Sorry, I’ll extrapolate more precisely.

Casinos spend unfathomable resources on learning exactly how to wedge their ads deep into your mind and get you hooked on their satisfying little dopamine loops, but it’s your personal failure if you, an ordinary person who is statistically speaking living paycheck to paycheck raising a kid with no savings, succumb to them. And your responsibility to fix it.

Correct?

Sure was nice of the state to require your 2001 online casino to list in writing the odds of winning and enforce payment. But sure, they did you a favor and the state is bad, people are solo acts and you should be free to prey on the less powerful

You’re replying to people who can’t believe the injustice of these laws by explaining that the laws are legal. No consensus will be reached; these are two completely different perspectives. Personally, I think laws, being a made up construct, should generally promote positive behavior like stopping genocide, so I easily side with the protesters and commenters here expressing indignation alongside them.

The legality argument also ignores the police tradition of breaking the law while shutting down protests just because they can get away with it.

Well unfortunately, the overlap is close enough to a circle that it makes plenty of sense, especially since the issue is not purely economic, but social, as you accidentally point out by using the phrase socioeconomic. Obama has wealth that is unfathomable to the everyday person, as does Clinton—both deal with a society that belittles them because of who they are in a way that white men don’t face, rich or poor.

Surely you’ve noticed that Obama is the only black president so far, despite black people making up 10 to 20% of the population over the last few centuries.

You are also aware that Clinton would have been the first female U.S. President. She won the popular vote by a significant margin, which is a great sign for public opinion on women, but the reality is still that women, who are more than half the country, are not more than half in charge of it.

The fact these two got as far as they did is in no small part thanks to the concept of affirmative action, where we try to right past wrongs and level the playing field. Encourage women to go into nontraditional fields, encourage black students to apply for Ivy League schools and ensure there are spots for them—these things only “hurt” white men because resources are so artificially limited already, disproportionately held by the tiny percentage of [rich white men] who control the US’s giant conglomerates and obedient politicians, and regular old white men aren’t used to feeling the squeeze.

Did Obama pull the ladder up behind him somewhat by applying the same neoliberal bullshit that has destroyed the concept of compassionate social safety nets in favor of a more competitive marketplace? Can you be mad at him? Yeah. That’s beside the point. White people have been allowed to fuck over other white people for ages.

Without citing specific examples, it sounds like you just don’t like affirmative action programs, which is an opinion I’d be embarrassed to say out loud. When one group of people has all the money and all the connections, it’s not fair to say “just treat everyone equally!” because it maintains the unequal status quo—poorer minority groups continue getting into schools at lower rates since they live in poorer neighborhoods with poorer schools and poorer access to the funds needed for higher education, women continue getting passed up for management positions, leading to more male dominated companies hiring more men for more management positions, et cetera

Hey, since you know of this, is there any chance you’ve also seen the “moon is manufactured” website? Something about how it was a message, and intentionally designed because how else could it perfectly eclipse the sun. Haven’t been able to turn it up since about 2014

You’ve never heard of someone buying music on iTunes?

Sorry, I forgot that when you want to sell a bunch of stocks everyone just buys them all at your preferred high price, and then the price magically goes down after

Why must someone upset at potential losses turn them into actual losses? You can’t think of an alternative, like pushing articles on some mouthpiece publication, maybe Gizmodo? Nope, if anyone cared they’d all show it by losing money and influence, obviously

Healthy, haha

Actually professor I don’t much care to continue. I asked if all the cards are on the table (because I know they’re not) and you responding with “yes…?” so this isn’t going to go anywhere. Especially since I don’t have a favorite -ism to provide you with so you can tell me how it would never work!

The ideas I’ve presented force cooperation in opposition to capitalist market forces. They coexist in the way my white blood cells coexist with the flu.

By the way, the Panama Papers aren’t available to the public, and they’re culturally relevant because they were secret for so long, and represent an opportunity that isn’t on the table for the rest of us. Better examples are key when upholding the status quo 👌

Yes? It’s that obvious? What percentage of the population knows how the animals they consume are raised and slaughtered, or that it’s illegal to show them? What percentage knows that in many other nations, the burger flipping jobs the U.S. loves to debate do pay better, and yet the food is cheaper? What percentage is aware that many European nations simply do not allow large corporations like Google and Facebook to “own” your data, and that they do not have some sort of inherent right to it? All of these things are legal—passing laws to hide information you don’t like, having no obligation to pay livable wages or provide healthcare, lining your pockets with money nobody else knew you could just… take. Seems like a system in which these actions weren’t both legal and highly rewarded could, you know, put more of the cards on the table.

Hey, that makes sense. Now, in this capitalist system that exists in real life—the one that you think is working out better than any alternatives you can think of—are everyone’s cards laid out?

It depends on the societal framework. That would be anti-worker in the U.S. because you’d be sentencing some people to death, since the U.S. doesn’t have guaranteed livable wages or livable safety nets for those out of work. Given the assumption that you can make ends meet, mandating a cap on the hours spent working for someone else’s benefit and missing out on your own life is pro-human.

Does it matter what they claim they’re going to do differently in the future when they’re burning indefensible amounts of coal right now?