite me far too many times.
What is the connection between those two?
It’s a slur used for leftist programmers.
the connection between “floating point” and programming? gee no clue
Thank you, I was also confused by what the fuck the “K-word” could be. I think we could asterisk out a letter, so meaning is still conveyed, and the impact of the word might still be felt and understood.
I understand your reasoning but I can’t subacribe it.
A word is a word. A word becomes an insult if it is used against someone, with that specific intent.
I specifically used the quotation marks because I wanted to convey the understanding that I was putting the words out with no connection to anything.
Writing on a social media outlet feels more and more like walking through a trap field. Cryptic acronyms, forbidden and self censored words and redacted sentences.
This is the worst kind of censorship I can think of. It blocks the person and others from fully expressing ideas and thoughts and preassigns a default judgement towards who is trying to convey an argument.
The best way to void a word - especially if an insult - is to ignore it. Don’t use it, ignore it in others speech, attack the use of it as an insult.
Self censoring is not a good thing.
Honestly I wanted to be edgy but been trained that I’ll get auto moderated if I just type it out.
Also people really do be thinking you are racist if you type out a word (or recite a song lyric) from a different point of view.
In other words, it’s a no win scenario.
It is
“Free meals is communist!!”
Which… If you think like they do, then socialism==communism==unamerican.
Public schools are already under that banner. This shouldn’t even be a question.
And they want to do away with public schools…I’d say that tracks for them.
conservative americans LOVE making communism sound idyllic
Who’s job is it to care for children?
Everyone’s. Because they’re children.
Including the bourgeoisie?
Children aren’t bourgeoisie, they’re children.
I think can find you people from history who man disagree
Who cares about history? This is 2023. People in history would disagree with people today about slavery and marital rape too. Should we reconsider allowing those things?
Spicy take incoming, “history has nothing to teach us”
Well… it’s okay if you don’t want the job. Because I wouldn’t let you near any kids I might have if you actually have to ask that in context of free meals for kids whose only meal comes at school.
I care for my children. Who do you think should be doing it?
It’s this precise lack of empathy that, in my eyes, disqualifies you from caring for other’s kids.
I mean, what kind of person says “we shouldn’t feed starving kids”? Like seriously. That’s what you’re arguing here.
You take care of your own? Congratulations. Want a participation trophy? I think I can spare a bottle cap or something. Too bad they’re no longer shiny…
I am fine with “feeding starving children”. It’s feeding the children of wealthy people that I bridle at
What makes you think I want praise for raising my kids? It’s my job. That’s my point
Yes. Fuck over starving not-rich-kids whose only meal of the day comes from free school lunch programs- because a rich kid “might” get a free lunch.
* golf clap * Impressive display of empathy there. Oh and by the way… you’re generally wrong about whose getting free lunches. So you’re fucking starving kids over … because of propaganda.
I couldn’t give a flying fuck who thinks I’m empathetic.
Virtue signalling may be your bag (I’m sure you hold all the correct opinions), but I don’t care.
Not a rich kid “might get a school lunch”, you ignoramus. The majority of people don’t need free lunches why are we buying them for them.
People. Society really.
What’s the old adage? It takes a village to raise a child?
As a father of a young child, there is no fucking way that one or two parents can meet all of the child’s development needs. You need everything from Farmers to grow food, teachers to teach, doctors to medicine, grandparents to grandparent, and they need peers and other people to interact with. Every one of those people plays a role, some more important than others.
Ok, parents and grandparents granted, but I don’t think farmers are raising children. I don’t really want teachers raising my children I want them to teach my children.
I think the village to raise a child adage is very much in the dustbin. Once upon a time that would literally be the case and the food would also come from the farmers of the village so it would be quite a different dynamic.
I wish there was more of a community and we could jointly aid in the support of children certainly where I live that is not the case.
Ultimately it is the parent’s job to raise the children, and it’s the parents job to select who the child comes in contact with.
As a parent of a young child, you’re completely delusional if you think parents are in complete control of every person that a child comes into contact with.
Just at my kids school there are probably 250 staff members including teachers and administrative staff who come into contact with the kids on a daily basis. I have zero influence on that!
This doesn’t even touch on mass media in the internet which have a huge impact on not just children, but people like yourself. You yourself are interacting with people on the internet whom you know nothing about.
Removed by mod
And if the parents are unable to raise the children properly, then the children should just starve?
Removed by mod
People who want others to suffer will support this. This will almost only impact low income (mostly minority) populations, the kind that republic voter love to hurt
You can’t punish bad parents by punishing their children. Even if their viewpoint was right this would make no sense.
Except, Republicans love to punish the children of poor parents for the crime of being poor.
You don’t have to be a bad parent to be poor, you just have to be poor.
The assumption I mentioned was that in their worldview being poor is also being bad parents. Regardless, punishing children accomplishes nothing.
Kids that grow up hungry are more likely to enter the workforce early, doing the low-wage “essential role” jobs that the capital class desperately needs bodies for. Breaking the cycle of poverty is a big no-no for the 1%.
It hurts people. That’s the goal.
Yeah it does. The cruelty is the point. They’re trying to punish children and their parents for being (mostly non-White) poor.
At the same time, they’re trying to turbocharge the school to prison pipeline so their owner donors from the prison industrial complex can profit off poverty and perpetuate more themselves, leading to an infinite loop of poverty, misery and demonization for anyone who’s not already a rich cishet white man.
You’re trying to use logic against the illogical.
Like throwing paper at a brick wall trying to knock it down
These are the same people who think you can beat the gay out of a child. They think being cruel helps people.
They don’t see a difference between bad and poor. The only exception is the perfect poor republicans - but they’re only temporarily poor, they’re going to be rich one day so all this poor bashing isn’t counter productive to them!
They don’t care if the parents are bad or not, but hey just want to hurt poor people and minorities, to lost republicans those words are the same thing.
They just want people they dislike to suffer.
Going usual playbook, they’d prolly declare it “woke” and mumble the boilerplate shit about taxes, bootstraps, and communism.
The USA is a deeply racist settler colony founded on doing violence to those without the privilege to escape it. The idea that someone “undeserving” might get a benefit from one’s tax payment enrages the Republican voting base which is mostly white men who make over $50k a year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distribution-of-household-income-in-the-us/
About 60% of American households cross that threshold. It kinda comes off like you’re saying people who make that much are overprivileged.
I suspect his information is out of date, $50k isn’t a lot of money but 10 or 20 years ago it was.
Was it? I made that out of college almost 20 years ago. It wasn’t what I would call rich
Yes, it was. If it helps, $50K then would be $81K today. The average minimum wage these days across the US is $8.5 an hour, or $17K per year.
So it is… it absolutely is. Even today it is quite a lot to many people.
This chart bothers me because the y-axis is all over the place in terms of range. Sometimes it’s $15k range, sometimes it’s $30k, sometimes it’s $50k. Really skews the data.
I suppose taxes.
I’m a republican and I fully support free school meals. We are already taxed for books, building, teachers, etc.
I’d fully support basic supplies and meals as well. It just makes sense to make sure all students have the basic needs met since we are paying for it.
Instead of defining yourself by party membership in a group that doesn’t represent you, maybe you should think about not being a member of that party?
I’m a registered Democrat, but that doesn’t stop me disagreeing with the Democratic party on plenty of issues. The vast majority of people don’t adhere 100% to their party’s politics, especially with the big-tent two-party system in the US. I can’t speak for the person to whom you’re responding, but you can’t extrapolate from their disagreement on one issue to disagreement on others.
Yes, but this particular idea is intentionally letting children starve. Would you really want to associate yourself with a group that wanted to do that if you were against it?
It’s like saying, “I’m on their side, but I don’t agree with their ‘kill the asylum seekers’ policy.” (I assume that will be a policy of theirs eventually.) How morally repugnant does a group have to get before you disassociate yourself with them?
It already is policy for some of them, see Abbott’s death trap along the Rio Grande or DeSantis wanting to station his state guard on major crossings to shoot undocumented migrants.
I was thinking more hunt them down across America, but you’re not wrong.
Getting people to think about identifying based on party membership is important to get people to actually think about whether they should be a member of that party. Sure, they might be all in on racist wall building, insurrection, and blowing Trump.
But maybe a nudge can help them be a little introspective and think more broadly about whether they picked the right team if their team wants children to go hungry. Just trying to get them to think about things, not saying every party member needs to agree with everything about their party.
If you only identify yourself as being Republican because you consider yourself to be a conservative then I’ve got good news for you, no need to associate with the wackos, the US Democrats are the conservatives of the countries where there actually exists a political spectrum that extends further left than right of center 👍
Based, lobby your representatives and let’s try and get the basics down in a bipartisanly
Right now my largest complaint with the republicans is they just want to stop the democrats from doing anything.
Good ideas should be pushed by both parties. The republicans are rarely pushing their own ideas. They’re just blocking other ideas.
The basic should be supplied. When I show up to work, I dont have to buy my own paper and pencil. It’s supplied.
Education is an investment in the next generation. I strongly support it.
Doesn’t sound like you fit in with the Republicans at all
By convincing them that their taxes shouldn’t come back to them in any way and should instead be used for a higher purpose. Corporation, that’s the higher purpose.
It… helps the people they hate.
I don’t need the government to feed my kids. But at the moment they are taxing poor workers to do so. Is that a good idea?
So maybe tax the rich? As long as there is a single person who can’t afford to feed their kids, the government should feed them.
Ok, done. But don’t feed the rich too. Deal?
Yes, this helps poor workers because their kids get free meals. This isn’t raising taxes on the poor.
Where does the money come from?
Everyone. Literally everyone. When you’re poor, you get the money back on your taxes.
How about we dont take the money in the first place
Because this is a social good that results in ROI over decades. If something is not immediately profitable, it is difficult for the private market to be leveraged to find an optimal solution. Situations like that are typically where government has to step in.
the solution isn’t to stop feeding them altogether, but to tax those who actually wouldn’t miss any of the money used for that.
see also: https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/
How rich do I have to be before I am one of the taxes?
a grossly oversimplied suggestion i would have is 10% of the income, starting from a 10 million USD/month income, up 15 percentual points for each order of magnitude, so 25% if someone gets 100m/mo, 55% if 10b/mo, 70% if 100b/mo etc.
assuming all these people properly pays accurately, that would be about enough to feed people in and out of school.
I don’t think your books will balance. There are not enough billionaires to find this. Also, they will all disappear, I bet they have good lawyers.
And I bet if implemented that threshold would come down and down and down. Let’s talk to a prosperous Ukrainian farmer in the interwar period. Sent to a goo-lag for having a sewing machine perhaps?
i smell double bind. say nothing and the food is taken away, with parents being forced to spit up more money for food. say something and rich people will be sad, which means no money added to pay for food, which will be used to justify taking away the food anyway.
what’s your solution then? you may not need the government to pay for your kids’ food, but there are people who still needs it. you gotta feed people somehow and be careful not to fall into ableist policy (e.g only people who quote unquote, “works hard”, gets the food).
Removed by mod
pretty sure the labor of validating all the applications, surveyling who does and does not get the food, and pushing for the othering of people who have applications as well as those who doesn’t but still get the food, is gonna cost more than the actual food, being mostly transportation, cooking and cleaning.
You don’t need the government’s help. I happen to know a lot of families DO. There are kids right now, in the richest fucking country in the world, who might only have one substantial meal in their day, and that’s their school lunch.
Great. Give the free food to them
poor workers aren’t being taxed. The US has a heavily progressive tax system. Anyone making less than 40-50k pays almost nothing in taxes as a percentage of income, as compared to someone making 300k a year.
These meals help the poor and middle class the most and are paid for mostly by high earners.