Seleni

Mexicans were often among the first to be laid off after the crash of 1929. When combined with endemic harassment, many sought to return to Mexico.

They were run out of town by racist shitheads. They didn’t have much of a choice.

From what I can tell, it’s based off the state the parent lives in.

Just because you haven’t heard of it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, or doesn’t happen. Another poster already linked the Wikipedia article, but they’re called Filial Responsibility Laws. The states that have them are:

Alaska Arkansas California Connecticut Delaware Georgia Indiana Kentucky Louisiana Massachusetts Mississippi Nevada New Jersey North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia West Virginia

Iowa used to but they got rid off them in 2015.

Nope, USA does it too.

And the hell of it is, the government can force you to. They have full authority to garnish your wages and give it to your parents, even if you don’t want to support them.

Dude… these guys go there because us western women are ‘too woke’, ‘too feminist’, ‘don’t understand traditional gender roles’ (i.e. we refuse to be a housebound sex slave) etc, etc.

They’re told that women in X country (Mexico, Japan, and Thailand are the usual culprits listed) are submissive, traditional, uneducated, and you can just buy one, instead of, you know, actually working at building a relationship.

They don’t bother to learn the culture. They don’t bother to even learn the language. They believe that, because they’re white, all they have to do is show up and wave money around and every woman will fall all over their epic alpha maleness.

These guys are just gross.

Making abortion illegal and declaring Christianity the state religion. That’s pretty much it.

The line to draw, I feel, is are you attacking institutions (i.e. smashing the windows of Wall Street, chaining yourself to the doors of the police station), or people (like the loons here in Oregon attacking minority families during the fires)? Are you harassing oppressed groups (like kristallnacht did) or the overpowered establishment (like Blair Mountain did)?

(Obviously, punching individual Nazis is still fine.)

But really, at the end of the day, violence is still violence, and while it may be the right action, it is never a good action. That is something I feel all protesters need to keep in mind.

To paraphrase Dan Shive, there are times when you best (or only) choices lie between the least-bad and most-bad options. And when that happens, humans tend to try and rationalize the least-bad choice as being the good one. This is a trap. If you start to think of the least-bad choice as a good choice, pretty soon you start to believe it—and then you stop looking for the actual good options.

Even if an actual good option—like a nonviolent protest—isn’t feasible for one situation, you should always try to find a truly good option, if you can. That’s why the combo of violent protests on one side, peaceful group on the other, tends to get the best results.

Good for you. History disagrees with your disagreeing.

Look up Malcom X, the Black Panthers, and the Battle of Blair Mountain sometime. Pretty much every victory oppressed groups have won has had to draw blood in order to win the day.

MLK didn’t; Malcom X did. MLK’s underlying message was ‘acknowledge my peaceful protest, or you get stuck with his less peaceful protest’. Peaceful protesting alone tends to get you a whole lot of nothing.

Edit: of course, most history classes seem to forget Malcom X even existed, because the ‘just peacefully protest over in that corner and don’t bother us, it will totally make us change our ways’ narrative is much more desirable for certain demographics.

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

-Martin Luther King Jr

Got a lot of the same vibes, really

Be great for getting things off the top shelf ;)