Vilageidiotx

happy april fools day

not!

Hunger Games - Let no Fool be Unfooled

Non Fatal

(Player1) sneaks around, being careful not to make a sound.

(Player1) and (Player2) smokes oak leaves thinking it is marijuana and thinks they are high the rest of the day.

(Player1) catches a live squirrel and ties it to a stick to use as a weapon.

(Player1) finds a Minion costume and puts it on.

Christ appears to (Player1) in a dream and informs (him/her1) to carve a cross into (his/her1) forehead in order to win. (He/She1) does it when (he/she1) wakes up, whispering "Deus Vult" as the blood runs down (his/her1) face.

Fatal

(Player1) sleeps in a patch of poison ivy. The ivy is just too poisoned, and (he/she1) dies.

(Player1) smashes (Player2)'s head in with the last item (he/she1) obtained.

(Player1) is retrieved back to hell by Satan.

Lets talk about JonTron and his possibly racist views.

<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.

@tanderbolt

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?

@SleepingSilence

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.

Hunger Games - Let no Fool be Unfooled

>not automatically making me a tribute

Can communists do nothing right?

I volunteer.

@BrobyDDark

yeh, wtf

It's cannon that Broby just lives in the Arena all year round.

Lets talk about JonTron and his possibly racist views.

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...

@SleepingSilence

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.

@SleepingSilence

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."

@SleepingSilence

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:

@mdk

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.

@mdk

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....

@mdk

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.

@mdk

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.

Hunger Games - Let no Fool be Unfooled

Non-Fatal

(Player1) prevents a forest fire.

(Player1) prays toward Mecca, having found Allah.

While everyone else was collecting berries, (Player1) studied the blade.

(Player1) carves memes into the trees.

(Player1) and (Player2) meet in the woods and make awkward small-talk.

Fatal

(Player1) sticks (Player2)'s head in a pile of dung and holds it there until (he/she2) drowns in it.

(Player1), (Player2), (Player2), and (Player4) draws and quarters (Player5), killing (him/her5)

(Player1) has a fatal brain aneurysm.

(Player1) is killed by the Gamemakers for political reasons pertaining to (his/her1) past activities.

(Player1) finds bear cubs and starts to play with them, and is mauled to death by the mother bear.

Hunger Games - Let no Fool be Unfooled

Myself, General Butt Naked, and Jeb Bush

PRAISE OUR LORD AND SAVIOR MAHZ THREAD

mahz has abandoned us

Why Can't We Be Friends?

taylor swift outdid herself with this one

I believe in...