[Unthinking Majority]

@Unthinking Majority the truth is that real racism starts in people's heads Unthinking Majority. The USA already has a lot of very heavy, violent and discriminatory racist history.

This is a scene from the movie Loving. Based on a real case in Virginia in which people of different races weren't allowed to marry. It had to go to the Supreme Court to be dealt with. How can states tell people who they can or can't marry? It starts in a some racist group's social psychology and becomes law.

There is other scenes in which a sheriff comes barging in on the couple and drags them away. The pregnant wife is jailed like a criminal. Yes, justice. Racism. It does no harm.

The law reflects the mindset of the people making it happen. It starts as an idea that is usually related to economic or social institution. The USA had to deal with it for years and still uses racist legal arguments to deny rights to people even in 2020. So the racists are still using the law.

Got to deal with racist thoughts that then takes the next step into 'allowing' racist speech. In Germany? they made it illegal. Because they had to live an entire lost generation of youth of German ethnicity to a regime that pushed racism as its many foundational principles. It affected them extremely negatively and as such? They created anti Racist speech laws. Most laws reflect the history of the society and the cultural matrix of that society. The USA is and has been in its past very racist.

Thank you for a thoughtful post. There are limits to free speech. It really comes down to where each person would draw the line. I've said where I'd draw it. If people disagree, that's ok, and I understand why they'd want to ban all racism including racist speech.

Pretty much all of the arguments against the right to racist speech i've heard in this thread are slippery slope arguments, which is a logical fallacy. ie: If the speech is allowed, it may lead to X or Y bad action. My argument is to make X or Y bad action illegal, and let the idiots say their peace and be largely ignored. IMO people should be responsible for their own actions, they have free will and the capacity to think and make decisions. If a bad idea is bad, most will ignore it and condemn it.

Under the your logic, anti-vaxxers should be charged and their opinions banned because it may cause people to not vaccinate their kids and cause illness and death and the spread of disease. If the logic is based on the potential to cause harm, anti-vaxxers are just as or more dangerous, as are all sorts of other people with all sorts of "harmful" opinions. At some point you have to draw the line to protect speech that most people deem stupid and harmful. This is where i'd draw the line. If you disagree, ok thats fine, understandable. Lots of countries have different sorts of hate speech laws, i happen to disagree but it's not the end of the world that they exist.

[Unthinking Majority]

I also absolutely defend Youtube's right to ban the alt-right user if he violated their terms of service.

[Donna]

I also absolutely defend Youtube's right to ban the alt-right user if he violated their terms of service.

What are you whining about then

[foxdemon]

Your misunderstanding of those two claims does not make progressives either bigots or hypocrites.

Would you like me to explain them for you? If so, I can start a thread about that.



Yes, I can.

And this has been done so in this thread already.

They are white nationalists.



Who are “they”?

If “they” espouse the belief that white people are a race and seek to develop and maintain a white racial and national identity, and identify with and are attached to the concept of a white nation, or a "white ethnostate", then yes, they would be alt-right.



No one is banning being alt-right. You can be as alt-right and racist as you want.

If you do not think that the government should force social to provide a platform for the alt-right, you are implicitly supporting YouTube’s right to choose not to support alt-right content.

That isn’t how the media has been portraitist the alt-right.

At the more mainstream end of the network are people such as Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin, self-described members of the “intellectual dark web”. At the other end are white nationalists such as Richard Spencer and Colin Robertson (AKA Millennial Woes).

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/18/report-youtubes-alternative-influence-network-breeds-rightwing-radicalisation


Spencer and Robertson are alt-right. They invented the term. But Shapiro, Peterson, and Rubin are not. This is evidence that alt-right is used to stigmatise conservatives in general.

And this is the problem with censorship. It is simply not possible to only silence fringe extremists. Once the precedent is established, anyone who can be remotely associated also ends up being censored. The political opposition will not be able to restrain themselves.

As you well know, I am no fan of communism. But I don’t call for it to be banned as left wing liberals like Noah Chomsky would also end up being censored by over zealous conservatives. Same goes for radical Islam. In the last twenty years many a Muslim has been silenced because they might be suspected of sympathising with terrorists. But it never stopped the extremists, did it?

When has censorship ever had a positive result? It only gives the status quo a means to defend their hold on power.


Now, regarding double standards, I see no reason for a seperate thread. If we are to censor the alt right for advocating differing political and legal standards depending on ethnic origin, why should the left not also be subject to the same standard? The only reason can be that you think your racist beliefs ought be normalised.


Let us not lose sight of the fact that the whole reason to oppose racism or other forms of prejudice is that this contradicts the rule of law. That is the one law applies to everyone equally. The civil rights era was all about the law being applied equally. It was the normative racism that caused it to be unequal.

There are plenty of examples of prejudice toward people, on the basis of them being white, that go unaddressed for fear of being accused of racist. The attacks on young girls in the UK being the most famous example. Yet now there are calls that higher Covid-19 mortality amongst minorities shows structural racism when it seems there are medical reasons. Ignoring blatant racism while inventing imaginary racism is only going to legitimate the white supremacists. Anyone who was genuinely opposed to racism would not stand for this hyprocracy.

Your notion that only white racism matters is of the same structure as the white racism that the civil rights movement opposed. I think it is time you engaged in some soul searching.

Not interested on other guys. As stated earlier we are not going to change the topic, feel free to make a new thread about other guys or join one of the several existing threads. I am a vocal opponent of SJW's and will probably agree with you but this will not be used to justify the racist content the OP is arguing about under any circumstances.



This content breaks the law in several jurisdictions, religious extremism that also breaks the law cannot be equated with flat-earthers. There is a very clear distinction between legally-abiding content and content that breaks the law. Aside from legally-abiding there is also the terms of service. This is a contract between the user and the platform. Explain why platforms should ignore their own terms of service to serve the interests of the guy in the OP(Walt Bismarck).

Even if they are to be regarded as public spaces that would still not permit the dissemination of the content of the OP in at least the majority of European countries and in fact it would restrict the content published on these platforms even more.

I have addressed most of your post in response to PoD.

The point I will continue to push is that censorship is wrong. The law needs to be reconsidered. As I highlighted above, censorship will start with an objectionable thing which few could defend but then be extended to cover anything that can be associated with it. In today’s political context, it will be about smearing the popularist right with the stigma of racism in order to defeat Trump and Brexit. I rather suspect it is discrediting the later that you are most interested in.

This will backfire and generate support for the far right when it wouldn’t have otherwise occurred. Your approach of ostracism will also have that effect. You just drive people to sympathise with the alt-right that you accuse them of being a part. Do it often enough, and they vote in Trump.


I agree with Gad Saad. He states that though he reviles holocaust deniers, he would not have them censored because censorship is a dangerous thing.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P1II4WBdKX0

[noemon]

I have addressed most of your post in response to PoD.

The point I will continue to push is that censorship is wrong. The law needs to be reconsidered. As I highlighted above, censorship will start with an objectionable thing which few could defend but then be extended to cover anything that can be associated with it. In today’s political context, it will be about smearing the popularist right with the stigma of racism in order to defeat Trump and Brexit. I rather suspect it is discrediting the later that you are most interested in.

This will backfire and generate support for the far right when it wouldn’t have otherwise occurred. Your approach of ostracism will also have that effect. You just drive people to sympathise with the alt-right that you accuse them of being a part. Do it often enough, and they vote in Trump.

You have not addressed anything, you have no problem with several posters in here arguing in favour of censorship if they are called "racists" and you, like most of the alt-right have no problem with censoring gay-people and transgenders and ostracising them from society. Your crocodile tears in the name of free-speech -only when it comes to racism- are totally fake and hypocritical and are not fooling anybody.

Your alt-right leaders are lesser men incapable of leadership and the responsibility that comes with actually leading a nation, they are already victims of their own hubris just like any other hubristic person and idea before them. They shall follow the way of the Dodo just like every other worthless, ignorant & arrogant leader throughout history.

Your attempts to change the topic and muddle the waters carry on unabated I see. If you want to talk about Brexit, go to the relevant thread, though I will say that your claim that I want to undo Brexit is definitely wrong. Any response to this should be directed at the relative thread.

Lastly, if you are arguing that people should have the right to call Black people "monkeys" and the Palestinians "sand n***ers", just say it already and then do your acrobatics to negate the very obvious reality. This is the topic of this thread and I will continue pushing you to actually take a clear and concise position on the matter here.

[Drlee]

Pretty much all of the arguments against the right to racist speech i've heard in this thread are slippery slope arguments, which is a logical fallacy.

Some are but mine isn't. I am asserting that racist speech is inherently harmful to specific and identifiable people. I am asserting that racist speech specifically harms young children of color and even some older ones.

I am not just speaking of some vague self-esteem hit as the nature of racist speech itself can cause serious psychiatric injury.

Racist speech is specifically designed to inflict anxiety, inflict psychological damage, diminish the sense of belonging, exclude a group identified as “other,” and/or expunge a group from the community. Or it may simply wish to relegate a racial group to a diminished role in that society.

I maintain that these stressors, particularly in but not limited to the young, can rise to the level inducing PTSD under the DSM-V definition. There is considerable research on this and the effects of hate speech and racism is clearly recognized by the mental health community.

I assert that media like Youtube may be, especially for the young, a place that they are encouraged to see as safe, nurturing and educational.

Of course I will grant that parents have a responsibility to screen what the children watch but as children get older in this day and age, air tight screening of internet access cannot reasonably be insured. That is why software like Net-Nanny is useful to parents but would not work in this case. I suppose racism and hate speech could be placed behind paywalls to exclude access by children but these children would still be living in communities affected by this speech.

Some make the argument that this is no different than porn but I reject that for several reasons. For the purpose of this discussion I need only remind everyone that whether or not porn is damaging is irrelevant to this discussion unless one is prepared to offer the absurd defense of racist speech that "if two things are bad it is only OK to fix both of them not just one" But I believe that most people here are smarter than to try that.

So racist speech inflicts psychological damage with very real physical manifestations on some people who may even inadvertently hear it. It seeks to foster in the community in which its targets live a hostile environment and sometimes even an unsafe one.

[Pants-of-dog]

Ezra Levant is usually an idiot.

....who uses his money and lawyers to censor his critics.

—————————-

That isn’t how the media has been portraitist the alt-right.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/18/report-youtubes-alternative-influence-network-breeds-rightwing-radicalisation

Spencer and Robertson are alt-right. They invented the term. But Shapiro, Peterson, and Rubin are not. This is evidence that alt-right is used to stigmatise conservatives in general.

Your beliefs about the media targeting conservatives are irrelevant and almost certainly not true.

And this is the problem with censorship. It is simply not possible to only silence fringe extremists. Once the precedent is established, anyone who can be remotely associated also ends up being censored. The political opposition will not be able to restrain themselves.

Since no one is being censored, this is a strawman.

You can be as alt-right and racist as you want. Just do not assume that you can do that on someone else’s platform without that other person’s permission.

Unless you think that the right to free speech also allows conservatives to do that?

As you well know, I am no fan of communism. But I don’t call for it to be banned as left wing liberals like Noah Chomsky would also end up being censored by over zealous conservatives. Same goes for radical Islam. In the last twenty years many a Muslim has been silenced because they might be suspected of sympathising with terrorists. But it never stopped the extremists, did it?

When has censorship ever had a positive result? It only gives the status quo a means to defend their hold on power.

Your personal feelings about censorship are also not the topic.

Now, regarding double standards, I see no reason for a seperate thread. If we are to censor the alt right for advocating differing political and legal standards depending on ethnic origin, why should the left not also be subject to the same standard? The only reason can be that you think your racist beliefs ought be normalised.

The left are not calling for all people of a certain race to be held above all others and given special rights. We should not subject Marxists to deplatforming just because you and other conservatives incorrectly think we believe in racism.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the whole reason to oppose racism or other forms of prejudice is that this contradicts the rule of law. That is the one law applies to everyone equally. The civil rights era was all about the law being applied equally. It was the normative racism that caused it to be unequal.

There are plenty of examples of prejudice toward people, on the basis of them being white, that go unaddressed for fear of being accused of racist. The attacks on young girls in the UK being the most famous example. Yet now there are calls that higher Covid-19 mortality amongst minorities shows structural racism when it seems there are medical reasons. Ignoring blatant racism while inventing imaginary racism is only going to legitimate the white supremacists. Anyone who was genuinely opposed to racism would not stand for this hyprocracy.

Your notion that only white racism matters is of the same structure as the white racism that the civil rights movement opposed. I think it is time you engaged in some soul searching.

This seems like a big whinefest about imagined problems and not real ones. It seems that you ignored actual racism, made up some anti-white racism, then used these two incorrect facts to accuse me and other people of hypocrisy, and finally used that supposed hypocrisy to justify the actions of white supremacists.

And you ignored the topic of Youtube entirely.

And one more time, because you keep making this mistake:

No one is talking about censorship.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Of course I will grant that parents have a responsibility to screen what the children watch but as children get older in this day and age, air tight screening of internet access cannot reasonably be insured. That is why software like Net-Nanny is useful to parents but would not work in this case. I suppose racism and hate speech could be placed behind paywalls to exclude access by children but these children would still be living in communities affected by this speech.

Some make the argument that this is no different than porn but I reject that for several reasons. For the purpose of this discussion I need only remind everyone that whether or not porn is damaging is irrelevant to this discussion unless one is prepared to offer the absurd defense of racist speech that "if two things are bad it is only OK to fix both of them not just one" But I believe that most people here are smarter than to try that.

Though I think pretty much everyone recognises Youtube and other social media's rights to ban porn if they want, just for "community standards" and what they don't want their business to be associated with. And I think that repeat porn offenders would get their accounts terminated, and people would say "that's OK, there are recognised porn sites that can continue to show it".

[Drlee]

Though I think pretty much everyone recognises Youtube and other social media's rights to ban porn if they want, just for "community standards" and what they don't want their business to be associated with. And I think that repeat porn offenders would get their accounts terminated, and people would say "that's OK, there are recognised porn sites that can continue to show it".

All true. And I imagine they would not want their sites associated with racism either and that would be good enough to ban a video.

But my point was more specific. I am arguing that racist speech is inherently injurious to individuals.

[Unthinking Majority]

Some are but mine isn't. I am asserting that racist speech is inherently harmful to specific and identifiable people. I am asserting that racist speech specifically harms young children of color and even some older ones.

I am not just speaking of some vague self-esteem hit as the nature of racist speech itself can cause serious psychiatric injury.

Racist speech is specifically designed to inflict anxiety, inflict psychological damage, diminish the sense of belonging, exclude a group identified as “other,” and/or expunge a group from the community. Or it may simply wish to relegate a racial group to a diminished role in that society.

I maintain that these stressors, particularly in but not limited to the young, can rise to the level inducing PTSD under the DSM-V definition. There is considerable research on this and the effects of hate speech and racism is clearly recognized by the mental health community.

People don't have the right to not be offended or have their feelings protected. Exchange of speech and ideas can make people angry, offended, hurt etc. Welcome to life, welcome to free society. Sticks and stones...

How you interpret and react and cognitively process speech is up to the listener. It can be ignored, or it can cause psychological distress. Meanwhile, punching someone in the face or stabbing someone in all instances causes harm that can't be ignored. Banning someone from a movie theatre for their race can't be ignored, banning certain races from anything can't be ignored. Speech is speech, it's airwaves in the air, by itself harmless.

I think a better idea than throwing people who say offensive stuff in jail is to teach people to ignore it, or become more resilient. If you're fat and ugly I can call you fat and ugly, there's all sorts of ways you can deal with it. If someone does it to you all the time and won't stop, then it falls over into harassment, which is illegal, so yes there are reasonable limits. As is violent racist threats.

People say racist crap about my race on twitter all the time. Sometime it upsets me. Such is life. I'm not going to send the cops after them, I'm an adult, I can deal. Twitter can ban them if they want, it's their company.

[Unthinking Majority]

But my point was more specific. I am arguing that racist speech is inherently injurious to individuals.

So is muzzling people by sending government agents with clubs and guns to force themselves into someones home to commit violence by dragging away people in cuffs and throwing them in jail for saying things that hurt people's feelings that can just as easily be ignored. But people are cool with that?

That's what a law is, it is forced submission to the mob by threat of violence. Real brutal violence. So we better be darn sure that the ends justify the means.

[Pants-of-dog]

People don't have the right to not be offended or have their feelings protected. Exchange of speech and ideas can make people angry, offended, hurt etc. Welcome to life, welcome to free society. Sticks and stones...

If racist speech caused measurable physical harm, would you then support limits on racist speech?

How you interpret and react and cognitively process speech is up to the listener. It can be ignored, or it can cause psychological distress. Meanwhile, punching someone in the face or stabbing someone in all instances causes harm that can't be ignored. Banning someone from a movie theatre for their race can't be ignored, banning certain races from anything can't be ignored. Speech is speech, it's airwaves in the air, by itself harmless.

I do not think people can actually choose not to have psychological distress. That seems unrealistic.

I think a better idea than throwing people who say offensive stuff in jail is to teach people to ignore it, or become more resilient. If you're fat and ugly I can call you fat and ugly, there's all sorts of ways you can deal with it. If someone does it to you all the time and won't stop, then it falls over into harassment, which is illegal, so yes there are reasonable limits. As is violent racist threats.

People say racist crap about my race on twitter all the time. Sometime it upsets me. Such is life. I'm not going to send the cops after them, I'm an adult, I can deal. Twitter can ban them if they want, it's their company.

So, instead of teaching people not to be racist, we should teach people to just shut up and take the racism.

No. The people who are actually causing the problems can change their behaviour. It is not up to the targets of racism to fix the problem by being quiet victims.

[Unthinking Majority]

If racist speech caused measurable physical harm, would you then support limits on racist speech?

Depends. Give an example.

I do not think people can actually choose not to have psychological distress. That seems unrealistic.

Well, there's all sorts of students at universities who now go through real psychological distress because some controversial speakers show up at their school and talk. Most of these students who are distressed don't even go listen to the speaker, they're damaged merely by their presence on campus. Should these speakers be censored from society? Most people would say these students need to toughen up a little bit & learn to deal with it. Where does censorship begin and end for you. There needs to be a line.

So, instead of teaching people not to be racist, we should teach people to just shut up and take the racism.

No. The people who are actually causing the problems can change their behaviour. It is not up to the targets of racism to fix the problem by being quiet victims.

And what about controversial college campus speakers? Should they change their behaviour too? Where do you draw the line protecting people's feelings by censorship? Should everything offensive be banned by the government? Do you want to burn books? Do you want to burn Mein Kampf?

[Drlee]

People don't have the right to not be offended or have their feelings protected. Exchange of speech and ideas can make people angry, offended, hurt etc. Welcome to life, welcome to free society. Sticks and stones...

Just no.

I did not assert that someone had their feelings hurt. I asserted, supported by many studies, that racist speach leads to specific mental injury including but not limited to PTSD. This is not a matter in debate. It has been researched to death. It is included in the DSM-V. (Homophobic speech has been shown to inflict injury as well.)

So I know that this is inconvenient for your argument but you really need to read more carefully. Or you can present evidence that racism is harmless. You can't.

Please understand that I made a very specific claim in a post which you rejected out of hand and denigrated. Why do you believe that racist speech is so valuable that we ought to allow harm to our children over it?

[Tainari88]

So is muzzling people by sending government agents with clubs and guns to force themselves into someones home to commit violence by dragging away people in cuffs and throwing them in jail for saying things that hurt people's feelings that can just as easily be ignored. But people are cool with that?

That's what a law is, it is forced submission to the mob by threat of violence. Real brutal violence. So we better be darn sure that the ends justify the means.

I will give you two examples of hate speech that did not result in violence but it could have resulted in violence?

They got to find someone who believes in purity. They have been brought up to believe that England is for the English. They never think why the others are there and why no one likes leaving their native cultures but they have to. England invaded a lot of places. They created an issue with colonialism and not being able to make a stable society in their own culture. Imagine people being able to go to school in peace, get a good-paying job, having clean water, clean locally sourced energy and etc. Why leave that nation? For Britain and being outside your culture? They don't care about what the problem is with other people. Only what the problem is with their own little societies. That is the issue with not being able to connect with differences. They fail at that. It is very narrow and very intolerant. When you take that to its extremes? It does become a big problem.

I don't think these racists are dumb. They are emotionally fearful. The other. The different. They are not my people. The land is English. I am English he thinks. I can't share that with those who are not. That is the problem. Not his Englishness.

@Unthinking Majority some dude hacked away at an Asian man. White traitors. Think about that? Is it harmful?

[Unthinking Majority]

Just no.

I did not assert that someone had their feelings hurt. I asserted, supported by many studies, that racist speach leads to specific mental injury including but not limited to PTSD. This is not a matter in debate. It has been researched to death. It is included in the DSM-V. (Homophobic speech has been shown to inflict injury as well.)

So I know that this is inconvenient for your argument but you really need to read more carefully. Or you can present evidence that racism is harmless. You can't.

Please understand that I made a very specific claim in a post which you rejected out of hand and denigrated. Why do you believe that racist speech is so valuable that we ought to allow harm to our children over it?

Because of this:

So you want to ban the book "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain because it has the N-word throughout? You want to ban Mein Kampf? You are a book burner? You want to ban hip-hop songs with racist lyrics? You don't have a right to not be offended.

[Pants-of-dog]

Depends. Give an example.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-25743-001

Citation:
Pieterse, A. L., Todd, N. R., Neville, H. A., & Carter, R. T. (2012). Perceived racism and mental health among Black American adults: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026208

Abstract:
The literature indicates that perceived racism tends to be associated with adverse psychological and physiological outcomes; however, findings in this area are not yet conclusive. In this meta-analysis, we systematically reviewed 66 studies (total sample size of 18,140 across studies), published between January 1996 and April 2011, on the associations between racism and mental health among Black Americans. Using a random-effects model, we found a positive association between perceived racism and psychological distress (r = .20). We found a moderation effect for psychological outcomes, with anxiety, depression, and other psychiatric symptoms having a significantly stronger association than quality of life indicators. We did not detect moderation effects for type of racism scale, measurement precision, sample type, or type of publication. Implications for research and practice are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Well, there's all sorts of students at universities who now go through real psychological distress because some controversial speakers show up at their school and talk. Most of these students who are distressed don't even go listen to the speaker, they're damaged merely by their presence on campus. Should these speakers be censored from society? Most people would say these students need to toughen up a little bit & learn to deal with it. Where does censorship begin and end for you. There needs to be a line.

Is this real psychological distress measurable and verifiable?

And what about controversial college campus speakers? Should they change their behaviour too? Where do you draw the line protecting people's feelings by censorship? Should everything offensive be banned by the government? Do you want to burn books? Do you want to burn Mein Kampf?

Do not make this about me.

You argued that the onus of dealing with racism should be on the shoulders of those who are experiencing racism, and not on those causing it.

And at the same time, you want to deprive these targets of racism of being able to stop this speech, or even challenge it with state power.

[Unthinking Majority]

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-25743-001

Citation:
Pieterse, A. L., Todd, N. R., Neville, H. A., & Carter, R. T. (2012). Perceived racism and mental health among Black American adults: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026208

Abstract:
The literature indicates that perceived racism tends to be associated with adverse psychological and physiological outcomes; however, findings in this area are not yet conclusive. In this meta-analysis, we systematically reviewed 66 studies (total sample size of 18,140 across studies), published between January 1996 and April 2011, on the associations between racism and mental health among Black Americans. Using a random-effects model, we found a positive association between perceived racism and psychological distress (r = .20). We found a moderation effect for psychological outcomes, with anxiety, depression, and other psychiatric symptoms having a significantly stronger association than quality of life indicators. We did not detect moderation effects for type of racism scale, measurement precision, sample type, or type of publication. Implications for research and practice are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

It says nothing about racist speech. It says "perceived racism". Is this racist actions, being denied a job, police pulling you over, speech, what? Let's assume it's from racist speech. I'm not saying racist speech can't be harmful. I'm saying you don't have a legal right to be free from being offended and hurt feelings.

Calling people fat is psychologically harmful too, should it be illegal? Porn is offensive to many, should it be banned?

Do not make this about me.

Why don't you answer those questions? Do you want to ban books? It sounds like you do. It sounds like you want to ban Huck Finn because people are offended and hurt by it, which many are. It sounds like you're scared to answer my questions. I'm not on trial here, this is a discussion I'm allowed to ask you questions too. If you want me to keep answering your questions then answer mine too. My argument is that banning Mein Kampf or Huck Finn is worse than allowing it to be sold.

You argued that the onus of dealing with racism should be on the shoulders of those who are experiencing racism, and not on those causing it.

And at the same time, you want to deprive these targets of racism of being able to stop this speech, or even challenge it with state power.

Yes that's basically correct. Racist speech specifically, not racist actions, which should all be illegal. Walk away, ignore it, argue back, protest it, do whatever you want.

[Tainari88]

@Unthinking Majority what do you think happens to anti-establishment white racists who spout a lot of rhetoric online and in demonstrations? If the say 'white traitors' and go on and on with 'you people who don't defend your white race!?' Does it lead to violence if it grows due to a lot of people not believing. The dude there in charge in England needs to recruit college educated intelligent racists. The ones who are kind of uneducated and ignorant won't grow the party.

Once they are grown what do they plan to do? Go to war with liberals who believe in letting the Pakistanis and so on in to their nation? Having some loco of theirs attack some shop owner who is from the Punjab? What does the hate speech lead to? Can you answer the questions?

[Drlee]

So you want to ban the book "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain because it has the N-word throughout?

Have someone read my posts to you until you are certain you can understand. I specifically mentioned this book. And no, I would not ban it. I would not put it in an elementary school library for anyone to check out because, in the case of children, supervision is needed before they read it. No I could offer an even more nuanced assertion with regard to this book by you would not understand it.

You want to ban Mein Kampf?

In the children's library. Yes.

You are a book burner?

Grow up.

You want to ban hip-hop songs with racist lyrics?

I would ban public performance of them in any venue where children might be exposed. I intensely dislike those hip-hop songs that contain racist and violent content. I do not believe they should be available to anyone under 18. And I am sad that any adult would want to listen to such filth.

You don't have a right to not be offended.

I seriously believe you have a reading comprehension problem. Can you show me anywhere I have claimed that anyone had the right not to be offended? I am offended by your racism but I do not advocate for any sanction against you. This is an adult forum.