Whenever I see the phrase (on tumblr, on reddit, on the web in general), it is generally being used by liberals to highlight something that we think conservatives would wildly disapprove of and liberals would applaud.

I've posted some images lower down (or higher up depending how you sort the thread I guess) about it, and don't want to post them again, but they give you the general idea. Mostly -- when I see it -- the phrase is used by liberals to mock conservatives about their views about how open and free the liberals think the world will be, and how truly appalling that will be and how sad and terrible a place it will become.

So in this instance (and now that I am explaining this you get getting way more of a look into my head than I ever thought anyone would) my implication is that conservatives have set up a situation where if Harris wins, the term "First Female President of the USA" will refer to a black lady by default.

This generally isn't the case in most western countries. (Sad, but true). When a "first female" something happens (Prime Minister, Leader of The House of Commons, Director of The Met Orchestra, head of a union, head of the space program, head of anything -- the first woman in any of these posts is generally white. This is true in the UK, and it is almost certainly true in America. (Unless the post is "head of an organisation specifically aimed at black people" then there's usually an exception)

This is why when most "First woman" to hold a role (Prime Minister, Head of The Met, Lead Conductor of The Met etc) their race isn't mentioned at all because no one thinks twice about it.

But if Harris becomes the First Female President, then the Second Female President (if she is white) would have to be noted as "The First Female White President" or just "The Second Female President"

It is just something that some people find interesting, and kind of funny.

It is also something that a lot of people wouldn't think about, because the missing word in "First Female" would never occur to them.

Ditto.

I am also from Europe (the UK specifically) and whether someone is going to be the best person in the whole history of humanity or (for want of a better phrase) the most idle, useless wastrel known to humankind I still believe they deserve the basic support of the welfare system, and shouldn't be left to starve to death on the streets. Because what does it say about a society that does that to someone?

You don't help someone for a reward, or for what you will get out of them, you help them because they are a human being who needs help.

And if you need a better reason (because clearly some people do) you help them because if you were in that situation you hope someone would help you.

I was going to ask what countries the aid goes to, and what classes as aid.

I think the point being made is this :- teachers find a job. Then they teach. They produce the product (knowledge) which is given to kids and teenagers.

Kids and teenagers do not pay for this. They go to school (up to a given age) for free. And everyone seems happy with this point of view. Education is a right.

And sure -- teachers don't have a fundamental right to a teaching job, but that isn't the point. The point is kids have a fundamental right to the product the teachers make -- knowledge.

Let's go another way with this.

I don't know if you have any kids or not -- this is entirely hypothetical. But I have discovered people think more about a topic the less abstract it is.

You have two kids, aged 4 and 5. Then you get hit by an asteroid that kills you. No one else can take them in.

Wouldn't you like for the state to look after them? To at least give them food, water, shelter and care until they grow up until they are eighteen? To do all this whether they can earn their way or not? To do it just because it is the right thing to do?

Not because they believe the kids will pay them back or be worth something when they grow up, but because they believe the kids have worth now simply because they are living, sentient human beings?

Or would you rather that your kids are left out on the street to die? forced to make their own way in the world at the age of 4 and 5? that they will only be fed if they can show they have worth?

Just curious.

Reddit is France now?

"Can you believe this SoleInvictus guy? I just write a simple comment and now he's got me talking directly to the internet in some sort of fourth wall break thing? I mean is that even a thing with the internet, given that it doesn't even have a wall?" (Gabe shrugs) "Or is it an infinite wall break, what with all the monitors, phones, tablets, smart tvs and the like I must be staring out at this point?" (looks around with a paranoid expression) "Well, thanks for listening, but I'm going somewhere I can sit down and have a nice cup of Bovril" (slowly backs away into the shadows until nothing remains but the after image)

In my defence (and okay, it's a very limited and crappy defence) my post said "According to the debate, they had their reasons. But still – when one hundred and eighty six nations say one thing, and two say another, you have to wonder about the two."

So I sort of presented a balanced argument. Not a very balanced one, but I did present an attempt at putting America and Israel's side, even if it was a half-arsed one.

Is it propaganda if it's true?

The OP checked. The OP knows it was from 2021.

The OP also likes talking about himself in the third person. Because The OP thinks its fun.

In most of The Twilight Zones I watch the puppet ends up killing the parents, taking over the kid and staring at the camera going "Who's a good boy?"

Which, okay, does kind of sound like the relationship between Israel and the USA but that's beside the point

(grin) It's more of a generic thing.

The phrase "This is the future liberals want" is something you see a lot on tumblr, and sometimes other places :)