Beware the Marxist world of Kamalla Harris: "There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

[Ghost of a Rider]

What? If you want to argue something I said was factually wrong then present it. I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. You make these so long and tedious.

I wasn't going to go back and copy/paste every quote from the dialogue string. But rest assured, I did backtrack the string and found that the origins of it go back ten days (eleven days now).

You claimed I had "all these thirsty questions" about something you said to someone else. But you didn't address it him in that particular post, you addressed it to me and it was a continuation of the dialogue string that started eleven days ago about capitalism being a fact of life.

Are taxes some fundamental change to our system? Don't we already have a progressive tax system?

Irrelevant. The point was not progressive tax, the point was you saying: "I was responding to your strawman suggesting that I thought eliminating billionaires was necessary for social safety nets."
I then cited your quotes saying you want higher taxes for social safety nets. You also want progressive and higher taxes on the rich. I can only assume that since you want higher and progressive taxes on the rich and higher taxes for social safety nets, that some of this higher tax revenue for social safety nets will come from the rich.

Am I wrong?

You're the one who asked what right I was referring to. I clarified. I was talking about the legal right to vote. It's okay to ask for context. You're the one unable to provide any for your arguments. What's fundamental that I want to change? You can't even explain what the fuck that means...

Wrong. That had nothing to do with rights. I said it was not necessary to eliminate billionaires for more social safety nets. You said that was not what you were saying. So I then asked if it was necessary for the spreading of wealth. You said Nope. So I cited multiple quotes from you saying you wanted to eliminate billionaires (or make it impossible to become one) for the purpose of spreading resources and wealth.

It's no wonder you can't follow what I'm saying, you can't even follow what you're saying.

Force is what creates private ownership of resources from which all wealth is derived.

Right. So I'll ask again: What difference does force make if you have just as much right to get rich as anyone else?

Put another way, if you have used or have taken advantage of this same force to acquire or keep your private property, why bring it up?

Which still doesn't mean demand drives productivity. It's only a part of it.

If you have little or no demand, how much are you going to produce?

Of course it does. Companies and businesses use natural resources combined with labor to produce products. How does anyone come to own natural resources in the first place again? Force.

First of all, you said sharing profits. You've also said sharing resources. But profits and resources are not the same thing, especially if you're talking about natural resources as you said above.

Secondly, companies pay for the natural resources (raw materials) they acquire to produce their products.

You're just not bright enough to understand the relevance despite this tedious back and forth where it's been explained to you over and over.

You're not bright enough to answer a yes or no question with "Yes" or "No".

I asked the question if you wanted to force companies through violence to give profits to workers that had no part in the initial investment or work to create and build the company. All you said was that the company acquired their resources through force.

1.) As I mentioned above, profit and resources are two different things.
2.) Companies purchase the resources to make their products, they don't take them by force.

That's because the government is the agent of force. Your property rights are protected by the force of law. If they weren't who the fuck would respect your claim to them?

The law is there to preclude force and violence, dumbass. They are meant to deter the kind of actions you would have the government do.

You seem to be arguing that because our property is protected by the force of law, that property can be taken and shared with undeserving others through force of law. Again, that is not democratic.

But you can justify force to impose private ownership of natural resources in the first place?

If a company purchases natural resources - and they do - then I don't see any "force to impose private ownership of natural resources" to justify.

We're talking about force. Apparently you think your subjective use of force is more justified than someone elses subjective use of force. Why?

You think your subjective use of force is more justified than someone else's so what's your point? You've been arguing for days why you think it's justified to force companies to share profits.

It does not behoove you to point an accusing finger for what you've been doing for days. It makes you look like a floundering hypocrite.

What does fairly achieve mean? Who's idea of fair? Yours or mine? What I've given thought to and what you haven't is whether fair is an objective measurement or a subjective one.

Don't be an idiot.

I don't care what you feel the purpose of this country's founding was about.

You don't care about anything but the government giving you what you didn't earn.

Better is subjective, I didn't suggest otherwise and I consider an employee's labor to be investment in the company.

"What does fairly achieve mean? Who's idea of fair? Yours or mine? What I've given thought to and what you haven't is whether fair is an objective measurement or a subjective one."

I didn't suggest otherwise either but you nevertheless took yet another opportunity to quote objectivism/subjectivism scripture at me.

Having said that, labor is an investment insofar as it is necessary to produce product. The laborer is compensated with pay and that is the company's investment. The laborer is not building the company or contributing in any way other than performing his job. He is not entitled to profits unless he is financially invested.

Yep.

"Yep"? Do you understand what this means? It means the company is investing in the labor, not the laborer.

Time and labor is a greater investment in my eyes than someone just investing money.

He invests his time and labor and his pay is his "profit".

He contributed hits labor and I don't care about your opinion about what they should get.

"I don't care! I don't care!"

You sound like a kindergartner.

No you don't. You don't seem to understand that laws are force.

I understand that laws were made to protect life and property for the most part. You want laws that take property.

And as I mentioned before your property rights are protected by the force of law. Who would care what you claim to own without it?

People who care about such things. Apparently, you don't.

Laws are there to protect life and property from those who would take it without asking. But most people would not, me included.

Even without laws, I have no desire to take someone's property that I know was paid for with their own labors just as mine was. That's called empathy and trust, two more traits you apparently lack.

You seem to have this idea that without laws, everyone would be after your shit. But this kind of thinking can only come from someone who wants to take everyone's shit without asking. The only difference is, you want the government to do it for you.

Why should the masses accept rampant inequality when they could use the force of law to change it?

"What does fairly achieve rampant inequality mean? Who's idea of fair inequality? Yours or mine? What I've given thought to and what you haven't is whether fair inequality is an objective measurement or a subjective one."

Laws are force. Private ownership of resources requires force. I don't care if you're okay with force for one thing and not okay with force for the other, that's your opinion and I don't care about your opinion.

"I don't care! I don't care! So nyah!"

I'm okay with force to protect what is mine. I'm NOT okay with force to take what is mine to give to someone else.

Like I said, you're conflating the issue of force and my arguments about it.

All your feelings, your apathy, everything specifically related to your perspective on billionaires is your subjective opinion.

Irrelevant. You mischaracterized my position about billionaires as an assertion that they should exist. I said nothing of the sort.

Your feelings on my feelings are still your subjective feelings, Dumbass.

No shit. It still means I am not arguing feelings for billionaires, I am arguing feelings against your opinions of what we should do with them. I'm arguing in the interest of fairness and personal accountability and responsibility. You're arguing in the interest of punishing the rich and taking what is not yours.

What does having the right to be as rich as they choose have to do with anything I'm talking about?

Duh. If YOU have the right to choose to be rich just like any rich person, why should I consider your arguments for sharing wealth?

What is this fact relevant to? They are able to do so through the ownership of natural resources.

Which they purchase with income from the business.

Your arguments.

You're gonna have to do better than that. What, specifically did I say to give you the idea I favor capital over labor?

And? Our national defense is socialized,

We are not a socialist state, a few social programs notwithstanding.

This is yet another misconception by you "Let's share the wealth and sing 'Kumbaya'" people. People like me have no problem with common sense social programs and some are probably necessary. But having social programs does not make a country socialist. That's where we draw the line.

I'd just like to do the same to other areas of society like housing and Healthcare.

And I would like to see more people take responsibility for their actions and take only what they earned.

Minus the taxes they owe. I don't understand what you don't understand. Do you know what minus means?

You've already said this and I've already acknowledged it. It's a non sequitur anyway; it does not follow that because the rich pay taxes, they haven't the right to get as rich as they want. So why do you just keep repeating this?

They math is fundamental.

"They" math is fundamental? Okay, I don't know why you're bringing up "they" math when we're talking about the right to get rich.

You guess? These aren't favorable outcomes to starving or living on the streets?

You didn't say "favorable outcomes", you said "success". Certainly food and a roof over their heads is a favorable outcome for those of modest means but I wouldn't call it "success".

I don't know what it means to you. Some people are just born wealthy and organizing to vote and change the laws to enrich your life would fit that description to me.

Most people are not born wealthy but some become wealthy anyway.

So you want to change the laws because the affluent provide good homes and better education for their children just as you would do?

You have been discussing it, you're just too stupid to understand where private ownership of resources even comes from. It comes from collective force.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You said I was pretending not to know that everyone is organizing politically to use the collective force of government to affect the distribution of wealth. Again, WE DID NOT DISCUSS THIS so I pretended nothing.

At best you made an erroneous assumption. At worst you made a false claim.

You keep arguing as if you don't understand.

No, I don't. I'm arguing as if I'm disagreeing with you. Dumbass.

Above you argued that I don't care if my goals could be fairly achieved as if you imagined fair to be some objective thing.

Did you imagine "rampant inequality" to be objective?

If laws are subjective then so is the right to own natural resources.

You DO have the right to own natural resources. You just have to pay for them.

 

[0311]

Politicians don't actually believe in equal outcomes. Lip service for the rubes.

How is extending the Child Tax Credit marxist

 

[Curried Goats]

I wasn't going to go back and copy/paste every quote from the dialogue string. But rest assured, I did backtrack the string and found that the origins of it go back ten days (eleven days now).

You claimed I had "all these thirsty questions" about something you said to someone else. But you didn't address it him in that particular post, you addressed it to me and it was a continuation of the dialogue string that started eleven days ago about capitalism being a fact of life.


Irrelevant. The point was not progressive tax, the point was you saying: "I was responding to your strawman suggesting that I thought eliminating billionaires was necessary for social safety nets."
I then cited your quotes saying you want higher taxes for social safety nets. You also want progressive and higher taxes on the rich. I can only assume that since you want higher and progressive taxes on the rich and higher taxes for social safety nets, that some of this higher tax revenue for social safety nets will come from the rich.

You found quotes where I said I wanted more social safety nets and to eliminate billionaires. You found absolutely none where I said eliminating billionaires is required for safety nets. I did say having fewer billionaires, i.e. progressively higher taxes that effectively eliminate billionaires would provide more revenue for safety nets but again that's not the same thing as suggesting that eliminating billionaires is required for safety nets.

Am I wrong?

Often.

Right. So I'll ask again: What difference does force make if you have just as much right to get rich as anyone else?

Put another way, if you have used or have taken advantage of this same force to acquire or keep your private property, why bring it up?

I keep trying to explain that to you you moron and you keep telling me my explanation that you ask for is irrelevant. So what do you want to do here?

First of all, you said sharing profits. You've also said sharing resources. But profits and resources are not the same thing, especially if you're talking about natural resources as you said above.

Secondly, companies pay for the natural resources (raw materials) they acquire to produce their products.

I don't care if they pay for it.

You're not bright enough to answer a yes or no question with "Yes" or "No".

I don't care how you think I should answer.

I asked the question if you wanted to force companies through violence to give profits to workers that had no part in the initial investment or work to create and build the company. All you said was that the company acquired their resources through force.

Force is necessary to claim ownership over things. We're all using force.

1.) As I mentioned above, profit and resources are two different things.
2.) Companies purchase the resources to make their products, they don't take them by force.

Force was used to aquire it originally and to maintain it.

The law is there to preclude force and violence, dumbass. They are meant to deter the kind of actions you would have the government do.

The law is force you dumbass.

You seem to be arguing that because our property is protected by the force of law, that property can be taken and shared with undeserving others through force of law. Again, that is not democratic.

What's undemocratic about it if voted on and done democratically? No one gave everyone a vote when they were creating property in the first place. In fact some people were also property.

If a company purchases natural resources - and they do - then I don't see any "force to impose private ownership of natural resources" to justify.

Because apparently you don't recognize the law as force. This is why this conversation with you is ultimately pointless. You're too stupid for it.

You think your subjective use of force is more justified than someone else's so what's your point? You've been arguing for days why you think it's justified to force companies to share profits.

Wrong dipshit. I think how I would subjectively use force is different than how you would subjectively use force.

It does not behoove you to point an accusing finger for what you've been doing for days. It makes you look like a floundering hypocrite.

That was my point to the libertarian and because he understood the law is also force he didn't want any part of this dialog. You just aren't that bright.

Don't be an idiot.

Don't be a pussy. Is fair an objective determination or a subjective one? Why should I give a fuck what you think is fair? I care about what I think is fair.

You don't care about anything but the government giving you what you didn't earn.

I don't care if you feel I didn't earn it. Your feelings are insignificant compared to force. Force determines reality. Might makes right or rather might makes what is, is.

Having said that, labor is an investment insofar as it is necessary to produce product. The laborer is compensated with pay and that is the company's investment. The laborer is not building the company or contributing in any way other than performing his job. He is not entitled to profits unless he is financially invested.

I don't care what you think people are entitled to.

"I don't care! I don't care!"

You sound like a kindergartner.

I don't care how you feel.

I understand that laws were made to protect life and property for the most part. You want laws that take property.

Laws and force were used to create property in the first place so what's the difference if its used to modify them?

People who care about such things. Apparently, you don't.

Laws are there to protect life and property from those who would take it without asking. But most people would not, me included.

I love how you still complain about me explaining the objective verse the subjective to you as you try to explain to me what laws are there for, as if that's an objective thing. It isn't. Laws are whatever the fuck we say they are and for whatever purpose we want.

Even without laws, I have no desire to take someone's property that I know was paid for with their own labors just as mine was. That's called empathy and trust, two more traits you apparently lack.

It's a feeling and I don't care about your feelings.

You seem to have this idea that without laws, everyone would be after your shit. But this kind of thinking can only come from someone who wants to take everyone's shit without asking. The only difference is, you want the government to do it for you.

Try to make objective arguments rather than coming up with fantasies about me.

"I don't care! I don't care! So nyah!"

I don't care about your feelings. If you ever presented an objective argument that would at least be interesting beyond the amusement of you continually trying to share your feelings with me like I'm ever going to care.

I'm okay with force to protect what is mine. I'm NOT okay with force to take what is mine to give to someone else.

What makes anything yours other than force?

Like I said, you're conflating the issue of force and my arguments about it.

Which are what? That force is OK for you to use but not others?

Irrelevant. You mischaracterized my position about billionaires as an assertion that they should exist. I said nothing of the sort.

I said I don't care about your feelings about billionaires, whatever they are.

No shit. It still means I am not arguing feelings for billionaires, I am arguing feelings against your opinions of what we should do with them. I'm arguing in the interest of fairness and personal accountability and responsibility. You're arguing in the interest of punishing the rich and taking what is not yours.

Fairness is not an objective determination, it's a statement about your feelings you fucking Moron.

Duh. If YOU have the right to choose to be rich just like any rich person, why should I consider your arguments for sharing wealth?

I don't care what you consider.

You're gonna have to do better than that. What, specifically did I say to give you the idea I favor capital over labor?

I don't. It's the impression I get from your arguments.

We are not a socialist state, a few social programs notwithstanding.

We're whatever kind of state we choose to be.

This is yet another misconception by you "Let's share the wealth and sing 'Kumbaya'" people. People like me have no problem with common sense social programs and some are probably necessary. But having social programs does not make a country socialist. That's where we draw the line.

I don't care where you would draw the line.

And I would like to see more people take responsibility for their actions and take only what they earned.

Still don't care about what you feel people have earned.

You've already said this and I've already acknowledged it. It's a non sequitur anyway; it does not follow that because the rich pay taxes, they haven't the right to get as rich as they want. So why do you just keep repeating this?

Because it does follow. They have a right to get as rich as they want minus taxes. What does minus mean in math moron?

You didn't say "favorable outcomes", you said "success". Certainly food and a roof over their heads is a favorable outcome for those of modest means but I wouldn't call it "success".

Didn't we establish previously that success equated to favorable outcomes?

Most people are not born wealthy but some become wealthy anyway.

So you want to change the laws because the affluent provide good homes and better education for their children just as you would do?

I want to change laws so all children grow up in homes with more opportunity and fewer hardships.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You said I was pretending not to know that everyone is organizing politically to use the collective force of government to affect the distribution of wealth. Again, WE DID NOT DISCUSS THIS so I pretended nothing.

So you're just a moron who hasn't realized this reality yet? That tracks.

Did you imagine "rampant inequality" to be objective?

Nope.

You DO have the right to own natural resources. You just have to pay for them.

And I have the right to vote. I have many tools at my disposal.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You found quotes where I said I wanted more social safety nets and to eliminate billionaires. You found absolutely none where I said eliminating billionaires is required for safety nets. I did say having fewer billionaires, i.e. progressively higher taxes that effectively eliminate billionaires would provide more revenue for safety nets but again that's not the same thing as suggesting that eliminating billionaires is required for safety nets.

But it IS required for the sharing of wealth.

Often.

Oy.

I keep trying to explain that to you you moron and you keep telling me my explanation that you ask for is irrelevant. So what do you want to do here?

I never asked for an explanation for anything. I said: "But YOU have the right and access to gain wealth for yourself."

That was not a question for clarification, that was an assertion of fact.
You then replied: "I have many rights, including the right to vote to redistribute wealth."

Then I said: "You're quick to point out to me that rights are subjective when I bring up that people have a right to get as rich as they choose but just as quick to point out that you have the right to vote to redistribute wealth."

Your response to that was yet another explanation about legal rights being subjective. That was when I said your response was irrelevant. My point was the hypocrisy of constantly pointing out to me that rights are subjective while at the same time citing rights yourself. It was rendered even more pointless by the fact that we had already mutually understood that rights were subjective to law days ago.

I don't care if they pay for it.

But you do care about conflating or lying about how they acquire them.

I don't care how you think I should answer.

Neither do you, apparently.

Force is necessary to claim ownership over things. We're all using force.

You still haven't answered the question.

Force was used to aquire it originally and to maintain it.

When? Who? Where? How much? And, since "force" is subjective, describe the force used in each case and by who.

The law is force you dumbass.

Yes, to preclude force to steal, murder and commit violence.

What's undemocratic about it if voted on and done democratically? No one gave everyone a vote when they were creating property in the first place. In fact some people were also property.

No one is property anymore and resources are not taken anymore. Not legally.

Because apparently you don't recognize the law as force. This is why this conversation with you is ultimately pointless. You're too stupid for it.

You're too stupid to recognize that force to take private property and force to protect private property are two different things.

You're suggesting that, despite a company paying for the resources they acquire to produce product, I justify the taking of their profits to give to somebody like you for no other reason than that you hate rich people.

Wrong dipshit. I think how I would subjectively use force is different than how you would subjectively use force.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. In other words, you think your subjective use of force is more justified than someone else's.

If you didn't you wouldn't have been arguing sharing wealth for the past three weeks.

That was my point to the libertarian and because he understood the law is also force he didn't want any part of this dialog. You just aren't that bright.

Irrelevant. You accused me of thinking my use of force is more justified than someone else's despite the fact you feel the same way about yours. You're a hypocrite.

Don't be a pussy. Is fair an objective determination or a subjective one? Why should I give a fuck what you think is fair? I care about what I think is fair.

Translation: I'm not interested in what's fair, I'm interested in retribution.

I don't care if you feel I didn't earn it. Your feelings are insignificant compared to force. Force determines reality. Might makes right or rather might makes what is, is.

Translation: I'm only interested in rich people giving me shit because they earn more than me.

I don't care what you think people are entitled to.

And I don't care that you think that someone who is nevertheless paid fairly for doing their job is entitled to company profits.

I don't care how you feel.

"So nyah!"

Laws and force were used to create property in the first place so what's the difference if its used to modify them?

Okay then, let's change the law back and take the right to vote from blacks.

Instead of moving forward from the way we did things in the past, you want to go back to the way things were done to take revenge. Your thinking on this is regressive.

I love how you still complain about me explaining the objective verse the subjective to you as you try to explain to me what laws are there for, as if that's an objective thing. It isn't. Laws are whatever the fuck we say they are and for whatever purpose we want.

It doesn't matter that laws are "whatever the fuck we say they are", we make laws for a reason. You're ignoring this important fact and you've blindly focused on FORCE. Force and violence is the only thing you've said about law from the beginning.

It's a feeling and I don't care about your feelings.

Do you care about yours?

Try to make objective arguments rather than coming up with fantasies about me.

I said "You seem to have this idea...". It was speculation based on things you've said thus far.

I don't care about your feelings. If you ever presented an objective argument that would at least be interesting beyond the amusement of you continually trying to share your feelings with me like I'm ever going to care.

What objective argument have you given other than "Law is force"?

What makes anything yours other than force?

The fact that I paid for them, dumbass.

Which are what? That force is OK for you to use but not others?

What force have I used?

I said I don't care about your feelings about billionaires, whatever they are.

I know you don't care and that's precisely why you lied.

Fairness is not an objective determination, it's a statement about your feelings you fucking Moron.

Aaaand yet another quote from the gospel of objectivism/subjectivism. I didn't say it was an objective determination (you fucking moron). I said I'm arguing in the interest of fairness. That's it.

I don't care what you consider.

Then what are you still doing here?

I don't. It's the impression I get from your arguments.

Translation: I'm too lazy to back up my claims.

We're whatever kind of state we choose to be.

And we chose other than a socialist state. What's your point?

I don't care where you would draw the line.

That wasn't the point, dumbass. The point was your misconception that those who disagree with socialism don't want any social programs.

Still don't care about what you feel people have earned.

Never mind my feelings, do you at least care about what people have earned?

Because it does follow. They have a right to get as rich as they want minus taxes. What does minus mean in math moron?

Why are you persisting with this math/taxes tangent when you know it has no bearing on the right to be as rich as one chooses?

Didn't we establish previously that success equated to favorable outcomes?

Did we? I remember those terms coming up but I don't remember equating the two.

I want to change laws so all children grow up in homes with more opportunity and fewer hardships.

I think you're just interested in punishing the rich.

So you're just a moron who hasn't realized this reality yet? That tracks.

It doesn't matter whether I realize it or not, the point is, WE NEVER DISCUSSED IT so you had nothing on which to base your claim that I pretended not to know it. It means you're a liar.

Nope.

Then why did you give me shit about saying "fair"?

And I have the right to vote. I have many tools at my disposal.

The people who paid for resources have the right to vote too. So?

 

[Curried Goats]

I never asked for an explanation for anything. I said: "But YOU have the right and access to gain wealth for yourself."

That was not a question for clarification, that was an assertion of fact.
You then replied: "I have many rights, including the right to vote to redistribute wealth."

Then I said: "You're quick to point out to me that rights are subjective when I bring up that people have a right to get as rich as they choose but just as quick to point out that you have the right to vote to redistribute wealth."

Didn't you just say my response was to point out that I have many rights? I explain to you that rights are subjective when you try tell me what they should be. I don't care what you subjectively think rights should be. Objectively I do have a legal right to vote.

Your response to that was yet another explanation about legal rights being subjective. That was when I said your response was irrelevant. My point was the hypocrisy of constantly pointing out to me that rights are subjective while at the same time citing rights yourself. It was rendered even more pointless by the fact that we had already mutually understood that rights were subjective to law days ago.

You're just too stupid apparently to understand context.

When? Who? Where? How much? And, since "force" is subjective, describe the force used in each case and by who.

Force is not subjective. Force is objective. There is either a force acting on you or there isn't. This right here seems to be the main source of confusion for you. You still don't understand the difference between the two.

Yes, to preclude force to steal, murder and commit violence.


No one is property anymore and resources are not taken anymore. Not legally.


You're too stupid to recognize that force to take private property and force to protect private property are two different things.

Force is force, objectively. The only differences are your subjective feelings to its use.

Irrelevant. You accused me of thinking my use of force is more justified than someone else's despite the fact you feel the same way about yours. You're a hypocrite.

You just admitted it above. I'm not trying to justify my desired use of force. I'm just explaining my subjective desires when you ask about them.

Translation: I'm not interested in what's fair, I'm interested in retribution.

What's fair? Make an objective argument for it.

Translation: I'm only interested in rich people giving me shit because they earn more than me.

This is literal fantasy by you. See I can make objective arguments and you simply can't. You don't even know what the fuck they are....

Okay then, let's change the law back and take the right to vote from blacks.

If you can. Can you? That's the only objective question. Whether you should is a subjective one.

It doesn't matter that laws are "whatever the fuck we say they are", we make laws for a reason. You're ignoring this important fact and you've blindly focused on FORCE. Force and violence is the only thing you've said about law from the beginning.

What reason? Your reason or do we all get to have our own?

Aaaand yet another quote from the gospel of objectivism/subjectivism. I didn't say it was an objective determination (you fucking moron). I said I'm arguing in the interest of fairness. That's it.

Your idea of fairness is a subjective one you Dumbass. I have a different idea of fairness than you do. Not a better one or worse one objectively speaking, just a different one that is as valid as yours is, which is just another way of saying they both have an objective value of zero.

Why are you persisting with this math/taxes tangent when you know it has no bearing on the right to be as rich as one chooses?

Because it does. You have a right to be as rich as you want to be minus taxes. What does minus mean in math you dumb Bingo?

It doesn't matter whether I realize it or not, the point is, WE NEVER DISCUSSED IT so you had nothing on which to base your claim that I pretended not to know it. It means you're a liar.

You being too stupid to realize that's what we're actually discussing doesn't make me a liar. It just makes you an incredible moron.

Then why did you give me shit about saying "fair"?

I'm wondering if you think its some objective measurement. You're such a fucking moron I really can't be sure.

The people who paid for resources have the right to vote too. So?

So they can vote.

 

[0311]

But it IS required for the sharing of wealth.


Oy.


I never asked for an explanation for anything. I said: "But YOU have the right and access to gain wealth for yourself."

That was not a question for clarification, that was an assertion of fact.
You then replied: "I have many rights, including the right to vote to redistribute wealth."

Then I said: "You're quick to point out to me that rights are subjective when I bring up that people have a right to get as rich as they choose but just as quick to point out that you have the right to vote to redistribute wealth."

Your response to that was yet another explanation about legal rights being subjective. That was when I said your response was irrelevant. My point was the hypocrisy of constantly pointing out to me that rights are subjective while at the same time citing rights yourself. It was rendered even more pointless by the fact that we had already mutually understood that rights were subjective to law days ago.


But you do care about conflating or lying about how they acquire them.


Neither do you, apparently.


You still haven't answered the question.


When? Who? Where? How much? And, since "force" is subjective, describe the force used in each case and by who.


Yes, to preclude force to steal, murder and commit violence.


No one is property anymore and resources are not taken anymore. Not legally.


You're too stupid to recognize that force to take private property and force to protect private property are two different things.

You're suggesting that, despite a company paying for the resources they acquire to produce product, I justify the taking of their profits to give to somebody like you for no other reason than that you hate rich people.


Six of one, half dozen of the other. In other words, you think your subjective use of force is more justified than someone else's.

If you didn't you wouldn't have been arguing sharing wealth for the past three weeks.


Irrelevant. You accused me of thinking my use of force is more justified than someone else's despite the fact you feel the same way about yours. You're a hypocrite.


Translation: I'm not interested in what's fair, I'm interested in retribution.


Translation: I'm only interested in rich people giving me shit because they earn more than me.


And I don't care that you think that someone who is nevertheless paid fairly for doing their job is entitled to company profits.

"So nyah!"


Okay then, let's change the law back and take the right to vote from blacks.

Instead of moving forward from the way we did things in the past, you want to go back to the way things were done to take revenge. Your thinking on this is regressive.


It doesn't matter that laws are "whatever the fuck we say they are", we make laws for a reason. You're ignoring this important fact and you've blindly focused on FORCE. Force and violence is the only thing you've said about law from the beginning.


Do you care about yours?


I said "You seem to have this idea...". It was speculation based on things you've said thus far.

What objective argument have you given other than "Law is force"?


The fact that I paid for them, dumbass.


What force have I used?


I know you don't care and that's precisely why you lied.

Aaaand yet another quote from the gospel of objectivism/subjectivism. I didn't say it was an objective determination (you fucking moron). I said I'm arguing in the interest of fairness. That's it.


Then what are you still doing here?


Translation: I'm too lazy to back up my claims.


And we chose other than a socialist state. What's your point?


That wasn't the point, dumbass. The point was your misconception that those who disagree with socialism don't want any social programs.


Never mind my feelings, do you at least care about what people have earned?


Why are you persisting with this math/taxes tangent when you know it has no bearing on the right to be as rich as one chooses?


Did we? I remember those terms coming up but I don't remember equating the two.


I think you're just interested in punishing the rich.


It doesn't matter whether I realize it or not, the point is, WE NEVER DISCUSSED IT so you had nothing on which to base your claim that I pretended not to know it. It means you're a liar.


Then why did you give me shit about saying "fair"?

The people who paid for resources have the right to vote too. So?

If it smells (and he does) like Communist, it walks like Communist, it's a Communist. He praises Communist. He is a Communist and you support him your fucking COMMIE!!!!!!!!

 

[JustAGuy1]

White Americans really need to shut up about this. Go back and re read your history so you understand how America was socially engineered to provide the best possible outcomes for whites.

You are the BIGGEST whiny ass I've ever seen. If you buy the Equity crap you're a loser.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Whites didn't find or build a damn thing. People were already living here when whites showed up and my ancestors along with other non whites literaly built this land yr ancestrs tried committing genocide to have. So again whites need to shut the fuck up about equity when they made the rules to exclude non whites and the ONLY reason they ave what they do is because of social engneering.

Today the same racism exists that has denied equalit and equity. So you can just stop lying about how your white racist ass is getting punished for the past.

Shut up and go to work, we won't hand you shyte.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

If it smells (and he does) like Communist, it walks like Communist, it's a Communist. He praises Communist. He is a Communist and you support him your fucking COMMIE!!!!!!!!

Did you mean to address this to me?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Didn't you just say my response was to point out that I have many rights? I explain to you that rights are subjective when you try tell me what they should be. I don't care what you subjectively think rights should be. Objectively I do have a legal right to vote.

Irrelevant. This is about you constantly reminding me laws are subjective while also reminding me of the rights you have.

You're just too stupid apparently to understand context.

The context is, every time I mention rights, you remind me they're subjective. At the same time, you remind me what rights you have.

Force is not subjective. Force is objective. There is either a force acting on you or there isn't. This right here seems to be the main source of confusion for you. You still don't understand the difference between the two.

You didn't answer the question. You're making a claim about force being used to acquire resources and private property but you don't even know who did, where they did it, when they did it, how they did it, etc.. You make this claim that you can't support or verify with actual data and you're using this unverified claim to justify taking money from the rich.

Force is force, objectively. The only differences are your subjective feelings to its use.

No shit, dumbass. That's been the theme of this entire conversation: a difference of opinion.

You just admitted it above. I'm not trying to justify my desired use of force.

Yes you are. You're justifying it based on force being used that way in the past. That's why you keep bringing that up.

I'm just explaining my subjective desires when you ask about them.

Which you no doubt think are justified or will result in what you see as better or "more favorable results".

Below are just a few of your quotes expressing subjective opinions and then justifying that opinion.

"Should we allow a few people to own a majority of our natural resources? I don't think so."

"Because I want it to alleviate the worst outcomes and mitigate the ability of people to own too many of our natural resources."

"I don't. I think competition is integral not only to capitalism but to growth. I blame us for not regulating it better."

"Because we have a social safety net. Should we not?"

"Its about preventing monopolies of resources. I happen to think it's a bad thing."

Thing is, there's nothing wrong with expressing a subjective opinion and giving reasons for it. But for whatever reason, you are loathe to admit you do this just like everyone else.

What's fair? Make an objective argument for it.

Make an objective argument that we should tax billionaires out of existence.

This is literal fantasy by you. See I can make objective arguments and you simply can't. You don't even know what the fuck they are....

The very reason I make these quips of you hating the rich and whatnot is because I haven't seen an objective argument from you. You've given a lot of opinions such as, too few people having control of resources; taxing billionaires out of existence; having more and better social safety nets such as universal healthcare, shorter work weeks for more free time, paid family leave, etc..

Every one of these are subjective opinions and you have given no objective arguments as to why it should be done or even how it can be done.

If you can. Can you? That's the only objective question. Whether you should is a subjective one.

Irrelevant. We're talking about the subjectivity of law. Or rather, you are as justification for taking money from the rich. I'm giving an example of what could be proposed if we are to view law and morality as subjective as you say they are.

What reason? Your reason or do we all get to have our own?

Did I or did I not say "WE make laws for a reason."?

Your idea of fairness is a subjective one you Dumbass.

Again, dumbass, I did not present it as objective.

I have a different idea of fairness than you do. Not a better one or worse one objectively speaking, just a different one that is as valid as yours is, which is just another way of saying they both have an objective value of zero.

"Fairness" is very simply defined and understood by most people. In this context, it is not fair to take a rich man's money that he earned fairly and legally, under the current law that allows him to do so, just because you think he has too much.

I don't care if you think that's subjective or not, that is not fair.

Because it does. You have a right to be as rich as you want to be minus taxes. What does minus mean in math you dumb Bingo?

Everyone pays taxes, some get rich. Some continue to pay taxes and get richer. Some continue to pay taxes and get even richer than that. All this time they had the right to do so and so they did. So what is your fucking point?

You being too stupid to realize that's what we're actually discussing doesn't make me a liar. It just makes you an incredible moron.

No, it is NOT what we're discussing, dumbass. We're not discussing - and have not discussed - what others are doing in pursuit of those aims. Not once was that subject brought up. We've only discussed what YOU would like to see happen.

Goddamn what an idiot.

I'm wondering if you think its some objective measurement. You're such a fucking moron I really can't be sure.

You're not wondering if I think it's an objective measurement, you just used it as an excuse to preach subjectivism again.

So they can vote.

Yes. Everybody can vote. So what's the purpose in pointing out that you can vote?

 

[Curried Goats]

Irrelevant. This is about you constantly reminding me laws are subjective while also reminding me of the rights you have.

Context is always relevant you sad Bingo. I remind you that rights are subjective when you argue your opinion at me and I tell you what my legal rights are objectively when you seem confused.

You didn't answer the question. You're making a claim about force being used to acquire resources and private property but you don't even know who did, where they did it, when they did it, how they did it, etc.. You make this claim that you can't support or verify with actual data and you're using this unverified claim to justify taking money from the rich.

It's a simple rational argument. It doesn't require a who because its the logical conclusion on the nature of private ownership of resources itself.

No shit, dumbass. That's been the theme of this entire conversation: a difference of opinion.

I don't care about your opinion. Maybe your thirst for my opinion has been your overriding goal but I'm simply here to watch you fail over and over to reach a simple logical conclusion about the nature of private ownership.

Yes you are. You're justifying it based on force being used that way in the past. That's why you keep bringing that up.

I'm advocating for my subjective point of view, I'm not trying to justify it to you, I don't even care how you feel. There's a distinction.

Which you no doubt think are justified or will result in what you see as better or "more favorable results".

Below are just a few of your quotes expressing subjective opinions and then justifying that opinion.

"Should we allow a few people to own a majority of our natural resources? I don't think so."

"Because I want it to alleviate the worst outcomes and mitigate the ability of people to own too many of our natural resources."

"I don't. I think competition is integral not only to capitalism but to growth. I blame us for not regulating it better."

"Because we have a social safety net. Should we not?"

"Its about preventing monopolies of resources. I happen to think it's a bad thing."

Those are called opinions you moron, not justifications. I don't think you're objectively wrong for having a different opinion, I think you're a different person with different motivations and desires.

Make an objective argument that we should tax billionaires out of existence.

I don't have one.

The very reason I make these quips of you hating the rich and whatnot is because I haven't seen an objective argument from you.

I was never suggesting I had one for eliminating billionaires. I'm not sure why you imagine fantasy and make believe are good responses to me not doing something I never claimed to be doing but it sure has been funny to witness.

You've given a lot of opinions such as, too few people having control of resources; taxing billionaires out of existence; having more and better social safety nets such as universal healthcare, shorter work weeks for more free time, paid family leave, etc..

You asked about them.

Every one of these are subjective opinions and you have given no objective arguments as to why it should be done or even how it can be done.

Because they're opinions.... unlike you I don't confuse objective arguments for opinions.

Irrelevant. We're talking about the subjectivity of law. Or rather, you are as justification for taking money from the rich. I'm giving an example of what could be proposed if we are to view law and morality as subjective as you say they are.

It's not whether we view it as such, morality, law, inalienable rights, all are objectively subjective. This is my objective argument. That's it. That's the simple point I was originally making to the libertarian. You're the one asking me my opinions related to this simple fact and then confusing yourself about whether my opinions that you asked for were attempts at other objective arguments.

"Fairness" is very simply defined and understood by most people. In this context, it is not fair to take a rich man's money that he earned fairly and legally, under the current law that allows him to do so, just because you think he has too much.

So entirely subjective then? Subjective to change with the whims of elections? Again, why the fuck do you think I care about what you feel is fair? I don't.

I don't care if you think that's subjective or not, that is not fair.

So you feel.

No, it is NOT what we're discussing, dumbass. We're not discussing - and have not discussed - what others are doing in pursuit of those aims. Not once was that subject brought up. We've only discussed what YOU would like to see happen.

It is, ultimately, you're just too stupid to recognize it.

You're not wondering if I think it's an objective measurement, you just used it as an excuse to preach subjectivism again.

I am wondering and this post really didn't do much to clear it up. Do you imagine consensus equates to fact? Who the fuck knows but it sure is funny that's even still a question at this point.

Yes. Everybody can vote. So what's the purpose in pointing out that you can vote?

To point out that we all have access to various forms of force.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Karl is smiling.

Washington Post editorial board has scathing take on Harris' economic plan: 'Populist gimmicks'​

MSN

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Context is always relevant you sad Bingo. I remind you that rights are subjective when you argue your opinion at me and I tell you what my legal rights are objectively when you seem confused.

Confused about what? I argue an opinion and you argue one back. So what? Why does it have to be more complicated than that every time?

This objectivism/subjectivism bullshit is getting tedious. When you say something like: "Its about preventing monopolies of resources. I happen to think it's a bad thing.", this is an opinion and the words "bad thing" are subjective and we both know it. So I don't address it.

If I say something like this in response: "As long as it's done fairly.", you say "'FAIRLY' IS SUBJECTIVE YOU DUMB BINGO!!".

Every. Fucking. Time.

It's a simple rational argument. It doesn't require a who because its the logical conclusion on the nature of private ownership of resources itself.

Doesn't matter. If you don't know or can't prove that a particular rich person acquired their property or resources through force or unfairly, you have no justification for taking his money. And it is irrelevant if someone in the distant past seized the property by force but is completely unknown or is separated by many degrees or generations from the current owner.

I don't care about your opinion.

Irrelevant. You're stating opinions and so am I.

Maybe your thirst for my opinion has been your overriding goal but I'm simpy here to watch you fail over and over to reach a simple logical conclusion about the nature of private ownership.

You idiot. I'm simply here to watch you fail over and over to reach a simple logical conclusion about the nature of my disagreeing with you. I do not agree with you that any force used in the past to acquire property is relevant today.

What the fuck is it with you and IM2 always completely misconstruing disagreement? With him, any disagreement is a mark of racism. With you it's always: the other guy is confused or stupid.

I'm advocating for my subjective point of view, I'm not trying to justify it to you, I don't even care how you feel. There's a distinction.

Whether or not you are trying to justify it to me, you are definitely justifying it for somebody. Most likely yourself.

Those are called opinions you moron, not justifications. I don't think you're objectively wrong for having a different opinion, I think you're a different person with different motivations and desires.

"Because I want it to alleviate the worst outcomes and mitigate the ability of people to own too many of our natural resources." and "Its about preventing monopolies of resources. I happen to think it's a bad thing." are justifications or reasons for your opinions about sharing wealth.

I don't have one.

Then shut the fuck up about objective arguments.

I was never suggesting I had one.

Then why are you asking me for one?

I'm not sure why you imagine fantasy and make believe are good responses to me not doing something I never claimed to be doing but it sure has been funny to witness.

What's funny is you asking for objective arguments when you've given none yourself.

You asked about them.

It was a preface to my remarks that followed, dumbass.

Because they're opinions.... unlike you I don't confuse objective arguments for opinions.

Unlike you, I don't ask for objective arguments if I haven't given any.

It's not whether we view it as such, morality, law, inalienable rights, all are objectively subjective.

Are you sure they're not subjectively objective? Do you even know at this point?

This is my objective argument. That's it. That's the simple point I was originally making to the libertarian. You're the one asking me my opinions related to this simple fact and then confusing yourself about whether my opinions that you asked for were attempts at other objective arguments.

I don't even know what you're talking about here. Objective/subjective, subjective/objective, on and on ad infinitum. Who gives a shit?

You express opinions or desires for the sharing of wealth, eliminating billionaires, or, for all I know, putting Mickey Mouse on the twenty dollar bill. I then ask questions to understand the reasoning behind your opinions, point out the flaws in your reasoning (assuming you reasoned them out at all) or simply express my own opinion. But when I do, you have to remind me it's subjective every fucking time.

A good portion of the country is of the opinion that capitalism - or capitalism as it is currently in this country - is a good thing or works well. You have an opinion that it does not and so you express it. But for some reason you are compelled to pretend that you're not doing exactly what everyone else is doing: expressing opinions to counter other opinions.

So entirely subjective then? Subjective to change with the whims of elections?

What is subjective to change with the whim of elections?

Again, why the fuck do you think I care about what you feel is fair? I don't.

Why the fuck do you feel anyone cares about your ideas about sharing wealth?

So you feel.

I feel and you feel, so what? Why do you have to point out feelings and subjectivity in others all the time when you do the same thing?

Like I said before in a previous discussion, you do the exact same thing as everyone else here but you pretend you don't.

It is, ultimately, you're just too stupid to recognize it.

So you feel.

I would ask you to find a post or comment that came up at any time during this raree that even hinted at what you claim but I know you won't because you're either too lazy or you know goddamn well you won't find anything.

You expressed an unsubstantiated and subjective opinion about what you imagined my feelings were about something we never discussed or that you assumed I understood. You fucking lied, got caught and now you're gaslighting to crawfish your way out.

I am wondering and this post really didn't do much to clear it up.

I thought you didn't care about my opinions.

You don't care about my opinions but you DO care about whether I think they're objective or subjective. Goddamn, what an idiot.

Do you imagine consensus equates to fact? Who the fuck knows but it sure is funny that's even still a question at this point.

Didn't you just tell (lie to) me that I am pretending to not know that everyone is "organizing politically to use the collective force of government to affect the distribution of wealth."? How many and who is "everyone" and do you imagine consensus equates to fact?

See? Doing the same thing as everyone else.

To point out that we all have access to various forms of force.

Of course we all have the right to vote, if we didn't then there'd be no point arguing over laws, would there?

 

[Curried Goats]

Confused about what? I argue an opinion and you argue one back. So what? Why does it have to be more complicated than that every time?

I don't care about your opinion, that's what you seem confused about. I'm not trying to argue with you about your opinions. In fact you fucking cried about that in a pervious post.

This objectivism/subjectivism bullshit is getting tedious.

It never gets tired for me that you're so fucking stupid that it still manages to confuse you.

When you say something like: "Its about preventing monopolies of resources. I happen to think it's a bad thing.", this is an opinion and the words "bad thing" are subjective and we both know it. So I don't address it.

You keep asking me for my opinion guy, I dont know why you keep crying about me giving it to you.

If I say something like this in response: "As long as it's done fairly.", you say "'FAIRLY' IS SUBJECTIVE YOU DUMB BINGO!!".

Every. Fucking. Time.

I ask about whether you think that's an objective measurement because I don't know if you do or not. Other than that I don't care about your opinion. I only care to debate when I think someone is objectively wrong, everything else is a shared opinion that you can feel free to feel anyway you like about.

Doesn't matter. If you don't know or can't prove that a particular rich person acquired their property or resources through force or unfairly, you have no justification for taking his money.

If fairly is a subjective measurement how do you expect me to prove it, objectively? Or do you mean prove it to your feelings?

If you understood the difference between the objective and subjective you'd understand objective proof is rationally concluded from the inherent nature of private ownership itself. You can't own anything without force so anyone who does claim ownership over a thing is inherently claiming the right to use force against all others who would try and access it for themselves.

And it is irrelevant if someone in the distant past seized the property by force but is completely unknown or is separated by many degrees or generations from the current owner.

I agree individual acts are irrelevant. It is the inherent nature of private ownership itself that's key here. Force being inherent to its nature means all forms of private ownership are under the guise of threats of force.

Irrelevant. You're stating opinions and so am I.

No. The one above is an objective fact.

Whether or not you are trying to justify it to me, you are definitely justifying it for somebody. Most likely yourself.

So you imagine.

Then shut the fuck up about objective arguments.

Don't cry and pout because you don't understand them.

Then why are you asking me for one?

Because you seemed to be attempting to make an objective argument about the use of force and where it is justified. A bad one.

What's funny is you asking for objective arguments when you've given none yourself.

You're just not bright enough to recognize it. Maybe if you didn't spend so much time crying about me not caring about your opinions you could actually learn something real, objectively speaking.

I don't even know what you're talking about here. Objective/subjective, subjective/objective, on and on ad infinitum. Who gives a shit?

I understand you don't care about facts or reality over opinions but that's because most of you Snowflakes are too emotionally frail to allow your feelings to confront the real world.

Why the fuck do you feel anyone cares about your ideas about sharing wealth?

Because you keep wanting to talk about them.

 

[evelynzlon]

White Americans really need to shut up about this. Go back and re read your history so you understand how America was socially engineered to provide the best possible outcomes for whites.

"Equality" is just an empty euphemism they've slapped on this rehashed slave system where blacks work to help whites bleed away their home equity. The fact that this is slavery is obfuscated by its stark differences from past iterations of slavery. Well there's more than one way to skin a cat. The overarching purpose of slavery is to make blacks work that whites may financially exploit them. If the system serves that purpose it's slavery.

 

[evelynzlon]

"Equality" is just an empty euphemism they've slapped on this rehashed slave system where blacks work to help whites bleed away their home equity. The fact that this is slavery is obfuscated by its stark differences from past iterations of slavery. Well there's more than one way to skin a cat. The overarching purpose of slavery is to make blacks work that whites may financially exploit them. If the system serves that purpose it's slavery.

Btw blacks' employment rights don't preclude the fact of continuing slavery. Not necessarily. Antebellum slaves were also employed and they also received an "income" in the form of food, clothing and shelter. Of course they were paid in some form. Otherwise they would've died right away rendering them useless as slaves. The distinguishing feature between masters and slaves boils down to major asset accumulation, which still overwhelmingly favors whites. Civil rights policies are helping to build up the value of white society's assets at a faster rate than blacks can hope to acquire them through employment. In fact, blacks' attempts to acquire these assets are helping to pump up their value, pushing them that much farther out of reach.

 

[evelynzlon]

Btw blacks' employment rights don't preclude the fact of continuing slavery. Not necessarily. Antebellum slaves were also employed and they also received an "income" in the form of food, clothing and shelter. Of course they were paid in some form. Otherwise they would've died right away rendering them useless as slaves. The distinguishing feature between masters and slaves boils down to major asset accumulation, which still overwhelmingly favors whites. Civil rights policies are helping to build up the value of white society's assets at a faster rate than blacks can hope to acquire them through employment. In fact, blacks' attempts to acquire these assets are helping to pump up their value, pushing them that much farther out of reach.

My aunt and uncle are both black medical doctors who hopped on the bandwagon soon after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted. They purchased a very nice suburban home, expecting their white neighbors to be doctors and lawyers as well. But they weren't. They were plumbers and janitors who had previously purchased these homes on the cheap, from the GI Bill and whatnot. My aunt and uncle were ripped off to no end in the housing market. Their children didn't even bother to replicate their parents' professional prestige, because if you're black it simply doesn't pay. By the time they would've graduated from med school or what-have-you, the default wealth inequality between the races drifted even farther apart. This is typical.

 

[evelynzlon]

My aunt and uncle are both black medical doctors who hopped on the bandwagon soon after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted. They purchased a very nice suburban home, expecting their white neighbors to be doctors and lawyers as well. But they weren't. They were plumbers and janitors who had previously purchased these homes on the cheap, from the GI Bill and whatnot. My aunt and uncle were ripped off to no end in the housing market. Their children didn't even bother to replicate their parents' professional prestige, because if you're black it simply doesn't pay. By the time they would've graduated from med school or what-have-you, the default wealth inequality between the races drifted even farther apart. This is typical.

My black doctor aunt also worked with a white orderly who propositioned her although he knew she was married. Statistically, low-income white married couples are still net worth richer than high-income black married couples. The orderly succinctly put my aunt in her place by reminding her that she did not outclass him. She was in his league. When my cousins found out about this, that was the final straw to demoralize them from attempts at status climbing.

 

[evelynzlon]

My black doctor aunt also worked with a white orderly who propositioned her although he knew she was married. Statistically, low-income white married couples are still net worth richer than high-income black married couples. The orderly succinctly put my aunt in her place by reminding her that she did not outclass him. She was in his league. When my cousins found out about this, that was the final straw to demoralize them from attempts at status climbing.

Kamala Harris's husband is white but he's no orderly. He's Jewish. Nuf said. In addition to her lighter skin, she also attended a historically black college. Unlike my black doctor aunt and uncle who graduated from a mainstream university. Black colleges GENUINELY support their students and alumni who attempt social climbing. Unlike traditionally white universities where every type of b.s. gets slung at their black graduates, both overt and subtle, all their lives until they finally crack.

 

[evelynzlon]

Kamala Harris's husband is white but he's no orderly. He's Jewish. Nuf said. In addition to her lighter skin, she also attended a historically black college. Unlike my black doctor aunt and uncle who graduated from a mainstream university. Black colleges GENUINELY support their students and alumni who attempt social climbing. Unlike traditionally white universities where every type of b.s. gets slung at their black graduates, both overt and subtle, all their lives until they finally crack.

One reason I attended a historically white university is because my great-great-great grandpa was Otto von Bismarck. He's a vampire who's still alive. He cast some spells to lure me to a specific prestigious university where he has mad clout under a different pseudonym. I met some of my cousins from his side of the family. Elitist intellectual Nazi rednecks. He's now a recording artist and they introduced me to his music. Hypnotic siren mind control programming from Get Out. I could ONLY have met these people at that PARTICULAR school, and he alluded to our acquaintance on one of his album covers 2 years before I so much as contemplated applying there. That's okay because lately I have gotten the f**k its. I have plans for Babylon the Great 2.0 aka the Roman Empire.