goddammit you guys made this thread a motherfucker to organize the quotes for

W-which he did. twitter.com/JonTronShow/status/8450382.. I don't get your point here. And politics, by nature, are not based in disrespecting your opponent views. Respect =/= liking people. Sorry, but you're missing the point here.

The question was, if I recall, why there wasn't an equal backlash for the behavior of the developers toward him as there was for his original comments? I'm saying that the reason the developers behavior didn't create a backlash was that it was a personal issue between JonTron and them, whereas the other was about JonTron's political opinions, which is a public matter by default, since he made his opinions public and the opinions are about how the public should be ran. What happens between JonTron and those developers is not especially relevant on a large scale.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Setting the bar at "Systemic genocide" is pretty blaise. Consider: after seeing a headline "JonTron's Possibly Racist Views," are you (a) more likely or (b) less likely to watch JonTron's videos? If a candidate for office is accused of racism for 14 months, do you think that candidate is (a) more likely or (b) less likely to be elected, regardless of policy? If half the nation is thrown into a basket of deplorables, your racists, your homophobes, your misogynists, how likely is it that afterwards the two sides of the argument are going to be able to come together?

And yeah, we're talking about race in this thread because title, but this goes way beyond all that. North Carolina is losing hundreds of millions of dollars for the crime of having the same bathrooms as last year. Social bullying is the absolute norm. That's a very bad thing. The fact that it hasn't escalated to actual SYSTEMIC violence, only scattered POCKETS of violence, does not make that okay.

It's only blaise if we consider these (racism not being taboo vs racism as an overused taboo) separate issues. I think it is a sliding scale, personally, where on one end (racism not being taboo) we have systematic violence, and on the other (racism as an overused taboo) we have stupid shit happening in public but being systematically contained. What I am afraid of is this fight currently taking place against the tabooification of racism is going to recreate systematic racism that right now is at least somewhat (though not completely) tamed.

I don't mean to be black and white about it, I understand there is a grey area ideal that we would all prefer everything to sit at. But society is a complex motherfucker, and doesn't like to stay completely balanced. So for me I'm afraid we'll trade the issue of people not watching JonTron videos for increased police violence against minorities.

As for your references in particular

A: Trump was elected. The race taboo didn't end his chances.
B: The basket of deplorables was, in my opinion, a tactical error. Deploying it hurt her. I will note the American left has been shit on for years by the right, so it's silly to pretend that conservatives are victims of a unilateral smear campaign. It takes two to tango.

Also, why is it now "Social bullying" to shop with your dollar, so to speak? I do not see the North Carolina situation as bullying at all and I think it is hyperbolic to suggest it. Witholding potential funds is a completely civil and peaceful way for opponents of NC's law to respond.

Of course, I agree with you that racism does also require explicit violence. However, I do believe in giving people a second chance. Like if a white supremacist changes his entire viewpoint and realize that he has done wrong, then I would give him a chance to prove it. We should be giving them and others a chance rather than just assume that they will change. It is like when people are saying 'punch a nazi.' What if that Nazi has completely changed? Would you try to forgive him or punish him anyway because of his past.

Of course, I am getting off topic (again).

I didn't say otherwise. I just said JonTron is a racist, I didn't say he is condemned to hell or some shit. If he stops being a racist, then he is no longer a racist. If a Nazi has completely changed, he is no longer a Nazi. But if a Nazi is running around town saying "Gas the kikes" or some shit, then punching him for his current nazi-ing out is justified.

Also, I don't think JonTron is a Nazi. He just has dumb opinions that happen to be racist. I'm not lumping him in with Hitler.

Well, post-modernism affects everyone, including the conservatives and the communists. The idea that it isn't cool to call it racism, it's the idea that you must be a racist if you do nothing. Left-leaning political ideas are more popular and common than right-leaning ideas. Not saying that the right does not exist because it does. Like how a Tumblr post that talks about feminism gets tens of thousands of likes and reblogs while a post about pro-gun gets only a few hundred to a thousand likes and reblogs.

And I am wondering if you think that I am a part of the right wing movement? Just curious.

Tumblr isn't exactly the most balanced sample. Both political groups exist in some relative balance in the general population. I mean, Trump got elected. That doesn't exactly support an "Everybody except a few people are leftists" argument.

Also, I never said someone is racist if they do nothing. I am sure some people think otherwise, but I disagree with them. If JonTron only said "I don't do anything about racism" I wouldn't think he was a racist.

And I do have to ask, and this is a question for everybody, is there post-modern communists? I actually don't know. I don't think post-modernism is very compatible with dialectical thought. I was thinking more those leftists who say "There is no culture" or some silly shit like that when I said "Post modernism is a edgy left thing."

The Know-Nothing party was mainly anti-Catholic and they were scared because they truly believed that the Catholics were limited liberties and freedom back in Europe. I do not understand how the Know-Nothing party fits into the modern day and that JonTron is one. Is it because of nativism or populist is highly present in the party? Care to explain?

Because that was who they were faced with at the time. Germans and Irish immigrants came over in large numbers, both from the Catholic portions of those countries for the most part, and that created tensions. Working folk didn't like competing for wages with poor immigrants, and middle class people were afraid of the cultural and religious differences. Honestly, reading the complaints the know-nothings had about immigrants is sooo fucking similar to the Trump movement that it's kinda fun to read. I think this is largely because all arguments about immigration are going to be founded on the same basic ideas.

Hmm...

Well, reading most of this discussion. It basically boils down to everyone is racist, but if that's true...why is merely saying it so damning and condemning of a man's/woman's character if literally everyone on earth is racist? How can it hold such power, if it's such a vague and almost pointless thing to say? Since from birth, you're just born that way...It's not just prejudice or ignorance, which are words that already exists. No, it's believing that a particular race is superior to another. The definition on google. I just really don't hold that belief...at all.

Okay, first and foremost lets be honest about that source. Punditry is punditry. It'd be like be posting articles from the Jacobin. Those are meant for ideological examination, not for public debate.

What I am trying to say with "everyone is racist" is that racism isn't something only Nazis do, but it is more like what @Buddha has got at a few times, that tribalistic thinking is sort of innate, and it is part of the human condition that we are supposed to rise above it. We are never perfect, and everyone occasionally slips. At the same time, there are levels. JonTron did more then just slip. He didn't go full Nazi, but none the same he did double down on some tribalistic bullshit. This thread to me has thus far been two basic arguments that weave around each other and into each other a bit.

A: Saying that JonTron said some bullshit and calling it what it is; bullshit.

B: Arguing that calling bullshit "bullshit" is just too mean, and that we must obfuscate honesty for the sake of some politically correct post-modern shit.

Also, prejudice and ignorance are general rules that cover multiple situations, whereas racism is a specific word. I am prejudice of McDonalds locations I've never been too. I am ignorant of particle physics. Racism is a word that can be used to cover ignorance and prejudice in regards to race specifically.

@Vilageidiotx Is it really debatable though? Illegal immigration means crime has already been committed. Are we arguing for roleplayerguild.com/topics/160898-lets.. to become okay? Because that's really about all that can be debated. The reason the other side doesn't use that word is so people don't question the whole "illegal" thing. Not to nitpick, that is sort of what I'm doing. But I just don't feel like going full course. I'm politic'd out. :P

Well I hope we can debate the nature of law, yeh. That's a backbone of western thought. Leave it to the courts to be specific about legality, it is the job of the rest of us as citizens to debate based on what is best for our society.

Okay, first and foremost lets be honest about that source. Punditry is punditry. It'd be like be posting articles from the Jacobin. Those are meant for ideological examination, not for public debate.

What I am trying to say with "everyone is racist" is that racism isn't something only Nazis do, but it is more like what @Buddha has got at a few times, that tribalistic thinking is sort of innate, and it is part of the human condition that we are supposed to rise above it. We are never perfect, and everyone occasionally slips. At the same time, there are levels. JonTron did more then just slip. He didn't go full Nazi, but none the same he did double down on some tribalistic bullshit. This thread to me has thus far been two basic arguments that weave around each other and into each other a bit.

A: Saying that JonTron said some bullshit and calling it what it is; bullshit.

B: Arguing that calling bullshit "bullshit" is just too mean, and that we must obfuscate honesty for the sake of some politically correct post-modern shit.

Also, prejudice and ignorance are general rules that cover multiple situations, whereas racism is a specific word. I am prejudice of McDonalds locations I've never been too. I am ignorant of particle physics. Racism is a word that can be used to cover ignorance and prejudice in regards to race specifically.

Okay, I simply think there's a huge difference between, not knowing about and hating/having ill will towards another's race. Racism has never been used in a mild critique, it's always a damning word of someone's moral compass and always had an extremely negative connotation. Saying everyone is (only a slight step down from everything is, like your wooden chair is racist in someway.) Just doesn't hold any water. Especially, since people are charged with the crime of hating their own race, how the fuck does that work out in tribal terms? If you count ignorance as racism, I feel that makes the word meaningless. I simply think most of it boils down to lack of knowledge about other cultures, but once you learn about those cultures...or hell if you live in those cultures. You won't feel or think any differently than someone in that culture. Meaning you aren't born racist, you're born without knowledge.

Jontron said some poorly thought out statements. (which he admitted to doing.) Though the crime statistics I'm not convinced are bullshit...So mixing all those statements like they're somehow equal, seems unhelpful. It's not wrong to call out stupidity, but assuming ill intentions with paper thin evidence is going too far. (at least in my opinion.) And if all it was, was saying "Hey, those statements we're kind of stupid to say. You didn't think that out very clearly!" Vs. "OMG he hates black people, that one joke he made a long time ago was realz!?" "Now it's okay to talk down to him! Let's ruin his career!" which is exactly what most conversations have been from various social media websites.

I think it's a little disturbing to assume such awful things about other people, that they've never even had a passing conversation with. I just don't think tribalism is really an accurate word either. People are individuals, they're not a collective. I don't know exactly how to describe it, but all I see in life, more often than not. Isn't tribalism, but bandwagon hatred. The kind of desperation to fit in that you'll hate whatever people in your circles hate.

Well I hope we can debate the nature of law, yeh. That's a backbone of western thought. Leave it to the courts to be specific about legality, it is the job of the rest of us as citizens to debate based on what is best for our society.

But trespassing has kind of always been seen as a bad thing, probably before private propriety laws were even a thing...and there's just so much more to it than that. I think the "debate" is why people try to make it seem like people are talking about "immigration" when their not and talking specifically about people breaking the law. I don't see much leeway in that...Now legal immigration can be discussed until the cows come home and then we can laugh about Canada and Trudeau being a lying dick. "Everyone's welcome here!" - says the guy that has far stricter immigration policies in his country than the united states.

is there post-modern communists?

The closest I can think of his the libertarian-socialism of Bookchin, which is closer to Anarchism with some Communist aspects than actually full-on Marxism.

Or perhaps you could argue that anything post-Orthodoxy is post-modernist in its way. So any sort of theory outside the accepted realm of mainstream Marxist/Marxist-Leninist thought might be that. I'd argue Bordiga, but all I know of Bordiga LeftCom are memes and he being somehow anti-democratic (and "communism will just happen").

J. Posadas, perhaps. But there's not really anyone left in the post-Trotsky world that takes Posadas world-must-be-nuked, the Ayy LMAOS will help us world view of Posadas.

is there post-modern communists?

theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/..

Off topic, but I think you can find anyone claiming their anything...There's people calling themselves "Jewish Atheists" and "Anarcho-Socialists" there's probably more gender labels than ever before...that no average person would a have a fucking clue what they meant. Self proclaiming your something to be special or unique is something that is only getting more ridiculous and common...Like it may take 10, 20 or 50 years. But depending on how much stupid we take seriously, other kin will start becoming a mainstream idea and not a joke... :/

So to answer your question, I doubt most people claiming that even know what it means, but would I be surprised if it someone claimed that to be their belief system? No.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Okay, I simply think there's a huge difference between, not knowing about and hating/having ill will towards another's race. Racism has never been used in a mild critique, it's always a damning word of someone's moral compass and always had an extremely negative connotation. Saying everyone is (only a slight step down from everything is, like your wooden chair is racist in someway.) Just doesn't hold any water. Especially, since people are charged with the crime of hating their own race, how the fuck does that work out in tribal terms? If you count ignorance as racism, I feel that makes the word meaningless. I simply think most of it boils down to lack of knowledge about other cultures, but once you learn about those cultures...or hell if you live in those cultures. You won't feel or think any differently than someone in that culture. Meaning you aren't born racist, you're born without knowledge.

Jontron said some poorly thought out statements. (which he admitted to doing.) Though the crime statistics I'm not convinced are bullshit...So mixing all those statements like they're somehow equal, seems unhelpful. It's not wrong to call out stupidity, but assuming ill intentions with paper thin evidence is going too far. (at least in my opinion.) And if all it was, was saying "Hey, those statements we're kind of stupid to say. You didn't think that out very clearly!" Vs. "OMG he hates black people, that one joke he made a long time ago was realz!?" "Now it's okay to talk down to him! Let's ruin his career!" which is exactly what most conversations have been from various social media websites.

I think it's a little disturbing to assume such awful things about other people, that they've never even had a passing conversation with. I just don't think tribalism is really an accurate word either. People are individuals, they're not a collective. I don't know exactly how to describe it, but all I see in life, more often than not. Isn't tribalism, but bandwagon hatred. The kind of desperation to fit in that you'll hate whatever people in your circles hate.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

But trespassing has kind of always been seen as a bad thing, probably before private propriety laws were even a thing...and there's just so much more to it than that. I think the "debate" is why people try to make it seem like people are talking about "immigration" when their not and talking specifically about people breaking the law. I don't see much leeway in that...Now legal immigration can be discussed until the cows come home and then we can laugh about Canada and Trudeau being a lying dick. "Everyone's welcome here!" - says the guy that has far stricter immigration policies in his country than the united states.

First and foremost I didn't invent the word racism, i'm just using it correctly. The reason why we jump the gun on public racism, like I said way earlier, is because there is a public taboo against it. The reason for that taboo is that if we accepted all the JonTron type opinions with no controversy, his opinion might become acceptable and start to drive public policy, which could mean state violence against minorities.

Also, your alternative description for tribalism is tribalism. You wrap your idea of yourself in the group you belong to. I didn't mean that group literally was a tribe you belong to. Not everyone identifies with their race, so that might not be your tribal affiliation.

Trespassing assumes we are talking about property specifically. The illegality isn't "Trespassing", it's a lack of documentation or vetting. What we can discuss is whether or not it is more practical to hunt down illegal immigrants and drive them out, or to allow them a way to get the necessary documentation while living here. I think both sides of the debate have good points, but I think it is a little tragic to say "They broke the law lol no debate is allowed"

And the reason why illegal immigration gets turned into a general immigration debate is because most arguments against illegal immigration have been made about immigration in general. Both sides of the debate do this.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/..

Off topic, but I think you can find anyone claiming their anything...There's people calling themselves "Jewish Atheists" and "Anarcho-Socialists" there's probably more gender labels than ever before...that no average person would a have a fucking clue what they meant. Self proclaiming your something to be special or unique is something that is only getting more ridiculous and common...Like it may take 10, 20 or 50 years. But depending on how much stupid we take seriously, other kin will start becoming a mainstream idea and not a joke... :/

So to answer your question, I doubt most people claiming that even know what it means, but would I be surprised if it someone claimed that to be their belief system? No.

Anarcho-Socialists go back to the 19th century and arguably predates Marxism, and the cultural Jew (Jewish Atheist) is an old time standard. Those things aren't that weird tbh, them dang-darn millenials didn't invent those. Though you're right on the gender labels, I have a beef with most of those.

As for the above article, doesn't that basically explain everybody honestly? My grandma thinks private healthcare is socialism and Trump needs to do the capitalist thing and get rid of it. People have goofy ideas of what politics is regardless of age.

But yeh, I suppose there are probably Post-Modern communists, since a lot of people seem to think "Communism is when the government gives you stuff", and that idea alone could be mashed in with post-modernism.

<Snipped quote by SleepingSilence>

First and foremost I didn't invent the word racism, i'm just using it correctly. The reason why we jump the gun on public racism, like I said way earlier, is because there is a public taboo against it. The reason for that taboo is that if we accepted all the JonTron type opinions with no controversy, his opinion might become acceptable and start to drive public policy, which could mean state violence against minorities.

Also, your alternative description for tribalism is tribalism. You wrap your idea of yourself in the group you belong to. I didn't mean that group literally was a tribe you belong to. Not everyone identifies with their race, so that might not be your tribal affiliation.

Never said you did, but looking at the actual definition of the word according to the dictionary, if everyone was racist it would mean everyone thinks that some race is superior over another's. My point is the word itself is poorly defined and it shouldn't be taboo if literally everyone is, because taboo definition is: prohibiting or forbidding discussion of a particular practice or forbidding association with a particular person, place, or thing. And why would it be "taboo?" if everyone already was and can never not be racist.

Also I think the idea of "If people don't criticize him for overall non-violent remarks" (that may be poorly worded/in bad taste) This will somehow normalize "it's okay to hurt minorities." That's a slight logical jump.

It just seems very silly and meaningless then, if you will excuse certain people in different "tribes" for having different opinions.

So that's basically arguing (i think...) Why certain people try to label people 'hating their own race' (and why that somehow makes sense?) Correct me if you believe otherwise...

But, there's no way for someone to grow up multi-cultured communities, consider them their family/or be their family and not be racist at all? I think all of this focus on race, instead of it being purely coincidental is a problem. We are really getting farther from the idea that "don't see/judge a man based on the color of their skin but by the content of their character" than ever before...So shit like this happens...

Trespassing assumes we are talking about property specifically. The illegality isn't "Trespassing", it's a lack of documentation or vetting. What we can discuss is whether or not it is more practical to hunt down illegal immigrants and drive them out, or to allow them a way to get the necessary documentation while living here. I think both sides of the debate have good points, but I think it is a little tragic to say "They broke the law lol no debate is allowed"

And the reason why illegal immigration gets turned into a general immigration debate is because most arguments against illegal immigration have been made about immigration in general. Both sides of the debate do this.

I don't think either side really knows what their doing with immigration. But we've already seen what mass immigration is doing in Europe, it's absolutely foolish to think it wouldn't cause the same problems over here. We already have a legal immigration process, and a lot of legal immigrants actually strongly support those rules and that they should be followed. I think the real argument that should be taking place, like our god awful tax system in place. Should we simplify and make it easier and how would we do so?

Trying to discuss if we just ignore law breakers and actually push them in the front of line, for jobs or welfare. When plenty of legal citizens need help, is absurd. And I know that this is politically incorrect to point out but, As nice as it sounds, to help all the nice women and children and give them everything we can. Sometimes, reality sets in that A LOT of money is being spent. And America *technically* already DOES have more immigrants coming into our country than everywhere else on the planet. Yes, when inflated/lowered by population the overall percentile isn't number one, but does the fact that new zealand accepts 200% more immigrants (factoring in their tiny population) really matter when that actual number of their entire population is less than the amount of immigrants we have? I don't think this counter makes too much of a difference.

I just think the stereotype that America is somehow against LEGAL immigration, from numbskulls from other countries like Trudeau trying to insinuate that, when we have less restrictive policies than they do.

Anarcho-Socialists go back to the 19th century and arguably predates Marxism, and the cultural Jew (Jewish Atheist) is an old time standard. Those things aren't that weird tbh, them dang-darn millenials didn't invent those. Though you're right on the gender labels, I have a beef with most of those.

As for the above article, doesn't that basically explain everybody honestly? My grandma thinks private healthcare is socialism and Trump needs to do the capitalist thing and get rid of it. People have goofy ideas of what politics is regardless of age.

But yeh, I suppose there are probably Post-Modern communists, since a lot of people seem to think "Communism is when the government gives you stuff", and that idea alone could be mashed in with post-modernism.

Nah, That's the quote for what most people who like socialism thinks that's what it means. :D (kind of 60/40 percent kidding.)

I was just pointing out some examples. My point was, they don't even know what that means, but they'll call themselves that anyway. Sure, people not understanding what political parties stand for isn't a recent idea. But seriously, millennials invented plenty of horseshit. And I think denying it doesn't do the political left (or right) any favors. xP (and yes not the only generation to have their freak outs) But I do think it's the only generation, so many have actually taken it seriously. To the point so many now don't take anything seriously...

And both sides of the political coin have become so cancerous, that it's pretty obnoxious when most discussions like this come up. (seriously the fucking frog meme's aren't funny. Staph!) So, it's hard for me to ever believe people are bringing up "genuine concern" about individuals from a political opposition and aren't just looking for someone to beat up with sticks.

And since I brought up toxicity in online/offline discussion, I will point out that you're very good at not doing that. Which is commendable that you engage others in a respectful manner. (A sadly rare trait to have nowadays.) So here's a "Be an adult on the internet award."

It's only blaise if we consider these (racism not being taboo vs racism as an overused taboo) separate issues. I think it is a sliding scale, personally, where on one end (racism not being taboo) we have systematic violence, and on the other (racism as an overused taboo) we have stupid shit happening in public but being systematically contained. What I am afraid of is this fight currently taking place against the tabooification of racism is going to recreate systematic racism that right now is at least somewhat (though not completely) tamed.

I don't like this word 'taboo.' I'm not arguing that racism should become more okay -- I'm arguing that we oughta be a lot more critical of the use of the word (and its various derivatives). Which ties into my one-man crusade against the prefix "anti-" in political discourse, and my lesser-crusade against the "pro-" prefix. The only utility in these identity-based descriptives is divide-and-conquer exploitation of whatever issue.

Hopefully that clarification helps explain my stance, so that the following responses become more cogent:

A: Trump was elected. The race taboo didn't end his chances.

I was actually thinking of Sessions, tbh, but let's run with Trump. Hilary's entire campaign was -isms and -ogyny's and -igots and etc.'s. We don't have data to say exactly how many people bought into it, but the outright hysteria that has followed the election should be some indication. This language is dangerous and its irresponsible (and/or exploitative) use is reprehensible.

The basket of deplorables was, in my opinion, a tactical error.

Heh. Heh heh heh heh. Heh. Well that's one way of putting it. To the latter point, let's dispense with the fiction that Barrack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. But seriously -- the only issues I can think of (and I've been thinking so long that my brain turned into Marco Rubio) in which the right has 'shit on' democrat voters are homophobia and abortion. Trump ain't your GOP gay-basher, for damn sure, and the abortion shittery has been (at worst) a level shitting field, so I don't think it's really comparable. But then again for every "guns and religion" jab there's a "welfare queen" return-fire, so it might just be fair to say politics is a black hole of awfulness from which no light can escape, and move on.

Also, why is it now "Social bullying" to shop with your dollar, so to speak? I do not see the North Carolina situation as bullying at all and I think it is hyperbolic to suggest it.

I lifted that from here, NC bathroom bill was just the most quantifiable cost-analysis. Not a perfect fit, because like you said, boycott is pretty civil. The 'bullying' charge is coming from, like, you can't say anything that goes against the uberprogressive new-normal without severe backlash. Christian bakeries might've been a better example. There's a buzz-phrase in /r/T_D called "the tolerant left," so if you like I can pull up about a million other examples which are probably all better -- but again, harder to quantify than the revenue loss from NCAA ball in NC.

Never said you did, but looking at the actual definition of the word according to the dictionary, if everyone was racist it would mean everyone thinks that some race is superior over another's. My point is the word itself is poorly defined and it shouldn't be taboo if literally everyone is, because taboo definition is: prohibiting or forbidding discussion of a particular practice or forbidding association with a particular person, place, or thing. And why would it be "taboo?" if everyone already was and can never not be racist.

Also I think the idea of "If people don't criticize him for overall non-violent remarks" (that may be poorly worded/in bad taste) This will somehow normalize "it's okay to hurt minorities." That's a slight logical jump.

It just seems very silly and meaningless then, if you will excuse certain people in different "tribes" for having different opinions.

So that's basically arguing (i think...) Why certain people try to label people 'hating their own race' (and why that somehow makes sense?) Correct me if you believe otherwise...

But, there's no way for someone to grow up multi-cultured communities, consider them their family/or be their family and not be racist at all? I think all of this focus on race, instead of it being purely coincidental is a problem. We are really getting farther from the idea that "don't see/judge a man based on the color of their skin but by the content of their character" than ever before...So shit like this happens...

Well, like I said, there are levels. Whereas I don't think JonTron hates black people or is a Nazi, I suspect he probably does think whites are superior to other races. I got that vibe just from reading his tweets.

What I am saying about this taboo thing is that, since it is taboo to be openly racist right now, openly racist dialogue has a hard time reaching public policy. But if racism isn't a taboo and we consider it acceptable to be openly racist, my fear is that racism will grow beyond simple dialogue and become action. Even if JonTron doesn't decide to react violently doesn't mean others who agree with him won't. After all, if you think a backwards race is committing white genocide by immigrating to your country, then it isn't much of a leap to start challenging that race either legally, or violently.

I don't understand the point you are making about tribalism btw, so I can't answer it.

And for the record, just because I think JonTron is a racist doesn't mean I necessarily agree with the defunding of that school. School funding should be based on the average income of its students, not on race.

I don't think either side really knows what their doing with immigration. But we've already seen what mass immigration is doing in Europe, it's absolutely foolish to think it wouldn't cause the same problems over here. We already have a legal immigration process, and a lot of legal immigrants actually strongly support those rules and that they should be followed. I think the real argument that should be taking place, like our god awful tax system in place. Should we simplify and make it easier and how would we do so?

Trying to discuss if we just ignore law breakers and actually push them in the front of line, for jobs or welfare. When plenty of legal citizens need help, is absurd. And I know that this is politically incorrect to point out but, As nice as it sounds, to help all the nice women and children and give them everything we can. Sometimes, reality sets in that A LOT of money is being spent. And America *technically* already DOES have more immigrants coming into our country than everywhere else on the planet. Yes, when inflated/lowered by population the overall percentile isn't number one, but does the fact that new zealand accepts 200% more immigrants (factoring in their tiny population) really matter when that actual number of their entire population is less than the amount of immigrants we have? I don't think this counter makes too much of a difference.

I just think the stereotype that America is somehow against LEGAL immigration, from numbskulls from other countries like Trudeau trying to insinuate that, when we have less restrictive policies than they do.

Okay, first and foremost most calls for tax simplification are naive. A flat tax would increase the taxes of the working classes by astronomical amounts. That's a bad idea and could very well lead to revolution. If you want to decrease the amount of tax breaks for the rich, then I am with you, but lets not sneak in any attacks on the working classes in the process.

Second, we do not have Europe's immigration problem, nor does it seem likely that we will any time soon. Using Europe as a comparison to our problem is dishonest.

Third, the purpose of amnesty is to fix that cost of illegal immigrants by allowing them to integrate more fully into society. The alternative is either to go around dragging abuelas out of their homes, which looks bad and is costly, or to ignore them and just use them as a political talking point, which seems to be what we are doing now. That's the choices, tax them, pay to remove them, or just let them be illegal so you can talk about them during the election.

Nah, That's the quote for what most people who like socialism thinks that's what it means. :D (kind of 60/40 percent kidding.)

I was just pointing out some examples. My point was, they don't even know what that means, but they'll call themselves that anyway. Sure, people not understanding what political parties stand for isn't a recent idea. But seriously, millennials invented plenty of horseshit. And I think denying it doesn't do the political left (or right) any favors. xP (and yes not the only generation to have their freak outs) But I do think it's the only generation, so many have actually taken it seriously. To the point so many now don't take anything seriously...

And both sides of the political coin have become so cancerous, that it's pretty obnoxious when most discussions like this come up. (seriously the fucking frog meme's aren't funny. Staph!) So, it's hard for me to ever believe people are bringing up "genuine concern" about individuals from a political opposition and aren't just looking for someone to beat up with sticks.

And since I brought up toxicity in online/offline discussion, I will point out that you're very good at not doing that. Which is commendable that you engage others in a respectful manner. (A sadly rare trait to have nowadays.) So here's a "Be an adult on the internet award."

Come on, don't buy into the generational bs. Don't matter if we are saying that Millenials are all stupid and crazy or Baby Boomers destroyed the housing market, it oversimplifies everything that took place during our lives. I mean, for christ's sake, most of us in this argument (possibly all of us) are Millennials, and we're having a rather pleasant conversation. Every generation has in their youth been accused of both stupidity and laziness, and every older generation of corruption and backwardness. This ain't a new thing and Millenials aren't the end of the world anymore than the other countless generations were.

And yeh, I prefer having a conversation that is chill. I don't hate anybody, and I only want what is best for society in the end, since I gotta live in society. I mean, we could have yelled at each other, but that wouldn't have done much good. It's helpful that nobody is using the word "Cuck" unironically, or "Red Pill", since those tend to make these conversations dumb pretty quick.

I don't like this word 'taboo.' I'm not arguing that racism should become more okay -- I'm arguing that we oughta be a lot more critical of the use of the word (and its various derivatives). Which ties into my one-man crusade against the prefix "anti-" in political discourse, and my lesser-crusade against the "pro-" prefix. The only utility in these identity-based descriptives is divide-and-conquer exploitation of whatever issue.

Hopefully that clarification helps explain my stance, so that the following responses become more cogent:

I understand the concern, I'm just afraid that we're going too far in the opposite direction in letting JonTron off the hook, and that allowing some of the implications he put out to fly is to accepting public racism. I do think (to keep to youtubers for some silly reason) that the Wall Street Journal's use of the term against PewDiePie was inappropriate though, since all he did was edgy humor, and there is a big difference between being edgy because you think it is funny and seriously harping about the preservation of the white race. So yeh, I agree with the idea that a balance should exist, but I have doubts that a perfect balance can really be achieved, and I am afraid the push against the use of the term is going too far in the other direction.

I was actually thinking of Sessions, tbh, but let's run with Trump. Hilary's entire campaign was -isms and -ogyny's and -igots and etc.'s. We don't have data to say exactly how many people bought into it, but the outright hysteria that has followed the election should be some indication. This language is dangerous and its irresponsible (and/or exploitative) use is reprehensible.

Well, let's be honest though, that was a knock-down drag-out that was going to be ugly either way. I think part of that came out of the economic fears most of us on the ground have, and the lack of professionalism on the part of both candidates. They both said shit meant to make their own bases angry at the other side.

I'm not going to defend Hillary Clinton though. I don't want to have to do that.

But seriously -- the only issues I can think of (and I've been thinking so long that my brain turned into Marco Rubio) in which the right has 'shit on' democrat voters are homophobia and abortion....

Oh dear...

If you are on the left, you are a godless cuck illegal immigrant communist who doesn't have a job but stole all the jobs. If a Democrat wins an election, everybody who voted for them were corpses or illegals. If you don't support Trump it's because you are being personally paid by Hillary Clinton to oppose him. Or Soros. Or Obama.

I mean, where I am from Liberal is just about a dirty word. I've seen fenders smashed in pretty point blank for having left-leaning bumper stickers.

I'm not saying that things should be tit for tat, and that Trump supporters should be beat up or conservative should be a dirty word. I'm just saying that this is a game two have been playing at for quite some time and there isn't only one side in the wrong here.

I lifted that from here, NC bathroom bill was just the most quantifiable cost-analysis. Not a perfect fit, because like you said, boycott is pretty civil. The 'bullying' charge is coming from, like, you can't say anything that goes against the uberprogressive new-normal without severe backlash. Christian bakeries might've been a better example. There's a buzz-phrase in /r/T_D called "the tolerant left," so if you like I can pull up about a million other examples which are probably all better -- but again, harder to quantify than the revenue loss from NCAA ball in NC.

I always thought the Christian bakery thing was kinda funny because selling cakes to gays isn't exactly a sin, biblically speaking. That being said, in this case we are talking about a backlash receiving a backlash, or else, an attempt to publicly stand against something receiving a public stand against it. Hell, even the bathroom bill is mostly just silly virtue signally (goddam that word). So some virtue signalling got virtue signaled against. That's politics in the 21st century.

And I do have to ask, and this is a question for everybody, is there post-modern communists? I actually don't know. I don't think post-modernism is very compatible with dialectical thought. I was thinking more those leftists who say "There is no culture" or some silly shit like that when I said "Post modernism is a edgy left thing."

Yes. Post-modernism is heavily associated with Post-Structuralism, to the point that many of the key figures in post-modernism are associated with that school of thought. Post-Structuralism itself arose among French left-wing thinkers, many of whom count themselves as Marxist and hold Marx to be one of the cornerstones of their thought. Focault, Lyotard, Baudrilliard were all Marxists, and others like Barthes and Derrida held him as a great influence. While their works are nearly impenetrable at times and heavily focused on the theoretical, they do have some impact on leftist thought, including shaping forming schools of thought within postcolonial studies, queer theory, feminist theory and critical race theory. Slavoj Zizek is one of the most popular living philosophers of this school.

*after I finished* ...Jesus Christ this became long. Sorry. -.-

Well, like I said, there are levels. Whereas I don't think JonTron hates black people or is a Nazi, I suspect he probably does think whites are superior to other races. I got that vibe just from reading his tweets.

What I am saying about this taboo thing is that, since it is taboo to be openly racist right now, openly racist dialogue has a hard time reaching public policy. But if racism isn't a taboo and we consider it acceptable to be openly racist, my fear is that racism will grow beyond simple dialogue and become action. Even if JonTron doesn't decide to react violently doesn't mean others who agree with him won't. After all, if you think a backwards race is committing white genocide by immigrating to your country, then it isn't much of a leap to start challenging that race either legally, or violently.

Okay, you say there are levels. Like levels of racism. But here's one of my main points. Where is the dictionary definition for the different levels? Should everyone be considered "racist" if their should be a bunch of different amounts of it?

Is someone calling a twin brother the wrong name, because all people look the same. Would that go under the category of racism? (meaning that person now believes a race (probably theirs.) is more superior/inferior to another's) and if so, that means the guy who actually treats others differently for the color of their skin. Because both only have one actual dictionary definition, racist. Semi- Sorta- Itty bitty- and so forth racist aren't real words. When you call someone racist, it is essentially a character assassination...it's a word that has way too much power and assumes quite a lot about a person. (Especially, if everyone is.) Without really going into their mindset. I just think a lot of assumptions people make, like people finding it offensive that people see differences in races and at the very same time, get offended if you say you don't see any differences in races.

It's a lose lose situation, no matter how you stack your deck. Everyone's racist. There is no cure, you think your superior than MILLIONS of people for a single solitary reason. In laymans terms, you're an egotistical shithead. Now do something about it! (even though you can't.)

^ That last bit is just kind of a thought process of what it really means, to be called racist and also thinking everyone is racist...and if we go into what some believe that everyTHING is blank-ist too. We start getting into clusterfuck territory. (*You/your isn't actually describing "you" personally, just clarifying.)

I just think people should be more careful before they get the vibe that someone is racist (in ANY way.) It's a lot worse of a statement that carries more weight than someone thought it did, despite the impact that most people know it has. If you don't know a person and don't talk to a person, I just feel it's very presumptuous. And really, his statements didn't have much to do with whites vs blacks aside from the first statement which MAY actually be correct...

And the main problem with stopping or attacking others who are "sexist, racist" what have you...and things like "Hate Speech". If the statements were said ironically or as a joke, would the words themselves still be the same? Does context not matter when dealing with cases like this? Would it still be racist, just less so? Can you guarantee your neighbor agrees with you? How about the one across the street? Every single man and women and other kin on the planet earth will have different opinions of what certain statements will be and how offensive they are. You can't have a quantifiable or scientifically accurate "levels" off this stuff. It's purely subjective, which leads to vagueness and the word becomes less meaningful as a result. All it means for most people, it's a label to shut people up and silence people from speaking opinions. (a slight irony, since one of his statement boils down to that.)

I don't understand the point you are making about tribalism btw, so I can't answer it.

And for the record, just because I think JonTron is a racist doesn't mean I necessarily agree with the defunding of that school. School funding should be based on the average income of its students, not on race.

I suppose, I wasn't being clear because I straight up don't understand the tribalism argument...

If tribalism (the behavior and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one's own tribe or social group.) is the reason for racism. Like your family and community and the friends you grow up with, the standard "you are superior to another race." How exactly can that fit if you happen to grow up in a multi-racial community, growing up with family of other races, friends of other races and communities of other races and cultures and beliefs. How can one STILL be racist? Because everyone is, but it completely relies on not having those people inside your social group. It's not even uncommon...

(From wikipedia)
The study found that in 2010: A record 15.1% of all new marriages in the United States were between spouses of a different race or ethnicity from one another.

Another thing that kind of pisses me off, is how people laugh off having friends of different races, somehow is something a racist would say...

Really? Did Hitler have a Jewish best friend? Do racists really have that many friends, period? Let alone of various races, cultures and backgrounds? Maybe the fact that my friends or my family, has different races in them. Maybe, just maybe. I know more about their culture than some random privileged person that has none of that experience.

Okay, first and foremost most calls for tax simplification are naive. A flat tax would increase the taxes of the working classes by astronomical amounts. That's a bad idea and could very well lead to revolution. If you want to decrease the amount of tax breaks for the rich, then I am with you, but lets not sneak in any attacks on the working classes in the process.

Second, we do not have Europe's immigration problem, nor does it seem likely that we will any time soon. Using Europe as a comparison to our problem is dishonest.

Third, the purpose of amnesty is to fix that cost of illegal immigrants by allowing them to integrate more fully into society. The alternative is either to go around dragging abuelas out of their homes, which looks bad and is costly, or to ignore them and just use them as a political talking point, which seems to be what we are doing now. That's the choices, tax them, pay to remove them, or just let them be illegal so you can talk about them during the election.

First, and foremost. Pretty much agree with you that flat tax isn't the best answer. But I disagree that it would be any worse than the current system. I actually would like the fair tax much more. And also think it's better than the tax system. I honestly do think taxes and our system should be a non-partisan issue that could be agreed, if you can't do them yourself (and people you hire can't do them efficiently) That is a problem. But that's going into the weeds.

It is different from parts of the discussion, but I disagree, only because the mainstream media and that ilk, DO want that to also become our problem, with the Syrian migrants. People that don't know and don't care to change anything about their culture and keep their own, with has not caught up with the modern world. It isn't exactly hard to see what caused Europe's problem. Politically incorrect as it may be. Trump's ban, was highly criticized for this on the matter. For those reasons. That we're keeping the ones who moved into Europe, and that we're trying to keep out of this country. Is it perfect? Helk no. (It is Trump we're dealing with afterall.) But that kind of mass immigration, IS something that we're attempting to do. And yes, even ignoring that, if we just granted amnesty to everyone who illegally came into the country and put them on the welfare system. Our country would be hurting too...

cis.org/Cost-Welfare-Immigrant-Native-..



usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09..

Though this is more of a general statement of how overblown are welfare system is...vs anything against actual immigrants...

Come on, don't buy into the generational bs. Don't matter if we are saying that Millenials are all stupid and crazy or Baby Boomers destroyed the housing market, it oversimplifies everything that took place during our lives. I mean, for christ's sake, most of us in this argument (possibly all of us) are Millennials, and we're having a rather pleasant conversation. Every generation has in their youth been accused of both stupidity and laziness, and every older generation of corruption and backwardness. This ain't a new thing and Millenials aren't the end of the world anymore than the other countless generations were.

And yeh, I prefer having a conversation that is chill. I don't hate anybody, and I only want what is best for society in the end, since I gotta live in society. I mean, we could have yelled at each other, but that wouldn't have done much good. It's helpful that nobody is using the word "Cuck" unironically, or "Red Pill", since those tend to make these conversations dumb pretty quick.

Very first paragraph, is something I'd stated before and maybe you disagree. But I mostly agree with that. Though the biggest thing I think that I never noticed before. Which I do think is a problem, is that we have people from the Younger Generations, eating their own, calling their own generation evil and morally bankrupt. Not because of actions, or even words. But because of the things they do. I can not think of a time this ever took place, at least as often as it has been.

Gamergate. Forget every single fringe and detail on both sides for a moment...

The main point became the statement..."If you played video games, you we're sexist/racist/bad person. That's it, your done." The divide was no longer, old farts thinking the T.V would rot your little kid brain...it was people the very same age, thinking the fact you're playing pac-man, automatically made you a terrible person. It was a huge cluster of people in power and privileged people, spouting copy + paste hateful opinions about a huge, huge majority of people. (usually directly targeted at the people with the least amount of power.) And people spreading a huge amount of misinformation about games and the people playing them, it got into mainstream t.v shows. The UNITED NATIONS had a speech about it! It was so ridiculous and only got more absurd as time went on...

And since the "anti-gamers" and the messages they made became a spectacular and absolute failure. The new plan switched over to new media and youtubers. Old sites are afraid of losing money and dying, so now they're going to attempt to destroy all of the new media personalities. And because a lot more people, aren't youtubers and work in that field. It's becoming much easier to pick and choose and then proceed to destroy that target...And I can guarantee after JonTron blows over and stops becoming a good investment, you bet the next big horrible human being is going to be another highly successful youtuber.

I must ask, because you seem to be under the impression that both sides have been this way forever. But I honestly think both sides are changing for the worse, people are acting more like children than ever before. At least in this election cycle, and politics and everything has been becoming more divisive. More people seem to be becoming farther right or farther left, with the centrists all lost in the crowd. And since actual crime (and most actual negative influences) has gone down...how is that the case?

gallup.com/poll/197828/record-high-ame..

And hopefully my extremely long post doesn't come off as any kind of attack. I appreciate the civil discussion we're having. I'm doing what I can to be respectful. (And I'm very shit at keeping my thoughts 'concise' but hopefully it's coherent enough. ^3^)

<Snipped quote by mdk> So yeh, I agree with the idea that a balance should exist, but I have doubts that a perfect balance can really be achieved, and I am afraid the push against the use of the term is going too far in the other direction.

I mean I'm assuming you don't mean "the push against the use of the term" to mean, like, ANY pushback. Because we certainly need SOME pushback. I'll concede that plenty of people are taking it way too far -- and if I sound defensive on that point, it's because in today's climate, even people who dare say "that's not that racist" are themselves declared racist. Which is goes into my first post in the thread, about this being a wretched choice of topic title -- simply by uttering the word 'race' in 2017, one has already stacked the deck. THAT'S the thing that needs to die. Not the subject of racism itself, but the automated gnashing of digital teeth that accompanies its discussion.

Clearly, I haven't figured out a way to slay that dragon yet, but when I come up with something I'll lead with that instead of boo-hooing for some shitty youtube 15-minutes-of-douchebaggery.

Well, let's be honest though ... They both said shit meant to make their own bases angry at the other side.

If we're being honest, they both seemed to say shit meant to make their opponent's base angry at themselves.

I'm not going to defend Hillary Clinton though. I don't want to have to do that.

This conversation gets way more fun for me if we talk about DNC chair candidates instead.

Oh dear...

Point well taken. I'm from New York so my experience is essentially the polar opposite of everything you said -- so I'm arbitrarily calling it a draw. A shitty, depressing draw.

I always thought the Christian bakery thing was kinda funny because selling cakes to gays isn't exactly a sin, biblically speaking. That being said, in this case we are talking about a backlash receiving a backlash, or else, an attempt to publicly stand against something receiving a public stand against it. Hell, even the bathroom bill is mostly just silly virtue signally (goddam that word). So some virtue signalling got virtue signaled against. That's politics in the 21st century.

Politics in the 21st century make me want to live in the dark ages.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>
Yes. Post-modernism is heavily associated with Post-Structuralism, to the point that many of the key figures in post-modernism are associated with that school of thought. Post-Structuralism itself arose among French left-wing thinkers, many of whom count themselves as Marxist and hold Marx to be one of the cornerstones of their thought. Focault, Lyotard, Baudrilliard were all Marxists, and others like Barthes and Derrida held him as a great influence. While their works are nearly impenetrable at times and heavily focused on the theoretical, they do have some impact on leftist thought, including shaping forming schools of thought within postcolonial studies, queer theory, feminist theory and critical race theory. Slavoj Zizek is one of the most popular living philosophers of this school.

Good catch.

Okay, you say there are levels. Like levels of racism. But here's one of my main points. Where is the dictionary definition for the different levels? Should everyone be considered "racist" if their should be a bunch of different amounts of it?

You are not going to find a simple dictionary definition for the same reason the dictionary can't teach you calculus. It's a limited medium to explain complex topics.

I think you are looking at this too much like solid attributes, like you might see in a video game. The point I am trying to convey here is that tribal affiliation, or else discomfort of the great other, is an innately human trait. For people in uni-racial communities, other races will fulfill that role. If you live in a very white rural area for instance, a lot of your understanding of black people will come from news stories, media, stereotypes, and whatever, which filters out common information enough that you can end up with the wrong impression of black people. It's true that if you are in a multi-racial relationship, you probably aren't racist against that race in any big way. (Though you mention Hitler, and it is true he wasn't buddying up with Jews, the very very Anti-semetic H.P. Lovecraft had a Jewish wife. People are weird af). But even in a multi-racial society, misunderstandings happen on a small scale.

I think you are making too much of the everyone part tbh, so I'll try to be brief: Tribal affiliation, whatever that may be, is something innate in all of us that we all deal with. The problem with JonTron I feel is he took an issue we might sometimes struggle with and embraced it. This is the difference between innate racism and bad racism; he took his tribalism and began to thump his chest with it. That's how you cross the line. I don't think it is a moral failing if you want to feel a black girl's hair, or even if you have a sudden flicker of anxiousness when seeing a person of another race. What matters is that you work to control that innate tribalism. It's necessary in a mutli-racial society that you be able to do this. And JonTron failed that test, in this case by going on a racially charged tirade.

Another thing that kind of pisses me off, is how people laugh off having friends of different races, somehow is something a racist would say...

I think what is laughed off is the idea that people use multi-racial connections to validate something racist they say or do. It's not the idea of having friends of another race is in itself funny, but rather that it's silly to say something like "Plenty of my friends are black, so I'm not racist, but why do these black people have to move into my neighborhood?"

You can't have a quantifiable or scientifically accurate "levels" off this stuff. It's purely subjective, which leads to vagueness and the word becomes less meaningful as a result. All it means for most people, it's a label to shut people up and silence people from speaking opinions. (a slight irony, since one of his statement boils down to that.)

Just because you can't quantify the terms doesn't mean they don't mean anything. We know that racism has in the past been used to do some fucked up shit. We know there are still a minority of people who want to repeat that fucked up shit and are actively working for it. And we know the general population is not exactly good at keeping from getting swept up in doing fucked up shit. If that minority's rhetoric becomes socially acceptable, there is the threat that they will spread and violent shit will occur.

Violent, systematic racism is like a horrifying alcohol habit we once had in the past, and the taboo on racism is the strict AA program we are following to keep that horrifying shit from happening again. Sure, on the surface taking a small drink mind seem harmless, but there is a very real concern the first drink will lead us right back into that horrifying past.

If the statements were said ironically or as a joke, would the words themselves still be the same?

Yeh, I think context matters. That's why I don't condemn pewdiepie (well, for that, I do condemn him for being a talentless hack, but that's another thing). JonTron wasn't joking around though, he really wanted them other races put in their place.

First, and foremost. Pretty much agree with you that flat tax isn't the best answer. But I disagree that it would be any worse than the current system. I actually would like the fair tax much more. And also think it's better than the tax system. I honestly do think taxes and our system should be a non-partisan issue that could be agreed, if you can't do them yourself (and people you hire can't do them efficiently) That is a problem. But that's going into the weeds.

Fairtax is just a consumption tax, isn't it? That falls mostly on the working classes too. The rich don't really consume in direct proportion to their earnings compared to the poor, so you'd just be looking at a massive jacking up of prices for common goods with the benefit mostly being that the rich make more money to invest abroad. If you try and tariff them into investing in the country, goods get even more expensive and the crisis grows.

DO want that to also become our problem, with the Syrian migrants.

At this point, assuming the Syrian crisis has already peaked, it won't be our problem. We're way too far for Syrians to just happen on our doorstep. If any Syrians manage to cross the Atlantic in dinghy's, they fucking deserve citizenship. As it stands now though, we are dealing with the kinds of immigrants that can afford plane tickets.

But we were talking about Mexicans. I think amnesty should be a case by case basis. I think deporting criminal aliens, and illegals caught doing other shit besides having just crossed the border, is perfectly fine. But I think those trying to make a life for themselves, for whom the process of kicking them out would be mostly pointless, should have a path toward citizenship so they don't end up in poverty. I don't just say this out of human interest, but also because I feel purposely exacerbating poverty to make a point is costly and stupid.

Also, be careful hating on the welfare system. Without that shit, we would have had a revolution before any of us were born. Welfare isn't just the safety net of individuals, it's the safety net of capitalism as a whole. There is a reason the majority of modern economists support social welfare policies. When the working class isn't stabilized, they start sharpening their knifes. Ask the Tsar.

I must ask, because you seem to be under the impression that both sides have been this way forever. But I honestly think both sides are changing for the worse,

That's because history is normalized but the future isn't. We've had much more politically divisive periods in our history. The current era is divisive, and will probably be one of the defining eras in American history, but we've had more aggressive periods. I think we're still behind the 1960's in terms of political divisiveness. Probably behind the 1930's. And waaaay, waaaaaaaay, waaaaaaaaaay behind the 1850's.

And inter-generational conflict is just normal, because generations are not monoliths. For every hippy, there was a young man who volunteered to fight in Vietnam. For every young person in the labor movement, there was another young person scared shitless of Reds. And for every young man fighting under the American flag at Gettysburg, there was another young man fighting under the southern flag.

Violent, systematic racism is like a horrifying alcohol habit we once had in the past, and the taboo on racism is the strict AA program we are following to keep that horrifying shit from happening again. Sure, on the surface taking a small drink mind seem harmless, but there is a very real concern the first drink will lead us right back into that horrifying past.

Nigga did you steal that quote?

@Dinh AaronMk@mdk on a serious note I do think this conversation would be cool to hear in a discord chat.

But we were talking about Mexicans. I think amnesty should be a case by case basis. I think deporting criminal aliens, and illegals caught doing other shit besides having just crossed the border, is perfectly fine. But I think those trying to make a life for themselves, for whom the process of kicking them out would be mostly pointless, should have a path toward citizenship so they don't end up in poverty. I don't just say this out of human interest, but also because I feel purposely exacerbating poverty to make a point is costly and stupid.

Also, be careful hating on the welfare system. Without that shit, we would have had a revolution before any of us were born. Welfare isn't just the safety net of individuals, it's the safety net of capitalism as a whole. There is a reason the majority of modern economists support social welfare policies. When the working class isn't stabilized, they start sharpening their knifes. Ask the Tsar.

Oooh boy, well here is one of the main problems with the whole systems right here, the welfare system. The welfare system is one of the main contributors to the illegal immigrant problem in the first place. If the welfare system had better regulations and wasn't so easy to abuse there would not be so many problems in the first place. Most legal citizens, especially legal immigrants, hate seeing their hard earned cash given to people who came into the country improperly. There is very little more insulting to legal immigrants who worked their butts off see illegal immigrants get more help than them and actually have easier lives, just because they know how easy it is to abuse the current welfare system, especially if they have a lot of kids.

A lot of ghettos are perpetually subsidized by the current welfare system that promotes, single parent households, baby making, and no incentive to actually work because all of their needs are taken care of by the government. Imagine if instead people were rewarded more for getting out of the 'poverty' zone instead of being incentivised to keep the status quo because if they start making too much money they lose most of their benefits. So in order to keep these benefits upholding these communities more and more illegals move in to create a 'safe space' where the community won't rat them out, have little motivation to work harder and better, and in some cases won't even bother to learn English[which really should become the national language to make things easier for everyone while promoting assimilation into society].

If welfare benefits could no longer be acquired by illegal immigrants, you can bet they would try a whole lot harder to become legal U.S. citizens so they could regain those benefits. I think everyone can pretty much agree that the Welfare system needs a massive overhaul to become sustainable and less enticing to non-citizens.

Also on a side note, the welfare system actually does promote racism because of the percentage of minorities who are on welfare. This is just about food stamps but that is part of Welfare programs. Just looking at at the Black and Hispanic percentages, that is a huge chunk of the population so unfortuantely, some stereotypes are rather easily enforced when anyone looks into those communities.

Now one could make the counter-argument that the 15% white population is a lot more since there are many more 'whites' in America meaning that 15% is a huge number; however, on the other side that means the much smaller populations of Hispanics and Blacks are disproportionately receiving benefits. Also, often times hispanics and blacks kind of lump together in places which makes it even easier for a random stranger to encounter one of these beneficiaries. Well, this study is a bit old now so who knows how it has changed but the point is the welfare system is proving rather counter-productive as certain people, especially minorities can be encouraged to not try their best lest they loose benefits.

A rehaul of the welfare system would save a lot of money and fix a lot of problems plaguing the United States right now. Also I do agree that it should be a case by case basis for people living her but it would certainly help matters if the welfare systems wasn't getting in the way of illegals wanting to become citizens.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Oooh boy, well here is one of the main problems with the whole systems right here, the welfare system. The welfare system is one of the main contributors to the illegal immigrant problem in the first place. If the welfare system had better regulations and wasn't so easy to abuse there would not be so many problems in the first place. Most legal citizens, especially legal immigrants, hate seeing their hard earned cash given to people who came into the country improperly. There is very little more insulting to legal immigrants who worked their butts off see illegal immigrants get more help than them and actually have easier lives, just because they know how easy it is to abuse the current welfare system, especially if they have a lot of kids.

A lot of ghettos are perpetually subsidized by the current welfare system that promotes, single parent households, baby making, and no incentive to actually work because all of their needs are taken care of by the government. Imagine if instead people were rewarded more for getting out of the 'poverty' zone instead of being incentivised to keep the status quo because if they start making too much money they lose most of their benefits. So in order to keep these benefits upholding these communities more and more illegals move in to create a 'safe space' where the community won't rat them out, have little motivation to work harder and better, and in some cases won't even bother to learn English[which really should become the national language to make things easier for everyone while promoting assimilation into society].

If welfare benefits could no longer be acquired by illegal immigrants, you can bet they would try a whole lot harder to become legal U.S. citizens so they could regain those benefits. I think everyone can pretty much agree that the Welfare system needs a massive overhaul to become sustainable and less enticing to non-citizens.

Also on a side note, the welfare system actually does promote racism because of the percentage of minorities who are on welfare. This is just about food stamps but that is part of Welfare programs. Just looking at at the Black and Hispanic percentages, that is a huge chunk of the population so unfortuantely, some stereotypes are rather easily enforced when anyone looks into those communities.

Now one could make the counter-argument that the 15% white population is a lot more since there are many more 'whites' in America meaning that 15% is a huge number; however, on the other side that means the much smaller populations of Hispanics and Blacks are disproportionately receiving benefits. Also, often times hispanics and blacks kind of lump together in places which makes it even easier for a random stranger to encounter one of these beneficiaries. Well, this study is a bit old now so who knows how it has changed but the point is the welfare system is proving rather counter-productive as certain people, especially minorities can be encouraged to not try their best lest they loose benefits.

A rehaul of the welfare system would save a lot of money and fix a lot of problems plaguing the United States right now. Also I do agree that it should be a case by case basis for people living her but it would certainly help matters if the welfare systems wasn't getting in the way of illegals wanting to become citizens.

The problems caused by welfare are minuscule compared to the problems that would be caused if it were to be withdrawn. Like I said, the welfare system exists to stabilize the working class, and if that stability is taken away, heads will roll.

All the rehauls i've seen suggested are either just scaling it back, which would cause bigger problems, or fundamental misunderstandings on what bureaucracy is actually capable of doing. Believe me, I've been on the office side of filing plenty of this paperwork, it's not a perfect system because people don't make perfect systems. Of all my time actually dealing with people's welfare in the trenches, the only one I ever thought was truly abused was disability, and even there the application is mixed. I've seen people who clearly couldn't work get a conservative hard-ass dealing with their case and insisting they can still work, and I've seen people who got disability on minor anxiety.

And I guarantee you, if you give most people trying to balance their benefits with a job the opportunity to make middle class wages, they would drop welfare in a heartbeat. Most people in my experience who have benefits also work, they just don't have a clear path to a good job. Remember, most people on welfare have jobs. They are the working poor, not the lazy.

<Snipped quote by IceHeart>

The problems caused by welfare are minuscule compared to the problems that would be caused if it were to be withdrawn. Like I said, the welfare system exists to stabilize the working class, and if that stability is taken away, heads will roll.

All the rehauls i've seen suggested are either just scaling it back, which would cause bigger problems, or fundamental misunderstandings on what bureaucracy is actually capable of doing. Believe me, I've been on the office side of filing plenty of this paperwork, it's not a perfect system because people don't make perfect systems. Of all my time actually dealing with people's welfare in the trenches, the only one I ever thought was truly abused was disability, and even there the application is mixed. I've seen people who clearly couldn't work get a conservative hard-ass dealing with their case and insisting they can still work, and I've seen people who got disability on minor anxiety.

And I guarantee you, if you give most people trying to balance their benefits with a job the opportunity to make middle class wages, they would drop welfare in a heartbeat. Most people in my experience who have benefits also work, they just don't have a clear path to a good job. Remember, most people on welfare have jobs. They are the working poor, not the lazy.

Oh no doubt if they 'could' make it to middle class they would, the problem is a lot would get cut off their welfare before they manage to get those middle class wages and therefore lose too many benefits and not be able to keep up payments. Also if you want to go the job route a good majority probably are only working 'part-time' jobs in order to make sure they are under the cut-out amount that boots them out of welfare. So unless you are actually making a whole lot more money, often staying on Welfare is easier and more profitable for many. This is completely unsustainable and will eventually collapse under its own weight.

Also I've heard through family about some of the horror stories of families on welfare and the 'facilities' used to 'help' them. Often times all the government does is throw money at them and hope they become better people. Instead they just stay where they are and accept all the hand outs while never improving themselves. Welfare is basically a cancer to society in its current form. Are there good people who are doing their best to get out of such situations? Of course and that should be encouraged but there are too many benefits for people who don't care about improving anything but their own lives and their communities suffer as a result.

Oh and don't use WSJ cause I can't read the article...

You are not going to find a simple dictionary definition for the same reason the dictionary can't teach you calculus. It's a limited medium to explain complex topics.

@Vilageidiotx

Okay, that starting analogy shouldn't be important. (because I get what you're trying to say. It's not literal, But I still feel like bringing it up.) The dictionary DOES tell you what calculus is. It has a very specific definition, every person I ask "what calculus is" should be able to give me the same answer...a branch of mathematics. Racism, is a word that has hundreds of different meanings now, varying by person. Even if both have them seem complex. One will always have a correct answer in the end and the other doesn't seem like there is a correct answer. Given the current definition you're using that "everyone" is racist.

I think you are looking at this too much like solid attributes, like you might see in a video game. The point I am trying to convey here is that tribal affiliation, or else discomfort of the great other, is an innately human trait. For people in uni-racial communities, other races will fulfill that role. If you live in a very white rural area for instance, a lot of your understanding of black people will come from news stories, media, stereotypes, and whatever, which filters out common information enough that you can end up with the wrong impression of black people. It's true that if you are in a multi-racial relationship, you probably aren't racist against that race in any big way. (Though you mention Hitler, and it is true he wasn't buddying up with Jews, the very very Anti-semetic H.P. Lovecraft had a Jewish wife. People are weird af). But even in a multi-racial society, misunderstandings happen on a small scale.

Not quite sure what that was suppose to mean, the solid attributes/video game part. But your point is, people that live in non-multi cultured backgrounds are more likely to believe in stereotypes and what have you. But ones that do live with different races as neighbors and friends and co-workers and such, will likely not have those same problems? But misunderstandings may take place.

Okay, I agree. I chalk that up to education and ignorance and the misunderstandings mere flaws that makes humans, humans. They will happen in spite of their race, not because of it. (Because like you said, people are weird.) But I disagree that it will always have to do with racism and because people are racist no matter how much education and culture they learn from.

quora.com/Which-country-has-the-highes..

cnn.com/2010/LIVING/06/04/pew.interrac..

Why is the racial divide getting bigger then? Or at least people feel and say that it is. When we have one of the highest amount of inner race relationships, and they have been on an incline...

And so many people ARE living in multi cultured communities already...

nbcnews.com/news/latino/americas-tippi..

translatemedia.com/us/blog-us/usa-now-..

(And if I may be politically incorrect for a moment. It always seems the people bringing these up as issues, are the ones that are privileged and themselves haven't absorbed any other cultures. I think projection accurately describes the people I see more often than not.)

So, I ask again. It seems like racism shouldn't be such a big thing anymore...completely ignoring everyone having access to the internet now. And being able to have friends half across the world...and play tabletop simulator and voice chat with a girl from japan that moved to Canada and a guy in united arab emirates and become friends and play "Secret Hitler" together. (personal experience.) It just seems like a silly concept to me. Why bother being a racist troll when you can have friends from all around the world instead? It's easier than ever.

Our generation, and Gen X are so far removed from anything that our forefathers did/or had to deal with...I think the further we go in history, the more ridiculous it is to presume we are stuck in the past when everything else has progressed so far...

Medicine, Technology, List goes on, but we still have the same problem we did in the 50's? Even the 90's? (where stupid shit like prop 8 was passed. Now 60 percent of americans overall support gay marriage. Which is agreeably way too low, but back to racism!) And we will still always be awful racist people even in the far future? Where, ya know, everything is sexist,racist and homophobic and you have to point it all out? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

I think you are making too much of the everyone part tbh, so I'll try to be brief: Tribal affiliation, whatever that may be, is something innate in all of us that we all deal with. The problem with JonTron I feel is he took an issue we might sometimes struggle with and embraced it. This is the difference between innate racism and bad racism; he took his tribalism and began to thump his chest with it. That's how you cross the line. I don't think it is a moral failing if you want to feel a black girl's hair, or even if you have a sudden flicker of anxiousness when seeing a person of another race. What matters is that you work to control that innate tribalism. It's necessary in a mutli-racial society that you be able to do this. And JonTron failed that test, in this case by going on a racially charged tirade.

And no everyone being racist, if that's something you agree with, I don't care how small scale and levels of that. I have a big problem with that statement, if you are going on a case by case basis. And this is just about Jontron, and the video you posted earlier wasn't actually your opinion but you we're sharing something. Then I can let that go. If you don't think that video or that statement is accurate, you should of just smacked me across the head and told me so. Then I wouldn't be continuing under the impression that you do. :P

theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/10..

The tribal thing honestly sounds like a DNA/or born with it argument and are babies really racist, sexist and the like? I just, I don't think I ever can see the world in that light...(everything I looked up always goes back to that facial test, that has been debunked by everyone. Damn you google!)

And I just don't know anyone on earth that "has a sudden flicker of anxiousness when seeing a person of another race." It sounds like a comedy skit. Maybe it's just where I live but that person would die living here. Or as I pointed out, in many other places of the world too. <.< Also maybe it's the autistic in me, but the whole touching hair thing, people just like touching hair...supposedly feels good when others touch your hair. Just doesn't seem equal to the other example to me. Comes off as socially awkward vs innate racism. I guess we see the world in two different lights...and honestly I just saw JonTron stupidly going on a discussion with a baiter, took the bait and said things he didn't word right (and apologized for). But, I guess I can't really prove that one, can I? Vice versa. So I guess as far as JonTron goes. Much more can't be said there.

I think what is laughed off is the idea that people use multi-racial connections to validate something racist they say or do. It's not the idea of having friends of another race is in itself funny, but rather that it's silly to say something like "Plenty of my friends are black, so I'm not racist, but why do these black people have to move into my neighborhood?"

My answer to that guy wouldn't be, "Your racist!" I'd just tell the bitch to move. Seriously though. I think most of time...(when not said ironically/when it isn't just made up, because I stand by the fact most racists don't actually have a whole lot of friends/especially diverse ones.) (imo) It's a legit defense, when people claim such things. A lot of "racist" things to say, often are sarcastic remarks usually said to friends or people in your circles, as an inside joke. And people outside their circles not understanding and instead of trying to, assume the worst.

Just because you can't quantify the terms doesn't mean they don't mean anything. We know that racism has in the past been used to do some fucked up shit. We know there are still a minority of people who want to repeat that fucked up shit and are actively working for it. And we know the general population is not exactly good at keeping from getting swept up in doing fucked up shit.

Putting aside, how much racism levels mean and if it means anything to say something a little racist and very racist, when the result still implies you think your race is superior to another's. But I really don't think we're living in the past, but the present. And I really don't want to get into what races/racists are actually and presently causing the most damage, because I feel that would be going into the weeds. I feel the fact that racism is a taboo, sort of quells that fear...because most taboos tend to stay that way.

If that minority's rhetoric becomes socially acceptable, there is the threat that they will spread and violent shit will occur.

I don't think what your implying here, is what that sounds like you could be implying. So just a very quick policy question. Do you feel America needs hate speech laws?

Violent, systematic racism is like a horrifying alcohol habit we once had in the past, and the taboo on racism is the strict AA program we are following to keep that horrifying shit from happening again. Sure, on the surface taking a small drink mind seem harmless, but there is a very real concern the first drink will lead us right back into that horrifying past.

"Taking a small drink mind seem harmless" *might (This isn't an attack. I hope you know that. Feel free to point out any mistakes I may make, if you see them. I encourage it actually. As a roleplayer, and someone who now writes. I feel like I can only get better as a writer, if I can make sure I'm articulating as effectively as possible. So if I say shit, that you don't understand, please let me know. Also, if you don't share the same mindset, will refrain from ever doing it in future. ^_^ Otherwise, I don't feel like I have much new to add here, sort of the same point previously made that past racism exists and we even today still have it subconsciously.

Yeh, I think context matters. That's why I don't condemn pewdiepie (well, for that, I do condemn him for being a talentless hack, but that's another thing). JonTron wasn't joking around though, he really wanted them other races put in their place.

Okay then. Also 100% agree that PewDiePie's content is shit...like really bad. >.<

Fairtax is just a consumption tax, isn't it? That falls mostly on the working classes too. The rich don't really consume in direct proportion to their earnings compared to the poor, so you'd just be looking at a massive jacking up of prices for common goods with the benefit mostly being that the rich make more money to invest abroad. If you try and tariff them into investing in the country, goods get even more expensive and the crisis grows.

Ya know what, I'll admit I know almost fucking nothing about taxes. So, I won't pretend to. XD

But the fact the united states has one of the highest corpotate tax rates of almost every single country. Yet when you go by taxes in general, we aren't gouged in the slightest compared to everyone else...And we wonder why businesses want to leave elsewhere. (Sorry, this is rather off topic. XD)

taxfoundation.org/corporate-income-tax..

taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-..

At this point, assuming the Syrian crisis has already peaked, it won't be our problem. We're way too far for Syrians to just happen on our doorstep. If any Syrians manage to cross the Atlantic in dinghy's, they fucking deserve citizenship. As it stands now though, we are dealing with the kinds of immigrants that can afford plane tickets.

It's an odd thing to assume, because nearly everything I look up about it, is saying it's consistently getting worse. (whether it be pleas, to offer "kindness" because more and more refugees needs places to stay. Or crime and murder rates skyrocketing because of said "kindness." unfolding.) We still have people wanting these to come to the U.S, it hasn't gone away.

washingtonpost.com/world/europe/new-un..

gatestoneinstitute.org/8663/germany-mi..

But we were talking about Mexicans. I think amnesty should be a case by case basis. I think deporting criminal aliens, and illegals caught doing other shit besides having just crossed the border, is perfectly fine. But I think those trying to make a life for themselves, for whom the process of kicking them out would be mostly pointless, should have a path toward citizenship so they don't end up in poverty. I don't just say this out of human interest, but also because I feel purposely exacerbating poverty to make a point is costly and stupid.

While looking things up. I do find it a little strange that the statements of illegal immigrants do actually work a bunch and aren't just lazy. But simultaneously aren't taking any american jobs...Is that a contradiction? Feels like one. (Apparently, most of them take up all the low wage jobs. Which doesn't really help the younger generations find work...) And I think many legal immigrants would probably disagree that kicking people out that didn't follow the rules they did wouldn't matter. ;P (Also I'd argue from all the countries their running away from, it's more their problem and not ours. :P) America doesn't really keep anyone in poverty, we're pretty much the only place where you can change your 'income class'. I don't think we're making poverty somehow worse by asking people to follow the proper procedures and become a part of the American melting pot.

Also, be careful hating on the welfare system. Without that shit, we would have had a revolution before any of us were born. Welfare isn't just the safety net of individuals, it's the safety net of capitalism as a whole. There is a reason the majority of modern economists support social welfare policies. When the working class isn't stabilized, they start sharpening their knifes. Ask the Tsar.

I suppose I could disagree with you about welfare. (maybe should since not sure how well libertarians are suppose to like those.) But I mean I really don't, my mom used it, a long time ago when she was raising two girls alone going to college and working 2 jobs. I'm sure someone in your family does/did too. A lot of people now are on some kind of government program. I don't think people that are on government programs are automatically wrong in some way and I do support a welfare system. Just pointing out, it has several problems and it's often times abused. (I even have personal stories for that. ;D)

That's because history is normalized but the future isn't. We've had much more politically divisive periods in our history. The current era is divisive, and will probably be one of the defining eras in American history, but we've had more aggressive periods. I think we're still behind the 1960's in terms of political divisiveness. Probably behind the 1930's. And waaaay, waaaaaaaay, waaaaaaaaaay behind the 1850's.

I guess to clarify when I say worse, I mean in my lifetime (as pointless as someone in the 20's to say that.) and more currently oppose to hundreds of years ago...

And inter-generational conflict is just normal, because generations are not monoliths. For every hippy, there was a young man who volunteered to fight in Vietnam. For every young person in the labor movement, there was another young person scared shitless of Reds. And for every young man fighting under the American flag at Gettysburg, there was another young man fighting under the southern flag.

And to paraphrase someone else's statement, even back then the hippies we're fighting for some kind of rights. This is the first generation of people, where a large group are actually and actively fighting to have less rights for themselves...

First of all, I gotta say that you are waaaayyy too hung up on this everyone had racist impulses thing. I'm not insulting you personally.

Okay, that starting analogy shouldn't be important. (because I get what you're trying to say. It's not literal, But I still feel like bringing it up.) The dictionary DOES tell you what calculus is. It has a very specific definition, every person I ask "what calculus is" should be able to give me the same answer...a branch of mathematics. Racism, is a word that has hundreds of different meanings now, varying by person. Even if both have them seem complex. One will always have a correct answer in the end and the other doesn't seem like there is a correct answer. Given the current definition you're using that "everyone" is racist.

That is a basic overview of what calculus is, but that definition doesn't get into the depth of what calculus is. What I'm saying is that is that the dictionary doesn't go into enough detail to be used as a be all end all for all discussions.

Not quite sure what that was suppose to mean, the solid attributes/video game part. But your point is, people that live in non-multi cultured backgrounds are more likely to believe in stereotypes and what have you. But ones that do live with different races as neighbors and friends and co-workers and such, will likely not have those same problems? But misunderstandings may take place.

I'm saying communities are more complicated than you are making them out to be. Because...
A: That some communities are multiracial doesn't mean all communities are. What is normal for one part of the country isn't neccessarily normal in every part. Where I live now, multi-racial relationships are very common. When I lived in Idaho though, black people in general were very rare.
B: Not everyone adapts to the community around them. "Cuck" entered the current political lexicon with Stormfront types insulting white men who don't mind multi-racial relationships, as in "White men are being cuckolded by black men."

Why is the racial divide getting bigger then? Or at least people feel and say that it is. When we have one of the highest amount of inner race relationships, and they have been on an incline...

It's not getting bigger. It's getting smaller I think. That comes with problems too, because it means communities that were previously uni-racial are now being integrated. That being said, the current racial tension seems to have been born out the controversy surrounding the deaths of some black people and subsequent Black Lives or Blue Lives matter.

That being said, I am pretty well convinced racism is less of an issue than it used to be. Because, even though I'm afraid the push back is going to be successful and we will start to go backwards, I don't think that has happened yet.

And we will still always be awful racist people even in the far future?

I don't believe in paradise. So yeh, we will have something like that in the future. I don't know that race will be it, but there are other things for people to be tribalistic about.

And this is just about Jontron, and the video you posted earlier wasn't actually your opinion but you we're sharing something.

Are you talking about the AvenueQ video? I do think that. Albeit I think in many people it is unconscious, I think my examples have been largely unconscious attitudes. What I'm saying is that JonTron specifically jumped the line from the everyday sort of racism that healthy people try to control and embraced thought thoughts.

The tribal thing honestly sounds like a DNA/or born with it argument and are babies really racist, sexist and the like?

Tribal as in innately prefer the group we were raised in. I don't think the specifics are DNA so much as the general tendencies. Or else, I think we are genetically predisposed to understand an "Us" and a "Them", and whether or not race fills that roll is decided by our culture.

I'll create a scenario to explain. Imagine you have some kid growing up in a multi-racial black and white community. They don't have racist tendencies toward those races because they group up with them. But a Muslim moves nextdoor. Now, I'm not saying the kid is going to go all JonTron and start yelling at the Muslim neighbor to go back to their country, because lets say this kid is consciously fine with Muslims. But unconsciously, they might have thoughts. Maybe it is vague discomfort talking to a woman in a headscarf, or the occasional "I hope that isn't a bomb" thought when they see the guy getting into his car with a briefcase. I don't think those things would be abnormal, and they wouldn't be evil, but they would be racist (or religiousist or whatever). These could be passing thoughts, something internally laughed off. But they are still racism in its seedling form. It is that kid's duty as a well rounded human being to not let those feelings fester and become active racism.

A lot of "racist" things to say, often are sarcastic remarks usually said to friends or people in your circles, as an inside joke. And people outside their circles not understanding and instead of trying to, assume the worst.

Well, somebody telling racist in-jokes to people not in on the joke are fucking up a bit, socially speaking. But that's neither here nor there.

...because most taboos tend to stay that way.

This isn't true. Taboos evolve quite a bit. Used to be taboo for women to wear dresses.

Do you feel America needs hate speech laws?

Nope. I'm just defending a trait already in our culture, I'm not saying that the police need to get involved.

"Taking a small drink mind seem harmless" *might (This isn't an attack...)

Alls good.

Ya know what, I'll admit I know almost fucking nothing about taxes. So, I won't pretend to. XD

But the fact the united states has one of the highest corpotate tax rates of almost every single country. Yet when you go by taxes in general, we aren't gouged in the slightest compared to everyone else...And we wonder why businesses want to leave elsewhere. (Sorry, this is rather off topic. XD)

The businesses largely stay here, though they do like to send the actual work abroad to make use of shittier conditions. The world's rich use tax havens to get around these things. Oftentimes the argument I've seen about lowering the corporate tax is to make sure the rich actually pay the thing instead of storing all their shit offshore.

This is, personally speaking, a sore spot for me economically speaking, because I agree with the Thomas Piketty line of thinking that we need to drastically increase taxes on the rich if civilization is going to progress in the way we all seem to expect it to, but I also think it isn't going to happen because they are rather good at getting out of paying their way. This is one of the main issues that has sent me careening way off to the far left in recent years.

It's an odd thing to assume, because nearly everything I look up about it, is saying it's consistently getting worse. (whether it be pleas, to offer "kindness" because more and more refugees needs places to stay. Or crime and murder rates skyrocketing because of said "kindness." unfolding.) We still have people wanting these to come to the U.S, it hasn't gone away.

Syria can only produce so many refugees before there is nobody in Syria left.

Also, like I said before, we won't have the same sort of crisis for geographic reasons. Syria is very close to Europe, and therefore can be reached by traditional refugeeing means. The Atlantic ocean divides the US from the region, meaning we have completely control over who we bring over and how they are positioned. People who bring up the Syrian crisis when talking about the United States are fishing for political points.

While looking things up. I do find it a little strange that the statements of illegal immigrants do actually work a bunch and aren't just lazy. But simultaneously aren't taking any american jobs...Is that a contradiction? Feels like one.

That's because that particular line of thinking is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. Immigrants work jobs, and then spend that money. Once more, capitalism functions on the assumption that workers produce more than they use, since growth would not be possible otherwise. Meaning that immigrants with jobs increase the net wealth of the society.

we're pretty much the only place where you can change your 'income class'

No we're not.

But I mean I really don't, my mom used it, a long time ago when she was raising two girls alone going to college and working 2 jobs. I'm sure someone in your family does/did too.

Well, I suspect most of us have family on medicare or medicaid. That being said, I've only ever used unemployment myself. Though I guess since I am a government employee it could be argue that I am on the public dole.

And I agree it is abused, I just feel this is another one of those issues where the abuse is unavoidable and a product of there being no perfect system, and to tone down our current system would involve hurting innocents.

I guess to clarify when I say worse, I mean in my lifetime (as pointless as someone in the 20's to say that.) and more currently oppose to hundreds of years ago...

You're probably right, in our lifetime it is probably at its peak.

And to paraphrase someone else's statement, even back then the hippies we're fighting for some kind of rights. This is the first generation of people, where a large group are actually and actively fighting to have less rights for themselves...

I think the Bernie Sanders left is largely fighting for rights too. Remember that the Hippies also gave us Weather Underground and the DNC Convention riots too. These things aren't black and white.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Oh no doubt if they 'could' make it to middle class they would, the problem is a lot would get cut off their welfare before they manage to get those middle class wages and therefore lose too many benefits and not be able to keep up payments. Also if you want to go the job route a good majority probably are only working 'part-time' jobs in order to make sure they are under the cut-out amount that boots them out of welfare. So unless you are actually making a whole lot more money, often staying on Welfare is easier and more profitable for many. This is completely unsustainable and will eventually collapse under its own weight.

Also I've heard through family about some of the horror stories of families on welfare and the 'facilities' used to 'help' them. Often times all the government does is throw money at them and hope they become better people. Instead they just stay where they are and accept all the hand outs while never improving themselves. Welfare is basically a cancer to society in its current form. Are there good people who are doing their best to get out of such situations? Of course and that should be encouraged but there are too many benefits for people who don't care about improving anything but their own lives and their communities suffer as a result.

Oh and don't use WSJ cause I can't read the article...

I've been in the trenches of those facilities. Most people using welfare are decent folk trying to feed their kids and get up in life. There are people who abuse it, but I suspect those people would find some other trick if it weren't for welfare. Actually, I know they would, because many of the people I knew who abused it also sold drugs or participated in credit card scams. The mistake is thinking that getting rid of welfare will make the bad people good and the good people better. In reality, it would just cut the throats of the good people and inconvenience the bad.

But even more important than all that, welfare in its current form keeps the very unsteady nature of life in the working classes stable. When I worked in a grocery store a few years back, I remember this coworker who bitched about all the people on food stamps. Never mind most the people on foodstamps had jobs and were just struggling people. The thing that always got me about the dude complaining was; his fucking wages were payed by foodstamps. Seriously. We worked in a grocery store in the poor part of town for Christ's sake. If they got rid of food stamps the next day, him and I would have been unemployed in a few weeks. Which would put us on the streets, which would take our business away from other people which would put more people on the streets...

@Vilageidiotx

I'll just have to say we'll just have to agree to disagree on this, though I will say I never advocated for just ousting welfare, but I do think that it should only benefit actual U.S. citizens and not illegal aliens.

Welfare in its current form is unsustainable and will run out of money eventually. To compensate the government might raise taxes making it harder for more middle class families to stay in the middle class. I'l argue it would be much better to overhaul the system and make it more sustainable and useful to American citizens before it completely crashes down, sending the entire country into a downward spiral instead of nipping the problem in the bud before that can happen.

Frankly it may be too late already; however a little chaos now would be much better than another depression hitting making it impossible for anyone to live with basic needs expect the very rich. Welfare will run out in its current form and when it does, everyone will be in a much worse position instead of just a few while a more streamlined and efficient system is put in place.

Also, of course there will always be scumbags who abuse the system, any system, but just because no system is ever perfect is not a valid argument against trying to improve the current system. The current system has too many flaws and is easily abused, so might as well make it harder for that abuse to happen, if you can make it not worth the effort to try and abuse the system anymore then less and less bad people will bother trying.

Food stamps are an utter disgrace with very shoddy regulation. People abuse the system by applying in two states so they can get double the food stamps. Also food stamps can often be used on items with little to no nutritional value, fraud is rampant, and big businesses get in on the action so they can use those funds for themselves by selling people horrible products they buy with those stamps. Now its not like I have the answers to these problems but I am quite certain things could be improved dramatically with better regulations. Just the fact that an entire section of town is essentially reliant on government issued food stamps shows there is a serious problem going on there that needs to be fixed.

Any town that reliant on food stamps needs to have some serious work done to make sure that is no longer the case.

First of all, I gotta say that you are waaaayyy too hung up on this everyone had racist impulses thing. I'm not insulting you personally.

Okay, I suppose I can't really start without pointing out again. How much I appreciate how respectful you've been and how open you are about your opinions and ideals, and I know you aren't attempting to attack me on any personal level.

But I feel like I must stress, if you claim “everyone is racist” is something that you believe. Unfortunately, that generalized statement, does in fact include me. (me being someone.) So in a way you are saying you, me and everyone has some kind of “racial superiority complexes.” You're argument does blame everyone. (it isn't personal per say.) But it makes no one able to defend from such a statement or make them innocent of a pretty bad thing.

But! That was not my main point, nothing that I said was meant to be a defense for specifically me explaining why I'm not. But my opinion that racism isn't in our DNA but it's learned. Maybe at very young ages. But I believe it CAN be learned to not be racist. (in any way. Big or small.) From learning about cultures and their differences. I don't see it as something that's impossible, to learn from our (or more likely other peoples) past mistakes.

That is a basic overview of what calculus is, but that definition doesn't get into the depth of what calculus is. What I'm saying is that is that the dictionary doesn't go into enough detail to be used as a be all end all for all discussions.

I guess to dive deeper into an analogy...though I'm basically repeating myself. Ignoring the dictionary. If you ask different math experts to teach you the in and outs of Calculus. You will get the same/similar explanations that lead to the same basic idea. Racism, seems to be a word that no one can properly define and different people will share completely varied views on what exactly “racism” is. And that's because it's not the same.

I'm saying communities are more complicated than you are making them out to be. Because...
A: That some communities are multiracial doesn't mean all communities are. What is normal for one part of the country isn't neccessarily normal in every part. Where I live now, multi-racial relationships are very common. When I lived in Idaho though, black people in general were very rare.
B: Not everyone adapts to the community around them. "Cuck" entered the current political lexicon with Stormfront types insulting white men who don't mind multi-racial relationships, as in "White men are being cuckolded by black men."

I think I'm saying most interaction and actions that people exchange in are more complicated than “everyone is this” Communities and people are complicated, which make most generalizations incorrect statements...

But what your describing and what you said previously, is basically my entire point. “People in Idaho for instance, don't have very many black people in their culture. So instead of talking to them and learning about their culture...They listen to the news stories about them, the stereotypes and get misinformation and then generalize the race because of what they we're told.”

But doesn't that show you exactly what I'm talking about? Racism is learned. You can't be born believing blacks can't swim or whites can't jump...Stereotypes are learned. As I argue ALL racial biases are. If it was true that racial bias just couldn't be ignored and was just innate and not fixable. Would interracial friendships, marriages and likewise every of happened in the first place?

Not everyone adapts, but it's very very clear the majority does...because where growing as a multi-racial world, not declining...as my previous sources stated. Maybe I'd be okay with stating, that a lot more people have racist ideologies than their should be and let's say there is some kind of race problem in the United States. But it would have to take place under the assumption, not everyone is racist and something can be done about the people that are.

Cuck is a word I just can't take seriously and really I implore others to also assume it's like every other label, purely meant to silence dissenting opinions.

It's not getting bigger. It's getting smaller I think. That comes with problems too, because it means communities that were previously uni-racial are now being integrated. That being said, the current racial tension seems to have been born out the controversy surrounding the deaths of some black people and subsequent Black Lives or Blue Lives matter.

That being said, I am pretty well convinced racism is less of an issue than it used to be. Because, even though I'm afraid the push back is going to be successful and we will start to go backwards, I don't think that has happened yet.

I don't believe in paradise. So yeh, we will have something like that in the future. I don't know that race will be it, but there are other things for people to be tribalistic about.

I...don't know what that's trying to say...what is the problem there? That more places are becoming multiracial/cultural? I assume that's not what your saying, because it would concern me otherwise. I didn't want to touch Black Lives Matter with a 39 and half foot pole...but since you brought them up. I can tell you they have a different idea of racism then you do. And also they're another reason why the division is taking place. But let's just say, violent acts on any side is wrong and leave it at that.

dailywire.com/news/7347/7-statistics-s..

But I will argue, if you believe everyone is racist and racism will always be a problem...can discussion or anything really help or matter in something that can't be solved. Excuse my own crappy analogy, but it would be like debating the possibility of immortality. Why bother if death (racism) is inevitable? How can it get better or worse when the problem is birth and people being alive itself? As silly as that sounds, I do think it's a valid question. Because another thing about the future is that some speculate that white people will eventually become a minority. Which makes current BLM (and other political) opinions that state "you can't be racist, unless your white." and it makes those statements seem even more meaningless.

Are you talking about the AvenueQ video? I do think that. Albeit I think in many people it is unconscious, I think my examples have been largely unconscious attitudes. What I'm saying is that JonTron specifically jumped the line from the everyday sort of racism that healthy people try to control and embraced thought thoughts.

Okay, I thought so. Which is why I am going so strongly against that sentiment. I disagree that any racism is normal or that unconscious racist behavior exists, especially in people with family, friends and marriages with different races. I believe JonTron made mistakes too, but it wasn't because of his inherit racist beliefs. But because he isn't articulate and used to discussing politics. Which can and often does lead to people using attack methods, like Destiny who was baiting him.

Tribal as in innately prefer the group we were raised in. I don't think the specifics are DNA so much as the general tendencies. Or else, I think we are genetically predisposed to understand an "Us" and a "Them", and whether or not race fills that roll is decided by our culture.

I'll create a scenario to explain. Imagine you have some kid growing up in a multi-racial black and white community. They don't have racist tendencies toward those races because they group up with them. But a Muslim moves nextdoor. Now, I'm not saying the kid is going to go all JonTron and start yelling at the Muslim neighbor to go back to their country, because lets say this kid is consciously fine with Muslims. But unconsciously, they might have thoughts. Maybe it is vague discomfort talking to a woman in a headscarf, or the occasional "I hope that isn't a bomb" thought when they see the guy getting into his car with a briefcase. I don't think those things would be abnormal, and they wouldn't be evil, but they would be racist (or religiousist or whatever). These could be passing thoughts, something internally laughed off. But they are still racism in its seedling form. It is that kid's duty as a well rounded human being to not let those feelings fester and become active racism.

(Can I just point out I love how god damn unapologetically bias Google is?) But may I point out, Muslim is not a race. It is an ideology. No matter what every stupid front page of google has to say about it. Arab would be an accurate term. And how does that kid come to thinking about bombs? Is it just out of thin air? Does his brain unconsciously come up with that specific excuse as an instinctive defense mechanism? Or is it more likely based on learned ideas from the news story talking about ISIS? (The proper label there is “Islamophobic” but really, you read the Koran and what sharia courts believe and actually current enforce and then tell me their on par with religions like Taoism. :P)

Well, somebody telling racist in-jokes to people not in on the joke are fucking up a bit, socially speaking. But that's neither here nor there.

But does telling a racist in-joke to friends and a stranger who isn't in on the joke, simply an idiotic or dickish thing to do? Or is that act itself, a subconsciously racist act toward that person?

This isn't true. Taboos evolve quite a bit. Used to be taboo for women to wear dresses.

Yeah, I'd figure you'd bring something like that up. Though originally I had put “Taboo's in general” which was inaccurate, so I corrected that and put “most” to point out their were exceptions and that is an exception. But it is one exception which doesn't take away the word “most” maybe I should add. “Modern Taboo's”

The businesses largely stay here, though they do like to send the actual work abroad to make use of shittier conditions. The world's rich use tax havens to get around these things. Oftentimes the argument I've seen about lowering the corporate tax is to make sure the rich actually pay the thing instead of storing all their shit offshore.

This is, personally speaking, a sore spot for me economically speaking, because I agree with the Thomas Piketty line of thinking that we need to drastically increase taxes on the rich if civilization is going to progress in the way we all seem to expect it to, but I also think it isn't going to happen because they are rather good at getting out of paying their way. This is one of the main issues that has sent me careening way off to the far left in recent years.

I think most taxes in general can kind of boil down a particular human sin, that both sides both follow. Greed. I mean the basic right side is. “I want to keep all my money that I earn.” and the left. “I want someone else to pay more of their money, not my own.” Both (are simplified generalizations) but can be argued fall under a greed mentality.

But in the end, it's clear in America (and maybe elsewhere to.) The rich DO pay more taxes then everyone else combined. Outliers that cheat on taxes, happen in the minority and aren't the only class bracket to cheat on their taxes.

youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ A video about taxing/eating the rich

youtube.com/watch?v=Xj7nRc3_EG0 A video explaining taxes/tax breaks.

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/h..

I'm not educated enough to really get into specifically “corporate” taxes opposed to individuals.
But I think the whole, people not paying their fair share. Kind of does get into that mindset.

Scrooge mcduck holding a hundred millions dollars so he can swim in it and uses none of it on the economy, He should be able to, if he really wants...if all of it came from him providing a service and getting a profit. When thousands of others say. “I could use that money better, gimme gimme.” I unfortunately have to side with the duck in this case. It's his money...he got it likely because those thousands of people were either employed or benefited by purchasing his products.

Syria can only produce so many refugees before there is nobody in Syria left.

Also, like I said before, we won't have the same sort of crisis for geographic reasons. Syria is very close to Europe, and therefore can be reached by traditional refugeeing means. The Atlantic ocean divides the US from the region, meaning we have completely control over who we bring over and how they are positioned. People who bring up the Syrian crisis when talking about the United States are fishing for political points.

Well, I'd argue maybe it's others responsibilities to make their own countries better. But if Syria vanishes and get nice and warm cozy elsewhere. Do you think the mass immigration crisis ends there? You know how many other 3rd world countries that share no modern values that would probably love getting free money and guaranteed shelter? If not Syria, another country will take it's place.

But I think we are pointing out the problem that mass immigration does to other countries period...something we are currently going through to a certain extent. We look to Europe for mistakes and failures they try. So we don't do them ourselves...

That's because that particular line of thinking is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. Immigrants work jobs, and then spend that money. Once more, capitalism functions on the assumption that workers produce more than they use, since growth would not be possible otherwise. Meaning that immigrants with jobs increase the net wealth of the society.

But the problem arises that people who aren't citizens here are getting jobs, and taking those that could be taken by legal immigrants and American born civilians. And clearly even if it's a majority, the ones that are just coming here for the welfare system, and ones who don't want to learn the language or the rules of American Culture. Aren't benefiting the economy at all. Since immigration is increasing in America and they all seem to be following very similar patterns, why are so many unemployed and struggling to find work? If it did have an overall benefit, chances are we'd see them. But these immigrants aren't making their own businesses, to employ others and create another small circle of income exchange, their specifically taking a certain job market that a lot of younger people want and now can't get.

zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-07/15-signs..

nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why..

numbersusa.com/content/news/december-1..

No we're not.

Okay that link you provided is a little frustrating...because it goes into “a study”, but doesn't provide much about the study and the link to it, goes nowhere. Basically the only thing I see it that it admits our mobility has always been increasing, just slowly. And it's not worse today than it was before. But places (the only one they name specifically.) Denmark is more mobile than the united states. Aside from my immediate skepticism, there's plenty of argument against being like Denmark, that Denmark is actually behaving like the United States and people disagreeing that, that mobility there even exists.

nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/10/20/c..

money.cnn.com/2015/10/23/news/economy/..

theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/..

Well, I suspect most of us have family on medicare or medicaid. That being said, I've only ever used unemployment myself. Though I guess since I am a government employee it could be argue that I am on the public dole.

And I agree it is abused, I just feel this is another one of those issues where the abuse is unavoidable and a product of there being no perfect system, and to tone down our current system would involve hurting innocents.

I disagree that it's something that measures can't be done to stop certain abuses of the system. And by toning down, I assume you mean cuts. But there is toning down that can be done and have it not effect almost everyone else. Many would seem to disagree with both of us that the welfare state is a good thing at all...

heritage.org/welfare/report/how-welfar..

inequalitiesblog.wordpress.com/2012/10.. (This is about the UK and their increasingly growing negative opinions of the welfare state.)

reason.com/reasontv/2016/03/03/the-hum..

fee.org/articles/12-reasons-to-oppose-..

spectator.org/55875_five-reasons-refor.. (This is about welfare reform)



And I will say, a lot of the welfare/food stamp stuff I see. Like the “eat on 20 bucks a month challenge” because that's all those poor people get you scum. When from personal experience I know just how wrong that is...and most people that I know are on welfare now, make more than what they'd make in a part time job. I won't say I'm okay with axing government welfare. I am more on your side in this case. But you got to see the other side and the point that, that seems a little silly.

I'm currently going through a few articles on both sides and the discussion about that welfare making more than minimum wage jobs. And I'm finding a study on one side, that honestly seems a little too high on the numbers. And the detractors that don't actually outright give any specifics. They just tell me it's super duper complex. So I'll avoid getting much deeper into it. But from personal experiences/stories and being around the ghetto and knowing how much benefits people get...I can tell you, just leaving the welfare state be without at least having a discussion about it's effectiveness and such, is a mistake.

You're probably right, in our lifetime it is probably at its peak.

As I read what what I wrote below, I apologize as this may seem a bit more aggressively written, but certainly not trying to be, especially to you specifically.

So do you agree that both sides of the political spectrum are behaving worse than the previous decade? Then I think it doesn't help to deny that the movement of SJW's and people of that mindset aren't a problem. (Because they're essentially, the people who you fear that may make violence merely because of your skin color, okay. People like the BLM riots or protests asking to fry the pigs like bacon, or the several stories of people beating the shit out of trump supporters or kidnapping an autistic white kid and torturing him. I mean the other political side can be criticized to. But only one extremist side is currently in more constant stirs like this and rioting and so forth.)

Whiny crybabies wanting to secede their state. Like Texas for Obama and California for Trump and those kind of “the world is over” people existed on both sides of the political coin. But I don't remember a story about hicks going up to some ghetto person and kicking his ass going “YOU VOTED OBAMA? HUH?! KICK HIS ASS!” or white men kidnapping an autistic black teen and scalping him live online...I just don't remember any of that in the news. (ignoring all the stuff that's proven fake, like every time you hear about an odd tip message, negative or not, it's basically fake.) If you get my point.

I think the Bernie Sanders left is largely fighting for rights too. Remember that the Hippies also gave us Weather Underground and the DNC Convention riots too. These things aren't black and white.

Not quite sure, what that implies. But once I thought Bernie Sanders may be a sincere and nice guy. But oh boy, did he prove me quite wrong with many of his statements. Like "When you are white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto, you don’t know what it’s like to be poor, you don’t know what it’s like to be hassled when you are walking down a street or dragged out of a car,"

Like seriously, as my roommate (and my personal experiences for that matter.) would love to very much 100% disagree with that assertion. Bernie sanders can legit go fuck himself.