/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>873523
More or less, yes. They're mostly used to support the socialist idea that there can be no such thing as a level playing field without state intervention, and appealing to the tall-poppy logic that says rich people are evil and the poor are by definition exploited.

Pay it no mind though. "Its not fair" is the rallying cry of the complete fucking loser.

>>873523
I'd add "muh boomers" to the list. Usually these buzzwords come from people with less than stellar life decisions.

>>873523

You could compare it to a race. On average, on white straight man starts out with no hurrdles on his race track (unless he's poor), while women and minorities in general have a few hurdles on their tracks. These hurdles make their race a bit more difficult, but it doesn't mean you don't have to run. Liberals too often see these hurdles as excuses to not race at all, and demand a golden medal anyway.

>>873523
Nice begging the question. Try this out - go volunteer in an inner city youth program. You'll get it in 10 seconds, how the ratchetness molds ratchet kids. They hustle on risky or foolish shit because they don't think they can succeed anywhere in the business world. And they are kind of right - I don't hire ghetto street urchins and neither should you.

Kind of, kind of.

There's a lot of evidence that suggests that there IS some kind of privilege that comes with being white. Its easier to get a job, to seem more trustworthy, and generally results in a higher pay.

However, for the most part that white privilege is not a free meal ticket. No where near the extent that liberals and other SJW's claim it to be. The problem mostly doesn't lie with culture, and how some other cultures glorify violence, criminal behaviour, and generally poor life decisions.

There are a lot of success stories about blacks, asians, and other minorities that have been successful and achieved a lot of success. In fact there's enough of them that they don't even really qualify as an exception. Do minorities have to work harder than their white peers? Yes, generally, but it's more prejudicial than anything.

Generally the biggest qualifiers for success are hard work, charisma, education, and dedication. Something liberals lack, choosing instead to blame someone else and create a straw man out of just to make them appear more sympathetic.

>>873536
>liberals
>socialist
>statists
Just go eat a burger or something, just stop posting..

>>873557
>>873714
There is no such thing as white privilege. There are very practical and pragmatic reasons for whites being preferred for jobs and public offices - they're the safest bet on average. Same goes for choosing men over women. Or choosing straight cisgendered people over queer transgender. When you're running a business you want to minimize risk of anything happening, be it your employee suddenly being on the news for a crime, becoming pregnant, or being unable to attend work because of mental issues.

Then there's the undeniable fact that people subconsciously prefer people of their own race, meaning whites are preferred in white societies, asians in Asian societies and blacks in black societies.

But this can be overrode by image. Whites have an image of success and prestige. Thus whites can get an upper hand even in non white societies. More so than other races. That is mostly because whites have successfully cucked nearly every other culture there is and spread their own all over the entire world. Should there be any institutionalized anti-whiteism to make the playground level again? What's the point? There will always one group of people more preferable than the other. There is no equality. The inherent inequality of the world cannot be explained by the concept of privilege. It is meritocracy on a grand scheme. Meritocracy according to how the universe sees fit, not according to "who deserves what". John didn't deserve to have been born with Down's, and Jack didn't deserve to not have been born at all. This is world for you. Welcome.

>>873730
Are you a retarded person? He only mentioned socialists.

>>873842
He was conflating social-democracy and welfare liberalism with socialism.

>>873789
> There's no white privilege

> people just stereotype that whites are the best
> whites naturally prefer whites
> whites have an image of success
> whites are seen as the best because they cucked everyone centuries ago
>>>/pol/

> The inherit inequality cannot be explained by the concept of privilege
That is literally what privilege means you dumbshit

Although it's retarded to think hiring unqualified minorities vs qualified whites is any kind of solution. What libcucks should be doing is addressing the underlying issues plaguing minority societies and causing them to be unqualified in the first place so we can all prosper.

Maybe like instead of continuously throwing money at schools, they could maybe realize that beaurocrats and administrators are stealing 90% of it, and teachers are just getting scraps. Or eliminating metric based funding so that minority school districts actually needing money because they're unsuccessful don't get less money because they are unsuccessful.

To a degree, yes. 90% of those problems and "oppression" can be avoided today by having a strategic mindset, a good business mindset, not expecting others to just give you things. It's not like 40-50 years ago like in the Mad Men era.

>>873523
yes

>>873869
> people just stereotype that whites are the best
It's a statistical fact when considering who to hire in the west.

> whites naturally prefer whites
As blacks do blacks, asians asians and so on for every other ethnicity. But thanks for cutting that part out of the quote.

> whites have an image of success
> whites are seen as the best because they cucked everyone centuries ago
Yes.

>That is literally what privilege means you dumbshit
Except that you literally do not know what privilege even means.

For privilege to be privilege, it has to be granted. As in when I say "from now on, all retards and faggots will receive twice as much money from the government than before" and therefore make you a privileged person because now I granted you twice the money others receive.

Being a preferable person for a position is not a privilege. Having better genes is not a privilege. Being born into a well off family is not a privilege. Having a good education is not a privilege. Good parents aren't a privilege. Fucking etc.

The concept of white privilege implies that there is this 'systematic racism', whereby a system is put into place by whites to grant whites privileges. This is not true because simply by looking at the law you'll see no ethnic group has any special rights.

If I really wanted to, I could get into the discussion over the 'affirmative action' which is exactly what it tries to destroy, a systematically granted privilege based on ethnicity.

>What libcucks
>libcucks
Nice try at casually implying "oh and I'm not even a librul" because that's exactly what you are. A libcuck.

>Maybe like instead of continuously throwing money at schools, they could maybe realize that beaurocrats and administrators are stealing 90% of it, and teachers are just getting scraps
[Citation fucking needed]

>Or eliminating metric based funding
Yeah because their education problems start only in higher education and not in fucking kindergarten.

>>873536
>"Its not fair" is the rallying cry of the complete fucking loser.

Best line i've heard in a while.

Totally agree

>>873913
THIS

the stupid fucking china "happening" let all of these polfag stormfronts in

please do not turn my biz into pol 2.0. Just because your board is shit doesn't mean mine has to be

>>873903
Scientific and industrial revolutions were all-European works, with all modern mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology being based on the efforts of Europeans almost single-handedly.

While I have a general dislike for people who today are openly white supremacist, that white people occupy 'privileged' positions in the modern world makes sense as white people literally made the modern world.

Sry for blog post but this triggers my autism.

>>873903
In sociological discussion, which is what we're having, a privilege is any advantage one group has in relation to another. I don't want to hear your unfounded pleb responses saying the opposite is true when you probably haven't even seen a sociology textbook in your life. I've worked with top sociologist designing software tools for facilitating their research, so I've admittedly only gleaned the subject from conversations over a few years. But it's probably infinitely more knowledge than you have.

To say that your definition of privilege is right, and therefore there is no privilege, is just the most asinine argument fathomable. You may as well argue that "privilege means having the right of way in nautical terms, therefore outside of boats there is no privilege."

Blacks have privileged. Whites have privilege. The media's narrative obviously prefers to cover only one side of the story, but I assure you there's research done on all sides. Where do you think all those pretty charts you post on /pol/ come from?

The issue is that there is an unequal metric by which races are compared in places where race should not be an issue. Espousing that whites are inherently better at everything while arguing the opposite of true is just a ludicrous example of doublethink.

I'm not even going to follow up because clearly you can't even fathom that a person who disagrees with you is not libcuck, because you're so incapable of understanding that the world is not just black and white.

>>873965
Your post would make sense were it not the case that whites are inherently better at everything.

>>873956
Reread my post and this time think about what I wrote there.

It is not privilege to live in the house you built, which is a simplification for whites being in power of what were originally only white societies.

>>873965
>a privilege is any advantage one group has in relation to another
Wait so blacks have a skin cancer privilege? Should we do something about it? They also have more muscle mass. Is that also a privilege?

What about John? Is he a privileged fuck because his parents had heads on their shoulders and managed getting into the high middle class therefore ensuring their kids a good childhood environment and education? Should we do something about it? Maybe increase taxes for them or judge their kids more harshly when entering high education and jobs because they have a privilege over those from poverty? This would level the playing field, wouldn't it?

>Where do you think all those pretty charts you post on /pol/ come from?
>implying

>The issue is that there is an unequal metric by which races are compared in places where race should not be an issue
Then why is it made an issue? You did so yourself in your last fucking post.

>Espousing that whites are inherently better at everything while arguing the opposite of true is just a ludicrous example of doublethink.
That statement didn't make any sense. Calm your ass and write something actually comprehensible. Plus I wasn't espousing that whites are inherently better at everything.

>I'm not even going to follow up because clearly you can't even fathom that a person who disagrees with you is not libcuck, because you're so incapable of understanding that the world is not just black and white.
Alright then.

>and im not going to respond to your arguments because ad hominem
Fuck off already.

>>873969
is that why chinks build everything society makes? not saying there stuff is better, but they obviously got the ruthless mass production thing going for them that the whole world relies on.

>>873536
white supremacy is....there may be a correlation to race and money but if you don't have money the system can be a burden regardless of race

>>873973
That's called being a third world shithole.

The reason all of the manufacturing is there is because it's cheap. What the fuck are you doing posting on /biz/ if you don't even know that.

As of recently even poorer third world shitholes have become preferable for manufacturing because China is beginning to develop a middle class.

>>873976
youre missing the point lad. ofcourse they are a third world shithole, but that doesn't mean they aren't doing something important that western society can't physically do. sure we're CAPABLE of building smog cities and harvesting homeless people for organs, but collectively we don't allow it, so we just ask China to do it. They could've said no and been irrelevant, but they made it work better than anyone else relatively fast. it's really pretty impressive.

also did you miss the part where the market shit itself various times because China took a dive?

>>873969
This is all insecurities man.
Whites did'nt invent everything and even if they had what former achievements that were created by white men YOU can't possibly take credit for, nor do you deserve any.

>>873980
The only reason China got any real economy going is because the places that aren't complete shitholes have expensive labor costs.

>also did you miss the part where the market shit itself various times because China took a dive?
lel China didn't actually take a dive yet. It's that the government is suspected of lying about their economic growth. Officially it's 7% a year but some other indicators have shown it may be less than half of that. Then you see the govt lessening their currency, implying a desperate attempt to prop up the economy.

To make it short - there is nothing impressive about the China. They're a slave nation open to the exploitation for the rest of the world. If not for that they wouldn't have got shit.

>>873845

>Implying socialism doesnt breed those other two.

We know what socialism is you fucking idiot, it doesnt just end at Public ownership.

>>873981
>Whites did'nt invent everything
True.

>what former achievements that were created by white men YOU can't possibly take credit for
So pride is now not allowed?

Come on dude lets be honest here. The only reason the idea of "lol u cant talk about your acnestors because they arent U" is so widely used is because the ones who use it are either self guiltist whites or minorities being insecure about their perceived lack of any accomplishments their ancestors might've made.

Any healthy person will have pride in what his family lineage has accomplished and what his society as a whole has.

>>873973
Asians are also good.
>>873981
I have no idea what you're trying to say. It would help if you could write a coherent sentence.

>>873969
Better is a relative term though.
Is the average white man smarter than the average black man? Statistics say, undoubtedly so.

But is the average white man smarter than the smartest black person? Probably not.

If you looked at the two of them without knowing anything, you'd be taking the safe bet with the white guy. But if you remain objective you'd get the better guy, which is better for everyone involved.

The argument against privilege is that you just take positive biases of a group and make assumptions without doing diligence to verify it.

I know it's confusing because tumblr feminists and other such groups have twisted the meaning of privilege to hell and back. But privilege is just an unfounded advantage to one group. And to say that all whites are better with a straight face, is an example of it.

Another example. When you promote things like affirmative action, forcing the hiring unqualified people solely on the basis of race, that's literally a privilege for the minority. But that doesn't actually help anyone either, and its just forcing "equality" by making you hire someone based in race because you might have hired someone else based on race. It's a tit for tat approach because no one actually wants to tackle the issue because it's hard.

>>873965
>Sociology
Different anon chiming in here, what a fucking waste of a subject. A subject field studying the ever-changing behaviour of the masses and how they interact and what purpose that interaction serves. As society gets dumber (and make no mistake, it is getting dumber), the only question left to answer through sociology is "why?". Case in point, the acceptance of the term "privelege" and actually taking it seriously.

The key is hard work and good decisions. In Western society, anyone is given the means to make something of themselves. This is often squandered by those who would rather seek immediate gratification and basic pleasures than the long term goal. Many would rather cry foul, that there is injustice or inequality that needs to be eradicated by taking from those in power. What they don't realise is those in power often worked for that "privelege". Their parents likely worked hard for that "privelege". A lineage of people with the tenacity to not just throw in the towel and lie back on excuses.

Those who cling to the term "privelege" are those who haven't worked hard enough to be proud of something they've achieved.

>>873996
What you are talking about is how human mind works. It works through heuristics. What you're battling with is the human fucking mind. You can't get rid of prejudice and stereotyping because on most part they're right and going by them is the easiest way thus freeing resources for other tasks. You will not educate the populace enough for them to actually develop critical thinking. It takes a lifelong effort to rid yourself of all the fallacies we commit during our lives.

Even IF you succeed, it'll only affect the west. And guess what? West's on a track into the shitter. To expect those who will take on the lead after us to be as passive and feminine as we are now is hopeless.

Besides, lets say you actually accomplish ridding the world of ethnic privilege. How would you be able to ensure no other privilege takes its place? The world simply is not fair. By eliminating some environmental factors you will only open up space for others. And once all of the environmental factors are eliminated (literal equality, likely impossible) then you will only made sure that genetic privilege becomes a thing. Given two exactly equal situations, to two people of exactly equal past, means only their genes will dictate what happens.

What is the point in this endless hunt for privileges? We've got better things to invest our time and effort into. More productive shit.

>>873998
>As society gets dumber (and make no mistake, it is getting dumber)
Sauce?

>>873988
no be proud, just don't be so ridiculous you actually believe only white people should be in positions or fields of power. You are correct that some minorities complain about the system and blame the white man. i would tell them they would tell them they are being ridiculous too.

>>874006
>Sauce?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

One of many. Our access to knowledge may be much greater than in previous generations, but our ability to use it to make informed decisions has lessened. See also: Teenage pregnancy statistics and countless similar social phenomena consisting of people making foolish decisions.

>>874011
>just don't be so ridiculous you actually believe only white people should be in positions or fields of power
...in white countries.

You forgot to end the statement. Liberals and minorities are only complaining about 'white privilege' in white countries. You will never see a white or a black person run Japan. Now you'll think "well that's easy; that's because there's not as much minorities and immigrants in Japan!" but I'll respond with "why are there so much in the west?"

Why are we the only house on the street to take the city bums in? Why are we the only ones concerned that said bums get their 'fair share' of our house? Even more, why do we think the bums have a right to be represented in our house? To have a say what furniture goes where and what channels should the TV show? It's as if we've forgotten the bums entered OUR house that was ran by OUR rules and they were okay with it. It's because the simple fact that they were able to stay at our house weighed more than the fact that the house wasn't ran by their rules. But now that we've categorically refrained from standing our ground and instead chosen to submit and apologize.

Liberalism is the bums and bum sympathizers forgetting who built the house and who actually maintains it. Now the bum is staking a claim to what rooms he desires in our house and to refuse him is to deny him what he perceives as his 'human right'. This is absfuckinglutely ridiculous and history will not look back at how we destroyed our civilization and think of it positively.

>>874015
Why'd you post the definition? If that was some clever hint I missed it.

But can't what you said be the result of both; there being more humans, meaning more stupid shit people get into, and the fact that now nearly every instance of such stupidity gets the spotlight thanks to the internet and cameras?

>>874027
I somehow lost most of a lengthy post, so I'll be brief.

You may be right, but look at the media we consume and what is popular.

>Music.
Songs with heavily repetitive choruses, the lyrical depth of a paddling pool and simple instruments. Contrast this versus some of the greats from years gone by such as Hotel California or Bohemian Rhapsody.

>Books
Twilight, Fifty Shades and Harry Potter. At the very least, the former two have no deeper themes. Contrast this to George Orwell's 1984, Jane Austen's "Emma" (commentary on social class) and others that you can no doubt think of. The only novel in recent times that I can think of that offers social commentary and is popular is The Hunger Games, which tore a lot of pages out of 1984 from what I can gather.

Throw in that most of our online news is now clickbait articles with titles aimed to grab attention but offer no substance, because this is the only way to reach out to the masses I've been describing. We've moved backwards. It's hard to quantitively prove, but look close enough and you'll see the evidence.

>>874050
There's always been lots of garbage in the media. Heavily repetitive? Look no further than the plague that was the twelve bar blues. It's just that we've only remembered the better works because the generic garbage was forgotten in favor of whatever flavor of the month trash succeeded it.

>>874050
>Songs with heavily repetitive choruses, the lyrical depth of a paddling pool and simple instruments
Alongside with technological advancements and the decentralization of music industry music has come to change its role in society. When initially it was only used for ceremonial purposes or at gatherings, and could only be listened to in such instances, it now has taken a much more passive role of just buzzing into someones ear while he's doing something else and has his smartphone in his pocket. Not only did this change the role of music, it also changed its nature. Instead of being this complicated masterpiece with thought provoking lyrics for someone to concentrate on it has changed into a rhythmic sound you can bang your head or tap your toe to.

Same goes for art. Previously the goal of art was to represent reality - events, people, places. The more skilled the artist, the higher his brushwork, understanding of geometry, lightning and perspective, the more sought after his works were. It took a lifetime of study and practice to become skilled enough for your pictures to represent reality well, and this was highly revered.

Then photography came about. This changed the role of art. It had to find another place for itself. Now instead of portraying reality as it is, it started dealing with concepts and experimentation. That is why abstract art became a thing or why by googling art you will not see the accurate portrayal of reality. Many who don't appreciate modern art have come to despise it and believe it has devolved, reversed its progress. In reality it has just changed because people stopped caring about what they cared about before.

Soon the role of movies will change too once it is possible to digitally produce them with good quality at a cheap price. It has already started with shorts and vines and whatnot you can find on YT.

(cont)

>>874108
(cont)

News is no exception. It has already been decentralized enough that everyone can write an article or blog about whatever they want from their homes. Clickbait is nothing but entertainment. Had it been available for people decades earlier, they would've eaten that shit up just like we do now. It's like a 'freak circus' a century ago, where you can go "OOOH" one minute and "AAAH" another with a couple of chuckles thrown in between. It's just something we crave like fatty foods or salt.

This probably affects writing aswell but I've gone on long enough and tbh fam smh I haven't really thought about or even been involved with writing.

If you really wanted to make a case about the world getting dumber you'd need to involve the fact that it has been noticed that the Flynn effect has been slowing down. But that's mainly in countries with lots of immigration so that might be it.

Oh and by the way don't you bash on repetitiveness. Don't even dare tell me this isn't repetitive as shit and still not good as fuck:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygNuRpwZqRU

>>874111
>repetitive as shit and YET* not good as fuck

>>873523
No. Anyone taking an unbiased objective look can see that the system is setup to keep the rich rich and the poor poor.

Even something as simple as having your folks buy you a car (common in middle class households) gives you a vast advantage over tour peers that would seem easily overlooked. "Xyz is lazy , I busted my ass and yadda yadda" , no dumbass zyx had to schedule an extra 10 hours a week of waiting and transport time into hos schedule and then hope and pray the drivers didnt go on strike.

Thats just an immediate and easily seen example but the list goes on.

I chose that example because it coild easily be the sifference between success and failure even if you were a white straight man.

>>>>874050
>>Music.
>Songs with heavily repetitive choruses, the lyrical depth of a paddling pool and simple instruments. Contrast this versus some of the greats from years gone by such as Hotel California or Bohemian Rhapsody.

Actually this is incorrect , popular music is "popular" not just because heu repeat it until it dticks but because theyve literally cracked the code in musical theory for ehat makes good pop music. Rivers cuomo / justin timberlake are particular examples of artists who specifically looked at the chords and song structures of hits from the last 40 or 50 years and applied it to the craft.

To say that popular music is "shit" when it clearly flows from an intricate knowledge of musical theory and song structure as well as marketing is a cheap shot.

You might not like it , you might not think its expanding or building anything , but its damn sure not just shst out of someone anus

>>873965
>To say that your definition of privilege is right, and therefore there is no privilege
But that is literally what you're doing - taking a term that means one thing, and coming up with your own meaning that validates your prejudices. This is why no one takes you seriously

>>873981
Then why must we accept the blame for our ancestors' wrongs?

>>874160
>the system
you mean reality? is that what we're calling reality now? "the system" is responsible for the fact that not buying a car means that you don't have a car?

>>873965
>implying sociology is based in fact and not just a bunch of self-aggrandizing liberals patting one another on the backs about how they're "educating the indoctrinated".

Nah fuck that. Privilege in the sense you're using it doesn't exist. Most people have to scrape and claw for anything they can get, regardless of color.

There are a lot of individuals who talk about redistribution as if it is something good. These individuals act as if people are just inert objects that can be placed here and there. Chess pieces on a board, their desires and whims simply ignored, meant to carry out some grand design. However, if we are to assume that people have their own responses to government policies then we cannot blithely assume that government policies have the effect intended.

The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up distributing poverty. The communist nations are of course the classic example but by no means the only good example. The theory goes that confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. Unproductive people who refuse to take agency find this prospect appealing. However, when the Soviet Union started confiscating the wealth of the successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of the starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler’s holocaust in the 1940s.

But how could this possibly be? It is actually really simple. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth, it has to be created first. Herein lies the problem. Future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that is it going to be confiscated, that they will have little reward for their effort. The problem is human nature.

The farmers of the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops when they realised that the government was going to take a large part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate their young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.

Just like people, previously depicted as farmers, are not inert objects, industrialists are not inert objects either. Moreover, unlike the farmers, industrialists are not tied to the land in a particular country.

For instance, take the Russian aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky. This man could take his expertise and ideas to America and produce his planes and helicopters thousands of miles away from his native land. Financiers are even less tied down, especially today, when vast sums of money can be dispatched electronically to any part of the world.

If confiscatory policies can product counterproductive repercussions in a dictatorship, they are even harder to carry out in a democracy. A dictatorship can move swiftly and suddenly. It can swoop down and grab whatever it wants. But in a democracy there must first be public discussion and debates. Those who are targeted for confiscation can see the writing on the wall and act accordingly.

Among the most valuable assets in any nation are the knowledge, skills and productive skills that are commonly referred to as human capital. When successful people with much human capital leave the country, either out of their own volition or because of hostile governments or hostile mobs whipped up by demagogues exploiting envy, lasting damage can be done to the economy they leave behind.

Another communist example. When Fidel Castro suddenly implemented his confiscatory policies, a lot of the successful Cubans fled to Florida. These people had to leave much of their physical wealth behind to be looted. But the poverty-stricken refugees rose to prosperity again in Florida, while the wealth they left behind in Cuba did not prevent the people there from being poverty-stricken under Castro. The real wealth that Cuba lost was the human capital that the refugees took with them to Florida.

An old saying goes that giving a man a fish feeds him for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. What contemporary redistributionist really propose is giving a man a fish and then leaving him dependent on the government for more fish in the future.

Staying with this analogy, if these despicable people were serious about improving the world they would distribute the ability to fish, or to be productive in other ways. Knowledge is one of this things that you can distribute to people without reducing the amount held by others.

This would better serve the interests of the poor, but it would not serve the interest of career politicians who want to exercise power acquired by the votes of people who are dependent on them for handouts.

Redistributionist politicians endlessly proclaim that they want to make things fairer, but what they really are proposing is going backwards to policies that have failed repeatedly in countries all around the world.

Yet, to many people who lack any cognitive ability, redistribution sounds good.

Free shit, right?

>"patriarchy", "white supremacy" and "privilege"
All likely exist to some extent, but nowhere near as deep and centrally significant as ivory tower theorists and Twitter activists like to argue. The more important problem to focus on is a culture of poverty and reliance.

>>874532
Wealth redistribution is only necessary to the extent that 1) the mathematics behind aggregate consumption requires enough purchasing power to sustain itself, and 2) human nature leads to mass resentment of an elite moneyed class that is perceived to use its advantages to preserve its status. These are the reasons libertarianism sounds nice in theory but is unworkable in practice.

>>873536
Kek, In a real socialist country libtards would be the first ones to go. Dead weight is dead weight.

>>873972
>Reread my post and this time think about what I wrote there.
>It is not privilege to live in the house you built, which is a simplification for whites being in power of what were originally only white societies.
I was agreeing with you lol.