- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Left was posted by the staff. Right was posted by the owner.
I don’t understand this meme.
They welcome everyone but bathroom is for paying customers only.
The real joke is that somebody out there thinks this is making a profound point.
Liberals ultimately agree that capitalism is the way to structure society (but make it inclusive and give people rights, etc etc), while the secondary sign shows exactly where that inclusive line is drawn.
Liberals ultimately believe that the free market is all that’s needed.
Neoliberals think the free market just need a slight nudge.
Liberalism is closer to what the right wing turned the word Libertarian into today.
found the liberal
Edit: it’s a meta joke
the subtext of the meme is: liberals pay lip service to “supporting” marginalized groups, but refuse to help when their own interests are on the line (e.g. can people who aren’t customers use the bathroom in the store? no, because making money comes first)
"This is a safe space for all vulnerable groups (that pay money to us)
deleted by creator
Remind me of Orwell.
“All animals are equal. Some, however are more equal than others.”
Real life Ferengi.
I always did like how the Ferengi found human slavery abhorrent.
But also didn’t really acknowledge that their women were effectively slaves.
As long as you can pay you can pee…
You can pee for free and thousands of other places, including your house. I am allowed to put rules of who can pee and shit in my bathroom.
But what if everyone in that street decides to do the same? Then there are no longer thousands of other places. If I’m an hour away from home and you don’t let people use your shop’s bathroom I think it’s fair to assume you might end up with some problems.
There’s public toilets. You might even go to a different street.
That depends on where you are. Usually the public toilets are provided by nearby establishments though, right?
Nope, those a private toilets in establishments “open to the public”, where refusal of admission applies.
Public toilets are operated by the city or some other government body (highway authorities, airports - which might be technically privately owned, regional government, etc).
And they will stop welcoming any of those if it benefits them financially.
Who is they? Do you even know who you’re talking about to make such an assumption?
Normally “they” (and other pronouns) refer to the subject or the topic of the previous context. In this case, to the pictured venue displayed as a metaphor. I hope this clears things for you and cheers you up the little bit you need.
I’m aware of what they means grammatically, but thank you anyway.
Please name the they in this case. If know this company and their previous history to know how they will react in the future, then I’d like to know who it is.
Otherwise, you’re just throwing a blanket statement.
There are plenty of businesses around me that would not bend the knee. I’m sorry you live in a place that doesn’t have that.
Please refer to the second sentence of the comment you are answering to.
We should run the government like a business
Yes but no.
Do they welcome a union?
restrooms must be a right… ;(
Food, housing and fair wages (especially to foreign workers) aren’t even rights to these people, i highly doubt they’re going to consider that
;(
i wan post scarciti world for evryone aldri ;(
What a world that would be. I’d love that too.
We have the resources to feed, house, build and improve the life of so many in the global south/world in general. It’s due to imperialism and capitalism that we choose not to.
yisyis i kno… there is no “scarcity” if we were to… share! <3
be the change you want to see :spongebob_rainbow.png:
Neoliberalism is the belief in inequality based on class.
Fascism is the belief in inequality based on identity.
No wonder, it’s just a small hop.
That’s pretty much rainbow capitalism, which is but a small part of liberalism.
In reality, liberalism is much worse when it comes to things like human rights, singing it’s praises and championing democracy and freedom while committing/supporting atrocities, like Bill Clinton administration’s war crimes, Tony Blair’s invasion of Iraq, EU’s anti-immigration barbarism, Trudeau’s arms sales, current Israel Palestine genocide, etc.
It’s baffling how many regular people call themselves liberal while not seeing the contradictions/utter hypocrisy. Even on ideological level, you can’t support things such as equality and free-market economics, they directly go against one another.
like Bill Clinton administration’s war crimes
Not defending liberalism, especially the Third Way perspective popularized by the Clinton’s. However, when you are talking about Clinton and war crimes are you talking about the war in Bosnia?
Imo intervening in an ethnic cleansing is just about the only decent reason to go to war in the first place. There were plenty of war crimes going around in Bosnia, but the vast majority of them were happening to the Bosniaks, whom the Clinton administration was aiding.
Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory on the suspicion that it was being used to manufacture bioweapons. Even if it were, it was still a war crime. But it probably wasn’t, and many suspected Clinton of deliberately killing people to distract from his infidelity scandal. That’s what most people think of when they hear “Clinton war crimes.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory
But yeah, in Bosnia, he said he was helping genocide victims, but one way he did this is bombing civilian targets.
Liberalism is the closest thing to an ideology capitalists will ever have.
I saw a yard sign once that said “all are welcome here”, right next to the “no trespassing” sign. Struck me as contradictory and made me curious what it meant to them.
“all are welcome here”, right next to the “no trespassing” sign
I read that as “I don’t care who you are or what you look like, just make sure you’re invited first”
All are welcome here was a campaign for welcoming refugees, I think. The no trespassing was for people wanting to fish from the river bank on their property that bordered public land, most of whom are first generation immigrants, Hispanic or Hmong. I interpreted it “people are welcome in our country, just not like, HERE.” I mean, I get it, but it had some of the same energy as this post.
Just FYI most places, if the water is navigable (usually around 3ft) there’s a right of way a few feet either side of the bank.
Not a great idea to get into an argument with the land owner but legally it might give them some cover regarding fishing access.
On the left is just a list of people that are willing to accept money from
Is this really a definition of liberalism or is it the definition of being liberal in a capitalist society?
What’s the difference?
Why should a private business be anymore responsible for providing a public restroom than you should be for offering a restroom to the public vs reserving it for yourself and guests in your home?
If you pay taxes it should be on the government or local community to provide public availability to restrooms that are maintained with the tax dollars you and people in your community pay.
No political orientation gives you unlimited time to clean the bathrooms.
