[quote=@SleepingSilence] 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 [b]slight[/b] 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 [b]somehow[/b] 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...[url=https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/03/school-loses-funding-white/]So shit like this happens...[/url] [/quote] 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. 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=@SleepingSilence] 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, [url=http://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer]As nice as it sounds, to help all the nice women and children and give them everything we can. Sometimes, reality sets in that [b]A LOT[/b] of money is being spent.[/url] And America *technically* already DOES have more immigrants coming into our country than everywhere else on the planet. [s]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.[/s] 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. [/quote] 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=@SleepingSilence] 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. [s](seriously the fucking frog meme's aren't funny. Staph!)[/s] 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." [/quote] 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=@mdk] 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 [i]only[/i] 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: [/quote] 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. [quote=@mdk] I was actually thinking of Sessions, tbh, but let's run with Trump. Hilary's [i]entire campaign[/i] 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. [/quote] 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. [quote=@mdk] 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....[/quote] [url=http://i.imgur.com/QyrL424.jpg]Oh dear...[/url] 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. [quote=@mdk] [url=http://www.thegetrealmom.com/blog/womensrestroom]I lifted that from here,[/url] 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 [i]anything[/i] 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 [i]million[/i] other examples which are probably all better -- but again, harder to quantify than the revenue loss from NCAA ball in NC. [/quote] 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.