[Buzz62]

And i told you that I am not discussing policing thoughts at all. I then explained the difference between that and what I was arguing. Ignoring what I said to repeat your strawman is not an argument ot rebuttal.



Again, I said that I am not discussing Islam at all. Nor did I discuss you at any point.



Yes, but we do not think all white people are like that just because of the history of colonialism.

Now, since none of this has anything to do with what I said, we shall assume that you have no intelligent criticism or rebuttal to my claims.

------------

So, we have looked at why liberal democracies would be justified in limiting the free speech of racist ideologies in order to safeguard accountability of government.

We will look at the second reason for free speech, and how it may or may not apply to racist ideologies, in the next post.

As I was saying on another thread...is there any limit to the depth these anti-constitutional Lefties will sink? Here we see someone actually trying to deny that when people express a desire to protect their land from a threat...and lets be clear, its pretty obvious that these refugees pose a threat...that they are all racists and their ideologies should be banned. Yet, would then claim that banning such ideologies, is not the policing of thought...or IDEAS. The sheer hypocrisy is fuckin' staggering.

So I ask again...where's the limit? At what point has the "evil white guy" paid enough in blood and suffrage, to satisfy this overwhelming desire to punish the "evil white guy" for creating Western Civilization?

[Pants-of-dog]

At this point, you are either intentionally misunderstanding me, or you simply are unable to understand.

But that's fine, as it means that there is no intelligent criticism for my claims.

------------------

Now, the second reason we have a right to free speech is to provide new ideas and new perspectives on old ones, helping society grow and create policies that are based on real facts.

Racist ideologies have been around for centuries. Racist ideas are therefore not new. So much so that certain ones are embedded in our culture. So, racist ideologies do not provide new ideas any longer, or new perspectives.

In fact, we even have historical examples of what happens when we translate these racist ideas into practice: genocide, slavery, poverty, lynchings, etc.

So, if racist ideologies have no new ideas and perspectives to offer us, and the old ones are clearly detrimental, what argument is there for allowing free speech to racist ideologies?

[ingliz]

has the "evil white guy" paid enough in blood and suffrage

You are pissed because non-Whites have the vote?

...and suffrage

suffrage
ˈsʌfrɪdʒ
noun

the right to vote in political elections

pissed

A nod to our American friends.

pissed
/pɪst/
adjective

(US slang) angry, irritated, or disappointed

[Buzz62]

@POD i·de·ol·o·gy
ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
noun
noun: ideology; plural noun: ideologies

1.
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

[Zag Edit: Rule 2]

Have a nice weekend POD...

[Pants-of-dog]

So, we have determined that the two main arguments for free speech do not apply to racist ideologies, or more clearly, that the two main arguments for free speech cannot be used to logically support racist ideologies.

Now, the next question is whether or not we can limit freedom of speech.

Of course we can. We do it all the time by limiting it through libel and slander laws, not allowing people to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, and making it illegal to plan a serious crime.

So, can this be used to limit speech that is racist?

I will look at this in the next post, but now I will pause so that Buzz can accuse me of being thought police.

[Hindsite]

At this point, you are either intentionally misunderstanding me, or you simply are unable to understand.

But that's fine, as it means that there is no intelligent criticism for my claims.

------------------

Now, the second reason we have a right to free speech is to provide new ideas and new perspectives on old ones, helping society grow and create policies that are based on real facts.

Racist ideologies have been around for centuries. Racist ideas are therefore not new. So much so that certain ones are embedded in our culture. So, racist ideologies do not provide new ideas any longer, or new perspectives.

In fact, we even have historical examples of what happens when we translate these racist ideas into practice: genocide, slavery, poverty, lynchings, etc.

So, if racist ideologies have no new ideas and perspectives to offer us, and the old ones are clearly detrimental, what argument is there for allowing free speech to racist ideologies?

When someone on the left does not like the ideas of someone on the right, they call them racist. That is the leftist M.O.

[Zagadka]

When someone on the right hears something they dislike, it is FAKE NEWS MSM LIES and stick their fingers in their ears, then try to disprove global warming by carrying a snowball.

[Drlee]

No Hindsite. Please note that I am not on the left. I am a conservative. I called you a racist because you made several overtly racist posts.

Of course we can. We do it all the time by limiting it through libel and slander laws, not allowing people to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, and making it illegal to plan a serious crime.

You are off on a bit of a tangent here. Fist of all, would you support the application of libel or slander laws to prosecute someone for libeling or slandering a race? Preposterous. How about slander against a political party? God Forbid!

As to the "yelling fire in a crowded theater. This is a specific offense directed at a specific group of people in which harm may befall them as a result. Calling a democrat an asshole or a black person a darkie is not the same thing. As you know, I hate racism with a passion. I write against it endlessly. I have a neighbor two doors down who is no longer welcome in my home because he used the term "ni**er" in my home. Yet I will defend the right of someone to use hateful speech at the same time I am trying to shout him down.

[Pants-of-dog]

You are off on a bit of a tangent here. Fist of all, would you support the application of libel or slander laws to prosecute someone for libeling or slandering a race? Preposterous. How about slander against a political party? God Forbid!

Well, we should ask ourselves what the purpose of libel and slander laws are, and then we should ask if there is a practical way of applying it to the question of racism.

As to the "yelling fire in a crowded theater. This is a specific offense directed at a specific group of people in which harm may befall them as a result. Calling a democrat an asshole or a black person a darkie is not the same thing.

Okay. What do you see is the important difference?

As you know, I hate racism with a passion. I write against it endlessly. I have a neighbor two doors down who is no longer welcome in my home because he used the term "ni**er" in my home. Yet I will defend the right of someone to use hateful speech at the same time I am trying to shout him down.

Well, that is because you and I were raised with a specific interpretation of the right of free speech, made most famous by Evelyn Beatrice Hall when she wrote "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

While this is a great idea from an idealistic and moral viewpoint, it does things like allow for the perpetuation of racist traditions that have hobbled western societies.

Rather than simply assume that this is fine just becuase I was raised that way, it is worth asking if the right to free speech should be analysed in a context that does not ignore the effects of racism on us, especially those of us who are not white.

[Politiks]

It's only ok to be racist against white people

[skinster]

[Zagadka]

It's only ok to be racist against white people

So, we're agreed. Racism is bad and everyone should stop being a racist. Good to hear from you.

[Hindsite]

No Hindsite. Please note that I am not on the left. I am a conservative. I called you a racist because you made several overtly racist posts.

Calling someone Black is not being racist in my opinion. It is just an easy identification word. It does not mean I am racist.

You are off on a bit of a tangent here.

What do you mean by tangent? So you don't allow me to have an opinion?

Fist of all, would you support the application of libel or slander laws to prosecute someone for libeling or slandering a race? Preposterous. How about slander against a political party? God Forbid!

I really don't understand what you are getting at here.

As to the "yelling fire in a crowded theater. This is a specific offense directed at a specific group of people in which harm may befall them as a result. Calling a democrat an asshole or a black person a darkie is not the same thing. As you know, I hate racism with a passion. I write against it endlessly. I have a neighbor two doors down who is no longer welcome in my home because he used the term "ni**er" in my home. Yet I will defend the right of someone to use hateful speech at the same time I am trying to shout him down.

Fine, but I am sure you have misjudged me, since I am not a racist. I have Black friends that I do not consider to be bastards or S.O.B.s, but there are White people that I do. So how does that make me racist?

[Politiks]

So, we're agreed. Racism is bad and everyone should stop being a racist. Good to hear from you.

Yes, racism is bad and people shouldn't be racist. But I have a thing with words and their meaning. So I consider racism actual racism not something else to fulfill an agenda.

[Drlee]

Drlee wrote:
You are off on a bit of a tangent here.

Hindsite said: What do you mean by tangent? So you don't allow me to have an opinion?

That was not your quote. It was POD's.

Drlee wrote:
Fist of all, would you support the application of libel or slander laws to prosecute someone for libeling or slandering a race? Preposterous. How about slander against a political party? God Forbid!

Hindsite said: I really don't understand what you are getting at here.

I am not surprised. Read POD's thread.

Drlee wrote:
As to the "yelling fire in a crowded theater. This is a specific offense directed at a specific group of people in which harm may befall them as a result. Calling a democrat an asshole or a black person a darkie is not the same thing. As you know, I hate racism with a passion. I write against it endlessly. I have a neighbor two doors down who is no longer welcome in my home because he used the term "ni**er" in my home. Yet I will defend the right of someone to use hateful speech at the same time I am trying to shout him down.

Hindsite said: Fine, but I am sure you have misjudged me, since I am not a racist. I have Black friends that I do not consider to be bastards or S.O.B.s, but there are White people that I do. So how does that make me racist?

There is no doubt in my mind that:

a. You do not see this as racist.

b. You believe that people with black friends can't be racist.

c. You have made many racist posts.

d. You appear to be a racist who may not know it.

[Buzz62]

So now we have to define "racism".
Can a black coloured guy, be called "black"?
Can a white coloured guy, be called "white"?
We have unspeakable words like n****r. Is honky unspeakable? Cracker?
Is it now a life sentence of self-revulsion for crimes done 5 generations ago by people with the same skin colour as you, should you have the misfortune to be born with white skin?
Adversely, is it a life sentence of poverty and social injustice because of the resistance to change and racial acceptance?

I have argued that racism is a natural and instinctual fear of differences. And although there are allot of arguments that point out that racism is a very complex and involved social issue, I still think the base or root of the existence of it, is this instinct. Either way though, its irrelevant. The question is, what is racist? My definition would be something like, "Attempts to diminish people, based on their skin colour or ethnic background". Opinions?

[Tainari88]

My opinion Buzz is that too much political correctness has happened and people are sick and tired of the 'language' police telling them how they should phrase things. Part of the culprit of this are white liberals in the power elite who whether they admit it or not want to shape how other groups talk about each other and to each other. I find it ridiculous. Part of the reason why Trump became so 'popular' was he was not guarded in his language and he appeals to the common person in the USA's ways of phrasing things.

Part of the blame lies on the poor educational system the USA has. Part of the blame is about lack of analysis of what social and economic oppression and its history in this country and around the world is-- and how it is understudied subject in this country of the USA.

Some might argue that racism is different than other forms of discrimination. It is special and exact. Others will argue it is just another form of class discrimination and oppression. Others it is about power and only power and nothing else. Many things.

[Pants-of-dog]

So we have limits on free speech right now, and the reason we have them is because completely unrestricted free speech can and does cause harm. The examples I gave earlier in the thread are based on the idea that certain uses of speech can cause harm, and therefore the government has an obligation to place limits on the right.

So the next question is "does racism cause harm?" and the answer is undoubtedly "yes".

[Buzz62]

Tainari88 Thanks for the logical post.

So is logic enough? Can the black and white communities come to grips with each other?
Can real steps be taken, to help encourage education and family unity?
How would a nation, or a world for that matter, go about equalizing opportunity and legal standards?
Are the equal now?

@POD Yes, undoubtedly harsh speech can and does do "harm".
Is it the government's responsibility to protect us from words?
And if they do...should they not legislate in such a way as to make sure the legislation is applied uniformly across all races?

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, Buzz, racism exists.

For example, many white Canadians think indigenous people are welfare bums who don't pay taxes and refuse to assimilate. Or think that Muslim refugees are here to attack us. Or thunk that BLM wants to kill cops.

That is one nice thing about giving free soeech to racists. They out themselves.