On the whole talking politics thing

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

I recently got into something of a political debate with a friend.

He’s an economic- and pro-Israel, anti-immigration conservative generally sticking to the script. Their shtick usually tends to be all “facts” and rationality. They won’t discuss ideology or acknowledge the ideological underpinnings. They portray themselves as common-sense pragmatists and liberals as weak-minded and immoral fools. Wantonly blind, dependent on help and dogmatic, et al. Liberals are equally myopic and slanted. I’ll get to that part.

(Let’s only talk about economic and national conservatism, not social. I don’t know a whole lot of social-issue conservatives.)

Conservatives will say things like “It’s a fact, Obamacare didn’t work!”

I’m not saying they’re wrong – they might be right – but my point is that their rhetoric tends to be framed by what WORKS. They use the words WORKS, DOESN’T WORK.

I respect that. The only way you can refute facts and utility is with counter-facts. Or by untangling the contention and showing the bigger picture.

But I like that conservatives focus on what works. It forces liberals (who generally focus on what’s fair) to think hard about if their ideas work. It forces them to provide substantiation.

If you delve into the record, you can find enough counterpoint substantiation. Enough, at least, to show that conservatives have no monopoly on statistics or logic.

Some liberal policies, in fact, WORK. Thus, a utility stalemate can be reached rather quickly. Usually because both sides are equally and necessarily ignorant. Most don’t make a full-time diagnostic study of the state of the union. Much info is classified or simply undetermined, only visible in wide-lens hindsight. Often the headlines are simplifications. If you joust facts for a while, it becomes obvious. Both sides can’t possibly have enough facts to win on facts alone.

This is good. It pushes the talk back into the IDEOLOGY front. There may be no systematic way to resolve the ideological diff. It’s value-based, not math based. That’s why attempts are made (usually by the conservative) to push it back to the UTILITY debate.

Again, analyzing the “utility” rigorously is at least a full-time job. Discourse must involve copious agreement on definitions, premises and facts. Yet, conservatives feel it’s a brain dead obvious thing. “Simply look at jobs!” Their posturing tends to imply they have access to the clear light of reason. And that liberals are infected with a kind of self-righteous, pathetic delusion. Conversely, liberals tend to characterize conservatives as racist or lacking in compassion. Both are on to something. Liberals will often be perceived as lazier on the utility discussion. Conservatives, lazier on the empathy front. But again, we run into the paradox. Conservatives would indeed have more empathy if it was proven to WORK. Liberals would seek more utility data if they felt it was FAIR to let this data be instructive.

For me, debates on political leanings are more fruitful when they are IDEOLOGICAL. Core values can be discussed, much is revealed that normally isn’t.

Both conservatives and liberals read and often don’t question it or think it through. It usually becomes a generalisation fallacy or oversimplification on both sides.

I often think about what I should do as a responsible citizen. I do buy into the idea that politics are everything. After all, look at the freedoms and stability I’ve enjoyed my entire life. Those are clearly there because of politics. To not think about it or to have a leaning…is a cop out.

Or is it? I’ve decided that I have two choices. I can

a) REALLY do the homework. Conduct my own evolving dialectic. With all the info available, and decide for me which principles are fair. Which have utility and are likely sustainable. I can develop my own stance on which policies are best for America. It’s not as easy as “googling around and reading articles for a few minutes or days.” A mature, informed, and nuanced opinion will take years of focused study.

b) I can ignore the subject. We are generally safe, and lucky, as Americans, and this is in large part due to the government. In most respects American life has not changed in a long time. Civil rights were the last major shift that affects everyday citizens. By and large, the things that matter to me fall outside the partisan debate.

I will look at what matters to me, and decide which party better supports those things. If it is equal, I will ignore the debate completely and get on with my life. First, here is what matters to me: (try not to debate any of them with until you’ve read through. There are definitely gross assumptions and generalisations.)

  1. Water is relatively clean and abundant. Air is breathable.

  2. If I have a heart attack or get my leg crushed by a truck, an ambulance will get me no matter who I am and ask questions about money later.

  3. If I have absolutely no money I won’t starve or freeze.

  4. An openly gay black Wiccan can stand in front of the White House and say “Obama sucks” and not get arrested.

  5. All races, genders, creeds and even people with disabilities have govt mandated equal rights.

  6. If an attacker comes in my house the cops will come and try to save me.

  7. Food has to pass FDA inspection. It is generally safe. Some is unhealthy, but the info is on the labels. People are free to educate themselves on toxins, bad ingredients, etc.

  8. If you work hard and have talent you can improve your standing and become rich. Even if your taxes may be higher. And there are various options to reduce tax burdens, like moving to FL or TX.

  9. I can leave the country or renounce citizenship anytime I want.

  10. I can practice any religion I want, or no religion, openly.

  11. The majority of the public is relatively literate and informed. We all have access to lower education through high school, regardless of income.

  12. There are streets and highways almost everywhere. I can move around my city and country in freedom and safety.

  13. Self-expression and forms of entertainment and art are unregulated by the govt. This creates an honest and high-level connection in national dialogues. We can also have stupid dialogue and forms of entertainment if we want.

  14. The Internet is free and open.

  15. Medications that improve life are readily available. Research about drawbacks or risks of medications are published and available. Companies are forced to release side-effect info and test rigorously.

  16. The choice of things to do and things to buy and people to meet is vast and dynamic.

  17. We can reproduce all we want and marry who we want.

  18. Violence, murder, rape, theft, fraud, libel, slander, arson, blackmail, etc., are illegal.

  19. We have the world’s largest and most competent military, so that if we are attacked we can fight back and win. Also, if there are human rights abuses or disasters elsewhere we are in a position to help.

  20. We are free to develop ourselves in almost any direction. Information is free and available, we can do what we want and be what we want. Our situations are mainly limited by our own self-inflicted boundaries and beliefs. Or those given to us by family and friends. We generally have the freedoms and tools to free ourselves from self-imposed limits.

  21. Animals have certain rights

First off, you could easily say some of these rights are contingent on race and privilege. You can argue some are in danger if we don’t change our govt soon. You can argue rose colored glasses or naivety. That’s fine. But where I’m standing, this is the country I live in. It’s not a free ride, but it’s pretty good. When you consider how easy it would be to have people dying in the streets, food stores full of bacteria. Despots in power. Constant civil war, etc. It’s a miracle we have roads and water and power, food kitchens and emergency medical. We have a general sense of calm and potential.

I could certainly sit around and focus on the extra 5% I’ll be taxed while I drive my BMW and watch my big TV. And order sushi or whatever. But what’s the sense in that? Isn’t that focus of my TIME on this triviality a far bigger tragedy than the 5% of income lost?

I can grouse about the environment, certainly things can change. We can lose our clean air and water. My understanding is most scientists now agree in climate change. I tend to agree with the majority of scientists. So I will try to be aware of climate change and do my part.

Things like gay marriage, abortion, stem cell, are often called distraction issues. But they do matter to some people, similar to how civil rights mattered. So I will be on the side of gay marriage, stem cell research, etc. I’m non-religious and I don’t want someone’s religion holding back liberty or progress.

Rich people or even the middle class who pay more for insurance, I’m ok with that. As long as poor people, kids and parents, can now get health care. I do worry about the middle-class people just past the limit of tax relief for premium increases. These are people who make modest income, but now pay more. That’s unfortunate. These people are taking the brunt of it. But I’ve never debated any of them. I’ve only debated rich people, for whom the premium increase means almost nothing.

I’m Jewish, so I do care about Israel. I have family there. But, I don’t live in Israel. I live in America. Very few Americans are Jewish. I can’t judge an American president’s worth or morality based on how he treats Israel. I have to let POTUS put America first.

I am not for a big or small government. I’m for a fair and useful government, in any guise. Spending money is always contentious. It’s contentious in a household, let alone a country. If you tax the rich and spend it on the poor, the rich will get mad. The problem, though, is that they are mad and still rich. The thinking by the govt is that since you’re rich, you won’t mind. but that never works. Rich people always mind. Part of how they got rich in the first place was a drive to have all the toys. Creating wealth, and having the ability to share a negligible part of that wealth, don’t go hand in hand.

Conversely, being a lazy dreamer and creating no wealth, and being willing to share, tend to go hand in hand. But, I have a modest surplus and stability, and created some wealth (not much), and I’m also willing to share in increased taxes. I realize that having more money than I need is pointless. I’m happy the govt has done the work for me to figure out where I should donate. It’s better I fund the armies and programs, welfare and health care, and the govt itself, as a whole, than cut a check to Save The Whales or buy a Ferrari from overseas. I don’t expect all to agree. Whales, Ferraris, the poor, who’s to say which matters? It’s subjective. But I’m on the side of the people who say poor people matter more – no matter how they got that way.

In the final summation, I’m a left-leaning centrist. I believe that’s what Hillary is. I will rehash some of the above points if I have to debate politics. I don’t like the extreme indignation over issues on which we have limited understanding. This happens on both sides. I don’t like the parroting of punditry. I particularly find right wing punditry irritating because of the posturing on possessing the clear light of fact-based reason, and then advancing facile arguments. I also don’t like emotional knee-jerk liberals who cry racism too quickly or demand multi-culturalism without thinking about the ramifications. I for some reason mind it a little less. These people are likely socialists at heart, and Finland, Canada and Sweden, etc., are not objectionable to me.

I don’t think this gets me anywhere, actually. But I needed to express it anyway.

2

Very nice post expressing where you are and props to you.
the next step is simple and hard, where to next?
Ok, you have the past and present covered,
what is in the future? What future do you want or
envision? and more importantly how would we get to
that future?

Kropotkin

3

Maybe it doesn’t get you anywhere, but it’s an excellent OP. i relate to and agree with much of what you’ve said.

4

I’ll probably vote for Hillary. I’ll probably avoid discussions as soon as they get contentious. I will try not to judge people who think differently, or who have lazy thinking, bias, binary thinking, greed, resentment, paranoia.

But it’s hard. I want and need to connect with people who are free from these traits. When they come out in conversation, it’s nearly a dealbreaker.

What are you thinking I/we should do next?

5

Now on your list above did you think about more income equality???
If we are a majority based system as a democracy is, then we must
work on majority based policies such as income equality, justice equality
for all and equality in all policies. Or do we focus as the conservatives do and
focus on the one, the individual and concentrate our efforts there and by doing
so, we limit equality as a societal concern. Where should society focus its efforts?
on the one or majority?

Next step is the goals. What goal or goals should society pursue? Should we
make an effort to reduce or eliminate poverty or should we pursue a grand
dream like the colonization of space with the moon and mars as immediate targets.
What seems to be an immediate goal that we as a society need to attack?
Where should we focus our money and effort as a society?
That will tell you what is next.

Kropotkin

6

I’m first for eliminating poverty and human rights abuses. I’m also for science and progress. But knowing the goals does not equate knowing the next steps. It sounds like you’re nudging me toward a partisan leftist script.

We should attack poverty with whatever means WORKS. I’m not knowledgable enough to have that debate. All I know is I feel it’s a priority. But if you’re trying to get me to say tax corporations and the wealthy even more, to end income inequality, I’m not going to bite. Businesses have to thrive and grow, and taxing mid-sized business too much puts a drag on their ability to hire and expand, it causes layoffs. I have two friends, both industrialists, who recently had to layoff hundreds because of Obamacare. For these people, their lives are ruined, and the businesses are contracting. It’s not pretty. It’s not as simple as the CEOs taking a pay cut.

It’s not inequality, per se, that bothers me. It’s the existence of poverty that bothers me. I couldn’t care less if the one percent has more money than the bottom 70%, as long as the bottom 70 have health care, food and shelter, and freedom to better their situation. Right now, in many ways, they don’t, and they’re stuck. That’s not ok. But I don’t resent wealth.

Business has gotten smarter. If you do it well and game the system you can make a ton, more than ever. I grew up with a smart, tough crowd of affluent kids. Most of them are millionaires now. They have to accept that money was part of a game they played sponsored by the government, and privilege gave them table stakes, and the government should get a cut. A progressively larger cut is fair. Thank God that cut isn’t going to a Sadam Hussein mansion. It’s going to help single mothers feed their kids. Why? Because people have to eat.

7

nudging you toward a leftist partisan action.
WHO ME! NOW WHY ON EARTH WOULD I DO THAT :smiley:

Actually, I am just giving you idea’s and just because they
happen, accidentally just happen to be leftist is a total
fluke.

On a more serious note, you seem to be concern with poverty
and that is good. Now what steps as a person and what steps
as a member in good standing in society can you do to help
eliminate poverty (if that is indeed the goal you choose)
Is eliminating poverty important enough for you to take action/actions
of some sort? What problem in society is important enough for you to
to take some action on?

Kropotkin

8

The question is how does a society solve poverty, and how can an individual help? I don’t know. Maybe you do. Conservatives also claim to care about poverty and feel their solutions are better. The common response to that is to argue with a “look at the facts!” counterpoint that goes nowhere.

A conservative says running a welfare state isn’t constitutional AND it doesn’t work. A liberal responds that greed and lack of regulations and racism are what leads to the need for welfare. Conservative rolls eyes and says corporate greed is what brings more jobs. Liberals cite crazy wealth disparity and poverty. Conservatives say yeah, and it will get worse if you regulate business or raise wages.

Liberals cite the surplus wealth the 1% are sitting on. Conservatives say it’s stealing to take it, and even if you did, you’d spend it in a way that makes things even worse. Liberals will say it has more to do with corporate loopholes and foreign trade and offshoring.

Conservatives will point out companies have to stay competitive to grow and provide employment. Liberals will say we should ban manufacturing offshore. Conservatives will say we should instead stem illegal immigration. After all, the low-paid immigrants steal jobs and don’t pay taxes.

Insert your brilliant point here. Insert brilliant conservative counterpoint here. It doesn’t end. That’s MY brilliant point.

It seems like our doctrines are too malleable. It seems we should have legislation by now that clears all this up. But that’s not how America works. In a democracy, everybody has an opinion. And as the seas of circumstance shift, opinions shift. There is no overriding principle, and there can’t be. We are stuck with a push and pull, and that’s how it’s meant to be.

Primitive and lazy thinking is important to both sides. In a democracy, the people rule, and so the heat coming off of the citizenry converts to energy. An energy that can, in a limited way, be harnessed for change. It so happens that much of the energy on both sides is primitive, lazy thinking. But that doesn’t mean both doctrines are stupid.

That’s the best thing I can do. I can realize that both principles have merit. Knowing when to apply what is an art and science. As situations change, governments must change. The rules on a lifeboat differ from the rules on a cruise ship. The rules in prosperity differ from the rules on The Walking Dead.

Thus, the best values and principles applied today will differ from yesterday and tomorrow. It’s too complex to know what’s best. College professors, who pore over data and think hard, come up on the left side, hard. That’s telling. But their PC attitudes hint at a bit of brain damage from being in the bubble of campus life for too long. Politicians are weathermen. They check the tradewinds of the populace and try to launch a kite. The good ones invest in the right message at the right time.

Rigid, authoritarian, old-fashioned, mine/yours people have a disdain for creative, adventurous, messy, communal types. Politics gives them a lightning rod with which to channel resentments. The hate isn’t about issues. It’s about people. A poor liberal has no credibility. If they care about welfare, they should clean up their vagabond hipster act and take steps to contribute to the welfare state by earning money. If they can’t or won’t do that, it makes them look hypocritical. Being rigid, old-fashioned and mine/yours does lead to habits that are better for earning money. So we have a paradox.

Rich conservatives also lack credibility. They are often disconnected from the reality of poverty. They lack the imagination to visualize how good people can be poor. Or how some people are just born with less of an ability to conform and earn and play that game. They focus on their bank balance, and when it falls short of the nearest million, it stings. Far more than the idea of someone else’s poverty. And when you find evidence of welfare abuse, no wonder they’re livid.

What can I do? You tell me.

9

Your points are all valid points.
UMMM, Ok, let us try this.

If you want a left vs right break down, we can go that way,
but it seems to me, you want something that goes beyond
the right/left split. Something that rises above religion
and rises above party politics.
Something that rises above the ideologies and is
simply about people.

People the world over have issues.
You have starvation, pollution, excess population,
inadequate water, food, infrastructure. The list of
problems the world has can take up page after page here.
Do people have the right to adequate food, water, sanitation,
housing, education, a job, to list some basic things.
Do we have rights to these things or are they to be earned in
some fashion? conservatives say, you have to earn these things
whereas liberals say, these things are a “human right”. We get these thing
by virtue of being born.

If these things like food and water and an education is a right and not earned,
then the next step is to decide how far should we go?
Personally, I believe that the society is responsible for the citizens living
in that society. So we are responsible for people living in our country.
The poor, the uneducated, the minorities, we are responsible (and by
we, I mean you and me, and everyone in our society) for the well being
of all our citizens. Now the argument comes at this point, either those
who are in need of help
A. deserve their fate,
B. will become unproductive
members of society will become a drag on society.
C. are responsible for themselves so, if they are poor and in need,
that is their problem, not mine.

My response is you have no proof they will do B. and become unproductive,
you just have your gut feelings in that regards.

and as for A. does anyone really deserve living in the margins, barely making
it and often forced to choose between vital supplies be it food and medicine or
food and school supplies? Do they really deserve that?

And as for C. if we, the society by its actions, put people into poverty, then
we the society are responsible for those people. The ideology of Capitalism proclaims
loud and clear, there are winners and losers in capitalism. If by our ideology, we force
people to live a hand to mouth existence, then we are responsible for those who have lost.

If we are responsible, then we are justified in requiring the winners of capitalism
to pay for the losers by taxation. Every game has its cost and benefits and if there
are no benefits for the losers, then why play? The society can only succeed if
the majority of society is succeeding and it is my contention that the majority of
society is not succeeding and so we are left with the conclusion that to avoid
the poor vs rich civil wars that has wracked many a civilization, the Greeks, the romans
barely avoided it, the French and English civil wars were in part battle between the
wealthy and the poor. If we are to avoid that fate, we must become more inclusive.

So once again we have an analysis that supports me.
You can easily have another analysis that says I am flat out wrong.

I cannot tell you what to do because my role here is gonna be a different
role than your role. I am a idea’s, vision person. I try to get people to
understand, to change their preceptions. Your role is different than my role.
but my analysis show you a means to get to your role, your job as it were.

Kropotkin

10

My role is to point out that to be intellectualy honest is to feel like you’re in a perpetual state of disorientation.
It’s not a pleasant feeling which is why almost nobody remains there.

If I vote, I should be able to defend that vote. To really do that, while remaining fully earnest and attentive, is a lot of work.
You don’t want to be a slave to your own bias. If you are, you’re as bad as your opponent.

I don’t know who’s out there who agrees with this, perhaps they are few in number, but it’s with them I stand.

11

The ultimate question is how to get rid of all these people.

12

Sure, you are free to believe whatever you want.
For example, if you believe people deserve to receive welfare, I think you are free to give them as much welfare as you want - for all I care, you can starve yourself and your own to preserve the genetic offspring of others.
However, when you impose your perceived responsibility on those who don’t share it and tell them that they too should take from the mouths of their own children to feed others, THAT is when I begin to have an issue with your beliefs.

I have no issue with people wanting to pay taxes to churches, but when they ask the non-religious to pay taxes to maintain churches they never attend and have no use for and perhaps even directly oppose, now that is when I begin to have issues.

Catch my drift?

13

K: so your own personal welfare is more important than the society you live in?
Ok, so think of society as a sports team, say baseball. Is it more important
to pad your stats (I.E make as much money as possible regardless of it effects on
society) hit more home runs so you can make more money despite the fact that
hitting more home runs isn’t helping your team win. I would point out Barry bonds did
just that and was called selfish among other things. Or is it more important that your
team wins (your society does better and becomes stronger) but your stats are less and
so you personally make less but your team is winning. So what is more important,
yourself or your team?

Kropotkin

14

Arbiter, the idea of imposing the majority’s moral beliefs on the minority is not new. Allowing the presence of people living in squalor has an affect on all of us. Also, anyone who makes a living does so in the fertile soil of stability and opportunity, protected by the bosom of govt. the government is a partner in your success, and the govt is run by the citizenry. Citizenship does not require tax payment or income. A citizen can be broke. You could say “fine don’t torture dogs, but when you impose that on me I take issue.” Refraining from paying income taxes to fund welfare isn’t akin to worshipping the God you want. The choice has an affect on our countrymen. It hurts children. It can lead to revolt and crime. So it’s not just an ethic. It’s arguably a necessary burden of any capitalist society. We need a safety net. It shouldn’t be that hard. Like the fish that swim in the sea people should at the very least be able to eat and not freeze, even if they can’t find work. This burden must be shouldered by the people in a position to pay.

When I look at my paycheck, I see the sweat and blood I put in, but I also see all the lucky coincidences and privileges that went into that paycheck. For me, it takes a bit of the fun out of it. And then I pay taxes. And it’s a lot. But I’m left with five times more than their guy whose welfare my check is funding. You don’t feel that way. Fine. But I’m not imposing it on you because I feel that way. I’m imposing it on you because we don’t have a choice. I pity you for not feeling that way. You are dependent on the govt and your neighbors. You eat the meat the govt inspects. You drive on roads they pave. You drink water they purify. You are protected from enemies and if your house burns it gets doused. It’s magical. And where does this magic come from? Taxes. It is the magic soil in which you built a career. It owns you. And luckily it has better sense than you. A better more realistic sense of utility. And a better heart. And I have the right wing argument all teed up in case you want it. I realize welfare has the risk of perpetuating inaction and exploitation of the producers. It’s a valid point and needs addressing, and has been addressed.

15

If the society I live in demands from me that I take from my own children (I don’t have them yet, hypothetically) and give to others, then yes, FUCK that society.

I don’t identify with and have empathy for every person living in the society.
I don’t care for some slut that has 10 children because she can’t keep her legs closed- I think she should face the natural consequences of deciding to have children when one can’t afford it, you know, be RESPONSIBLE for her choices.

And why should I?

Isn’t identifying with everybody a sign of unawareness of differences?
Isn’t perceiving differences what it means to be conscious?
Isn’t identifying more with those similar to me and less with those dissimilar to me a much more natural and intellectually honest thing to do than just pretending that my own family is of the same worth to me as somebody else’s?
Why would I not prefer those with the same values and beliefs as me?

This is why liberalism fundamentally fails IMO - conservatives say - you take care of your own, I will take care of my own, liberals say - you take care of your own and my own too.

Of course people are pissed off when they have to pay for things like THIS:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0[/youtube]

And this is why liberalism not only fails, but is UTTERLY RETARDED.

It artificially preserve what is naturally unfit, moreover, they preserve another race.

It is predicted that blacks and Asians will multiply like rats while the white population will be lowered drastically in relation, because of imbeciles like that paying for degenerates to have children when they SHOULDN’T.

I know intelligent, attractive white women who don’t have children because they aren’t sure if they can provide for them well enough, YET I AM SUPPOSED TO CUCKOLD AND PAY FOR GENETIC OFFSPRING OF A RACE THAT IS 1) NOT MY OWN and 2) LESS INTELLIGENT THAN MY OWN on average?

Yes, I am pissed off. Fuck liberals and their cuckoldry, it will be the downfall of the white race.

16

Dear Arbiter, I see your ignorance is showing as all people, every single person on earth
came from Africa. We are all Africans. this ideal of some “white race”
doesn’t exist. this is type of thinking you exhibit, shows you are clueless.
Science has shown that all people on earth come from one
woman living in Africa about 70,000 years ago, an eve if you will.

Now the second point is why this fixation on the “white” race.
I would suggest that you are afraid and so being afraid
want to blame your failure, your weakness on some
pretend lowering of some pretend race factor.
It has been experience that those people who
focus on such matters are not well educated, insecure,
afraid of change, and frankly not very smart. There is no inherent
advantage or difference in being white or black or yellow for
the basic reason we are not different in being white or black or yellow.
We are the same because we have the same past.
there is no such thing as pure white or pure black or pure Asian or
pure anything. ( to be correct, the “purest” and I use that word loosely
race are the black races of Africa due to breeding between the other
races over the past 70,000 years.) There is no such thing as a white race
if you think about it, (which apparently is hard for you) so I leave you
with your small minded bigotry to choke on the fact that you are African.

Kropotkin

17

Never mentioned purity.

Gotta agree, there is no difference at all… it’s just this bigotry due to my own flaws or whatever.
[tab]

[/tab]

18

I may not identify with everybody in my race, but to know that we, mostly liberals, are digging our own grave and that we stubbornly keep doing it because of some bullshit nonsensical values… to know that will be the cause of the genes of our ancestors perishing and being mixed with races with different and lower potentials just disgusts me and pisses me off.

19

Boohoo, we enslaved millions of black people and brought them here to make us rich and now the consequences of that are coming back to bite us in the ass. Boohoo, it’s all the fault of liberals, not the fault of the racist colonial philosophy that brought about this situation in the first place. Boohoo.

Prick.

20

Yes, the strong dominate the weak.

Nothing wrong with that.

Only genetic filth, weaklings, have issues with that.

I only mind this inversion of nature, where degenerates like that negro woman breed more than intelligent, competent people.