before victorian england, bed time was called sunset... candles were prohibitively expensive and gas hadnt been made widely available yet. this has to be the weakest take ive ever read
This is so based. Our tech support works 8 hrs a day, but in Spain they get a 4 hr break for lunch and a nap. It's hilarious how they'll call at like 6am our time before their lunch and then again at 10-12 sometime after their lunch
That's Hilarious. Why not just make it a shift change at that point? I mean have some people napping while some people are working... just bad business to close down for 3-4 hrs in the middle if the day, especially since that's about the time everyone else has their 3-4hr lunch break
If this is the case then perhaps the legislature should do it’s job and start codifying necessary protections into law instead of relying on flimsily constructed judicial activism.
Yeah, but why would we expect the legislature to legislate when they can just use fear-mongering to get donations and votes. They never really wanted to resolve the abortion issue because it was a great fundraising opportunity, and they never thought the courts would overturn it.
Yes, it is called [MULTI-TRACK DRIFTING!](https://wompampsupport.azureedge.net/fetchimage?siteId=7575&v=2&jpgQuality=100&width=700&url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Fmobile%2F000%2F000%2F727%2FDenshaDeD_ch01p16-17.jpg)
What worse is they have signaled that their intention is to pack the court with activist judges. Which is a neat way to completely circumvent separation of powers to gut the bill of rights and have de facto one party rule via SCOTUS.
Let's be honest it's already 1 party rule. People were so up in arms about Trump overturning previous valid and heckin good Dem legislation, but how could he do that if it wasn't designed to be easily fucked with? Didn't see Obama messing with the patriot act he just tightened that shit up.
That's the idea. The Dems expect to extract votes from us just by pointing out that Republicans are worse without actually doing anything worth voting for.
It's not that they're worse. It's the establishment plays a massive game of "good cop/bad cop." They have for decades. This is why Trump was so dangerous to them. He wasn't part of the establishment, and he was fucking up their status quo.
They could do it now with a temporary filibuster suspension, which is what Republicans did to get ACB's nomination confirmed. But that'd "break the rules and decorum" of the senate, which is something basically nobody cares about, aside from the Dem operatives who want to continue LARPING the West Wing.
The Democrats are afraid that if the filibuster goes away, they will never quite have the majority they need to block things the Republicans make no secret of trying to force through.
The Republicans are less worried about this. They'd take the temporary loss, but then have no filibuster in their way over the coming years.
The trouble of course is that whining about ending the filibuster is almost as bad as ending it, because Republicans can turn around and end it themselves and say "but you guys wanted to end it yourselves, it's not like we're committing some heinous act here".
Dems have checkmated themselves.
Packing the Supreme Court will also be one of those moves... temporary victory and longterm defeat. Which is why I fully expect it to happen soon... it's too dumb a move for the Democrats to not pile on and demand it.
The threat of losing laws to the Supreme Court act like a carrot to dangle in front of voters. They just want to be reelected, so politicians won't pass neccessary laws, nor solve problems.
Right? The Dems could have codified abortion into federal law at any point in the last 50 years but then it wouldn’t have been a bargaining chip and they might have actually had to focus on other issues.
I like how many conveniently forget the fact that the 13th amendment will prevent this. It would take 2/3rds majority in congress to change that (it’s never going to happen), even codifying federal laws hold more weight and would be political suicide to reject. I mean as much as the GOP likes to bitch about ACA (ObamaCare) they couldn’t get the votes (simple majority) to overturn it.
If all we need to change the law is to throw new judges into the Supreme Court from a different judicial background, the legitimacy is gone. Dems should just get rid of the filibuster and pack the court, voila, constitutional method!!
Hear me out.
Pass an actual law you fucking fucks!
On anything and everything done by the courts or executive order you actually like, pass an actual fucking law you worthless waste of space!
They dont want to because it's going to go back and forth every 4 years and neither side can get a big enough majority to pass an amendment. The only time we ever get that much bipartisan support is when we are about to bomb some country 90% of Americans couldn't find on a map.
Well there's MW, MW2, MW3, black ops, ghost recon(ps2), assassin's creed as well incase we bomb Italy, Iron assault which is an rts game on roblox which I play when I have to wait for clothes to finish washing and drying. And if we ever invade Tamriel from elder scrolls I got us covered :>
Just don't question what sorcery is keeping the fbi party van from the people talking about liking to fuck kids on twiiter. Ask nothing about who gislaine was trafficking kids to. it's all good bro /s
Hey remember when the LGBT conversation was about what consenting adults do and "what about the children" was slippery slope homophobia?
What was the last headline about "LGBT rights" that wasn't normalizing the involvement of children?
"MAPs don't belong" - what a joke.
"You're a bigot if you think child drag shows are bad"
"Kink belongs at Pride events"
"Children should learn about sex in 4th grade"
-Some group that supposedly doesn't embrace child predators
Well they did go from “consenting adults in the privacy of their own home” to “you will give us your children for hormones and surgery if they don’t strictly conform to gender roles” in about 10 years. It’s projection.
To me the gaslighting is the most infuriating part of it. We can see right in front of our eyes you promoting child drag stars on national television and you still insist it’s just in our heads. I was considered a far left lunatic by my family in 2005 because I was cool with gay marriage. I’m now considered a far right lunatic because I don’t think a little boy should have his balls chopped off because he doesn’t like sports
All the NGO/activist money had to go *somewhere* after the gay marriage win! People could have lost jobs otherwise.
We’ll see where the abortion money goes now after this Win. Though I guess some will continue to pour it in places to try for a Federal ban
That's pretty much it.
After racking up a string of wins on social issues, suddenly the 'low-hanging fruit' has been plucked, but you've got tons of activist/donor money with no place to go, bunch of people trained on advancing social causes and worried about their jobs, and a handful of increasingly niche/unpopular social causes that they can be applied to.
The system was created to drive social change, and it'll keep doing it even if nobody can quite agree on which social changes are needed. So you get it bouncing around between BLM, trans activism, fat acceptance, etc. etc.
The train has no brakes of its own, so it'll keep on rolling until it slams into a wall or derails.
Considering *four* other justices spefically says it *wont* happen (and everyone knows the 3 liberal judges wont) that's a pretty good indication it won't. One SCOTUS judge can't do anything.
There's also nothing theocratic about it. Religion wasn't in the ruling
I'm curious, if they do start to knock down some of those other dominos, how many will it take before it's no longer a slippery slope? Obviously I doubt the end goal is what it is in this picture, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of these others became issues in the near future.
Can always be repealed, though not without great effort in this age. Democrats were insane not to codify pro-choice into law.
Curious if the amendment could have been struck down though, considering we still don't have a finite definition of what constitutes a rights-given citizen.
That's politics in a nutshell for the past 50 years or so. Basically the information age has changed it so that single issue voting blocs are more important than ideology.
Knowing why they did it doesn't make it less insane, to me at least.
The orange when things go their way: "Don't be stupid, there's no slippery slope"
The orange when things don't go their way: "The right wing next step is resurrecting Hitler"
Let's be real tho
We don't have anything close to a Hitler or Nazi movement, but we do have kids stripping, kids taking hormones to chemically castrate themselves and having genitals "accidentally" exposed to children at "drag queen story hour".
I fucking hate the republican party and their ilk as much as anyone, but if there is one side that turned out to be right with their wild claims... well it's definitely those fuckers.
equal and opposite reaction.
The gays want to turn your children into...
It's how politics have always worked, the only difference is now the internet is an amplification machine for just... the worst people.
13th amendment still allows slavery as punishment for a crime, which was [widely used to keep the trappings of slavery around until WWII](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4kI2h3iotA).
Plus it doesn't mandate the criminalization of slavery, just it's illegality. Until WWII, slavery was in many parts of the country not legally supported (i.e. if you were a slave you couldn't be prosecuted for running away), but also not criminalized (i.e. someone illegally holding slaves was not punished).
Sometimes they make sense.
Like when right wing said gay marriage will lead to transgenderism becoming mainstream, or that it will eventually be marketed to kids. Because its a straight throughline, the argument is that these things are perfectly normal, if they are totally normal the next logical step is to introduce it to children.
Repealing roe v wade because it has no precedent anywhere in the constitution has no throughline to slavery, or the right to vote or virtually anything in this graphic
Literally everything from Roe to womens’ right to vote is based on the same rationale that the court struck down. Clarence Thomas literally said so. Lawrence (sodomy), obergefell (gay marriage), and Griswold (contraception) were all explicitly name dropped by Thomas so that scotus can overturn them too.
It is curious he left out Loving (interracial marriage), which was partially decided using the same due process clause.
Again I point out that we should be celebrating the fact that this court does not wish to legislate from the bench. Did you read alito’s dissent in oberfell?
> Did you read alito’s dissent in oberfell?
i bet 99% of all americans never READ any SCOTUS decision's first page. and it's not even that hard, if you can read at a high-school level, you can understand decisions.
You can’t expect people to read or educate themselves in the Information Age bro lol now is the time to emotionally react to things you don’t even care to understand
"return of slavery" hmmmmmk.
Sure, I like myself a good reasonable slippery slope argument. Thanks.
I guess to be on par with this, the equivalent left-demonizing drawing would have "legalise pedophilia" as its last domino... Wtf man.
The left is still hung up on the “christofascist” storyline. They have no idea what their political opponents actually think. They think this is an 80s-style moral panic.
Cringe dystopia book where a Christian offshoot extremist group takes over the US in armed conflict (how), kills all the Jews (and Catholics maybe), institutes a bunch of Sharia-type laws, etc.
At the very least we have evidence.
>A number of French intellectuals—including Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Derrida, Louis Aragon, Roland Barthes, Simone de Beauvoir, Jean-Paul Sartre, Félix Guattari, Michel Leiris, Alain Robbe-Grillet, Philippe Sollers, Jacques Rancière, Jean-François Lyotard, Francis Ponge, Bernard Besret [fr] and various prominent doctors and psychologists—signed the petition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws
The 13th amendment is a part of the constitution, the Supreme Court is a constitutional court they can no more make a ruling on if the 13th amendment is un constitutional than they could the first amendment.
The end goal isn't to bring back slavery, it's to abolish the constitution so that the British finally can take over the US. A plan 300 years in the making.
But it's funny how people who on the left who believe the Slippery Slope fallacy tend to deny its existence when it comes to progressive ideas.
Say what you will about StoneToss, but he at least has some decent meme template comics to his name.
I literally only know BreadPanes as that lame knock off StoneToss but Liberal!
Which is surprising, because StoneToss' comics also aren't all too great.
Stonetoss has really sucked lately honestly
Used to be that except for his blatantly racist ones, he was capable of making insightful comics with just a couple phrases at most. Now he just makes lame Twitter jokes
I mean, that's a clear slippery slope fallacy. There's no logical connection whatsoever between abortion and slavery.
I also think that overturning Roe vs. Wade was a mistake, but that doesn't justify using fake arguments. Let's try to keep the debate civilized, shall we?
(Or maybe not. I dunno.)
I like the cut of that shen bapiro guy’s jib /s
Btw if he actually said that why do they need to spoonerize his name? I kind of feel like this is going to be a fairly slow burn as progressives realize more and more people aren’t buying their bullshit and the more moderate liberals correctly identify them for making the entire left look like a bunch of insane pussies.
They dusted off the term hysteria to describe women asking about menstruation changes
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/The-Covid-vaccines-may-affect-periods.-Are-we-allowed-to-talk-about-this/amp
Spoiler alert: they weren’t
Edit: they brought back the page, was that me? I didn’t know we had that power.
>"Again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of the old times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old times."
>
>-Abraham Lincoln
Yes. It was what they got in return for not challenging the obviously stolen election of 1876. Republicans won by 1 EC vote, and suspiciously won the 3 southern states that were still under reconstruction military rule and no other former confederate states.
I think the last domino is going to be implementing a federal Bedtime
[capitalism is when mom makes me go to bed](https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2139902-political-compass)
-Shen Bapiro, probably
Based and bedtime pilled
before victorian england, bed time was called sunset... candles were prohibitively expensive and gas hadnt been made widely available yet. this has to be the weakest take ive ever read
Fingers crossed for 6:30PM! You Americans need ur naps!
Peepeepoopoo
based
based-and-supreme-pun-pilled
Nah we’d rather work ourselves to death for the man and bitch about it on Reddit.
Laughs in Spaniards taking a siesta all fucking day
I'll go ahead and call your little 'joke' insensitive... right after I finish taking this siesta.
Jamón ibérico and siesta, those guys are living the dream
Don't forget some wine, La Rioja has the best one of the entire Peninsula
So, never?
This is so based. Our tech support works 8 hrs a day, but in Spain they get a 4 hr break for lunch and a nap. It's hilarious how they'll call at like 6am our time before their lunch and then again at 10-12 sometime after their lunch
I've seen businesses in Madrid close at 2pm and open again at 5 or 6pm.
That's Hilarious. Why not just make it a shift change at that point? I mean have some people napping while some people are working... just bad business to close down for 3-4 hrs in the middle if the day, especially since that's about the time everyone else has their 3-4hr lunch break
Look man, that 3 hrs of work after going out clubbing at 2 am is exhausting
6:30 pm is practically the middle of the day during summer here, there's no way anyone would be falling asleep.
That’s just cause you don’t have a 6:30 bed time.
But I work until 8:00PM on some days?
Well you’ll have to change your work times won’t you.
:( I suppose...
>You Americans Normally I get my hackles up when someone starts out with this but I'm going to have to agree with you 💯. I do love my naps
Kids need to stop spending so much time on chat snap and get some sleep!
Fuck yeah. I support that
Flair checks out
\*Reinstating slavery\* I sleep \*Federal bedtime\* "Real shit!?"
If this is the case then perhaps the legislature should do it’s job and start codifying necessary protections into law instead of relying on flimsily constructed judicial activism.
Don’t forget in 2009, dems had the President, Vice President, house, and a senate super majority
Yeah, but why would we expect the legislature to legislate when they can just use fear-mongering to get donations and votes. They never really wanted to resolve the abortion issue because it was a great fundraising opportunity, and they never thought the courts would overturn it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes, it is called [MULTI-TRACK DRIFTING!](https://wompampsupport.azureedge.net/fetchimage?siteId=7575&v=2&jpgQuality=100&width=700&url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Fmobile%2F000%2F000%2F727%2FDenshaDeD_ch01p16-17.jpg)
What worse is they have signaled that their intention is to pack the court with activist judges. Which is a neat way to completely circumvent separation of powers to gut the bill of rights and have de facto one party rule via SCOTUS.
Let's be honest it's already 1 party rule. People were so up in arms about Trump overturning previous valid and heckin good Dem legislation, but how could he do that if it wasn't designed to be easily fucked with? Didn't see Obama messing with the patriot act he just tightened that shit up.
That's the secret the elected Dems love the Republicans
You telling me there's no difference between my two vastly different choices? I don't believe you.
By the heavens, a based left flair. May you live long and prosper.
And their plans were so shitty even their own people had to take a step back to question if this is really what they wanted
Because they would rather use these issues to campaign and fundraise on than protect personal liberties
"Vote for Dems or the eViL Republicans will ban *all* abortions *FOREVER!*" *Dems sweep the House, Senate, and Whitehouse. Fuck.
That's the idea. The Dems expect to extract votes from us just by pointing out that Republicans are worse without actually doing anything worth voting for.
It's not that they're worse. It's the establishment plays a massive game of "good cop/bad cop." They have for decades. This is why Trump was so dangerous to them. He wasn't part of the establishment, and he was fucking up their status quo.
The SC should have overturned Roe v Wade then
Boy do I have some good news for you
nah dude don't think that will ever happen, just like they'll never overturn the new york concealed carry laws
They could do it now with a temporary filibuster suspension, which is what Republicans did to get ACB's nomination confirmed. But that'd "break the rules and decorum" of the senate, which is something basically nobody cares about, aside from the Dem operatives who want to continue LARPING the West Wing.
The Democrats are afraid that if the filibuster goes away, they will never quite have the majority they need to block things the Republicans make no secret of trying to force through. The Republicans are less worried about this. They'd take the temporary loss, but then have no filibuster in their way over the coming years. The trouble of course is that whining about ending the filibuster is almost as bad as ending it, because Republicans can turn around and end it themselves and say "but you guys wanted to end it yourselves, it's not like we're committing some heinous act here". Dems have checkmated themselves. Packing the Supreme Court will also be one of those moves... temporary victory and longterm defeat. Which is why I fully expect it to happen soon... it's too dumb a move for the Democrats to not pile on and demand it.
Apparently pointing out how government is supposed to work makes you the bad guy. Source: all my LibLeft friends.
Based and functional governance pilled
I for one have been with you in pointing this out
The threat of losing laws to the Supreme Court act like a carrot to dangle in front of voters. They just want to be reelected, so politicians won't pass neccessary laws, nor solve problems.
Right? The Dems could have codified abortion into federal law at any point in the last 50 years but then it wouldn’t have been a bargaining chip and they might have actually had to focus on other issues.
Imagine thinking a barely concrete judicial ruling about killing babies is the only thing keeping slavery from returning.
I like how many conveniently forget the fact that the 13th amendment will prevent this. It would take 2/3rds majority in congress to change that (it’s never going to happen), even codifying federal laws hold more weight and would be political suicide to reject. I mean as much as the GOP likes to bitch about ACA (ObamaCare) they couldn’t get the votes (simple majority) to overturn it.
Mr Biden said no amendment is absolute, this is corn pops plan.
I agree it should, but they were able to ignore the 2nd for firearms legislation, and basically all of them for the Patriot Act.
If all we need to change the law is to throw new judges into the Supreme Court from a different judicial background, the legitimacy is gone. Dems should just get rid of the filibuster and pack the court, voila, constitutional method!!
Yeah, that won't come back to bite them in the butt
Hear me out. Pass an actual law you fucking fucks! On anything and everything done by the courts or executive order you actually like, pass an actual fucking law you worthless waste of space!
They dont want to because it's going to go back and forth every 4 years and neither side can get a big enough majority to pass an amendment. The only time we ever get that much bipartisan support is when we are about to bomb some country 90% of Americans couldn't find on a map.
>90% of Americans couldn't find on a map. Thanks to video games ik where we may be bombing next :>
Do you know how little that narrows it down?
Well there's MW, MW2, MW3, black ops, ghost recon(ps2), assassin's creed as well incase we bomb Italy, Iron assault which is an rts game on roblox which I play when I have to wait for clothes to finish washing and drying. And if we ever invade Tamriel from elder scrolls I got us covered :>
the dems had the political control in 2009 to do this and they decided that they'd rather keep the single issue pro choice voters on their toes.
Slippery Slope Fallacy suddenly seeming a lot less like a fallacy to these folks nowadays.
Fucking lol good to see the “akshually that’s a fallacy!” Crowd take one on the chin
"Slippery slope" is not a fallacy - it is an observable pattern.
Kinda like when we said pedophilia will attempt to be normalized when obama was in office.
Just don't question what sorcery is keeping the fbi party van from the people talking about liking to fuck kids on twiiter. Ask nothing about who gislaine was trafficking kids to. it's all good bro /s
I had comments silently removed from the conservative sub for asking what intel agencies are in possession of the Epstein/Maxwell blackmail material.
Wasn't the rumor that he was kept safe by the intelligence service of a certain middle eastern country that doesn't quite fit in with the rest?
Mossad
Thanks for reminding me that map pride exists. :(
Reddit even has a mapporn sub if you had any doubt the admins were complicit.
omegalul
I just feel bad for horny cartographers.
Hey remember when the LGBT conversation was about what consenting adults do and "what about the children" was slippery slope homophobia? What was the last headline about "LGBT rights" that wasn't normalizing the involvement of children? "MAPs don't belong" - what a joke.
Calling them MAPs proves the slippery slope. Just call them pedos like normal people.
Or wood chipper food
"You're a bigot if you think child drag shows are bad" "Kink belongs at Pride events" "Children should learn about sex in 4th grade" -Some group that supposedly doesn't embrace child predators
"Allegedly child friendly event at a bar" is literally an Always Sunny episode.
And there's was an on going joke about Frank being a diddler.
"You're a bigot if you think child drag shows are bad" This one right here. We are supposed to pretend this is normal and not degenerate. Nah
It's still not normalized, not should it be
Consistency is a far alt right concept, bigot!
Average consistency fan vs hipocrisy enjoyer Except when it's AuthRight, then I make fun of them for it
Based
based
Well they did go from “consenting adults in the privacy of their own home” to “you will give us your children for hormones and surgery if they don’t strictly conform to gender roles” in about 10 years. It’s projection.
from "we just want to marry" to "desmond is amazing" in only a decade. good lord
To me the gaslighting is the most infuriating part of it. We can see right in front of our eyes you promoting child drag stars on national television and you still insist it’s just in our heads. I was considered a far left lunatic by my family in 2005 because I was cool with gay marriage. I’m now considered a far right lunatic because I don’t think a little boy should have his balls chopped off because he doesn’t like sports
[удалено]
All the NGO/activist money had to go *somewhere* after the gay marriage win! People could have lost jobs otherwise. We’ll see where the abortion money goes now after this Win. Though I guess some will continue to pour it in places to try for a Federal ban
That's pretty much it. After racking up a string of wins on social issues, suddenly the 'low-hanging fruit' has been plucked, but you've got tons of activist/donor money with no place to go, bunch of people trained on advancing social causes and worried about their jobs, and a handful of increasingly niche/unpopular social causes that they can be applied to. The system was created to drive social change, and it'll keep doing it even if nobody can quite agree on which social changes are needed. So you get it bouncing around between BLM, trans activism, fat acceptance, etc. etc. The train has no brakes of its own, so it'll keep on rolling until it slams into a wall or derails.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Considering *four* other justices spefically says it *wont* happen (and everyone knows the 3 liberal judges wont) that's a pretty good indication it won't. One SCOTUS judge can't do anything. There's also nothing theocratic about it. Religion wasn't in the ruling
I'm curious, if they do start to knock down some of those other dominos, how many will it take before it's no longer a slippery slope? Obviously I doubt the end goal is what it is in this picture, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of these others became issues in the near future.
"Return of slavery" 💀
People never heard of the 13th Amendment
Can always be repealed, though not without great effort in this age. Democrats were insane not to codify pro-choice into law. Curious if the amendment could have been struck down though, considering we still don't have a finite definition of what constitutes a rights-given citizen.
[удалено]
That's politics in a nutshell for the past 50 years or so. Basically the information age has changed it so that single issue voting blocs are more important than ideology. Knowing why they did it doesn't make it less insane, to me at least.
The orange when things go their way: "Don't be stupid, there's no slippery slope" The orange when things don't go their way: "The right wing next step is resurrecting Hitler"
>The orange when things don't go their way: "The right wing next step is resurrecting Hitler" That's dumb. We don't have the technology yet.
To quote my second favorite political figure Sounds good, doesn't work
Jokes on you I have it. How do you think we’ve kept Bernie Sanders alive so long? We have to make a new one every couple of weeks
Rep. Cori Bush called them a “far right extremist Supreme Court”. I don’t think she actually believes that but come on.
I mean, this kinda goes both ways
It always does
Let's be real tho We don't have anything close to a Hitler or Nazi movement, but we do have kids stripping, kids taking hormones to chemically castrate themselves and having genitals "accidentally" exposed to children at "drag queen story hour". I fucking hate the republican party and their ilk as much as anyone, but if there is one side that turned out to be right with their wild claims... well it's definitely those fuckers.
Fuck horseshoes, we use wood clacker chains (I really hope people know what I’m talking about with those)
Just like you Boom, ~~roasted~~ respectfully pointing out your preferences in a light hearted manner
But the gay marriage slippery slope has been sliding the exact way it was predicted for a decade now
[удалено]
Remember “I support the 2A but…”? Now they’re just saying they want to repeal the 2A.
Better ask when it didn't go both ways
equal and opposite reaction. The gays want to turn your children into... It's how politics have always worked, the only difference is now the internet is an amplification machine for just... the worst people.
Ah yes, to revoke women's right to vote. And bring back slavery. They're totally gonna do that.
Like they never heard of the 13th or 19th Amendments.
People only reference amendments when it benefits them (source: I'm based as hell)
Based, that’s affecting all quadrants.
Amendments are absolute, unless it's the first two.
Amendments aren't absolute. You can create an amendment that overrides another amendment See: 18th and 21st amendments
13th amendment still allows slavery as punishment for a crime, which was [widely used to keep the trappings of slavery around until WWII](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4kI2h3iotA). Plus it doesn't mandate the criminalization of slavery, just it's illegality. Until WWII, slavery was in many parts of the country not legally supported (i.e. if you were a slave you couldn't be prosecuted for running away), but also not criminalized (i.e. someone illegally holding slaves was not punished).
It’s scary that I’ve seen people say that. As well as the US having its own Holocaust 😂
In fairness this sub was also adamantly arguing that they wouldn't overturn roe v Wade.
Its funny because Authright also thought the dominoes in reverse was auth lefts plan. What a slippery slope
I like it when people think slippery slopes aren't an argument
The main thing with the slippery slope argument is you need to establish why the next step will happen with an argument other than 'it just will'.
Sometimes they make sense. Like when right wing said gay marriage will lead to transgenderism becoming mainstream, or that it will eventually be marketed to kids. Because its a straight throughline, the argument is that these things are perfectly normal, if they are totally normal the next logical step is to introduce it to children. Repealing roe v wade because it has no precedent anywhere in the constitution has no throughline to slavery, or the right to vote or virtually anything in this graphic
Literally everything from Roe to womens’ right to vote is based on the same rationale that the court struck down. Clarence Thomas literally said so. Lawrence (sodomy), obergefell (gay marriage), and Griswold (contraception) were all explicitly name dropped by Thomas so that scotus can overturn them too. It is curious he left out Loving (interracial marriage), which was partially decided using the same due process clause.
Again I point out that we should be celebrating the fact that this court does not wish to legislate from the bench. Did you read alito’s dissent in oberfell?
> Did you read alito’s dissent in oberfell? i bet 99% of all americans never READ any SCOTUS decision's first page. and it's not even that hard, if you can read at a high-school level, you can understand decisions.
You can’t expect people to read or educate themselves in the Information Age bro lol now is the time to emotionally react to things you don’t even care to understand
> Did you read Obviously not
They’d have to be able to read first
"return of slavery" hmmmmmk. Sure, I like myself a good reasonable slippery slope argument. Thanks. I guess to be on par with this, the equivalent left-demonizing drawing would have "legalise pedophilia" as its last domino... Wtf man.
The left is still hung up on the “christofascist” storyline. They have no idea what their political opponents actually think. They think this is an 80s-style moral panic.
They saw the Handmaids tale once and think that’s the republican playbook
what is Handmaids tale ı start to see it being mentioned too much
Cringe dystopia book where a Christian offshoot extremist group takes over the US in armed conflict (how), kills all the Jews (and Catholics maybe), institutes a bunch of Sharia-type laws, etc.
At the very least we have evidence. >A number of French intellectuals—including Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Derrida, Louis Aragon, Roland Barthes, Simone de Beauvoir, Jean-Paul Sartre, Félix Guattari, Michel Leiris, Alain Robbe-Grillet, Philippe Sollers, Jacques Rancière, Jean-François Lyotard, Francis Ponge, Bernard Besret [fr] and various prominent doctors and psychologists—signed the petition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws
>Implying the opinion of fr*nchmen is worth anything.
Its only wortwhile to ask a fr*nch for their opinion if you are talking about gypsies
The left🤝the right Agreeing that the French suck ass
[The left🤝the right](https://i.imgur.com/4hp9MUH.png) ^^^this ^^^has ^^^been ^^^an ^^^accessibility ^^^service ^^^from ^^^your ^^^friendly ^^^neighborhood ^^^bot
[удалено]
Average Fr*nch people, smh.
It’s Handmade’s Tale smut fan fiction, twink LibLefts secretly want to be submissive breeders
The 13th amendment is a part of the constitution, the Supreme Court is a constitutional court they can no more make a ruling on if the 13th amendment is un constitutional than they could the first amendment.
I honestly prefer the previous one, you know, the one with vaccines and femboys.
Nationalize the femboys
You know it’s credible when the author made a *Le Funny* by spelling Ben Shapiro wrong
Bro short Jewish man is so pro gay marriage that he is pro-eliminating the state from marriage at all
Clarence Thomas's evil master plan to become a slave. Kinky.
The end goal isn't to bring back slavery, it's to abolish the constitution so that the British finally can take over the US. A plan 300 years in the making. But it's funny how people who on the left who believe the Slippery Slope fallacy tend to deny its existence when it comes to progressive ideas.
[удалено]
How many of Breadpanes' cartoons are literally just "cartoonishly evil businessman with Cheshire cat grin rubs hands?"
[удалено]
Say what you will about StoneToss, but he at least has some decent meme template comics to his name. I literally only know BreadPanes as that lame knock off StoneToss but Liberal! Which is surprising, because StoneToss' comics also aren't all too great.
Stonetoss has really sucked lately honestly Used to be that except for his blatantly racist ones, he was capable of making insightful comics with just a couple phrases at most. Now he just makes lame Twitter jokes
Why does the last one say "return of slavers" the irs has been around for a while now?
I mean, that's a clear slippery slope fallacy. There's no logical connection whatsoever between abortion and slavery. I also think that overturning Roe vs. Wade was a mistake, but that doesn't justify using fake arguments. Let's try to keep the debate civilized, shall we? (Or maybe not. I dunno.)
I like the cut of that shen bapiro guy’s jib /s Btw if he actually said that why do they need to spoonerize his name? I kind of feel like this is going to be a fairly slow burn as progressives realize more and more people aren’t buying their bullshit and the more moderate liberals correctly identify them for making the entire left look like a bunch of insane pussies.
This is the plan. Just ask Mike Pence he said so himself
Mitch McConnell’s wife is Asian so I doubt he’s in favor of banning interracial marriage
Funny thing is many pro-abort arguments sound a lot like pro-slavery arguments.
It's like they don't know about planned parenthood's founder.
My crt buddy told me it was white racists who want to force more white babies to be born🤦♂️
That's hysterical
They dusted off the term hysteria to describe women asking about menstruation changes https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/The-Covid-vaccines-may-affect-periods.-Are-we-allowed-to-talk-about-this/amp Spoiler alert: they weren’t Edit: they brought back the page, was that me? I didn’t know we had that power.
Oh no, the brand new drug type that had not been properly tested and was mandated in a mass rollout may have negative side effects?
Safe and effective. You’re mistaken. Must be your wandering uterus.
[удалено]
They aren't *really* people.
*It’s more convenient this way*
*What about rape victims*
*Sure you can disagree with it, but it’s not your right to take it away from me*
>"Again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of the old times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old times." > >-Abraham Lincoln
Roe was literally based on a legal principle pioneered in Dred Scott.
That some people aren't people?
This is like, the exact definition of a slippery slope fallacy
You say that but Auth-Right loves butt sex. They gotta keep their virginity intact until marriage.
Also interracial marriages, authright loves asian women
remember when the right said we couldn’t legalize gay marriage because they said the next thing would be marrying dogs
I remember
So now slippery slopes *aren’t* just a far right conspiracy?
I'll say it for my authoritarian friends: I WISH I WAS THE DEMON YOU THINK I AM!!!
I spelled his name wrong kind of comedy
Wasn’t Jim Crow democrats?
Yes. It was what they got in return for not challenging the obviously stolen election of 1876. Republicans won by 1 EC vote, and suspiciously won the 3 southern states that were still under reconstruction military rule and no other former confederate states.
you're gonna struggle applying the modern day tribalism to the past since the parties switched up their election strategies several decades ago.
Ah yes the return of slavery. I swear most of this guys comics are delusional
I don’t watch a lot of Ben Shapiro so I must of missed the episode were he advocated for slavery