this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
1002 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2375 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EatMyDick@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nah. It's really not and plenty of them are plenty mature enough to handle simple shit. I washed dishes and did blue berry reading at 14. Low risk, brought in extra money for my hobbies, saved up and got my my first car, taught me the value of money and physical labor. All extremely positive factors in developing my youth.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Sorry, why should a middle schooler be doing physical labor? This sounds like nightmare capitalism.

[–] SuperSleuth@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Sure, if you ignore all of human history it sounds like nightmare capitalism.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You mean all of human history when we had things like slavery and women as property? Yeah, we should keep doing that stuff too, right?

[–] SuperSleuth@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, you're making up things to be angry at. Children working existed before capitalism.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And who suggested it didn't? Oh yeah. No one.

[–] SuperSleuth@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Once again, you misinterpreted. I simply restated my point.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your point is irrelevant. We all know children working existed before capitalism. No one suggested it didn't.

[–] SuperSleuth@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sorry, why should a middle schooler be doing physical labor? This sounds like nightmare capitalism.

That kinda implies capitalism is the cause, no? Or will you just completely ignore that and continue to misinterpret my comments.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

...no? That's why the word "nightmare" is there. If it were solely being blamed on capitalism, they'd just say "that sounds like typical capitalism".

It's like the "toxic masculinity" argument all over again. No, saying "blue coat" does not mean all coats are blue.

[–] SuperSleuth@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay brother. If you're going to be pedantic I'll just stop here.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You call that pedantic? That's a pretty major detail to ignore, dude. Sounds to me like you just saw the word "capitalism" in a negative light and abandoned all reason. If you can't figure out how adjectives work, go back to English class.

[–] dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your argument is really "we did it before, so it's fine"? We did a ton of things before that aren't ok. Historical usage of a thing doesn't make it ok.

[–] SuperSleuth@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No. Children working existed before capitalism, you're grasping straws coming up with that conclusion of what I said.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

All of human history before capitalism? That makes no sense. How could you have a nightmare form of capitalism before it even existed? Get it together, dude.

We live in capitalism. Therefore, making life worse makes this a worse version of capitalism. Get it now?

[–] EatMyDick@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Because there is very little risk to health and safety and I don't see an issue with teens making extra money of the side. You all are just out to be angry and rage at news.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Weird, because UNICEF seems to disagree. But hey, they don't work in benefits and taxation, so what would they know about child mental and physical health?

[–] EatMyDick@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Roughly 160 million children were subjected to child labour at the beginning of 2020, with 9 million additional children at risk due to the impact of COVID-19. This accounts for nearly 1 in 10 children worldwide. Almost half of them are in hazardous work that directly endangers their health and development.

Children may be driven into work for various reasons. Most often, child labour occurs when families face financial challenges or uncertainty – whether due to poverty, sudden illness of a caregiver, or job loss of a primary wage earner.

The consequences are staggering. Child labour can result in extreme bodily and mental harm, and even death. It can lead to slavery and sexual or economic exploitation. And in nearly every case, it cuts children off from schooling and health care, restricting their fundamental rights."

Lmaoooooo you are comparing working in a restaurant to sex trafficking. Top notch shit 👍🤣.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, just as 'top notch' as suggesting it's good for children to make bloated plutocrat corporatists richer off the sweat of their backs rather than enjoy their childhoods because "it never hurt me."

And, by the way, what exactly do you think will happen to young teenage girls tending bar? Do you think they won't be sexually harassed by drunk older men, possibly raped?

Or did you forget that this was about allowing young girls to serve alcohol to drunk adults?

[–] EatMyDick@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Realistically I don't think you'd even notice a blip on the radar. I've found most bars are extremely productive of staff especially women. They are far more likely to be raped at home or with friends. I think this is a lot of truthiness and imaginations running wild.

[–] NekoRiv@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 year ago

Spoken like a true man. Go ahead and Google the percentage of women who were sexually assaulted before the age of 18.

Better yet, here's a link laurenskids.org/awareness/about-faqs/facts-and-stats/

[–] Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I don't care how nice or high-end your bar is, children don't belong in a bar. And it doesn't matter how protective the bar is of staff, a place where adults gather to drink alcohol is a completely inappropriate environment for children.

[–] Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

A 16yro with a job vs a 14 yro with a job is a HUGE difference. Those 2 years are massive in development. 14 yro's should not have a real job yet