semipotentwalrus
Ye Olde King of OT
A somewhat powerful marine mammal.
Posts: 980
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Jul 27, 2020 15:41:10 GMT -5
You'd (generic you) have to jump through a lot of strange hoops to argue that police is a race. You can't generalise about police based on phenotype, and one isn't born and raised as a police officer. The extension of racism to culture in academic discourse hinges on the fact that the same type or arguments are made, assuming that there are traits that are inherent to races*/cultures and, crucially, that these traits cannot change. Nazi Germany didn't try to re-educate the Jews or Romani because in Nazi ideology this is impossible. Compare and contrast this to the current situation in the US where people are demanding the police change their behaviour. Demanding such a change is not compatible with racism, because a racist conceptualization of police violence would leave no possibility of change. It seems like a strange line to draw that you can be racist to Muslims if they were raised Muslim, but not if they converted later in life. It isn't actually that strange at all when you consider racism is inherently really fucking stupid. If racists acknowledged the existence of people who change their cultural identity as anything more than extremely rare outliers their whole worldview would come crashing down, so they don't, or they call them "race traitors" or somesuch. Racism is not rational, because if it were it would not exist in the first place.
Then there's the whole ethnic dimension to religion. When PEGIDA in Germany are ranting about the "islamization" of Germany it's not white converts to Islam that are the danger they're railing against, nor is it immigrants from Indonesia despite Indonesia being the world's most populous Muslim-majority country. This is where the link between "ordinary" racism and cultural racism is most apparent; criticism of Islam is used as a substitute for attacking Arabs. "Arabs are child rapists by nature" thus becomes "Muslims are child rapists by nature", without the people being targetted changing at all.
You intuitively zoned in on how racism is bullshit without any major effort, which should illustrate what a shitty ideology it is.
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 629
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 27, 2020 21:22:21 GMT -5
You intuitively zoned in on how racism is bullshit without any major effort, which should illustrate what a shitty ideology it is.
I think we can all agree on that.
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 629
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 27, 2020 21:24:49 GMT -5
Yeah, that's why having platforms like Twitter and Facebook act is better than just relying on a law: if something isn't allowed on social media, it's way less restrictive than being literally punished by the law, but much more restrictive than being allowed there. It gives a middle ground instead of all or nothing. True, true. I do have my problems with both Twitter and Facebook though. Although they have rules and standards, they aren't exactly applied evenly. I know that's a different issue all together, but it still irritates me.
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 29, 2020 17:22:06 GMT -5
Twitter? They aren't perfect (and imo they should ban more, way more. Every account that is "not legally available in Germany" or "not legally available in France" should be banned worldwide). Facebook? They are layers of shit upon layers of shit. I can wait for them to die, and if Zuckerberg go bankrupt and homeless I won't mind.
|
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Jul 29, 2020 18:49:29 GMT -5
Twitter? They aren't perfect (and imo they should ban more, way more. Every account that is "not legally available in Germany" or "not legally available in France" should be banned worldwide). Facebook? They are layers of shit upon layers of shit. I can wait for them to die, and if Zuckerberg go bankrupt and homeless I won't mind. I would love love love it if a journalist asked him straight faced if he dreams of electric sheep.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 13, 2020 10:48:02 GMT -5
Wow, that title really comes across as more pretentious than I'd like. Anyone got a better one? I don't. I think that succinctly describes the debate. Those folks are seriously misinform...especially those making those arguments in the states. There are restrictions on some speech. Everything from libel/slander laws to social pacts(peer pressure if you will) . 1) I find it hilarious that you can teach a dog the Hitler salute. 2) I too find it appalling that the owner was punished for that. The challenge here is this: where do you draw the line? That is the hotly contested debate that will ebb and flow over time. We all do silly/stupid things. Not all silly/stupid things are criminal conduct worthy of punishment. Indeed. There are careers, primary in legal/higher-learning professions, about this very subject. To be fair, it isn't always that simple. Take for example the Ferguson riots shortly after Michael Brown was killed trying to assault an officer... his step-dad had a impromptu speech in front of protestors, literally on video that "we need to burn this motherfucker down!". This was AFTER several nights of rioters burning down buildings in Ferguson. He's free to say that without LEGAL sanctions because the law requires a DIRECT target for that. However, he's not free from criticism. <----to me, that's the most underdiscussed feature of free speech. I'm old enough to recognize that society, as whole, has lost the grace to accept constructive criticism, that I can only attribute to the rise of social media. Free Speech need to be articulated as simply as possible. Not as means to some "x" agenda. To me, that's the only way you get to hear from all sides and allow everyone a chance to respond. The low hanging fruit here are things that we can definitely limit, such as perjury and libel/slander. Outside of that, you'll get a ton of differing opinions...which is worth having that debate imo.
|
|
semipotentwalrus
Ye Olde King of OT
A somewhat powerful marine mammal.
Posts: 980
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Aug 13, 2020 11:11:32 GMT -5
The end of your post is contradictory; you don't want free speech to be framed as a tool for an agenda, but you want free speech to allow every perspective to be heard. These two are mutually exclusive.
Moving on though, why is it important that every opinion be heard? My answer to that question would be "because a multitude of perspectives and reasonings increases the odds of synthesising a good common understanding of the subject being discussed", but then the end goal is (common) understanding, not the free speech itself. Thus, I argue free speech is valuable a) inasfar as its usefulness as a tool for increased understanding and b) as a means of minimising the disutility created when people are told to shut up. In neither case is free speech anything more than the means to an end. Further, it logically follows that when free speech acts counter to these goals, it is potentially desirable to change this situation in some way.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 13, 2020 11:32:40 GMT -5
The end of your post is contradictory; you don't want free speech to be framed as a tool for an agenda, but you want free speech to allow every perspective to be heard. These two are mutually exclusive. Good point. I'll concede that. I guess I was trying to articulate that there shouldn't be any barriers (ie, agendas) that prevents the other side to get a say. Agreed. Eh... the end goal is to convince the other factions. We can come to a "common understanding" and still disagree on things. Correct. Which is why in the States we have laws/cases governing restrictions on free speach: To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “Shout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”). Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
|
|
semipotentwalrus
Ye Olde King of OT
A somewhat powerful marine mammal.
Posts: 980
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Aug 13, 2020 11:58:57 GMT -5
But then we move on to suggesting that maybe you shouldn't be allowed to go around yelling "Jews will not replace us!" and all of a sudden free speech is sacrosanct again.
Put it this way: assume for the sake of argument that I had a girlfriend who was held as a slave by ISIS (and that I am in the US) . We break up and I become a raging asshole. If I post nude images of her online I get thrown in jail, if I set up a speaker's stand in locations I know she will hear me and loudly proclaim that I believe ISIS did nothing wrong and should take over the US in order to cause her mental anguish I'd, at worst, get a restraining order. Why is it that purposely causing someone mental anguish is considered a horrendous crime in one case (so-called "revenge porn") but not in the other (trying to bring back memories of being enslaved)?
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 13, 2020 12:30:23 GMT -5
But then we move on to suggesting that maybe you shouldn't be allowed to go around yelling "Jews will not replace us!" and all of a sudden free speech is sacrosanct again. Because the answer to yelling "Jews will not replace us!" is MOAR SPEECH! Remember the Westboro church assholes who protested Kevin Smith's Red State flick? Should we empower the government to prosecute and jail them? Or, should we do what Kevin Smith did in counter-protesting? www.indiewire.com/2011/01/kevin-smith-the-westboro-church-protest-of-red-state-in-videos-174423/Restraining order is probably NOT the worse in this scenario as in most states the ex-GF can sue civilly as well. You can win large punitive damages from juries in this scenario. Again, we cannot criminally prosecute ALL assholes. Logistically, we don't have enough space in our world leading prisons.
|
|
semipotentwalrus
Ye Olde King of OT
A somewhat powerful marine mammal.
Posts: 980
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Aug 13, 2020 15:28:02 GMT -5
Speech didn't stop Hitler or Mao. It did fuck all to prevent Stalin from doing his thing, or Franco, or...
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 13, 2020 15:41:30 GMT -5
Speech didn't stop Hitler or Mao. It did fuck all to prevent Stalin from doing his thing, or Franco, or... So what do you propose?
|
|
semipotentwalrus
Ye Olde King of OT
A somewhat powerful marine mammal.
Posts: 980
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Aug 13, 2020 17:07:47 GMT -5
That "we cannot stop all assholes" isn't a reason to just give up after picking the lowest-hanging of fruits. Anti-semitic conspiracy slurs, for example, really do not add anything to societal discourse and we already know where those ideas lead. Similarly, calling human beings "parasites", whether those humans are Mexican immigrants or Wall Street CEOs, really does not add anything to the discourse either.
To again use the "Jews will not replace us!"-mantra as example, I'd argue that there's as much reason to shield Jewish people from the effects of the alt-Reich propagating the Great Replacement myth as there is for protecting me as an individual from slander claiming that I rape baby dolphins. The only difference is that one is, effectively, slander aimed at a group while the other is slander aimed at an individual.
EDIT: I meant to write alt-right, but my phone clearly knows better than I do...
|
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Aug 13, 2020 17:25:48 GMT -5
Anytime anyone says anything offensive, like "The Jews will not replace us" or "Slavery was a choice" or "Ross was the funniest Friend", we shoot them from a cannon into the sun.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 14, 2020 10:46:41 GMT -5
That "we cannot stop all assholes" isn't a reason to just give up after picking the lowest-hanging of fruits. Anti-semitic conspiracy slurs, for example, really do not add anything to societal discourse and we already know where those ideas lead. Similarly, calling human beings "parasites", whether those humans are Mexican immigrants or Wall Street CEOs, really does not add anything to the discourse either. To again use the "Jews will not replace us!"-mantra as example, I'd argue that there's as much reason to shield Jewish people from the effects of the alt-Reich propagating the Great Replacement myth as there is for protecting me as an individual from slander claiming that I rape baby dolphins. The only difference is that one is, effectively, slander aimed at a group while the other is slander aimed at an individual. EDIT: I meant to write alt-right, but my phone clearly knows better than I do... I understand where you're coming from... but, you've yet to propose what you would have the government do to an individual who shouts "Jews will not replace us!"
|
|