WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

1.1K

Archive link for those who love captchas: https://archive.ph/nSWRh

Archive link for those who love captchas: https://archive.ph/nSWRh

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] 4 pts

Who gives a fuck? Let the courts take the niglet away.

“Given that the child is of mixed race, it would seem apparent that the presence of the flag is not in the child’s best interests, as the mother must encourage and teach the child to embrace her mixed race identity, rather than thrust her into a world that only makes sense through the tortured lens of cognitive dissonance,”

[–] 2 pts

Precedence. The mother isn't allowed to display this type of speech.

They'll chip away at it, starting with this coal burner, until the courts dictate how we all raise our kids.

[–] 0 pt

Misleading title. The other parent will likely get full custody...NOT the state.

[–] 1 pt (edited )

Move that overton window just a little bit more. Inch by inch. This is not a valid reason to take your kids, despite what the state decides to do with them.

[–] 1 pt

I agree with a big however. When you choose to involve the state through marriage or divorce you are also consenting to their judgements. I dont play those games, so I dont win those prizes.

[–] 0 pt

“Given that the child is of mixed race, it would seem apparent that the presence of the flag is not in the child’s best interests, as the mother must encourage and teach the child to embrace her mixed race identity, rather than thrust her into a world that only makes sense through the tortured lens of cognitive dissonance,”

Wat?

[–] 0 pt

lol unlikely

How’s them freedumbs working out for you ‘murikan’ts?

Whereas I can buy a Nazi uniform in three places that I know of within 30min of my house.