Kamala Harris

[Dānu]

@jerry mcmasters
You brought up an interesting and, to me, new way of looking at the DEI usage.  How could Democrats redefine the meaning that Republicans would hear and possibly understand?  It’s defined as political slur in their brains and changing its meaning would be a great coupe for Dems but, the need to hear it first, understand it second and embrace it third.

It’s a similar problem to the word woke.  It’s actually a positive word yet the Republicans have redefined it into the worst trait a person could have.

It's impossible to "rehabilitate" such term. One of the great weakness of any affirmative action policy (what DEI policies are) or aspect to something is that racist people will always perceive a member of a minority in position of power, prestige, authority or excellence as "having gotten there" thanks to affirmative action even though that's not how affirmative action works in the first place. Racist people don't need to show that Kamala Harris or Barrack Obama would never have gotten to where they are if it were not for affirmative action of some sort. 

They only need to make it possible that they have gotten a leg up that others did not to then cast a cloud of doubt over these individuals. Then, racism does it's thing. Since it's a bias, this possibility takes a preponderant space in racist people's mind and any attempt to dismiss this preponderant space is perceived, in a conspiratorial fashion, as proof that the preponderance was indeed correct. If you ignore it, it's because you are afraid to confront this truth and the preponderance was indeed correct. It's a lose-lose situation because you are arguing against a bias.

The real, core problem, in my opinion, is that affirmative action as used and perceived by conservatives hide a simple contempt: diversity, being a member of a minority group, cannot be a quality in and on itself. The normative and authoritarian mindset of conservatives demands that if there should be equality it's because the things that are equal are fundamentally the same (and any potential difference is purely aesthetic and secondary); a normative and authoritarian mindset rejects outright the idea that you can be equal and fundamentally unique and different at the same time. Affirmative action embraces the idea that difference is a quality in and on itself and deserves to be recognized. You can't rehabilitate the term for the simple reason that to do so you must break racist bias and normative and authoritarian mindset before it can be done and at that point, it's rather useless to reframe the term.

A more fundamental problem is that it is a part of mainstream conservative ideology that systemic racism and systemic sex discrimination are not significant issues in the U.S. Since DEI is in their eyes used to correct something that isn't a problem, said corrections can only be viewed as illegitimate.

[pattylt]

I think my problem with Jerry’s definition, while interesting, is also pointless. DEI has never meant a political process of filling in weaknesses in a presidents chances. It has always meant just what it represents…a process to try and ensure inclusion of everyone. That’s its problem. White Christian’s have been in charge and want to stay in charge of all facets of Americana. They are also a demographic that is decreasing and becoming less relevant. Nothing scares a Christian more than irrelevance.

And @epronovost , you are spot on how they rationalize not being racist or sexist or out of step to our new reality. They’re scared. And scared people act like the cornered cat…all hissing and teeth. I can’t wait until they are a true minority and have to finally learn to deal with people they don’t like, think are sinners or make them uncomfortable. Every other minority has dealt with this their whole life. The white Christian’s will learn this too or forever be held back, living in hate and blaming the world that it’s not fair.

[jerry mcmasters]

@jerry mcmasters
You brought up an interesting and, to me, new way of looking at the DEI usage.  How could Democrats redefine the meaning that Republicans would hear and possibly understand?  It’s defined as political slur in their brains and changing its meaning would be a great coupe for Dems but, the need to hear it first, understand it second and embrace it third.

It’s a similar problem to the word woke.  It’s actually a positive word yet the Republicans have redefined it into the worst trait a person could have.

Jerry is misusing the term DEI to mean something that it doesn't.  Here is the Wikipedia entry:

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are organizational frameworks which seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination on the basis of identity or disability. These three notions (diversity, equity, and inclusion) together represent "three closely linked values" which organizations seek to institutionalize through DEI frameworks. The concepts predate this terminology and other variations include diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging (DEIB), inclusion and diversity (I&D), justice, equity, diversity and inclusion (JEDI or EDIJ), or diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (IDEA, DEIA or DEAI).

Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce, such as in identity and identity politics. It includes gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, age, culture, class, religion, or opinion. Equity refers to concepts of fairness and justice, such as fair compensation and substantive equality. More specifically, equity usually also includes a focus on societal disparities and allocating resources and "decision making authority to groups that have historically been disadvantaged", and taking "into consideration a person's unique circumstances, adjusting treatment accordingly so that the end result is equal." Finally, inclusion refers to creating an organizational culture that creates an experience where "all employees feel their voices will be heard", and a sense of belonging and integration.

Wikipedia || Diversity, equity, and inclusion

Jerry claims that Mike Pence was a DEI hire, and that all VP's are DEI hires ("She was a DEI hire.  But the thing is, they all are.  All VPs are chosen for some quality or characteristic or demographic need.  Pence was a DEI hire.").  Does the Wikipedia entry sound like something that applies to Mike Pence?  Was he chosen because people like him are in some sense under-represented?  No it does not.  Does this sound like something that applies to all VPs?  No it does not.  Does this sound anything at all like what jerry is referring to as DEI?   Jerry has a superficial and incorrect understanding of what the term DEI means, and when misunderstanding and confusion results because of his incorrect usage, he looks to blame those around him.  No, all VPs are not DEI hires.  Jerry is simply wrong.

 
Okay Danu goddammit my fucking idea wasn’t as fucking clever as I fucking thought it was.
 
I still think it’s the best hand to play in reply to “She’s a DEI hire.”  Someone that would say “Harris is a DEI hire” (whatever their motivations) isn’t using Wikipedia, they’re using it as slang short-hand for “There were more qualified people in ability, smarts, etc., but she checked the right racial and gender boxes.”  What such a person may not know is that the VP position is nothing but the checking of boxes that aren’t ability, smarts, character, etc.  All VPs are picked for all kinds of reasons that WOULD NOT be acceptable for a brain surgeon, pilot, or engineer, thus in that sense Harris is no different from Pence and Vance.  Does that tack on to the literal textbook definition of DEI?  Not as much as I thought it did an hour ago.  Does it tack on to the spirit in which someone using this insult would think?  Yes, very much.  What remains the dumbest reply to the insult? “Uh, no she isn’t, just ignore that thing about Biden literally ruling out anyone not black and female.”

[Minimalist]

Someone that would say “Harris is a DEI hire” (whatever their motivations) isn’t using Wikipedia, they’re using it as slang short-hand for “There were more qualified people in ability, smarts, etc., but she checked the right racial and gender boxes.”

I already told you what the Magamorons are using as slang short-hand for.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Here's a good response to the DEI charge: "You're goddamned right. It's about time women and minorities have access to power too." Own that it's about putting a woman of color into power, and let the bigots explain their objections. Force them to them sell white male rule to the electorate.

I want to see inclusive leaders stop shilly-shallying and fearing the Trumpeteer vote. Force the white supremacists to make their argument openly.

[jerry mcmasters]

Someone that would say “Harris is a DEI hire” (whatever their motivations) isn’t using Wikipedia, they’re using it as slang short-hand for “There were more qualified people in ability, smarts, etc., but she checked the right racial and gender boxes.”

I already told you what the Magamorons are using as slang short-hand for.

I remember, "nigger."

[jerry mcmasters]

I think my problem with Jerry’s definition, while interesting, is also pointless.  DEI has never meant a political process of filling in weaknesses in a presidents chances. 

Well...no shit.  I humbly suggest the accusation is a fairly recent phenomenon.  Modern problems require modern solutions.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think my problem with Jerry’s definition, while interesting, is also pointless.  DEI has never meant a political process of filling in weaknesses in a presidents chances. 

Well...no shit.  I humbly suggest the accusation is a fairly recent phenomenon.  Modern problems require modern solutions.

Odd. In your OP you argue that DEI is actually in one sense an ongoing political process -- filling in a VP to assuage this or that constituency. Yet now you'd argue that this is a new thing.

It's not recent at all (cf. LBJ). It's just been broadened to include not only rednecky state yokels, but (egads!) the wimmenfolk and nonwhites. That's why the Republicans are using it now.

They sure as hell won't call Clarence Thomas DEI. Oh, no.

[jerry mcmasters]

Well...no shit.  I humbly suggest the accusation is a fairly recent phenomenon.  Modern problems require modern solutions.

Odd. In your OP you argue that DEI is actually in one sense an ongoing political process -- filling in a VP to assuage this or that constituency. Yet now you'd argue that this is a new thing.

Oh my God.  Thump you must be lusting for me to call you a cunt.  Why can't you ever live up to any of your "I'm going to ignore you from now on!" threats?

The only time the DEI card has been played has literally been NOW with Harris.  The proper counter-move is to turn the analogy back on them to include RETROACTIVELY all other VPs.  You must be playing dumb.  It's 12:08 am here and I know you are in my time zone so I'm going to chalk this one up to you being old and sleepy.  Go to bed.

[Alan V]

I find it rather odd that Republicans continually insist that Democrats hold themselves to standards which they themselves repeatedly ignore. If we behave like them, they hate it.

It's like they insist on being both the batters and the umpires calling the strikes at the same time. Their opinions trump everyone else's. I suppose that's white privilege too.

[Szuchow]

I find it rather odd that Republicans continually insist that Democrats hold themselves to standards which they themselves repeatedly ignore.  If we behave like them, they hate it.

It's like they insist on being both the batters and the umpires calling the strikes at the same time.  Their opinions trump everyone else's.  I suppose that's white privilege too.

Why it is odd? Right wingers everywhere want others to be held to some made up (and impossible) "standards"* so they will be able to attack them for not behaving as right wingers want. I see nothing odd in this, it's just basic hypocrisy and dirty fighting - things so common to right wingers as is eating fires with ketchup to everyone else.


*which standards change depending on the issue being discussed

[airportkid]

I find it rather odd that Republicans continually insist that Democrats hold themselves to standards which they themselves repeatedly ignore.

No conservative would actually want to live in the kind of world they so shrilly demand, but it's not hypocrisy; the world they concoct is not for them but only for everyone else.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Odd. In your OP you argue that DEI is actually in one sense an ongoing political process -- filling in a VP to assuage this or that constituency. Yet now you'd argue that this is a new thing.

Oh my God.  Thump you must be lusting for me to call you a cunt.  Why can't you ever live up to any of your "I'm going to ignore you from now on!" threats?

The only time the DEI card has been played has literally been NOW with Harris.  The proper counter-move is to turn the analogy back on them to include RETROACTIVELY all other VPs.  You must be playing dumb.  It's 12:08 am here and I know you are in my time zone so I'm going to chalk this one up to you being old and sleepy.  Go to bed.

... and I'm going to chalk this up to you hating to admit someone else has made a point.

[Dānu]

Jerry is misusing the term DEI to mean something that it doesn't.  Here is the Wikipedia entry:


Jerry claims that Mike Pence was a DEI hire, and that all VP's are DEI hires ("She was a DEI hire.  But the thing is, they all are.  All VPs are chosen for some quality or characteristic or demographic need.  Pence was a DEI hire.").  Does the Wikipedia entry sound like something that applies to Mike Pence?  Was he chosen because people like him are in some sense under-represented?  No it does not.  Does this sound like something that applies to all VPs?  No it does not.  Does this sound anything at all like what jerry is referring to as DEI?   Jerry has a superficial and incorrect understanding of what the term DEI means, and when misunderstanding and confusion results because of his incorrect usage, he looks to blame those around him.  No, all VPs are not DEI hires.  Jerry is simply wrong.

 
Okay Danu goddammit my fucking idea wasn’t as fucking clever as I fucking thought it was.
 
I still think it’s the best hand to play in reply to “She’s a DEI hire.”  Someone that would say “Harris is a DEI hire” (whatever their motivations) isn’t using Wikipedia, they’re using it as slang short-hand for “There were more qualified people in ability, smarts, etc., but she checked the right racial and gender boxes.”  What such a person may not know is that the VP position is nothing but the checking of boxes that aren’t ability, smarts, character, etc.  All VPs are picked for all kinds of reasons that WOULD NOT be acceptable for a brain surgeon, pilot, or engineer, thus in that sense Harris is no different from Pence and Vance.  Does that tack on to the literal textbook definition of DEI?  Not as much as I thought it did an hour ago.  Does it tack on to the spirit in which someone using this insult would think?  Yes, very much.  What remains the dumbest reply to the insult? “Uh, no she isn’t, just ignore that thing about Biden literally ruling out anyone not black and female.”

Thank you for the acknowledgment. I'll leave it to others to continue this discussion.

[jerry mcmasters]

Oh my God.  Thump you must be lusting for me to call you a cunt.  Why can't you ever live up to any of your "I'm going to ignore you from now on!" threats?

The only time the DEI card has been played has literally been NOW with Harris.  The proper counter-move is to turn the analogy back on them to include RETROACTIVELY all other VPs.  You must be playing dumb.  It's 12:08 am here and I know you are in my time zone so I'm going to chalk this one up to you being old and sleepy.  Go to bed.

... and I'm going to chalk this up to you hating to admit someone else has made a point.

Thump your "point" is dangerously close to a flat-out lie.  I only hold back on that possibility because you may have not fully thought through your post and it's just lazy thinking.  Accusing me of that contradiction has a very fishy smell.

[Thumpalumpacus]

... and I'm going to chalk this up to you hating to admit someone else has made a point.

Thump your "point" is dangerously close to a flat-out lie.  I only hold back on that possibility because you may have not fully thought through your post and it's just lazy thinking.  Accusing me of that contradiction has a very fishy smell.

Okay, let's look at the tape:

She was a DEI hire.  But the thing is, they all are.  All VPs are chosen for some quality or characteristic or demographic need. 

I am suggesting the proper and accurate way to look at the VP position, and therefore the best come-back to such an accusation is to say basically, yeah, the VP is always a DEI pick. 

Well...no shit.  I humbly suggest the accusation is a fairly recent phenomenon.  Modern problems require modern solutions.

[Emphases added -- Thump]

Has this "always" been the case, or is it a "fairly recent phenomenon"?

Now, point out where I'm manufacturing falsehood.

[jerry mcmasters]

Thump your "point" is dangerously close to a flat-out lie.  I only hold back on that possibility because you may have not fully thought through your post and it's just lazy thinking.  Accusing me of that contradiction has a very fishy smell.

Okay, let's look at the tape:

She was a DEI hire.  But the thing is, they all are.  All VPs are chosen for some quality or characteristic or demographic need.   

I am suggesting the proper and accurate way to look at the VP position, and therefore the best come-back to such an accusation is to say basically, yeah, the VP is always a DEI pick. 

Well...no shit.  I humbly suggest the accusation is a fairly recent phenomenon.  Modern problems require modern solutions.

[Emphases added -- Thump]

Has this "always" been the case, or is it a "fairly recent phenomenon"?

Now, point out where I'm manufacturing falsehood.

So when I said they all are (DEI hires) which of the following is what you believe I meant?
 
A   Harris is selected by a process not greatly different from that of all other VPs, so any criticisms of it- mainly being chosen for reasons not related to intellect or ability or merit- apply to all VPs as much as they apply to her.
 
B   DEI as understood today in 2024 is a phenomenon that has been around for a long time.  For decades VP candidates have regularly endured the accusation of being DEI hires. 
 
Before you answer, let me give you a couple big hints.  One is something I have explicitly said in several posts in different forms to get my point across (its weaknesses as an analogy have been pointed out by Danu and I think Epronovost).  The other would be something someone autistic might manufacture, or someone using gross literalism and pedantry to score some cheap points. [edit: I will also grant sleepiness or not paying attention]
 
Okay, which is it?  Remember your advocacy for earnest discussion, honesty, etc.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Okay, let's look at the tape:




[Emphases added -- Thump]

Has this "always" been the case, or is it a "fairly recent phenomenon"?

Now, point out where I'm manufacturing falsehood.

So when I said they all are (DEI hires) which of the following is what you believe I meant?
 
A   Harris is selected by a process not greatly different from that of all other VPs, so any criticisms of it- mainly being chosen for reasons not related to intellect or ability or merit- apply to all VPs as much as they apply to her.
 
B   DEI as understood today in 2024 is a phenomenon that has been around for a long time.  For decades VP candidates have regularly endured the accusation of being DEI hires. 
 
Before you answer, let me give you a couple big hints.  One is something I have explicitly said in several posts in different forms to get my point across (its weaknesses as an analogy have been pointed out by Danu and I think Epronovost).  The other would be something someone autistic might manufacture, or someone using gross literalism and pedantry to score some cheap points. [edit:  I will also grant sleepiness or not paying attention]
 
Okay, which is it?  Remember your advocacy for earnest discussion, honesty, etc.

Are you so dull that you cannot see what is obviously my opinion?

You really need me to hold your hand through this?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Meanwhile, for those with working neurons --

July 27 (Reuters) - Republican nominee Donald Trump has called her "crazy," "nuts" and "dumb as a rock." Republicans in Congress disparage her as a diversity hire. Right-wing activists and trolls have smeared her online with racist, sexist and sexualized barbs.

The attacks on Kamala Harris, the first woman and first Black and South Asian person to serve as U.S. vice president, have intensified in the days since she consolidated support to become Democrats' likely presidential nominee.

The demeaning racist and sexist attacks threaten to distract from the Republican Party's concerted effort to focus on Harris' policies. Trump allies, including some members of the "Black Americans for Trump" coalition, warn that disparaging Harris could hurt him in his outreach to Black voters, a crucial demographic in the Nov. 5 presidential election.

In interviews with nine Republican lawmakers and 11 Black Republican women who back Trump, eight said personal attacks on Harris should be avoided. While guarded in their comments and emphasizing their continued support for Trump, several expressed worry over the tenor of the attacks and whether the onslaught could harm Republicans at the ballot box.

"I think there is a way to critique her without going underneath her clothes," said P Rae Easley, a Black conservative radio show host in Chicago and a member of the "Black Americans for Trump" coalition, a loosely organized group of Black allies backing Trump.

Several members of Congress echoed her sentiments.

"I'm going to oppose Vice President Harris because of what she's done, not who she is," said Representative Dusty Johnson, who chairs the 75-member Republican Main Street Caucus. "Some of this ugliness is unbecoming of a great country."Others said the attacks on Harris' personal life were no different than Democrats attacking Trump over his personal and family life.

"It's a nasty fight. Democrats have a tendency to play victim," said Madgie Nicolas, co-chair of Haitians for Trump and the Faith and Freedom Coalition's national director of African American voices.

The tension suggests Trump campaign efforts to tie Harris to President Joe Biden's record – particularly on immigration, crime and the economy – risk being overshadowed by personal attacks that show no signs of slowing.

"Going after Kamala Harris as a 'DEI hire' is breathtakingly stupid," said Republican pollster Whit Ayres, who has worked on campaigns for U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and others. "It's going to backfire," Ayres said, adding that Harris had an "incredible array of far left-wing policies" that could be targeted.

DEI stands for "diversity, equity and inclusion" initiatives aimed at increasing representation of women and people of color in the workforce to address longstanding inequities and discrimination. The term "DEI hire" is now used to suggest a person is not qualified for their role and has been chosen on the basis of their race or gender.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/racist-...024-07-27/

[Szuchow]

Meanwhile, for those with working neurons --

July 27 (Reuters) - Republican nominee Donald Trump has called her "crazy," "nuts" and "dumb as a rock." Republicans in Congress disparage her as a diversity hire. Right-wing activists and trolls have smeared her online with racist, sexist and sexualized barbs.

The attacks on Kamala Harris, the first woman and first Black and South Asian person to serve as U.S. vice president, have intensified in the days since she consolidated support to become Democrats' likely presidential nominee.

The demeaning racist and sexist attacks threaten to distract from the Republican Party's concerted effort to focus on Harris' policies. Trump allies, including some members of the "Black Americans for Trump" coalition, warn that disparaging Harris could hurt him in his outreach to Black voters, a crucial demographic in the Nov. 5 presidential election.

In interviews with nine Republican lawmakers and 11 Black Republican women who back Trump, eight said personal attacks on Harris should be avoided. While guarded in their comments and emphasizing their continued support for Trump, several expressed worry over the tenor of the attacks and whether the onslaught could harm Republicans at the ballot box.

"I think there is a way to critique her without going underneath her clothes," said P Rae Easley, a Black conservative radio show host in Chicago and a member of the "Black Americans for Trump" coalition, a loosely organized group of Black allies backing Trump.

Several members of Congress echoed her sentiments.

"I'm going to oppose Vice President Harris because of what she's done, not who she is," said Representative Dusty Johnson, who chairs the 75-member Republican Main Street Caucus. "Some of this ugliness is unbecoming of a great country."Others said the attacks on Harris' personal life were no different than Democrats attacking Trump over his personal and family life.

"It's a nasty fight. Democrats have a tendency to play victim," said Madgie Nicolas, co-chair of Haitians for Trump and the Faith and Freedom Coalition's national director of African American voices.

The tension suggests Trump campaign efforts to tie Harris to President Joe Biden's record – particularly on immigration, crime and the economy – risk being overshadowed by personal attacks that show no signs of slowing.

"Going after Kamala Harris as a 'DEI hire' is breathtakingly stupid," said Republican pollster Whit Ayres, who has worked on campaigns for U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and others. "It's going to backfire," Ayres said, adding that Harris had an "incredible array of far left-wing policies" that could be targeted.

DEI stands for "diversity, equity and inclusion" initiatives aimed at increasing representation of women and people of color in the workforce to address longstanding inequities and discrimination. The term "DEI hire" is now used to suggest a person is not qualified for their role and has been chosen on the basis of their race or gender.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/racist-...024-07-27/

Author of this memorable something calling someone "dumb as a rock"? Lenin almighty my irony meter was blown like Nagasaki or Dresden. 

I hope it will backfire. It is always fun to see far right scum blown by their own charges.

[jerry mcmasters]

So when I said they all are (DEI hires) which of the following is what you believe I meant?
 
A   Harris is selected by a process not greatly different from that of all other VPs, so any criticisms of it- mainly being chosen for reasons not related to intellect or ability or merit- apply to all VPs as much as they apply to her.
 
B   DEI as understood today in 2024 is a phenomenon that has been around for a long time.  For decades VP candidates have regularly endured the accusation of being DEI hires. 
 
Before you answer, let me give you a couple big hints.  One is something I have explicitly said in several posts in different forms to get my point across (its weaknesses as an analogy have been pointed out by Danu and I think Epronovost).  The other would be something someone autistic might manufacture, or someone using gross literalism and pedantry to score some cheap points. [edit:  I will also grant sleepiness or not paying attention]
 
Okay, which is it?  Remember your advocacy for earnest discussion, honesty, etc.

Are you so dull that you cannot see what is obviously my opinion?

You really need me to hold your hand through this?

Please.  Humor me.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Please.  Humor me.

You ask me to ignore you, you ask me to humor you. You claim DEI has always been a thing, you claim it's a recent phenomenon.

Maybe you should make up your mind.

[jerry mcmasters]

Please.  Humor me.

You ask me to ignore you, you ask me to humor you. You claim DEI has always been a thing, you claim it's a recent phenomenon.

Maybe you should make up your mind.

Only take a second to pick one.

Choose one of them you are an idiot who can't read, choose the other and accept that you were mistaken about me making a contradiction.

Come on Thump, everyone makes mistakes, it makes your whole "Let's have honest earnest conversations" shtick look phony if you can't be human with the rest of us and make one.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You ask me to ignore you, you ask me to humor you. You claim DEI has always been a thing, you claim it's a recent phenomenon.

Maybe you should make up your mind.

Only take a second to pick one.

Choose one of them you are an idiot who can't read, choose the other and accept that you were mistaken about me making a contradiction.

Come on Thump, everyone makes mistakes, it makes your whole "Let's have honest earnest conversations" shtick look phony if you can't be human with the rest of us and make one.

No. You're expected to read for comprehension, and be internally congruent as well. If you're unable to master these, I won't be chasing your dumbass responses.

I won't play whackamole with your bullshit. This ain't my first rodeo, even if you are the most famous cow. You can either read and think, or not. You seem inclined to choose the latter. Humor yourself.

[jerry mcmasters]

Only take a second to pick one.

Choose one of them you are an idiot who can't read, choose the other and accept that you were mistaken about me making a contradiction.

Come on Thump, everyone makes mistakes, it makes your whole "Let's have honest earnest conversations" shtick look phony if you can't be human with the rest of us and make one.

No. You're expected to read for comprehension, and be internally congruent as well. If you're unable to master these, I won't be chasing your dumbass responses.

I won't play whackamole with your bullshit. This ain't my first rodeo, even if you are the most famous cow. You can either read and think, or not. You seem inclined to choose the latter. Humor yourself.

We have been in this exact same situation many times in the past and I'm familiar with your massive ego, that's why I'm trying to pin you down.  Rather than admit a mistake, you do what you're doing now, faking indignity, posing, insulting, and we go round and round until Dom finally comes along and tells us to shut the fuck up. 

How could it take more than a second to choose A or B, which do you think I meant?