[quote=@tanderbolt] 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. [/quote] Good catch. [quote=@SleepingSilence]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? [/quote] 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. [quote]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...[/quote] 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?" [quote]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] 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. [quote] If the statements were said ironically or as a joke, would the words themselves still be the same?[/quote] 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. [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. [/quote] 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. [quote]DO want that to also become our problem, with the Syrian migrants.[/quote] 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. [quote]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,[/quote] 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 [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner]the 1850's[/url]. 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.