![](https://media.kbin.social/media/b0/92/b092c7a03dc50017166421417e3f6d18ade2c48451dfed3444608a24b40e4dd2.jpg)
![](https://beehaw.org/pictrs/image/cd7879c3-cd1c-4108-806e-f9ca45e9b22a.png)
Well, her being a cop is self-evident, but let’s review the entire comment:
She’s a racist, classist noeliberal and a fucking cop (or close enough).
Her political career has been chock-full of attacking public institutions like schools, protecting white-collar crime which destroyed countless lives, protecting child molesters in the church, implementing policy against the poor, and protecting prison slavery. I’m not sure where exactly the confusion lies.
I would argue that, frankly, her being a neoliberal should be explained, for the sake of discussion, but her being racist and classist should be. The details of her career being “chock-full” of various acts should be coupled with specific citations to reporting of those acts. And so on.
I don’t like Harris, mind, but the comment being discussed could have established its evidence in a more convincing manner.
It really doesn’t have to be a “fact of life”, and it isn’t in many places, such as Australia and England – nations with very similar degrees of economic prosperity, and very similar cultures, to the USA.