ObjectivityIncarnate

Over the long term, there really isn’t. Outside of a government imposing tyranny-tier control over everyone’s wealth, wealth inequality happens naturally, and inevitably, and the gap widens similarly.

What’s more important is making sure that even the poorest among us can have a decent standard of living. After all, if you waved a magic wand and now everyone in the US, for example, was earning $75,000 a year minimum, no one would be in poverty, right? And yet the size of the ‘wealth gap’ between the wealthiest and the $75k ‘minimum earners’ would effectively be identical; the gap between $0 and billions is basically the same as the gap between $75k and billions.

Toppling the wealthiest just because they’re the wealthiest isn’t going to solve any of the actual problems (especially when politicians get bribed for relatively-measly five figure sums, etc.).

Massive understatement—they’re actually the only things that could truly be “solutions” at all in anything approaching long-term.

There will always be people who are the smartest and/or shrewdest and/or most ambitious and/or luckiest, in a population. “Just get rid of the people who currently have the most wealth” is extraordinarily naive.

Unironic major example of how “[size] dick energy” is a really stupid, and inherently body-shaming, expression in the first place.

The OP says “doesn’t work”, not ‘does work but not enough to satisfy an arbitrary threshold of “working for a living” so it doesn’t count’.

Nobody is saying owners do literally no labor

The OP literally says “doesn’t work”. Is “doesn’t work” not equivalent to “no labor”?

when the Trump Administration gives us our tariff refund

Who is expecting this to actually ever happen?

This is an interesting notion I hadn’t considered at all, you may be on to something there.

If you ignore that different demographics face different issues and that they are valid in bringing them up

Which is irrelevant, because that’s not what I did.

you’re right wing trash as far as I’m concerned.

Since you’ve demonstrated a deliberate penchant for deliberately misconstruing anything short of full-throated agreement, your labeling based on that has no value whatsoever. “Right wing trash” and “person who disagrees with me” are not synonymous.

The fact remains, despite your protest: the attention any given injustice a person has suffered merits, should not depend on any of the victim’s immutable characteristics. It is immoral to believe, for example, that George Floyd and Tony Timpa^[1] merit different amounts of sympathy/outrage/etc., just because one is black and the other is white.

You’re equivocating, for no reason, being equally sympathetic to an injustice regardless of the demographics of the victim in any given instance, with treating every case as if it’s identical.

Those are completely unrelated things.

P.S. You ‘may be shocked to learn’ that starting a comment like that just makes you sound like a sanctimonious jerk.

George Carlin (who is idolized and rightly so, mostly) had a line in one of his standup specials where he said “you show me a tropical fruit and I’ll show you a cocksucker from Guatemala”. Homophobia was just so normalized back then (this was the ‘80s).

I don’t think this bit was homophobic at all, and that you’ve misinterpreted it, through omission and otherwise. If anything, homophobia is part of what is being laughed at (and a small piece of the overall joke). I’ll explain.

To begin with, you left out key parts of the joke; he wasn’t expressing that as himself. Here’s the full bit:

I remember something my third grade teacher used to say. She used to say “You show me a tropical fruit, and I’ll show you a cocksucker from Guatemala.” No, wait… that wasn’t her. That was a guy I met in the Army.

While the joke uses “fruit” as slang for gay as part of it, that isn’t actually even the punchline, the wordplay is just a vehicle for it. The humor primarily hinges on the notion of a grade school teacher saying something that crass (the second part specifically) to a child, coupled with the implication that it was something she said more than once (“used to say” instead of “said”).

Then he realizes it was some grunt who was in the Army with him (who it’d make more sense to say something crass/uncouth like that), which adds another element of humor in ‘how could he possibly mix those two people up?’. If anything, that hypothetical Army guy is being laughed at in part for the homophobic slur usage.

99.55%

The specificity of this made me imagine that you had actually taken inventory of every single time you’ve encountered this in your personal life experience and done the math, lol.

It’s not ironic at all. If someone steals X, it’s not ironic for them to not want that X stolen from them; it actually aligns perfectly with their previous mindset: ‘I want to have this’.

Ignoring key issues of discrimination of marginalised peoples

This is like saying that someone wanting to end all poverty is ignoring and discriminating against the single poorest person.

Stop acting like these things are zero-sum. It takes no extra effort to speak out against all instances of an injustice, compared to doing so only for certain instances of that injustice.

Doesn’t “correct this behavior” very directly imply that the current behavior (in this case, taking your full lunch break) is incorrect and therefore in need of correction, though?

It’s one thing to suggest something, but calling it a “correction” changes things, I’d think.

There’s a long, documented, researched, history of men being raised to expect things from women.

I find the implication that there is not also a long, documented, researched, history of women being raised to expect things from men, quite amusing in its ignorance.

I’m not saying women are universally awful or anything.

You obviously aren’t, but it speaks volumes all on its own that you felt there was a need to state that, only bolstering your other points about this one-sidedness.

You could not have proven their point more strongly if you tried.

Fact is, even if it was “always a man”, the fact of the matter is that the vast, vast majority of men don’t do it, making the assumptions about men not only immoral, but inaccurate.

White supremacists use the exact same logic, pointing at crime statistics, to justify prejudice toward black people. This is the male sex version of “around blacks never relax”, nothing more, don’t pretend otherwise.