The statement itself shouldn’t be political in its sentiment, but obviously the organization exists and it has its own policy positions, events, advocacy, and I can go to their website to donate. I think it’s fairly obvious which one Whole Foods would be concerned with.
The Greeks figured this a couple thousand years ago and we’re just now catching up. SMH!
Poor diet, alcohol abuse, and tobacco use can all certainly be attributed to corporate malfeasance in at least some part.
What are the ages of the generations here? I’m just curious because it’s rare enough to have a living great-grandparent, let alone a great-great-grandparent (in relation to your children) in the same house. And how did this end up falling to you?
I get incredibly anxious about her finding incriminating things that I didn’t do and I know don’t actually exist, but what if they do somehow?
I don’t think anyone would confuse military service with freedom.
No problem meaning they shouldn’t care about not being able to wear it? Or that the French government shouldn’t care in the first place?
Probably exactly what has been reported. Putin waited for things to settle, weakened Wagner troops by taking their weapons and splitting their numbers, then they killed leadership. Occam’s razor certainly points to this.
But, of course, the way it was done certainly leaves the door open for conspiracies.
It’s just sinking with style
Group A was wronged by entity B. Group A goes to court to seek restitution from entity B. Courts rule that entity B did in fact cause damages to group A and must be held liable.
That’s all reparations are. Entity B is your government. It’s the same legal entity as it was 190 years ago, regardless of the composition of the population it represents. If a group was wronged by their government, this is their only means to legal restitution. Unfortunately since the primary form of income for some governments is taxation, it means people complain about paying for things when that’s not exactly what’s happening.
The alternative is to say that if a government “runs out the clock” and is able to avoid responsibility until the population turns over, then they can no longer be held liable for anything they did prior to that point. That’s not a very good position, in my opinion.
The issue of climate change is routinely one of the most important issues for young people, so perhaps she played a role in that.
The question itself is pretty useless because how could we possibly quantify a single activist’s contribution to a global issue?
This would cover things like hunting and/or target practice at a home or private property, so not entirely that weird.
Joining lemmy.world. Internet is world wide web. Become WorldWideLem.
If the company you’re representing would prefer you didn’t, then sure.
Let’s use another example, if someone was a big supporter of fascism and was wearing a hat or mask that said, “save fascists”, would you prefer the store couldn’t prevent them from wearing that?
How bad would the phrase have to get to change your mind?