[Read the whole subthread, it's a dead-on illustration of alt-right "economics don't real" rhetoric]

[I like how you reference immigration as a serious matter when arguing women are like grown children. You commit a major contradiction in that the economics you support treat men like children. Factory jobs protected from competition by immigration policy is a welfare cheque with a punch clock.

The only difference between Trumpist economics and alimony/family courts/divorce laws is the welfare benefits those with penises instead of those with vaginas. It’s free-riding either way.]

Dear Mrs Seymour,

You blather. Your “argument” is nothing more than a string of confused images posing as analogies. How can “economics”, being nothing more than a vague abstraction, act like a father to men?

And then you have an abstraction, “factory jobs” being protected from another abstraction “competition”.

What does this mean? Anything? Everything? Nothing?

People do things. Not abstract entities. Have you not heard of the concept of “human action”? That means that is is human choices, plans, and actions that cause history, not abstract concepts.

For example, “The revolution was planned and funded by the Jews”. HUman action with identifiable actors.

And if there is “free-riding” going on, who is riding upon the efforts of whom? Again, you don’t say. Just handy abstractions.

This kind of talk is classic politician-talk. It is intended to remove *people* from the discussion of who pays and who gets. To keep us in the dark as to our real enemies and interests.

Let me make it clear what you are saying by adding actual groups of people back into the discussion.

“You commit a major contradiction in that you want white men with families to protect themselves by demanding shitskins not be allowed to undercut their wages and conditions. This is “free-riding”, meaning it will get in the way of passing what was formerly their wages onto Jews in the financial-skimming industries.”

Fixed it for ya, ma’am.