Free speech is under attack in America - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14849426
Tanari99 said: 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.


This is true. I think what people have become tired of in this regard is that this method of "crowd control" is without a spine. It relies on condemnation and not action. There is no 'affirmative' action attached with it. It imagines that if we can just get people to stop using the "N-word" (I am infuriated every time I am forced to use this term) that somehow the problems in the black community will just work themselves out. Put a few black people on TV and all is good to go. Count minorities in big business and not weigh their influence. Just make sure we talk like all is well.

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.


Spot on. Discussions about racial, ethnic and gender discrimination are all but impossible to have in our schools. Add to this our obsession with science, technology, engineering and math and we are forcing out the very fundamental knowledge (call it a liberal arts education if you wish) that give individuals the tools to understand and effect social change.


Some might argue that racism is different than other forms of discrimination.


Like all forms of discrimination it is based upon feelings in search of some reasoned justification.

So is logic enough? Can the black and white communities come to grips with each other?


They can. There are good examples of just that happening. The problem is that the deck appears to be stacked against that happening.


Can real steps be taken, to help encourage education and family unity?


The could. In the current political climate they are impossible in some areas.

How would a nation, or a world for that matter, go about equalizing opportunity and legal standards?


First you have to have a consensus that recognizes that the problems exist and is compelled to do something about them. If one can't discuss white separatism in housing or black on black crime because candid discussions are squashed by the thought police, this will be unlikely to happen.
Are the equal now?


Of course not.

The more we drive racist/discriminatory feelings underground the further we are from a solution. But first there must be "Men and Women of good will" who are prepared to step forward and lead us toward solutions. There are practically none now. Lots of people bitch.

As a conservative I see as extremely disturbing the alliance between my fellow conservatives and racist movements. Or at least racialist movements. Though our founders were slave holders they looked forward to a day void of slavery. Though they had to concern themselves with the doable and not the ideal they were nonetheless idealists. Now we are, many of us, looking backward. That is a shame.
#14849427
Indeed it does POD. But I thought you were saying that your logical reasoning for legislating speech, has nothing to do with "thought"? Even though, somehow, you've convinced yourself that ideals are not thought.
And I can see how racists out themselves. I'm wondering how long people will continue to hate white skinned people?
#14849429
@Drlee Well said.

So I suppose that leads to the next obvious question.
Is it "racist" to identify areas where any race of people, have issues to sort out?
And if not, then would it not make sense to hold level headed discussion where all issues are laid open without prejudice, so that real and workable solutions can be explored?
#14849433
Buzz62 wrote:Indeed it does POD. But I thought you were saying that your logical reasoning for legislating speech, has nothing to do with "thought"? Even though, somehow, you've convinced yourself that ideals are not thought.
And I can see how racists out themselves. I'm wondering how long people will continue to hate white skinned people?


There is nothing intelligent to rebut here.

You are incorrectly accusing me of wanting me to be thought police. Are people who scream "fire" in a crowded theater simply thinking?

Who hates white people? While I am sure that you have convinced yourself that I do, this has no bearing on actual reality.

Buzz62 wrote:@Drlee Well said.

So I suppose that leads to the next obvious question.
Is it "racist" to identify areas where any race of people, have issues to sort out?
And if not, then would it not make sense to hold level headed discussion where all issues are laid open without prejudice, so that real and workable solutions can be explored?


The way some people go about identifying problems is racist. For example, if we look at indigenous poverty in Canada, some racist guy would blame indigenous people for it, accusing them of being Scope drinking bums who refuse to assimilate.

In that case, you cannot have a discussion on how to make things better becuase some racist ass with his myths is taking up all the space for discussion with his racism.

This is one of the reasons why many people of colour like to have these sorts of discussions without white people present.

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

Now, do you have anything to say about my discussion about how racist speech harms people, and how this can be seen as a reason to limit free speech?
#14849435
Pants of Dog said: 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".


I think all this can become complicated POD, in the sense that people express themselves in all kinds of ways and there are inbuilt mechanisms between human groups. For example in almost every human social and economic system there are differing levels of power. In a family for instance, you have the parents who are the older authority figures who set the tone and the rules in a family---the kids don't have as much decision making power. The wife or the husband might have more or less power than the other spouse because for example, the husband might earn more salary or make more money than the wife and as such he calls the shot or vice versa. Power relationships are inherent in practically all relationships.

We therefore get the biggest problem with racism and discrimination---who has the most power in any given society and do they have enough power to infringe on another group's power and individual rights? Yes or no. Then you have the issue of law. What laws rule power relationships in human societies and how are they dealt with and brokered and regulated? Who is setting the rules. I put forth the example of Citizens United. The supreme court decision of the USA that allows corporations to be treated like individual citizens and have disportionate rights to shape political policy and influence by throwing money out at lobbyists and special interest groups. The average working American has nothing of power compared to these highly powerful corporations and they influence politicians a lot more in DC than individuals who struggle to make a living. Why is this discrimination legal? It is about power. Money and power. It is always an interesting thing to realize where power is unequal and unevenly divided in a society. How is this linked with racism? Where is it different than racism and white nationalist agendas? What do you think Pants of Dog?
#14849437
Pants-of-dog wrote:There is nothing intelligent to rebut here.

Right...ideals are not thoughts. :roll:

Pants-of-dog wrote:You are incorrectly accusing me of wanting me to be thought police. Are people who scream "fire" in a crowded theater simply thinking?

No they are not. They're screaming their thoughts out loud.
you wrote:racist ideologies are inherently structured to reduce accountability by disenfranchising people of colour. So, if we are trying to increase government accountability, then we should logically oppose racist ideologies.

You think that the proclamation of racist thought out loud, or in type, is an expression or reflection of a government's "accountability". Why should the government be held "accountable" for your thoughts? And why should any government legislate speech, which is a result of thought, that invokes negative "feelings"?

Pants-of-dog wrote:And if we allow the unrestricted dissemination of racist ideologies and ideas, we are directly allowing the undermining of the idea of accountability by allowing people to advocate for the removal of government accountability through racism.

How do you figure government accountability has anything to do with "ideologies and ideas", which result from thought BTW, of a racist nature? How is that the responsibility of the government? And do you not see the inherent danger in legislating speech, which results from ideas, which result from thought?
#14849442
Tainari88 wrote:I think all this can become complicated POD, in the sense that people express themselves in all kinds of ways and there are inbuilt mechanisms between human groups. For example in almost every human social and economic system there are differing levels of power. In a family for instance, you have the parents who are the older authority figures who set the tone and the rules in a family---the kids don't have as much decision making power. The wife or the husband might have more or less power than the other spouse because for example, the husband might earn more salary or make more money than the wife and as such he calls the shot or vice versa. Power relationships are inherent in practically all relationships.

We therefore get the biggest problem with racism and discrimination---who has the most power in any given society and do they have enough power to infringe on another group's power and individual rights? Yes or no. Then you have the issue of law. What laws rule power relationships in human societies and how are they dealt with and brokered and regulated? Who is setting the rules. I put forth the example of Citizens United. The supreme court decision of the USA that allows corporations to be treated like individual citizens and have disportionate rights to shape political policy and influence by throwing money out at lobbyists and special interest groups. The average working American has nothing of power compared to these highly powerful corporations and they influence politicians a lot more in DC than individuals who struggle to make a living. Why is this discrimination legal? It is about power. Money and power. It is always an interesting thing to realize where power is unequal and unevenly divided in a society. How is this linked with racism? Where is it different than racism and white nationalist agendas? What do you think Pants of Dog?


Yes, power dynamics are an important part of the discussion.

As you point out, those groups qity more money and more power have more freedom of speech. Citiznes United has far more power to have their voice heard than you or I do, and the same can be said for the handful of people who own most of the major media outlets.

This is one of the reasons why the racism debate always becomes one of free speech. If black people held power, the debate would be about racism, but because racism exists and whites hold most of the power, the debate becomes about how white people have the right to be racist.

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

Buzz62 wrote:Right...ideals are not thoughts. :roll:


Ideas can be more than thoughts all the time. When SO supposedly threatened you in a post, it was more than simply a thought in SO's head. When he wrote the words on the screen and then hit "Submit", it became more than just a thought.

Racist speech is more than a thought in someone's head. It is an act that, by defintion, involves more than one person and is therefore a social act.

B62 wrote:No they are not. They're screaming their thoughts out loud.


Exactly. Ince communicated to the public, thoughts are nore than just thoughts, and therefore attempts to police such communication is not thought policing.


B62 wrote:
    Pants-of-dog wrote:
    racist ideologies are inherently structured to reduce accountability by disenfranchising people of colour. So, if we are trying to increase government accountability, then we should logically oppose racist ideologies.
You think that the proclamation of racist thought out loud, or in type, is an expression or reflection of a government's "accountability". Why should the government be held "accountable" for your thoughts? And why should any government legislate speech, which is a result of thought, that invokes negative "feelings"?


You completely misunderstood. Again.

1. I am not arguing that government should be accountable for my thoughts.
1a. I am, instead, arguing that racist laws that take away the rights of people of colour end up making the government less accountable.

2. The fact that something originates in thought is not an argument for keeping government out of it. All human conscious action originates in thought, including crime. Should killing people be legal if the person originally thout about killing people?
2a. Who said it was just about negative feelings?

B62 wrote:
    Pants-of-dog wrote:
    And if we allow the unrestricted dissemination of racist ideologies and ideas, we are directly allowing the undermining of the idea of accountability by allowing people to advocate for the removal of government accountability through racism.
How do you figure government accountability has anything to do with "ideologies and ideas", which result from thought BTW, of a racist nature? How is that the responsibility of the government?


I have explained this already in this thread. Twice. Here it is a third time:

I am arguing that racist people want to take away the rights of others, and that by taking away the rights of certain races, the government becomes less accountable.

Like, for example, taking away the vote from black people.
This would mean that black people could not vote.
This would then mean that there is one less way for black people to hold the government accountable.
This would then mean that the government would be slightly less accountable overall.

And do you not see the inherent danger in legislating speech, which results from ideas, which result from thought?


Yes, but that does not mean we simply allow everyone to say harmful lies all the time. The mere threat of danger is not reason enough to uncritically accept everything.
#14849446
Who are the racists in many places? There are different types of racists. Some are like Ben Shapiro but cloak themselves in robes of 'intellect' and knowledge, and want to shape the public discourse in a way that protects their view of life and society and race relations.

There are others with other issues. My bottom line for people who are discriminatory is this---is your discrimination impeding someone else's right to do or say or be something in the open and without fear of unjust retaliation? yes or no. If the answer is yes you are creating a hostile environment for someone and they remain callous and indifferent to your 'suffering'? Then it is time to realize you are being discriminated against unjustly.

Again, I have limits to all things. I don't like tattoos in people. Generally I hate it. But I have no right to stop tattoed women and men in this society and tell them, "I hate it. You offend me with your 'hipster' crap tastes and horrifically ugly tattoos. I would prefer you go to a tattoo removal parlor and get those taken off. Immediately. Or I will harass you, hound you and make your life miserable because I MAKE THE RULES HERE and as such you either conform or perish." That is racism.
#14849451
The way some people go about identifying problems is racist. For example, if we look at indigenous poverty in Canada, some racist guy would blame indigenous people for it, accusing them of being Scope drinking bums who refuse to assimilate.


So are we going to base public policy on what "some racist guy" says? I think not.

In that case, you cannot have a discussion on how to make things better becuase some racist ass with his myths is taking up all the space for discussion with his racism.


Nonsense. You are giving all of your power to "some racist ass". I chose not to do that. I chose to make a cogent argument against him and let democracy deal with him. In the face of education and an decent argument he has no chance. We do not silence racists. We foment hatred for them and let others who might chose to be racist realize that they are backing the wrong horse.

This is one of the reasons why many people of colour like to have these sorts of discussions without white people present.


And this is why liberal whites, seeing silence or contempt from these communities adopt a paternalistic approach to dealing with them. Like it or not this country and even more so Canada are majority white countries and likely to remain that way for decades. "People of color" must engage whites if they want change. And if they want anything other than the same old solutions they must articulate solutions that require responsibility and action on their part in addition to money from others. We (whites) are frankly tired of the "give us money and we will behave" way of doing business.
#14849456
Who hates white people?


Well....https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/07/canadian-judge-punching-a-caucasian-and-yelling-i-hate-white-people-isnt-a-hate-crime/?utm_term=.25395511f6bb



I am arguing that racist people want to take away the rights of others, and that by taking away the rights of certain races, the government becomes less accountable.

Like, for example, taking away the vote from black people.
This would mean that black people could not vote.
This would then mean that there is one less way for black people to hold the government accountable.
This would then mean that the government would be slightly less accountable overall.



You are quite right. Zimbabwe is an excellent example of racism and lack of government accountability. But wait, they took away the rights of white people, drove the them out and slaughtered any who opposed them.

And then there was the expulsion of Dutch settlers from Indonesia after independence. And the violent expulsion of the Portuguese settlers from Angola, and so on...

If POC held the power, the government would certainly be about racism rather than free speech. But the white people would be persecuted because that rascist narrative is aimed at their disempowerment. That narrative is the justification for POC empowerment. A POC regime would be necessarily racist.

Racism most certainly does make government less accountable. And it most certainly does take rights away from the identified other. And it is about power. Who is the in group and who is the out group. Who gets to be dominant.

Given the track record of what happens when white peoples lose their power, is it any wonder they might feel the need to retain that power at all costs? If POC are really interested in a live and let live outcome, they will need to convince white ppl of that.

The PC and freedom of speech issue is about forcing compliance on whites regardless of their interests versus whites being able to negotiate their future position.
#14849460
Drlee wrote:So are we going to base public policy on what "some racist guy" says? I think not.


We do it all the time. Trump's Muslim ban, while not exactly racism, is a good example of setting public policy according to the bigotry of elected officials.

The same can be said of those government policies that seek to eradicate indigenous cultures and forcibly assimilate indigenous people.

History and the modern era are full of examples of us doing exactly that.

Nonsense. You are giving all of your power to "some racist ass". I chose not to do that. I chose to make a cogent argument against him and let democracy deal with him. In the face of education and an decent argument he has no chance. We do not silence racists. We foment hatred for them and let others who might chose to be racist realize that they are backing the wrong horse.


This assumes some sort of level playing fied where all races and all viewpoints on racism get some sort of equal time to be discussed and deliberated, and then rationally judged by onjective observers.

I would live this to be true, but this is not a description of the reality of racism debates.

In reality, white people currently get a disproportionate voice because of historical racism. And this is why we end up discussing "white guilt" and freedom of speech instead of the harm caused by racism and what we can do about it.

And this is why liberal whites, seeing silence or contempt from these communities adopt a paternalistic approach to dealing with them. Like it or not this country and even more so Canada are majority white countries and likely to remain that way for decades. "People of color" must engage whites if they want change. And if they want anything other than the same old solutions they must articulate solutions that require responsibility and action on their part in addition to money from others. We (whites) are frankly tired of the "give us money and we will behave" way of doing business.


Do you honestly think that people of colour are not aware of how white privilege is partly maintained through demographic might?

Or that people of colour are primarily responsible for the lack of change with respect to racism?

Or that white people are somehow paying some sort of money to help eradicate racism?

Finally, and most importantly, what does this have to do with my argument?

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

foxdemon wrote:Well....https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/07/canadian-judge-punching-a-caucasian-and-yelling-i-hate-white-people-isnt-a-hate-crime/?utm_term=.25395511f6bb


Please quote the relevant text and describe how this relates to the discussion. Thanks.

You are quite right. Zimbabwe is an excellent example of racism and lack of government accountability. But wait, they took away the rights of white people, drove the them out and slaughtered any who opposed them.

And then there was the expulsion of Dutch settlers from Indonesia after independence. And the violent expulsion of the Portuguese settlers from Angola, and so on...

If POC held the power, the government would certainly be about racism rather than free speech. But the white people would be persecuted because that rascist narrative is aimed at their disempowerment. That narrative is the justification for POC empowerment. A POC regime would be necessarily racist.

Racism most certainly does make government less accountable. And it most certainly does take rights away from the identified other. And it is about power. Who is the in group and who is the out group. Who gets to be dominant.

Given the track record of what happens when white peoples lose their power, is it any wonder they might feel the need to retain that power at all costs? If POC are really interested in a live and let live outcome, they will need to convince white ppl of that.


Please explain how reactions in developing countries to the colonialism enacted upon these countries by the west is also somehow a factor on the racism debate occurring in western countries that do not have this same colonial past.

Spepcfically, I want you to describe how two different countries with notably different histories and different material conditions will magically manifest the exact same race relations.

The PC and freedom of speech issue is about forcing compliance on whites regardless of their interests versus whites being able to negotiate their future position.


Yes, it is about forcing whites to be compliant when it comes to eradicating racism.

This is because we recognise that white people profit from racism, have vested interests in maintaining the racist status quo, and lie every other group that has unfairly clung to power, they must have power taken from them when all other tacticis have failed.
#14849461
People who want to restrict free speech should consider that one function free speech serves is giving people an outlet and that in its absence people might decide to act rather than just talk. It's also possible that reactions will be exacerbated by people's frustration. Forbidden speech will also go underground, so that ever more intrusive methods will be needed to catch crime talkers and thinkers. It should be obvious that even now a good part of the backlash against PC is routed in opposition to restrictions to free speech.

In other words, you might get the opposite of what you want to achieve.
#14849474
The reasons for your opposition to free speech are also suppositions.

Most of the backlash isn't related to racism and one of the ways it materialises is political poralisation. People increasingly choose sides and ally themselves with the enemies of their enemies. Further, the more unreasonable people like you get, the more a strong response can be justified in the eyes of your opponents. If you lose the political battle, any restrictions that you have put in place in the meantime might well be used against you and your views in response.
#14849477
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please quote the relevant text and describe how this relates to the discussion. Thanks.


I did. You asked “who hates white people” and I posted a link to an example.


Please explain how reactions in developing countries to the colonialism enacted upon these countries by the west is also somehow a factor on the racism debate occurring in western countries that do not have this same colonial past.

Spepcfically, I want you to describe how two different countries with notably different histories and different material conditions will magically manifest the exact same race relations.



Was the persecution and expulsion of these white settlers a good thing? I thought you supported minority rights.

Anyway, the common link is white people, specifically displacing them from power. No two countries will follow the same trajectory but we can see that there is a common issue. If a group comes to power on the basis of taking power away from whites, then the outcome will be the same: persecution of white people.


Yes, it is about forcing whites to be compliant when it comes to eradicating racism.

This is because we recognise that white people profit from racism, have vested interests in maintaining the racist status quo, and lie every other group that has unfairly clung to power, they must have power taken from them when all other tacticis have failed.


And if you succeed you will have created a racist polity that derives it’s legitimacy from subjugating white people.

This mentality is already evident on American campuses where a white professor can be stigmatised and expelled for such matters as sending an email about Halloween costumes. This isn’t about opposing racism but rather punishing any white person who is insufficently compliant with the POC agenda. It is an exercise in domination.

So white ppl are behaving rationally in opposing such racist POC dogma. There is little to no attempts to allay the fears of white ppl becoming a persecuted group as PC shuts down any chance for white ppl to express their interests and so there is no need to persuade them to cooperate. They are simply forced to yield regardless of the consequences.
#14849484
Tainari88 wrote:Who are the racists in many places? There are different types of racists. Some are like Ben Shapiro but cloak themselves in robes of 'intellect' and knowledge, and want to shape the public discourse in a way that protects their view of life and society and race relations.

There are others with other issues. My bottom line for people who are discriminatory is this---is your discrimination impeding someone else's right to do or say or be something in the open and without fear of unjust retaliation? yes or no. If the answer is yes you are creating a hostile environment for someone and they remain callous and indifferent to your 'suffering'? Then it is time to realize you are being discriminated against unjustly.

Again, I have limits to all things. I don't like tattoos in people. Generally I hate it. But I have no right to stop tattoed women and men in this society and tell them, "I hate it. You offend me with your 'hipster' crap tastes and horrifically ugly tattoos. I would prefer you go to a tattoo removal parlor and get those taken off. Immediately. Or I will harass you, hound you and make your life miserable because I MAKE THE RULES HERE and as such you either conform or perish." That is racism.

By your explanation, it would seem the racists are those that harassed and protested to prevent Ben Shapiro from speaking. Anyway, I thought Ben Shapiro was a Jew. How can Jews be racists?
#14849494
foxdemon wrote:I did. You asked “who hates white people” and I posted a link to an example.


Yes, I know that. What you have not explained is how it relates to the discussion that led to the post you quoted.

Anyway, the common link is white people, specifically displacing them from power. No two countries will follow the same trajectory but we can see that there is a common issue. If a group comes to power on the basis of taking power away from whites, then the outcome will be the same: persecution of white people.


No. And the point in these cases was not to take power from whites. It was to take power away from the colonial rulers. The fact that the colonial rulers were white is not relevant.

So, I do not even agree that there is a common issue of taking power away from whites. That only makes sense if you ignore colonialism.

And if you succeed you will have created a racist polity that derives it’s legitimacy from subjugating white people.


No. The mere fact that white people are not expected to happily give consent every time people of colour demand equality does not mean that the equality of people of colour derives its legitimacy from subjugating white people.

Forcing someone to respect and recognise your equality does not mean subjugation of that person.

Nor is it racist. I have been accused of exapmding the defintion of racism to absurd lengths, but this beats anything I have ever said. You are saying that when a black person forces a white person to stop being racist towards black people, that this is "racism".

This mentality is already evident on American campuses where a white professor can be stigmatised and expelled for such matters as sending an email about Halloween costumes. This isn’t about opposing racism but rather punishing any white person who is insufficently compliant with the POC agenda. It is an exercise in domination.


This is not an argument. It is a pop psychology ad hominem targeting your ideological opponents. I will ignore it.

So white ppl are behaving rationally in opposing such racist POC dogma. There is little to no attempts to allay the fears of white ppl becoming a persecuted group as PC shuts down any chance for white ppl to express their interests and so there is no need to persuade them to cooperate. They are simply forced to yield regardless of the consequences.


As a white person, do you need to be persuaded to not be racist? Why is it the responsibility of people of colour to persuade you? Are you unable to convince yourself to not be racist?

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

Edit:

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:The reasons for your opposition to free speech are also suppositions.


Actually, they are critical analyses of the underlying arguments for free speech, and a discussion as to how these underlying arguments apply (or do not apply) to racist speech.

Most of the backlash isn't related to racism and one of the ways it materialises is political poralisation. People increasingly choose sides and ally themselves with the enemies of their enemies. Further, the more unreasonable people like you get, the more a strong response can be justified in the eyes of your opponents. If you lose the political battle, any restrictions that you have put in place in the meantime might well be used against you and your views in response.


This thread is yet another example of people justifying their strong responses to me despite the fact that I am making a logical argument.

Is making logical arguments now "unreasonable"?

Do you consider it unreasonable to ask people to actually live up to their stated beliefs regarding equality and justice?
Last edited by Pants-of-dog on 08 Oct 2017 02:03, edited 1 time in total.
#14849521
Pants-of-dog wrote: I will ignore it.

Anyone with common sense and who wants to retain his/her sanity would do good to ignore the absurd words of Pants-of-dog. That is what I plan to do. Praise the Lord. HalleluYah.
#14849544
Pants-of-dog wrote:Actually, they are critical analyses of the underlying arguments for free speech, and a discussion as to how these underlying arguments apply (or do not apply) to racist speech.

I think it's fair to assume that you are opposed, unless you have changed your mind since our last discussion where you have expressed support for shutting racists and other right-wing extremists up using violence.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This thread is yet another example of people justifying their strong responses to me despite the fact that I am making a logical argument.

Is making logical arguments now "unreasonable"?

Do you consider it unreasonable to ask people to actually live up to their stated beliefs regarding equality and justice?

Surely it's legitimate to use information about your positions and attitudes other than what you have written in this thread. Including you with people who unreasonably want to restrict free speech is accurate according to the information I have about you, as you would go even further and condone violence to silence them.
#14849546
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, I know that. What you have not explained is how it relates to the discussion that led to the post you quoted.


You asked. Ok, let’s move on.



No. And the point in these cases was not to take power from whites. It was to take power away from the colonial rulers. The fact that the colonial rulers were white is not relevant.


Yes it was about taking power from whites. In those cases where whites restrained power the transition to independence was much more successful. EG: Singapore.

So, I do not even agree that there is a common issue of taking power away from whites. That only makes sense if you ignore colonialism.


And so Canada is not a Colonial settler society? Are you ignoring that?



No. The mere fact that white people are not expected to happily give consent every time people of colour demand equality does not mean that the equality of people of colour derives its legitimacy from subjugating white people.

Forcing someone to respect and recognise your equality does not mean subjugation of that person.

Nor is it racist. I have been accused of exapmding the defintion of racism to absurd lengths, but this beats anything I have ever said. You are saying that when a black person forces a white person to stop being racist towards black people, that this is "racism".



So a white person should give equality, respect and recognition to a POC every time it is demanded? Neither white ppl nor POC treat people in their own groups that way. What you are suggesting is that ethnic back ground is of the utmost political significance and that people ought be placed on a hierarchy of importance determined by that ethnic back ground. Placing differential political significance on ethnicity in order to create a power relationship is the heart of racism.


This is not an argument. It is a pop psychology ad hominem targeting your ideological opponents. I will ignore it.


Yes it is.


As a white person, do you need to be persuaded to not be racist? Why is it the responsibility of people of colour to persuade you? Are you unable to convince yourself to not be racist?



Oh yes? And what will you do to me if I resist your will?


Do you consider it unreasonable to ask people to actually live up to their stated beliefs regarding equality and justice?



If one finds those stated beliefs being subverted and turned against one’s vital interests, then I guess it is time to find a different set of beliefs.

You are a supporter of the genocide against the P[…]

@skinster well, you've been accusing Israel of t[…]

Before he was elected he had a charity that he wo[…]

Candace Owens

... Too bad it's not as powerful as it once was. […]