<Snipped quote by Dinh AaronMk>
The only way to get full communism is to kill all of the poor people.
Then whose surplus labor would we exploit?
<Snipped quote by Dinh AaronMk>
The only way to get full communism is to kill all of the poor people.
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.
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.
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 we will still always be awful racist people even in the far future?
And this is just about Jontron, and the video you posted earlier wasn't actually your opinion but you we're sharing something.
The tribal thing honestly sounds like a DNA/or born with it argument and are babies really racist, sexist and the like?
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.
...because most taboos tend to stay that way.
Do you feel America needs hate speech laws?
"Taking a small drink mind seem harmless" *might (This isn't an attack...)
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)
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.
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.
we're pretty much the only place where you can change your 'income class'
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.
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 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...
<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...
<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.
<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.
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?
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...
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.)
If the statements were said ironically or as a joke, would the words themselves still be the same?
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.
DO want that to also become our problem, with the Syrian migrants.
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,
>not automatically making me a tribute
Can communists do nothing right?
I volunteer.
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...
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.
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."
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 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.
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....
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.