Page 3 of 3 [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,557
Location: temperate zone

07 Apr 2019, 1:40 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:
Prometheus18 wrote:
In practice, everybody to the right of Bernie Sanders is a Nazi, according to the mainstream media.
It depends on which media you consume. Change the channel or read a different article and they might say everyone to the left of Sauron is an SJW communist.

I have never actually heard any mainstream media outlet refer to any mainstream politician, even Trump, as a "Nazi".
Though Trump does get compared to Hitler in his campaign tactics (though not in his policies) in rabble rousing and scapegoating and xenophobia, etc.

Regular folks on the Net hurl epithets all of the time.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,390
Location: Reading, England

07 Apr 2019, 2:57 pm

The mainstream media is to the right of Bernie Sanders and I never see them calling themselves Nazis.



Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

07 Apr 2019, 5:34 pm

The Grand Inquisitor wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
You're still not getting it. Laws need to apply equally to all citizens, even those with whom you disagree.
Saying "this person is a racist, arrest him!" is no different from saying "this person blasphemed against Allah, arrest him!"


"Allah" doesn't exist, we can prove that scientifically. At the very least, nobody can prove "Allah" exists.
And so you cannot prove that "Allah" is or might be offended, as "Allah's" existence is non-verified.

But a white, or black or brown or whatever colored real-existing human being can be offended by having his or her IQ score lowered and reputation damaged by claims which can be scientifically verified or - in the case of racism - proved to be outright wrong.

THAT is THE difference!

Okay, well then can't you prove that there are no average IQ differences between races and ethnic groups then? The races evolved in different climates and with different surroundings, and there are physiological differences, so the idea that there could also be average IQ differences shouldn't be dismissed just because it makes you uncomfortable

There is no proper way to test it, as the results in IQ tests are influenced by the environment (nutrition, education, needs of the individual and community, development of perception of a particular environment and so on.)



Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,574
Location: west coast

07 Apr 2019, 5:56 pm

Tollorin wrote:
The Grand Inquisitor wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
You're still not getting it. Laws need to apply equally to all citizens, even those with whom you disagree.
Saying "this person is a racist, arrest him!" is no different from saying "this person blasphemed against Allah, arrest him!"


"Allah" doesn't exist, we can prove that scientifically. At the very least, nobody can prove "Allah" exists.
And so you cannot prove that "Allah" is or might be offended, as "Allah's" existence is non-verified.

But a white, or black or brown or whatever colored real-existing human being can be offended by having his or her IQ score lowered and reputation damaged by claims which can be scientifically verified or - in the case of racism - proved to be outright wrong.

THAT is THE difference!

Okay, well then can't you prove that there are no average IQ differences between races and ethnic groups then? The races evolved in different climates and with different surroundings, and there are physiological differences, so the idea that there could also be average IQ differences shouldn't be dismissed just because it makes you uncomfortable

There is no proper way to test it, as the results in IQ tests are influenced by the environment (nutrition, education, needs of the individual and community, development of perception of a particular environment and so on.)


There may in fact be average differences in intelligence, and people should not be afraid of this. Different racial groups have average differences in height, fast twitch muscles, tolerance for milk etc. etc.

The thing to remember is average differences are largely meaningless Individual variation within a racial group is much higher than the average differences between groups. There are tall people of all races, there are short people of all races. There are very smart people of all races, there are very stupid people of all races.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

08 Apr 2019, 9:34 am

The_Walrus wrote:
I don't think anyone in this thread has proposed outlawing racist thoughts. thinkinginpictures, for example, has repeatedly said that he supports bans on certain "speeches". He doesn't want to ban racists, just ban people from saying certain things.


In this particular thread, no. But TiP has on multiple occasions outright advocated for thoughtcrime and proposed vastly overreaching bans on things he finds disagreeable to the detriment of most other members of society, as well as suggested what amounts to putting the people he feels are the cause of societies ills on show-trial under his new regime so he can convict them pretty much out of a sense of aggrieved spite. This is why I'm somewhat disinclined to give him much of a charitable interpretation when he starts going on about things he wants banned.


Quote:
They are discriminatory in terms of the outcome of the law, but not in a strict "who does the law apply to" sense. If you blaspheme, it doesn't matter whether you are a Christian, Muslim, or atheist, you still blasphemed. If you litter, you're not being unfairly targeted due to your status as "someone who litters", you're being prosecuted for the act of littering. If you say something racist, it isn't a case of the law only applying to you while everyone else goes around being racist with impunity.


Could I blaspheme against Odin? Or Ra? What about Shiva or Vishnu? Guan Yu? I imagine not many would care. It would be discriminatory because only the imaginary friends with the largest fanclubs would be protected. And who decides? Would you have a council for each religion and denomination to determine whether or not a given act was blasphemous? I understand that Muslims view Christians as polytheists due to the Trinity Doctrine, that's probably a two-way blasphemy case right there.


Quote:
Yes, I think that's uncontroversial. But I think it's important to note that racist speech isn't necessarily a victimless crime (although of course it can be, such as if you say something nobody else hears). We've already talked about incitement, but things like threats and intimidation are pretty much universally accepted as forms of speech that we as liberals can't allow. Again there will inevitably be cases which stretch the law and sometimes the law will get it wrong either way. I note that the girl from Liverpool who got charged for quoting a violent rap lyric that contained a racial epithet in tribute to a dead friend has had her conviction quashed on appeal, so I'm feeling much more confident than a year ago that the system is working in this country.


I heard about that case. Glad that got overturned. And I think it's a bit too optimistic to suggest the system is working quite as well as it might. Legal processes cost time, money and effort for everyone involved, and that case was absurd on the face of it. Maybe a bit more sense injected earlier in the process would be appropriate.


"But I think it's important to note that racist speech isn't necessarily a victimless crime". I think it's important to note that racist speech isn't necessarily a crime at all, or at least shouldn't be. Mind, If some random idiot went up to a black person and called them the N-word and got punched in the face for it, I'd consider it a major extenuating circumstance if charges were pressed for assault, probably to the point that I'd throw the case out were I the judge. But if the same black person just told them to f**k off and went about their business, but someone else who overheard it called the police I'd see no need to have the idiot arrested for what amounts to having been very rude.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 71,565
Location: Queens, NYC

08 Apr 2019, 10:33 am

I used to believe the racist garbage----until I started hanging out with actual "minorities" from about the age of 10-11.

Most of the things white racists say are just not true. Just like most of the things the Nation of Islam says are just not true. Opposite sides of the same coin.



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

08 Apr 2019, 11:46 am

thinkinginpictures wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
No, they absolutely know. I think it's more a case of the whole "Oh, you think the mainstream narrative is what really happened? You're so naive!"


That's why I suggest illegalizing holocaust-denial should be implemented in all of the European Union.


That sounds a bit like Nazism. The way to change people's minds is by open discussion.

When you flood a country with the third world against their wishes there's going to be a rise in nationalism. Do you have evidence that all of these nationalists support Hitler?


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,390
Location: Reading, England

08 Apr 2019, 3:37 pm

Wolfram87 wrote:

Quote:
They are discriminatory in terms of the outcome of the law, but not in a strict "who does the law apply to" sense. If you blaspheme, it doesn't matter whether you are a Christian, Muslim, or atheist, you still blasphemed. If you litter, you're not being unfairly targeted due to your status as "someone who litters", you're being prosecuted for the act of littering. If you say something racist, it isn't a case of the law only applying to you while everyone else goes around being racist with impunity.


Could I blaspheme against Odin? Or Ra? What about Shiva or Vishnu? Guan Yu? I imagine not many would care. It would be discriminatory because only the imaginary friends with the largest fanclubs would be protected. And who decides? Would you have a council for each religion and denomination to determine whether or not a given act was blasphemous? I understand that Muslims view Christians as polytheists due to the Trinity Doctrine, that's probably a two-way blasphemy case right there.

I am making no attempt to defend blasphemy laws and I think it's clear that they are discriminatory, but there's a perspective that says that they do not breach a narrow sense of "equality before the law". For example, if you were to live in an ancient Greek theocracy then blaspheming against Zeus would be punished regardless of whether you believed in him.

(This is an obvious case of where narrow understandings of discrimination break down and where equity becomes a more important concept than mere equality - it's the equivalent of "gay people can get married, as long as it's to someone of the opposite gender")


Quote:
Quote:
Yes, I think that's uncontroversial. But I think it's important to note that racist speech isn't necessarily a victimless crime (although of course it can be, such as if you say something nobody else hears). We've already talked about incitement, but things like threats and intimidation are pretty much universally accepted as forms of speech that we as liberals can't allow. Again there will inevitably be cases which stretch the law and sometimes the law will get it wrong either way. I note that the girl from Liverpool who got charged for quoting a violent rap lyric that contained a racial epithet in tribute to a dead friend has had her conviction quashed on appeal, so I'm feeling much more confident than a year ago that the system is working in this country.


I heard about that case. Glad that got overturned. And I think it's a bit too optimistic to suggest the system is working quite as well as it might. Legal processes cost time, money and effort for everyone involved, and that case was absurd on the face of it. Maybe a bit more sense injected earlier in the process would be appropriate.

I think it's a little more understandable when you look up exactly what the lyric quoted was (I think it was something like "rob a rich n---, kill a snitch n----"). I can conceive of a situation where quoting song lyrics, or another artistic work, could be seen as hateful. I'm not sure quite how familiar you were with the situation, but the prosecution called an "expert witness" who was the sister of a man who was killed in a very high profile racist murder and now leads anti-racism initiatives within the police or something, and her ridiculous claims about the n-word always being hateful were difficult for the defence to challenge in such an emotive situation.

Honestly that case should be exhibit a in the argument against hate speech laws. Judges and juries and lawyers can't be expected to keep up with the rapidly changing culture of the youth. Sometimes that's going to mean that people get away with saying or even inciting things that they shouldn't really be allowed to, but that seems instinctively preferable to me than people getting arrested for innocent and ultimately harmless comments. Such is the curse of the liberal.



Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

10 Apr 2019, 11:01 am

Wolfram87 wrote:
I'm offended by your suggestion that people have some sort of right not to be offended. Now what are you going to do?


Still kinda waiting for a reply.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.