After a year of frustrating dead ends, I decided to stop taking the dating app seriously. I channeled my dejection into a spiteful persona with the sole intent of pranking vain thots. Much to my bemusement, the less seriously I took the app, the more success I had.

It seems the women were intrigued enough by my maltreatment that they actually bothered to invest themselves in the conversations to try to discover my "angle" or why I said what I said. Being on the defensive seemed to turn them on.

One of my opening lines to an age-regressive degenerate (a girl who wanted to literally be treated like a small child or baby) was "Which one of your close relatives fucked you as a child?"

To another girl, I opened by saying I wanted to have regrettable sex with her, and through banter we negotiated to "regular sex". Since I was hell-bent on being churlish, I attempted to self-destruct the conversation by telling her I wanted to scream into her cervix. She self-deprecatingly said there were cobwebs up there and we hooked up that night. This wasn't just any run-of-the-mill whore, but a respectable girl with a well-paying career at a hospital.

I got banned the next day. I'm guessing it was the age-regressive bitch who reported me. The shitty thing is I was banned without even a warning.

I guess I'm mad that I thought women want respect and cordiality after all this #metoo bullshit. For the longest time I think internalized misandry has held me back from acting like a man. I hate how much feminism has torn at the idea of manhood.

I know my first mistake was being on a dating app. The sex was ultimately regrettable. I hate this clown world.

Disclaimer: I am not a statistician. This is a bunch of shitty napkin math from the Intro to the 1860 Census PDF. This could be a "fun" argument with true-believers who are able to rationally think in the slightest (good luck finding them) or a thought experiment in the very least with anybody. I am writing this out to practice for future arguments and welcome criticism to bolster or diminish any ideas I present.

Since I will reference antiquated and unpolite terms for race found in the census, I will define them here:

Black: Pure african ancestry or modern black population in present tense

Mulatto: Mixed black-white ancestry

Colored: Black and Mulatto populations together

And now the big ^secret Black people are more than likely to be related to slave owners than the vast majority of white people.

#Only a small minority of whites owned slaves.

If there is criticism to my assessment, I more than welcome scrutiny to the paragragh below

The total number of slave owners was 385,000 in 1860 (p. ?). The number of white males 18-45 y.o. was 5,624,065 (p. 15) The largest percentage that could possibly be of white slave ownwers is 6.85% of white males, which would be even smaller if males 45+ were added to the denominator and if colored slave owners were subtracted from the numerator. Subtracting colored slave owners (261,918 (p. 10)), this number shrinks to 123,082 or 2.2% of white male population 18-45, which would rapidly approach the popular figure of 1.4% of all white males if the older white population were accounted. Assuming this slave-owning white population was relatively sedentary, only whites with ties to the south would need be worried to be tied with this group. Immigrants from Europe in the prevailing century would continue to diminish this legacy elsewhere.

The population of non-blacks, men and women was (31,443,321-4,441,730) 27,001,591 (p. 2 & p. 7). This figure would further drop white involvement (123k) to 0.45%, or in other words 99.55% of whites did NOT own slaves at the most or 98.6% (385k) at the least (I might be including Indians and Mexicans somebody double check)

Curioiusly, Google was loathe to provide the black slave holder figure, so I took it from a table in the cited census. I also could not verify the total slaveholder number, and relied on various sources pointing to apx. 380,000, but none of them disclosed whether that included blacks. So I had to guess, and my guess seemed to snugly fit that figure given by that popular tweet the other day.

Unsurprisingly, Politifact, in an attempt to debunk the tweet/figure of white involvement would only increasingly narrow the parameters i.e. they would compare the slave owning population only to white males in the south, then number of households they would represent compared to total white households in the south, to inflate the number of involvement to 30% and conflate that with ALL whites.

~

#Blacks are more than likely descended from black or white slave owners.

##Blacks descended from white slave owners.

The total number of blacks in 1860 was 3,853,478 (p.7). Mulattoes totaled 588,353; which is 13.25% of the total black population in 1860 (p. 8). The white part of their ancestry is overwhelmingly from their male white masters since black-white marriage was unheard of (p. 9).

Since slave importation was banned in 1808, the existing black population today could only be sustained by blacks who may or may not be of mixed white ancestry. The probability of being genetically tied to a slave holder could only increase with time since being of mixed ancestry mattered little in black culture of courting, then and now. The number of non-slave african immigrants would be negligible, and it is even admitted that it is negligible since American blacks being tied to slavery is an overwhelming assumption conceded by the left.

##Blacks descended from black slave owners.

Couple the above with the fact that 53% (!) of freed slaves owned slaves (p 10), it is more likely for any American black person to be descended from a slave holder than a white person in most of America today. Convincing a black person of this is problematic, since it is hard to positively prove through geneology for...reasons (but honestly most people are pretty shit at recording family history). Hopefully DNA markers can point to more truth than a lack of family records would, but I wouldn't put it past ancestry companies to withold this evidence from clients, since it's pay-to-play anyways and hearing that might be bad for business.

Yhe lesson is that slavery is a super shitty practice that taints all humanity, so why bother pointing fingers if we don't do it in the USA anymore (legally)?

My personal opinion (owing to my Mormon and Mennonite heritage): Original sin is a retarded concept any way you spin it, whether in religion or critical race theory. It makes no sense to have to repent for the sins of your parents. I think the right for reparations passed with the breath of the last living freed slave.