The pooled popular votes of Americans did get rid of the Republican controlled Senate, on Nov. 3, 2020.
Politesse said:
You are very confused about what my point even was. "The wealthy" (whoever that is) are not all dipshits, nor are all dipshits wealthy. But a person who is both a dipshit and wealthy has considerable power to make other people's lives unjustly and unreasonably miserable. Ergo, my objection to a system that caters to the desires of wealthy dipshits while ignoring or dismissing the legitimate needs and rights of the people who produce the goods and services society needs to function. Creatures of the system, like our 45th president, hoard huge portions of our nation's wealth while contributing next to nothing back to the society that has so unnecessrily blessed them. That's what makes them wealthy dipshits. Not just "the wealthy", a term which I think has very little meaning given how subjective its definition must surely be. So, I certainly do not see this as class discrimination, nor do I see how you could possibly address actual class discrimination while also carefully avoiding criticism of anyone with money and power. My problem with crony capitalism is not the mere existence of weath but the encouragement of ill-gotten and unearned wealth.
I turned the other cheek at your original strike, but now you've just hit me again, and I only have two cheeks. I'm not into Jesus' whole forgive four hundred and ninety times thing.
You appear to be under the peculiar impression that talking like a South Park 4th-grader is "grown-up language". It's childish. But it's only mildly childish; it's not the issue here. What's severely childish is your dishonorable attempt to strawman me in order to belittle me and belittle my criticism of your post. That didn't have anything to do with my "comfort", and when you pretend it did, you are behaving like a schoolyard bully sneering "Little baby gonna cry now?". Your spicy language does not make me uncomfortable. Quite the reverse. Cuss all you please with my blessing. If you want to put the impoverishment of your vocabulary on open display that's no skin off my nose.
The reason I called out your sentence is because it was hate-speech against your outgroup. Calling the wealthy class excrement is not morally any worthier than calling the Jews excrement. If you'd done that and gotten called on for it, you wouldn't have expected any of your readers to be impressed by you sneeringly asking if your challenger preferred you call the Jews meanie-heads. But of course you did expect the choir you preach to to go along with your falsified narrative about my "comfort". You expected that because outgroups are like children -- it's different when they're yours.
You are presenting data which I have previously shown is not reprsentative of the whole labor market.
I did no such thing. A class of people cannot be "parasitic as a whole", that makes no logical sense whatsoever, circular or not. Such a "class" would be unable to function or persist.
Wrong on all counts. I did not present the data, #Bomb 20 did. Your belief that this data is not representative of the whole labor market has no basis in fact. You have yet to present an iota of actual evidence to support any of your claims. Until you present evidence to support your claims of alleged fact, you are babbling.
This is stuff we've gone over before.
I understand that is your deeply mistaken belief.
Don’t make you any more correct.
And we're going over it again, so you need to bring out the evidence, or not participate at all.
If it bores you then you shouldn't have brought the subject of your language up in the first place -- you should never have strawmanned me by offering your pathetic defense of something no one had critiqued. I critiqued your bigotry, not your language.
Been there, done that. "[hated by Politesse]".
I was not rebutted before. This whole thing is just a derail to avoid addressing a fact you don't like.
But once things have been presented you don't get to conveniently ignore them the next time the topic comes up. It's not my job to make you remember inconvenient facts.
Did you present the information that any unemployment went up as a result or that hours worked dropped as a result? All you did in that thread was say that rising minimum wage would cause an indiscernible increase in the unemployment rate. Wouldn't it be easier for you to prove your case by showing how jobs decreased or workable hours decreased?
That is exactly what you are doing in this thread.
1) You're changing topics.
You can't extrapolate a trend from a single datum.
That is why you'd need to show either min wage jobs or hours worked decreased, otherwise, you are making a claim that isn't supported by anything. Saying it is infalsifiable doesn't work in your favor.
QFT.
