Unthinking Majority wrote: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?
Previously, you seemed to argue that racist speech should be allowed because it does not cause harm.
And now that racist speech is shown to cause harm, you seem to be arguing that it should still be allowed because the harm is comparable to other insults.
This is a new argument. You seem to be conceding the previous argument.
Please note that the harm caused by regular insults has not been shown to be harmful, so if you wish to argue that the amount of harm caused by racist speech is the same as harm caused by other forms of insults, the burden of evidence is on you to support this claim of supposed equal level of harm.
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.
Because I do not care what you think about me, and the veracity of my claims is independent of my moral character.
If you want my personal take on it, I think the USA should have a museum of racism, where you guys put all of your incredibly racist artworks. You can have tours and educate kids about how racist you guys were and are.
At the same time, Youtube (or whatever it is called after the workers take it over) can choose to not platform whatever content targets historically marginalised groups.
We should also have a debate on whether or not hate speech should actually be restricted without having that deba5e shut down by accusations of censorship.
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.
And I do not think that racists should get off the hook and be allowed to do whatever they want, while the rest of us have our criticism of them regulated.