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

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
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 [u]race[/u] either legally, or violently. 
[/quote]

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, [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5pnDkrCsDQ]because all people look the same.[/url] 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.)

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
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. 
[/quote]

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 [b]everyone[/b] 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.

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
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. 
[/quote]

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. [s]Politically incorrect as it may be.[/s] 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...

http://cis.org/Cost-Welfare-Immigrant-Native-Households

[hider=A thing]
"In its analysis of a 2012 US Census Bureau survey, the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that average welfare cost of a household headed by a legal or illegal immigrant was $6,234 in 2012, and $5,692 for households headed only by illegal immigrants. By comparison, the average welfare cost of a household headed by a natural-born citizen is $4,431, the study estimates. In particular, according to the study, immigrants receive more cash, food, and Medicaid welfare than households headed by natural-born citizens, even though their housing costs are roughly the same, the study estimates."
[/hider]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

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

[hider=Quotes]
About 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least one kind of welfare benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and housing assistance, compared to 30% for native-led households, according to the report from the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for lower levels of immigration.

Those numbers increase for households with children, with 76% of immigrant-led households receiving welfare, compared to 52% for the native-born.

"This should not be understood as some kind of defect or moral failing on the part of immigrants," Camarota said about the findings. "Rather, what it represents is a system that allows a lot of less-educated immigrants to settle in the country, who then earn modest wages and are eligible for a very generous welfare system."

"Most people have a sense that if you were to work for $10 an hour, 40 hours a week, you couldn't be receiving welfare, could you? You couldn't be living in public housing, could you?" he said. "The answer is yes, you can. That's one of the most surprising things about this study."
[/hider]

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
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.
[/quote]

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 [b]going[/b] 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?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/197828/record-high-americans-perceive-nation-divided.aspx

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^)