They aren’t being economically prevented from getting an education. As I said earlier, most have access to free education within the prison system, and 42% complete an additional level of education while incarcerated https://www.newamerica.org/insights/equipping-individuals-life-beyond-bars/results. I don’t think you understand the huge difference between that and having laws against teaching you to read.
You say that in safety while others suffer the consequences of your actions.
Yes, you made several incorrect claims about education. Not only are they not denied higher education like you originally claimed, but they are also given free lower education. Slaves were legally barred from being educated. I don’t understand why this stark difference is so difficult to understand.
What does the age of my account have to do with anything? I would not be at all surprised if you made as many incorrect claims when your account was one day old as you make today, but I also would not be surprised if you made fewer incorrect claims then either.
You nor I said they were prevented from being taught to read
It was illegal to teach slaves to read. It is not illegal to teach prisoners to read. On the contrary, most prisons have adult basic education or high school equivalency programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-literacy_laws_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfla1
By saying that chattel slavery is the only real slavery, you are absolutely minimizing the horrors of today
I never said that. I said that imprisonment is nowhere near chattel slavery, and saying that it is whitewashes how bad chattel slavery was.
You did it again! The gap between imprisonment and chattel slavery is much larger than the gap between imprisonment and wage slavery. It’s not even close, but you’re saying the opposite.
There is no way that Elizabeth Holmes would submit to chattel slavery, but she calls imprisonment “hell,” and she is far off the mark. https://people.com/elizabeth-holmes-breaks-her-silence-in-first-interview-from-prison-it-s-been-hell-and-torture-exclusive-8789737
They are denied one specific grant for higher education, but they are taught for free within the prison system and can pay for outside education themselves. This is different from being barred by law from learning to read.
Your link does not say that they are denied by law from testifying in abuse cases. It just says that prison abuse happens.
Their children are more likely to end up in prison, but they are not bound by law to the prison that their parents were in.
Prisons do not force divorce.
By saying that imprisonment is literally slavery, you are absolutely minimizing the horrors of chattel slavery.
You called me a centrist, but I’m really a progressive with a brain. We have the same goals. I’m the only one who presented a realistic way of reaching them.
All you got from voting blue no matter who was universal healthcare, gay rights, sanctions on settlers, emissions reductions, banking regulations, etc. By continuing to vote blue no matter who, all you would have gotten was the public option (single payer), continued emissions reductions via cap and trade or carbon tax, universal childcare, progress towards the two state solution (via follow through on the Oslo Accords instead of Iraqi shenanigans), trans rights, etc. All you got by burning everything down was faster genocide, removing healthcare subsidies, more oil dependence, removal of black and minority history from national parks, the Iran war, mass removal of legal status followed by deportation, penalties against abortion, etc. Even if you aren’t directly harmed because you’re sitting in a position of privilege, burning everything down has real and immediate consequences for the people you claim you want to help, me among them.
You say you’re not a conservative or a Russian bot, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… Now if you’d like to debate what actually works instead of throwing innuendo around, be my guest. I’ll watch your reply.
Whoosh. Reread the thread, champ.
Easy. Vote blue no matter who. Then primary the party further left. That’s the only workable solution. If anyone tells you otherwise, ask them on which planet their solution works. You think NYC could have gone straight from Giuliani to Mamdani? Fuhgeddaboudit.
New London School is joke to you?
You’re whitewashing how bad chattel slavery was. Slaves were separated from their spouses by sale. Slaves’ children were automatically enslaved. Slaves were legally barred from being educated. They were not allowed to testify in court, so even laws against extreme abuse could not be enforced.
It’s never “bothsidesing” if you take a position.
Responding to your opponent’s strongest argument is steelmanning, and it’s always good practice if you want to convince people instead of just get clicks.
The person I replied to said that the US vetoed the Resolution. I pointed out that it did not and cannot veto the Resolution. It passed.
No, it’s not. Your confusion probably stems from the fact that the US has veto power over UN Security Council Resolutions. It cannot veto Resolutions passed by the General Assembly. This was a General Assembly Resolution.
No, it’s not. This resolution was adopted with a vote of 186-2-0. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3954949?ln=en&v=pdf
The article would be better if it linked to the reasons for the no votes and critiqued them. Otherwise, it’s just low effort outrage bait. To be clear, I don’t think the no votes were justified. I just don’t like low effort outrage bait.
Edit: Not https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
This will actually be solved in a week. All it takes is to add the current time to each input.