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

[Missouri_Mike]

Sounds like you were cherry picking.

That would be more embarrassing than losing.

 

[Tyrion234]

If your neighbor was a doctor then you would go to him.

Stupidity is asking your neighbor especially after you destroyed their fence.

Yeah good luck with that

Still liver transplants do require someone to provide a liver.

See how stupid you are , that is equality.

I’m you told me I destroyed me neighbors fence? When the fuck did that happen? And yeah some one has to provide a liver but you bet your ass myself and anyone with a brain would want the most qualified person to do the transplant instead of a DEI hire

 

[dblack]

That would be more embarrassing than losing.

Indeed. But if you're claiming you always won, you clearly weren't in a league that challenged you. The definition of cherry-picking.

 

[Tyrion234]

People work for their parasite masters, who apparently want an easy life and don't want to work. Workers under capitalism, don't own what they produce, or the means of production. This social arrangement is unsustainable and will be phased out soon as advanced automation and AI replace wage labor. Without wages, there's no capitalism or your beloved parasite leech, who relies on the labor of others to live. The only type of property that should be allowed in society is personal property (for personal use), not private property that is used to exploit others for a profit.

My guy is legit scared of computers

 

[Tyrion234]

You are an idiot.,

If the contract says that they are paid by the number of widgets then that is the contract. they both signed.

Yet if the are both paid 10 dollars an hour then they both receive the same pay.

You claim you made your point with an example where someone can produce a widget at about 1 widget in 1 minute. Whereas the other guy take 30 minutes to make a widget..

You claim that you made a point but you just made an unrealistic example and are doing your happy dance.

as the owner then I world create an environment for the person (who is producing the low number) so that he can make 50 widgets in an hour if that is the goal. More training, etc.
if he cannot do it then all options are on the table.

Solving an issue requires more thought than just one example.

You’re completely lost, enjoy the hyena for your president lmao you actually deserve it, the rest of us don’t but you sir, ma’am, dog, tree completely do

 

[Tyrion234]

You are an idiot.,

If the contract says that they are paid by the number of widgets then that is the contract. they both signed.

Yet if the are both paid 10 dollars an hour then they both receive the same pay.

You claim you made your point with an example where someone can produce a widget at about 1 widget in 1 minute. Whereas the other guy take 30 minutes to make a widget..

You claim that you made a point but you just made an unrealistic example and are doing your happy dance.

as the owner then I world create an environment for the person (who is producing the low number) so that he can make 50 widgets in an hour if that is the goal. More training, etc.
if he cannot do it then all options are on the table.

Solving an issue requires more thought than just one example.

Thank you for defining capitalism over socialism, dumb fuck

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Indeed. But if you're claiming you always won, you clearly weren't in a league that challenged you. The definition of cherry-picking.

I didn’t start there. It took a lot of work, money and dedication to reach the top for those two seasons. Exactly the part of every winner’s career that these equity people ignore. They want all of the benefits of a champion with none of the work or sacrifice.

 

[Tyrion234]

Your assertion that "people work, people get paid, owners are richer, just like it's supposed to be" justifies an unnecessary reality that inherently exploits the majority to benefit a select few who, like parasites, want to enrich themselves through other people's labor. This arrangement that you're so comfortable with is fundamentally unjust, inhumane, and unsustainable. Any wonder why so many people hate their 9 to 5 jobs? It's not that they're lazy, but rather that people intrinsically sense they're getting screwed, working in a totalitarian workplace, disempowered, and subject to the whims of a parasitic capitalist who lives off others' labor.

Under capitalism, workers are commodified and exploited. Their labor is treated as just another input in the production process, and their well-being is secondary to profit maximization. Workers do not own the fruits of their labor or the means of production. Instead, they sell their labor power (their lives, bodies, presence, time) to capitalists, who then extract surplus value from this labor to enrich themselves. This relationship reduces human beings to mere cogs in the capitalist machine, existing primarily to generate profit for others. It keeps people desperate for jobs, in order to increase the capitalist employer's leverage in negotiating the terms of employment.

The government could recognize and protect everyone's right to employment by ensuring full employment in the public sector, thereby empowering the working class to more effectively negotiate their terms of employment with wealthy, powerful capitalists. But it doesn't do that because capitalists control the government, undermining democracy, and turning it into a plutocratic oligarchy ruled by the wealthy. Capitalists want there to be a certain degree of unemployment and poverty because it increases their power when negotiating wages, decreasing the cost of human labor.

Capitalism privatizes profits but socializes losses, as seen in the repeated bailouts of failing industries and financial institutions with public funds. This cycle of boom and bust underscores the system's inherent instability and its reliance on public intervention to survive.

Moreover, with the advent of advanced automation and artificial intelligence, the capitalist model becomes even less viable. As machines and algorithms replace human labor, the traditional wage labor relationship upon which capitalism depends will erode. Without wages, capitalism cannot function, as it relies on the continuous exploitation of human labor.

In contrast, socialism offers a more just and sustainable alternative. It advocates for the abolition of private property that exploits people for profit, allowing only personal property for personal use. This distinction is crucial; while everyone should have the right to own their home, car, or personal belongings, no one should have the right to own property that enables them to exploit others.

Under socialism, the means of production are publicly owned and democratically managed by those who work them. This ensures that the benefits of production are more generously and abundantly shared and that decisions regarding production are made in the collective interest of society, rather than the narrow interest of a wealthy few capitalist parasites.

Workplace democracy is essential. Just as political democracy ensures that citizens have a voice in the governance of their country, economic democracy ensures that workers have a voice in the governance of their workplaces. This creates a more equitable and just society, where the exploitation of workers is eliminated, and everyone has the opportunity to contribute to and benefit from economic production.

In summary, capitalism commodifies and exploits human beings, reducing them to means of production for the benefit of a parasitic class of wealthy capitalists. Socialism seeks to end this exploitation by abolishing private property that enables such exploitation and replacing it with a system where the means of production are publicly owned and democratically managed. With the rise of automation and AI, the transition to socialism is not only desirable but necessary for a sustainable and just future.

You are so naive it’s crazy,

If you give someone the choice to work hard and get nowhere or to do no work but get the same compensation as the first example what the fuck do you think people will
Choose?

 

[Tyrion234]

Which ones specifically? Do you have any examples?

What problem?

One decided on democratically.

So you want the MAJORITY to DEMOCRATICALLY tell you your worth? Got it

 

[ThisIsMe]

When your basis of disagreement has no merit and you do not disagree with whites spewing obvious racism, you will get called a racist. What takes a thick skin is tolerating the abject ignorance and racism posted here.

What takes a thick skin is tolerating the abject ignorance and racism posted here.

The problem is, everything is racism to you. You seem to have determine that you have this insight into other people’s minds, and therefore you conclude, in your own, that people’s arguments have no merit, because you don’t like what they are saying.

you do not disagree with whites spewing obvious racism,

“obvious racism” to you is “whatever they disagree with me on”, aside from that, where do you get the idea that I don’t disagree with people “spewing racism”? What, because I don’t shout them down every time they say something racist? I’m not the forum police…oh wait, that’s right, according to lefty’s, if you are not an activist, you are guilty…does that sound about right?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Let me be clearer for you morons. Shit talking after you put up a bad argument is like shit talking after you throw up a brick. I don't care if you want to talk shit but be able to back it up with more than "you talk ghetto". Because the follow up question is what is ghetto darling and then the empty headed bitch got nothing.

Sure, but you were calling her out because of name calling…which you, and im2 and the rest of the crew do

 

[Tyrion234]

Your disingenuous, silly accusation that I want "the money first and the work second" completely misrepresents the arguments I presented. Let's break this down in a way that highlights the key issues, which you conveniently ignored:

1. Exploitation Under Capitalism: Capitalism inherently exploits the majority to benefit a select few who enrich themselves through others' labor. This isn't about wanting money without working; it's about ensuring that those who do the work receive their fair share of the value they create. Under capitalism, workers sell their labor power—essentially their lives, bodies, presence, and time to capitalist parasites who then extract surplus value from this labor to enrich themselves (If anyone isn't working, it's them, not the workers). This relationship reduces human beings to mere cogs in the capitalist machine, existing primarily to generate profit for others.
2. Democratic Rights in the Workplace: The current capitalist arrangement keeps people desperate for jobs, increasing the capitalist employer's leverage in negotiating the terms of employment. This lack of power for workers is fundamentally unjust. Economic democracy, where workers have a voice in the governance of their workplaces, is essential. Just as political democracy ensures that citizens have a voice in their government, economic democracy ensures that workers can control their own labor and the conditions under which they work.
3. Right to Unionize: Capitalist employers often strip workers of their right to unite and form unions to negotiate their terms of employment collectively. They prefer negotiating with individual workers because it gives them more power. When workers are isolated, they have less leverage. In contrast, unionized workers have more power, resulting in higher pay and more benefits. Strength in numbers allows workers to better protect their interests and negotiate more favorable terms.
4. Government's Role and Capitalist Control:The government could recognize and protect everyone's right to employment by ensuring full employment in the public sector. This would empower the working class to more effectively negotiate their terms of employment with capitalists. However, because capitalists often control the government, democracy is undermined and turned into a plutocratic oligarchy ruled by the wealthy. Capitalists benefit from maintaining a certain degree of unemployment and poverty because it increases their power when negotiating wages and decreases the cost of labor.
5. Systemic Instability and Public Bailouts: Capitalism privatizes profits but socializes losses, as evidenced by repeated bailouts of failing industries and financial institutions with public funds. This cycle of boom and bust underscores the system's inherent instability and reliance on public intervention to survive. This isn't about wanting something for nothing; it's about recognizing that the system is rigged to benefit the few at the expense of the many.
6. Automation, AI, and the Future of Work: With the advent of advanced automation and artificial intelligence, the capitalist model becomes even less viable. As machines and algorithms replace human labor, the traditional wage labor relationship upon which capitalism depends will erode. Without wages, capitalism cannot function because it relies on the continuous exploitation of human labor. This transition requires a shift to socialism, where the benefits of increased productivity from automation and AI are shared by all, not just the wealthy few.
7. Socialism is a Sustainable Alternative: Socialism advocates for the abolition of private property that exploits people for profit, allowing only personal property for personal use. Under socialism, the means of production are publicly owned and democratically managed by those who work them. This ensures that the benefits of production are more generously and abundantly shared and that decisions regarding production are made in the collective interest of society, rather than the narrow interest of a wealthy few capitalist parasites-leeches (unnecessary middlemen).

In summary, your characterization of my arguments as wanting "money first and work second" is a gross, infantile misrepresentation. The essence of my argument is about fairness, justice, and the sustainable organization of society. It's about ensuring that workers receive the value of what they produce, have democratic rights in their workplaces, and that the benefits of technological advancements are shared by all.

Read your own number 5 again and tell me how that isn’t exactly what you are proposing. You want the end goal the same and just expect people to produce the same, I’m no saint, you tell me I get $150,000 a year to work my ass off or I get $150,000 a year to sit on my ass and which you think I’m taking? Or anyone else. Open your eyes

 

[Curried Goats]

You listen, jerkoff. You asked a question, or rather made a demand: "... explain how property can be obtained without force."

Or maybe you simply misunderstood the nature of my question.

I offered up voluntary trade. But then you decided that what you really had in mind was an entirely different question, which posited a situation where no property is owned and asked how we'd go about dividing it up.

What you originally offered up was the premise that the choice is between equal rights and equity. I'm challenging that premise. I'm arguing that equal rights don't actually exist in a system founded on purposeful inequity. You want me to take it on faith that equal rights can exist in a capitalist system. Why should I? I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt by ignoring history and allowing you to attempt to build this society from scratch for the sake of argument.

In that case, if we were starting over with all property being unowned, I suppose we could give everyone an equal share.

But of course that would only last a generation or two. In due time, the people who used their property in ways that were most productive for society would get more property, and those who squandered it would lose out. And we right back in the same situation, where rich people had more than poor people.

Who's doing the giving and who's deciding what's an equal share? All property isn't equal. A barren dessert isn't equal to land with a fresh water source. And if everyone does have equally resourceful land, where are the capitalists? And is this agreement with everyone on earth? What about the people who aren't part of this agreement? It's OK to use force against them?

Anyway - you can't debate honestly (you've proven it over and over again), so I have very little patience with your trolling. Go away.

Debating honestly to me is giving you the opportunity to make your argument and addressing it in the context with which you meant it. I thought we were having a civil discussion until you flipped out. I'm not trying to troll, I just don't think your argument makes sense. This economy is a competition that was created by force and whom many were hobbled in. Some more than others. It's not a meritocracy, not when some are playing with their hands tied behind their backs. Those of you who want to poo poo equity have to pretend this isn't the case.

 

[Curried Goats]

So you want the MAJORITY to DEMOCRATICALLY tell you your worth? Got it

I'm glad that's what you got from that. Good for you. Good try.

 

[Tyrion234]

I'm glad that's what you got from that. Good for you. Good try.

It’s literally what you said

 

[Curried Goats]

It’s literally what you said

It sure was. You're definitely using that word correctly.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, thats not it. You have disagreed with me on things I have lived through, seen others looking like me lived through and have listened to others looking like me in national and international conferenses talking about livinig through.

Black Reparations for Twentieth Century Federal Housing Discrimination: The Construction of White Wealth and the Effects of Denied Black Homeownership

This year marks the 400th anniversary of the first documented arrival of Africans to the United States, which resulted in the enslavement of approximately 4 mil

papers.ssrn.com

Thisis a study from Boston Uinversity Law school that you disagreed with. It is based on EVIDENCE, and yet you disagreed based on nothing. You are called a racist because that is what you are. You seem to believe that you know more about what blacks have endured and why than someone black. But you don't and it's not about me going into echo chambers or hate. It is about you being white ignorant and arrogant.

It's not about capituation, but when your ass is shown govermemt policy that has actual discriminatory languge or was proven by process to have actually excluded blacks then you say that it did not happe nor it is not the cause of the problem, YOU are the one with the problem.

You have disagreed with me on things I have lived through

How could I disagree with what you’ve lived through? I have no idea what you’ve lived through. What I disagree with is when YOU start thinking you know more about what white peoples think than what they know. This whole idea of unconscious bias, micro aggressions, and all this other nonsense that apparently only black people can see, and have this privilege of being able to arbitrarily assign to white folk, based on this magical power of insight that you claim to have, where you know what other people are thinking. This is compounded by the fact that you think every time a white person disagrees or argues with you on a point, it’s a racist microaggression.

Thisis a study from Boston Uinversity Law school that you disagreed with

How could I disagree with it…I’ve never seen it before…

You are called a racist because that is what you are

No, I’m called a racist because it’s your reflex response to…everything.

You seem to believe that you know more about what blacks have endured and why than someone black

Where have I ever disagreed about what black people have endured? What I disagree with is your trying to assign racism ti everyone because you think you know what other people are thinking and feeling.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is coming from a place of hate you know?

But you don't and it's not about me going into echo chambers or hate.

Oh, you spend plenty of time in echo chambers, you post them here daily.

Have you ever read…anything..from the other perspective? Or is everything you consume from the “hate whitey” media?

It is about you being white ignorant and arrogan

Here is proof…you think I’m white because of the argument I present. You have no clue what color my skin is, but to you, I’m presenting a “white argument”, so therefore you assign me as white

It's not about capituation, but when your ass is shown govermemt policy that has actual discriminatory languge or was proven by process to have actually excluded blacks then you say that it did not happe nor it is not the cause of the problem, YOU are the one with the problem.

What policies do we have that are written to be discriminatory or exclude blacks? Are you talking back in the 50s and 60s? Or today?

YOU are the one with the problem.

No, I’m the one trying to talk about this in a calm, rational way, YOU are the one who comes at people with insults and accusations when the push back on your arguments.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Should they?

Given two people who are fully able bodied, and presented with equal tasks, if one puts in more effort than the other, i would expect that person would get the greater reward.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Read your own number 5 again and tell me how that isn’t exactly what you are proposing. You want the end goal the same and just expect people to produce the same, I’m no saint, you tell me I get $150,000 a year to work my ass off or I get $150,000 a year to sit on my ass and which you think I’m taking? Or anyone else. Open your eyes

Gobbledygook. Do you believe this gibberish you just posted, refutes anything I presented? You're going to have to speak clearly and elaborate.

 

[TruthNotBS]

You are so naive it’s crazy,

If you give someone the choice to work hard and get nowhere or to do no work but get the same compensation as the first example what the fuck do you think people will
Choose?

That's what you do, you just sit on your ass and live off of other people's labor. If you want to spew gibberish, then you don't deserve a thoughtful response. I'm simply mirroring your gobbledygook.