the farmer saying he treats the animals like family, which one might imply means he treats them well. but his family has to secretly run away from him due to abuse (insinuated by the wife quickly leaving with the kids). this mean he probably also abuses the animals, which is opposite of the implied meaning.
Pretty sure it’s less about abuse, and more the fact that the animals are slaughtered. He says he treats the animals like family, that implies he will also kill and eat his family at some point…
When I was first starting out my programming adventures with Python, someone told me that I should work with Python 3 instead of 2 because that’s what will be maintained in the future (this was some 8 years ago). I decided to listen and when I got home I opened up my terminal, wrote:
My folder is called misc and that’s where I throw everything that’s crowded on my desktop, and eventually 10 years from now I’ll eventually go through it
My mom told me recently that I could go harvest Strawberries from a field and pay for each Kilo I harvest, but while I am harvesting I am allowed to eat as many strawberries as I want. I somehow still feel like this is not legit and there needs to be some sort of miscommunication.
Well, you are essentially paying extra in terms of the time involved, so I suppose it wouldn’t be too surprising that some places might allow you to do things like eat along the way since you can only eat so much in a sitting :)
when I worked at walmart some people would get so offended if I suggested wearing the opposite genders clothes even if the item was basically the same for males and females.
a polo shirt for men is cheaper and you're probably just wearing it because of your workplace why does it matter?
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
i’ve read marx. at precisely no point does he say anything justifying the various atrocities state capitalist countries have committed. i think he’s wrong about some stuff, but even if you accept that his word is gospel, tankies are still just people who took leftist principles as an excuse for the imposing the kind of brutal authoritarianism that leftists are supposed to be against.
memes
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.