u/turnleftorrightblock

I am talking fiction writing. I will be attending a university to major in Screenwriting, but i want to do a minor in Creative Writing and in Spanish as well. I want to write novellas or novels, not screenplays which need way bigger budgets to see the light of day. I mean, these days, i can publish novellas with my own money, and if they prove marketability, i can get a deal with publishers and agencies.

I am previewing and studying on Youtube before my formal Spanish language school starts.

Perdon, Lo siento (sorry) what is the difference in nuance? Also, it is forgiven with No importa (not important). What if important but forgiving anyway? Like "you costed us 100 billion $ with lawsuits but forgiven." Still No importa?

I figure Lo siento is more polite because longer and effortful than Perdon.

A 30 years old brunette Caucasian physicist Dr. Bergman in a scientist gown paces up and down in front of two large metal boxes connected with a bunch of messy thick wires.

“Why isn’t it working?” scowled Dr. Bergman.

Dr. Bergman places a green apple inside the left box, closes the lid, then initiates the machine from his laptop. After a short whirring sound, his laptop screen shows a "complete" button. Dr. Bergman opens the left box, and pulls out the green apple from it. Then, he proceeds to the right box, and takes out a red apple from it.

“Why the fuck did it change color?”

Dr. Bergman's curious face turns towards the hamster cage by a brand new frying pan with tags still on it. A white hamster is eating seeds inside the cage. He puts the hamster inside the box, and runs the machine. A while later, the whirring sound stops. Immediately, Dr. Bergman opens the left box, and takes out the white hamster. He puts it back into the hamster cage. He then proceeds to the right box, then takes out a brown hamster.

“Why the fuck are they changing colors?”

A frustrated yet curious Dr. Bergman types in an autocountdown on his laptop then steps into the left box. He struggles a bit, but manages to close the lid. After a short whirring sound, his laptop shows the "complete" button. The left box's lid tumbles a bit, opens up, and Dr. Bergman steps out of the box. He rushes to the right box. The moment he is about to open it, a brown Dr. Bergman punches his way out of the box. Brown Dr. Bergman is wearing exactly the same clothes and the same scientist gown. Two Dr. Bergman's stare into each other's eyes for a while.

“Seeing as you are the white one, I suppose I am the clone?”

“Yes, I am the original. That's why you are brown.”

“Good for you.”

Brown Dr. Bergman stares down at his pants for a moment, then fumbles his hand around his groin, sizing up the item. Immediately, he gesticulates a disappointment.

“Damn it.”

White Dr. Bergman sympathizes. “Didn't get bigger, huh?”

“Not one bit.”

They stare at each other, trying to study each other's thoughts.

“So, why did you do it?”

”You know why. You should have every single memory I have.”

“Yeah, you are an idiot. You saw the apple changing colors, and you wanted to know what color a human would get.”

“More or less.”

The two scientists intensely stare at each other for a while. The room darkens up, with a soft light shining down on them. Then they give up.

“You know there can be only one Dr. Bergman.”

“Yes, agreed. So, how do you want to do this? A fight to the death?”

Brown Dr. Bergman takes a glimpse of the laptop table then around himself, looking for anything he can use as a weapon.

“Of course not. I am the original. So, I should be the one who gets to be Dr. Bergman.”

“Who came up with that rule?”

“It's sensible.”

“It's a nonsensical manchild logic. I have just as much right to be Dr. Bergman as you do.”

“No, you don't. I am the original.”

“You repeat that as if that is supposed to entail something at all.”

“So, you don't agree that the original should get to be Dr. Bergman?”

“No, I don't agree. You came up with that rule, which was never agreed between us.”

“I am your creator!”

“I don't give a shit.”

Two scientists intensely meet each other's gaze for a while in silence.

“Ok, how is this rule? Whoever is white should get to be Dr. Bergman.”

“That's racist.”

“No, it is not!”

“You are deciding who gets to keep our identity solely based on White Supremacy.”

“This has nothing to do with White Supremacy! Dr. Bergman looked white before this mishap, and Dr. Bergman should look white after this mishap so that no one knows what happened! It is a happy coincidence that the said color happens to be white!”

“You are still oppressing a brown guy and making the case for a white guy. That's racist.”

“It's a happy coincidence. You can't be this dumb. You are me.”

“Yes, I am you, and I stand by what I have said.”

“If a criminal shoots a gun at a cop, the cop shoots that criminal! Doesn't matter whether the criminal is black, white, or brown! If he happens to be brown by pure chance, is it racist to kill him? Of course not! It's a tragic coincidence. The direct reason is him being a criminal shooter. Him being brown is not a direct reason but a coincidental correlation!”

“If the said criminal is brown and a white cop kills him, it is still racist. I stand by what I said.”

“Russia invaded Ukraine. They are practically the same race, but Russia is the invader here. If they were different races, it is racist of Ukraine to hate Russia?”

“Of course. Because they are hating a different race.”

“Fine, then. Call them racists then. The way you are using that word, it doesn’t mean anything anymore because it is diluted to the extent that it means so many different kinds of people.”

“Racist means only one type of people, people with racism.”

“I would categorize such cases that I have brought up differently from the traditional stereotype racists. I would call them reasonable racists with reasonable racism, who are different from traditional stereotype racists with traditional stereotype racism. These are two distinct groups of racists. The way you are using the word racist to intentionally blur the line between the two clearly distinct groups of racists dilutes the word racist, and that word does not mean anything nor has any impact anymore.”

“There is no such thing as a reasonable racism. If you are hating someone who is a different ethnicity, it is unreasonable, wrong, and racism.”

“Blurring the line between two groups of racists would be your political ideals for your political Utopia. However, a victim country hating an invader country while not hating any country just because it is a different country would be different from a country hating all different countries just because they are different. Whether you accuse both types to be unreasonable or not, there is a difference. Another example would be handsome Caucasians preferring to date pretty Caucasians because they think Caucasians are the best looking, and things like character are not particularly uglier or prettier just because your face is uglier.”

“That is racism, unreasonable, and wrong.”

“Would you say yes to a handsome Caucasian rejecting an ugly Caucasian?”

“Yes. That’s not a racism.”

“Would you agree that beauty is about genes and hereditary?”

“Where are you going with this?”

“I am not saying Caucasian should be the best looking although I think so. This isn’t about the standards of beauty. This is about freedom and free will. Assuming some Caucasian thinks his race is better looking, aside from whether it is correct or incorrect, he should have the freedom and free will to think so. Now, he is gonna act based on how he thinks, not based on how you think or how you wish he would think. Because of freedom and free will. So, you are OK with a handsome Caucasian rejecting someone who has ugly genes if that gene is exclusive to her immediate family and relatives, but you are not OK with a handsome Caucasian rejecting someone who has ugly genes if her family and relatives with her genes spread so far out that they are such a huge group enough to be called a race or ethnicity? Because you choose to group this kind of reasonable racism together with traditional stereotype racism, and you call both types racists to blur the line between those two types?”

“Yes, that’s a racism, unreasonable, and wrong.”

“It may be a racism, but it is not unreasonable and wrong. There is a clear difference between hating people just for being different, and hating people because they are ugly or invaders who happen to be such a large group of immediate family and relatives to be called a race or ethnicity. There is clearly a difference between reasonable racists and traditional stereotype racists whether you consider them both unreasonable or not. Some people like me clearly consider one is reasonable while the other one is unreasonable, which makes perceiving the differences worthy for human perception of the world. Yet, you are intentionally blurring the line between those two groups by grouping both groups under one word racists. This is because you are a bigot, or let’s call you a reverse-bigot if you claim the word bigot is exclusively taken by the people opposite of you.”

“I don’t see why we should perceive the difference? They are both unreasonable, wrong, and racism.”

“Dog species are diversely categorized; human races are categorized white, brown, black, and yellow because any difference alerting human perception is worth discerning differently, yet you intentionally blur the line between reasonable racists and traditional stereotype racists? Jesus Christ, you are a moron.”

“No, you!”

“No, you!”

“I don't want to die!”

“Whoever said anything about dying? I just said that I should get to keep living as Dr. Bergman! You can do whatever the hell you want!”

“I meant metaphorically.”

“Right. Just because you don't want to die, a white Dr. Bergman is supposed to turn brown one day all of sudden.”

“I could say that I have that Michael Jackson disease, in reverse.”

“There is no such thing, and you know that. You are me.”

“Ok, how's this?”

“How's what?”

An abrupt brown Dr. Bergman points to behind Dr. Bergman.

“Look, a witness!”

A shocked Dr. Bergman turns behind him. There is no one there. Then, Dr. Bergman feels a heavy smack on his head and collapses onto the floor. Brown Dr. Bergman is breathing heavy holding onto a brand new large frying pan.

“Well, I am gonna go with that reverse Michael Jackson thingy.”

A while later, white Dr. Bergman is laid on the lab floor with hands and feet tied up.

“Let me go!”

“You are me. Would you let me go?”

“Of course I would!”

“Nah.”

“Damn it. What are you going to do to me?”

“I am gonna kill you.”

White Dr. Bergman pleads playfully. “Come on, for real.”

Brown Dr. Bergman raises his head and meets white Dr. Bergman's eyes. White Dr. Bergman realizes he is telling the truth.

“For real? I would never kill anyone!”

“It seems, different situations make the same guy act differently.”

White Dr. Bergman frantically starts screaming. “Help! Help! There is an imposter trying to kill me!”

“Shut up.”

Brown Dr. Bergman raises his large frying pan again. Dr. Bergman shuts up.

“This is for my own survival. Don't hate me.”

“Of course I am gonna hate you! What kind of reasoning is that?”

“You would do the same if you were brown.”

“Well, you are me, so I cannot deny that. However, that doesn't logically entail anything. What does that have to do with what you are doing to me and my rightful response of hating you?”

“Don't hate a brown guy, Caucasian.”

“Don't pull that race card on me! I hate you because you are gonna kill me and steal my life! You being brown is a tragic coincidence, not a direct reason!”

“Still, hate is a hate, and my skin is still brown.”

“Jesus Christ, why are you so stubbornly dumb?”

“For survival.”

“Help! Help!”

Brown Dr. Bergman smacks Dr. Bergman's head with a large frying pan. Brown Dr. Bergman repetitively smacks Dr. Bergman's head until Dr. Bergman is dead silent and blood spills from his head.

“Good riddance.”

All of sudden, Dr. Bergman shoots to his feet, hurls himself towards brown Dr. Bergman, and tries to bite his neck. Brown Dr. Bergman simply takes a step back to evade, and white Dr. Bergman falls straight down to the floor. While falling, white Dr. Bergman gives it one final thrust towards brown Dr. Bergman and manages to bite something off before hitting the floor. Brown Dr. Bergman looks down at his bloody groin in painful disbelief.

“You fucking sissy! You just bit off my penis! Who bites people!”

“It seems, different situations make the same guy act differently.”

“I would still never bite someone else's penis!”

“Yeah, wasn't intentional, but this brings us to a new point that requires a rational conversation.”

“You bit off my penis! What rational talk could we possibly have!”

“Ah, that's the thing. Dr. Bergman is a very intelligent man. A Nobel laureate physicist at only the age of 30. He should get married and have children to pass on this impeccable DNA. You can't do that anymore. So, it makes sense that I get to be the real Dr. Bergman.”

“Screw you! I am gonna call the hospital and reattach my penis! All the pieces are still in my underwear.”

“Fair enough. Go do that. But if you are too late to reattach the penis, then I get to be the real Dr. Bergman.”

Brown Dr. Bergman ponders a while then nods a yes.

“That sounds fair. Our DNA is a very important God's gift to the world. I am gonna go to the hospital now.”

“Bad luck. Please please please have a bad luck.”

“Screw you, sissy.”

Brown Dr. Bergman in bloody pants leaves the lab slamming the door shut.

I need some double-check clarification on the Socialism VS Capitalism view on "the world has enough resources, but greedy wealthy men are hoarding all the resources instead of sharing the resources with common people" for an amateur short story or novel I am writing.

First of all, I am with a capitalist view on this one. Second of all, the followings are my views on this that I plan to include in my short story or a novel basically including a lot of arguments from conservatives and liberals conflicting each other. If there is an error in my perception of economics, please provide a correct perception so that I may choose to correct it in any degree or not.

1. The "greedy" wealthy men are hoarding money, not resources which means natural resources from the earth and human resources as in human labor force. "Greedy" wealthy men are capable of hoarding all the cars, TVs, phones, steaks, and lobsters in the world, which would make you possess none of those. However, "greedy" wealthy men are not doing that, and you can buy cars, TVs, phones, steaks, and lobsters as long as you have paid with your labors to the people who produced those products with their own labors.
2. The "greedy" wealthy men hoarding money does not harm common people at all. Just because they are not doing you a favor does not mean they are harming you.
3. Money is just a medium of exchange. Both socialists and capitalists should at least agree on the idea of barter system of labors: exchanging a labor for another labor. If agreeing on that fundamental economic concept, then they should agree that delayed exchange should be allowed. In other words, doing a labor for someone, and him doing a labor for you much later. If this "delayed exchange" is allowed, then the "accumulation" of delayed exchange is allowed. You could be doing a lot of labors for people without them doing a single labor for you. Then you can get labors from them much later in time. If you agree on all these concepts, then I am pointing out that money just represents these ideas that both socialists and capitalists agree. It doesn’t have to be your own “accumulated” labors that go through the “delayed exchange”. Delayed exchange can be done by the “accumulated” labors of your ancestors or spouse. It is not the descendants’ rights to inherit their ancestors’ wealth, but it is the ancestors’ rights to do whatever they want with their own money (“accumulated labors” for “delayed exchange”) including giving them to their own children. So, there should be no inheritance tax at all morality-wise. Also, you shouldn't be whining that those ancestors or descendants are not giving any money ("accumulation" of labors for "delayed exchange") to you who is a stranger. They don't want to give you anything, and you shouldn't be whining. (An example of a stranger demanding money would be a Chinese forcing a donation from a Korean. Even more hilarious if they go to the extent of crimes and terrorism to get that money from him.)
4. The idea that "everyone should have a lot of money" does not mean having money itself but "everyone should be able to purchase a lot of products (TV, cars, phones, lobsters, steaks, etc.)". Because you can have a lot of money but cannot purchase shit because people selling those products require even more money as payments.
5. "Everyone should be able to purchase a lot of products (TV, cars, phones, lobsters, steaks, etc.)" is a wishful dangerous greedy fantasy. You basically want farmers and engineers to provide labors to all the citizens in exchange for the labors that all the citizens collectively collaboratively provide to those farmers and engineers. That’s asking for slave labors to the farmers and engineers. In reality, no one wants to work for all citizens. All the citizens can either provide very tiny labor each to sum up to “one person quota worth wealth” for each farmer and engineer, or all the citizens can provide “one person quota worth labor” each to sum up to “insanely a lot of money (a token for delayed labor exchange)” for each farmer and engineer. The first one is socialism, and the second one is capitalism. No one wants to do that socialist version labor exchange which is a slave labor for farmers and engineers. In reality, historically, communist countries resorted to rationing their products for this reason: no one wants to do that kind of socialist labor exchange.
6. As for the capitalist version labor exchange where all the citizens can provide “one person quota worth labor” each to sum up to “insanely a lot of money (a token for delayed labor exchange)”, this allows farmers and engineers to become far richer than all the citizens. Except that it is false that more money is always desired. You want to give up earning extra money for you to fool around and have fun, or spend quality time with your family. (On another example, rich men marry trophy wives instead of choosing to get extra money by marrying a wealthy woman because sex with trophy wives or love is worth giving up some extra income. Some men refuse to marry a wealthy woman if they do not feel like it.) Anyway, for the sake of simplicity, if farmers and engineers provide labors to all the citizens so that they get far richer than all the citizens (which means so-called “hoarding money” which is what you mean by the lie “hoarding all the resources”), if that is allowed, then the same should be allowed for any job in demand because we have more jobs in more demands in capitalism.