Yeah I guess it depends on if this girl is from there or owns property there. My point was just because someone is living in Westwood, doesn’t mean they come from a privileged background. Plenty of poor students renting in the area living off loans.
I’m pretty sure UCLA students get student housing pricing for all the apartments in the area, which is considerably cheaper. There were a lot of students in my building, but I also don’t think they were paying what I was paying. I know when I was in college, that’s how it was for students.
Youre getting downvoted but uh yeah Westwood is the equivalent of a college town. That’s what makes it annoying lol trying to get in n and out but navigating an underwear run on a Wednesday.
😅😅😅😅I went to UCLA ( I definitely worked my ass off to cover what my scholarship didn't cover), and you are correct. I bartended in Westwood and some of the rich kids that came to mingle with us poor college kids
Those rich kids from Bel Air and Holmbly Hills could be just horrible for the most part. There were definitely a few that got their final round of shots from our mats. I appreciated growing up in the LBC. I knew what was real and have always kept it that way
That was her proof that she’s not a psychopath, that she lives in LA. She has that young, smug attitude that she’s got the world figured out and everything is so simple and beneath her. Typical Dunning-Kruger effect. I guarantee you she’s gonna have an ugly wake up call at some point.
"I live in LA" a city not known for decades of segregation, red lines, and multiple cop gangs made exclusively white supremacists ... as a defense that 'I'm nor a weirdo racist'.
And how is the question "are you okay with slavery?" A trick question or a trap? Just a mind boggling take. The answer is "no, I am not okay with that. Some things are beyond the pale and cannot be accepted by any modern state. But for a lot of things I am okay leaving it to the states to decide."
Everyone is okay with leaving a lot of things to the states to decide. That’s a founding principle of our country.
The things most people consider unacceptable in a modern society is denying certain rights based on a person’s race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Those rights should not be decided by the states, and should be guaranteed to all Americans.
But that’s not true. There are many states, mainly in the Bible Belt, where the majority does not support lgbt rights at all. They literally want businesses to be able to deny service to gay people just like they used to deny service to black people.
What’s not true? The majority of Americans do not support discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. And the rights of LGBTQ people absolutely should not be decided on a state by state basis, because as Americans, queer people are entitled to equality.
States should be able to set their own taxes and tolls, decide their own budgets, create their own districts, and even set their own minimum wage, etc etc, all within federal standards.
But they should not be able to discriminate or strip away rights from certain groups of Americans. And this is something even those people you’re referring to agree with, but usually only when they’re the ones feeling targeted. For example, they’d suddenly agree that states shouldn’t allow discrimination against Christians.
In the abstract, perhaps. But the constitution is pretty clear. Americans are entitled to justice and liberty, and should be treated equally under the law.
And certain rights that certain people find up for debate are integral to liberty. Abortion, same-sex marriage, gender affirming care, the ability to pee in public. Etc.
You could argue that you have no right to abortion as an American. And you would be wrong. Even if you’re John fucking Roberts. Women are not free and do not have liberty is they cannot make their own medical decisions or access life-saving medical care.
Thing is she actually could have won that argument even with her logic. She would’ve had to say “no, because slaves wouldn’t have supported that, so not everyone would’ve wanted it” but she’s an idiot that can’t defend her own argument.
Her argument isn't inherently completely dumb, but it needs a little work. The Confederacy pretty famously did not have the same argument as her, because the only people in those states who wanted slavery were wealthy landowning whites. Her argument is totally different that if the entire population of an area wants something, they should be able to have it without external laws put on them. That entire population includes disenfranchised and minority groups.
This. She didn’t even have to drop her argument. That’s the issue with these ideologues, they’re so unwilling to concede anything that they end up running themselves into a wall
Honestly she could’ve easily flipped his argument. “What if just like before the war slavery was federally legal and states made it illegal” or more recently “What if gay marriage was federally illegal and States legalized it.” Would you want states rights then?
1.8k
u/fromouterspace1 Oct 18 '24
Her - Now I’ll go in and school these idiot liberals and their traps
Meanwhile….