Oooohhh personal attacks… yep, you have nothing of value to respond with. Byyyyyeee

Agnostocism? 😂 If you were truly agnostic, you wouldn’t have started pushing your view.

As for logic 🤣🤣🤣🤣 I don’t need to prove she definitely is working, that’s not how logic works. It’s sufficient that I can provide even one reasonable scenario under which she could be home earlier than him but still work full time, to disprove the statement that she doesn’t work. So here you go: maybe she works from home, so she cooked because she didn’t have to commute.

I get it - you interpret this scenario as evidence of her being lazy and/or incompetent. You want to buy into that, for whatever personal reasons of your own, so you ignore the facts:

1. The picture is misleading - the chicken is cooked, that colour is a sauce. You can tell if you look closely to the right of the chicken, and to the area below the chicken where the sauce comes onto the vegetables. So not only did she cook him chicken, she even made him a sauce with it.

2. The scenario is similarly presented in a misleading way to evoke an emotional reaction from the reader.

a) You only know about his coming home from work because that is what he chose to tell you. He wants you to identify with him, to remember that exhausted feeling after a hard day of work.

b) You know nothing about her circumstances. That allows the reader to inject their personal bias into the scenario, which you can see from the varied responses to the post. Your bias is toward a traditional provider/home maker relationship, which is why in your opinion such an opinion is “baked in” to the scenario. I don’t have that bias because I know too many women who work and still do the majority of the household work. My experience is not the exception - there is a tremendous amount of research on this topic.

We are a generation of young women who were told we could do anything and instead heard that we had to be everything.

Courtney E. Martin

So, maybe she works. Maybe she doesn’t work outside the home but recently gave birth to twins and hasn’t slept properly in weeks. Maybe she has a chronic illness that makes cooking difficult. Maybe she was never taught how to cook and is trying really hard to teach herself. Maybe that meal tastes amazing.

All I’m asking is that you see her as a human who maybe had a tough day too. To think critically and not just allow your emotions to be manipulated.

Skandal!

It doesn’t state the information either way. She may or may not work. Insisting that she doesn’t is YOU (and the original person I replied to) adding information. I accept that both options are possible. Can you?

No, your bias leans towards this. Careful, your misogyny is showing.

Maybe she goes into work earlier than he does, maybe she works from home, maybe she does shift work. There is nothing “baked in” to this scenario.

Where do you see it stated that she doesn’t work? Maybe that’s the best she can manage after a long day of work herself

I would absolutely support pre-funding a GrapheneOS phone

Awww, what a sweet baby. Thanks for sharing.

Mean! I was just coming to comment how cute they are 😍

The 4 chord song! I had totally forgotten about this

Elderly people will absolutely believe they need to buy a new computer. They don’t understand the tech, just hear Win 10 will no longer be supported and their computer can’t run Win 11, so new PC.

Source: Recent conversation with my mother-in-law.

I missed the last step going down the stairs in my own home, landed flat with all my weight on one foot, and managed to break the heel bone right where all the bones come together in the middle of my foot.

You have to sing to the object to make your power work, with the required pitch dependent on the mass of the object. The larger the mass, the deeper the tone, with really small objects requiring very high pitched tones. You’re tone deaf and spend most of your time badly singing scales at objects, trying to figure out the correct pitch.

This may be true but people with ADHD are significantly more likely to have car accidents. This is a well studied and documented phenomenon. Just because it happens to others doesn’t mean it isn’t a serious ADHD risk.

As I said, the song was a really big deal when it happened, there was a massive outcry. I believe the incident took place in 2013, the year Malema founded his party. His platform absolutely runs on hatred of white people, and this was a way for him to gain political relevance.

The objections to Malema singing the song went through the courts, as they should, and Malema had to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Appeal. (The final judgement is from 2024.) I would assume that he sang it again after that but honestly try to ignore him as much as possible.

However, there was no point in Trump showing videos of Malema to the South African delegation. They had nothing to do with it. In fact, the ANC promised in 2012 never to sing that protest song again (it was originally one of their protest songs).

More importantly, this video is not evidence of a white genocide, past, present, or planned.

Edit to add: The reality is that there is a notable segment of the population that is angry. The economy is bad, unemployment is crazy high, electricity is insufficient (load shedding is a disaster), violent crime remains high, etc. It’s easier for them to keep blaming white people than acknowledge that it’s been 30 years of black rule now. Malema is a symptom of these issues. A meaningful discussion around this topic would have been valuable, but that’s not what Trump did.

The one was a picture of a large number of crosses which Trump said was a burial site for 1000s of white farmers, when it was in fact a memorial following the death of 2 farmers. The memorial was intended to represent all farm deaths of all races. Farm deaths are an issue but the victims are of all races - they kill the farmers, their families and the workers.

There was a video of a political leader singing a song that translates to “Kill the Boer” i.e. kill the white Afrikaans farmer. This video is: a) more than a decade old, b) from a rally of a minority opposition party i.e. not the political party of the people Trump was meeting, c) from a political party that has been losing votes in recent elections, led by someone who was expelled from the ruling party, d) is of a historic protest song from the apartheid era i.e. more than 30 years ago.

This video resulted in a court case, where the court concluded that a “reasonably well-informed person” would understand that when a protest song is sung “even by politicians, the words are not meant to be understood literally, nor is the gesture of shooting to be understood as a call to arms or violence.”

This video was a big deal at the time but it’s not current, not representative of the government’s view, and the person depicted in it is increasingly being sidelined in South African politics.

You’re missing the point, this law is not anti-sex work. You can be pro sex work and still be in favour of this law.

Legalising prostitution doesn’t make illegal prostitution go away. On the contrary, by normalising prostitution, the demand increases but the legal (voluntary) supply doesn’t. This increased demand is then supplied via increased sex trafficking by crime syndicates. This is a huge problem in the Netherlands that they haven’t managed to solve in the 25 years prostitution has been legal.

Even for the legally registered prostitutes, the improvements are limited. Financial exploitation and violence remain rampant.

By decriminalising the prostitutes, the Swedes are effectively providing them with legal protection. By criminalising the buyer, they suppress demand, which reduces sex trafficking, and is the best protection for society as a whole.

As a feminist, I’m a staunch advocate of bodily autonomy and have no issue with sex workers. However, what cost should society accept for their right to provide these services? If for every 10 legal prostitutes, 1 additional person is forced into sexual slavery, is that cost worthwhile to you? How about 1 sex slave for every 5 legal prostitutes? How about a 1 to 2 ratio?

According to this source:

the [Netherlands] government struggles to calculate the number of individuals in its regulated sex trade (numbers range from 6,000 to 30,000)

The law has also failed to curb trafficking, with a reported 5,000 to 8,000 victims each year, two thirds of which for purposes of sexual exploitation

So, best case scenario = 30,000 prostitutes vs 3,333 (5000 x 2/3) sex slaves = 1 slave for every 9 registered prostitutes

Worst case scenario = 6,000 prostitutes vs 5,333 sex slaves = 8 slaves for every 9 registered prostitutes

Now some of these people would have been trafficked anyway, but there is a lot of evidence that trafficking has increased substantially since legalising prostitution.

So, where do you draw the line? Personally, I find the societal cost to be unacceptably high to justify legalisation of prostitution.

I agree from a bodily autonomy perspective that everyone should have the right to do what they wish with their bodies. If the sex industry was primarily individuals or small scale brothels, with everything voluntary, then legalising prostitution would make sense. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

The sex industry is huge, with large crime syndicates involved, so legalising prostitution in the Netherlands resulted in higher sex trafficking. Once prostitution was normalised, the demand for services increased but the supply didn’t. Human traffickers bring in women to meet the demand and the Netherlands government haven’t been able to stop it.

There are a lot of online sources confirming this, including this recent (long) report: Failed Promises: The history of legal prostitution and sex trafficking in the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

An e-book and a sofa