Racism & Other Prejudices

Just because you have the freedom to say anything you want doesn't mean you should say anything you want. If you're hurting or offending people with ignorant slurs, you obviously don't even deserve freedom of speech.

Aobaru said:

Unless you live in a country where freedom of speech is repressed, the only consequence of using racist or other discriminatory language should be the label of "jerk" that the people you know give you. Government should not get involved in speech policing.

Click to expand...

Who... even suggested that?

Alvyren said:

Who... even suggested that?

Click to expand...

In Britain, any discrimination against a minority based on their status as a minority is illegal. Which would be all well and good, if that didn't include name-calling. The funny thing is, as long as somebody reports 'hate-speech', you'll get, at the least, a fine.
Which is bad when my best mate might call me 'such a faggot' (which is an in-joke, fyi), and he gets called out on it by some random chick poking her nose in from across the bar.

On Freedom of Speech, well, saying that just because someone wants to be able to use a word makes him a racist is, well, wrong. It's a distraction based on faulty premises. I mean, its probably got a better, fancier word in Butterfree's thread, but I'm not good with Latin, so~

I mean, compare it to a thread a while back on DNA testing and whether it should be compulsory for everyone to have government records of their DNA. Some arguments were that only criminals would want to hide their DNA, while others were arguments for Privacy for the sake of Privacy.

Here, it's Freedom for the sake of Freedom, and I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

Here, it's Freedom for the sake of Freedom, and I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

Click to expand...

Because one can't exercise Freedom if other people's Freedoms are muting other people's Freedoms in a way that creates a social hierarchy of bullies, whoever being the biggest bully being the one who gets the most stuff, and the biggest group of bullies being the ones that get the most Freedom.

Or capitalism and democracy, as they are called...

If there could be like, a robot that could be the leader of a communist egalitarian state, that would be awesome. Unfortunately, that's not the case, and all singular leaders are subject to power abuse, hence, capitalist-democracy is the only way to go right now... (Many bullies are going to oppress less people than one bully with command of many bullies, after all.)

Freedom of speech as a concept is more about the freedom to express any sentiment you wish than about the freedom to express it in whatever manner you wish. I don't really see a discord between banning racial slurs and freedom of speech, so long as people are still allowed to express all the racist ideas they want in less offensive language.

It's kind of like how you generally can't say 'fuck' on pre-watershed TV, but that isn't quite restricting your free speech, because anything you have to say that includes the word 'fuck' can without much effort be reworded to not include it without actually changing in meaning.

Butterfree said:

I don't really see a discord between banning racial slurs and freedom of speech, so long as people are still allowed to express all the racist ideas they want in less offensive language.

It's kind of like how you generally can't say 'fuck' on pre-watershed TV, but that isn't quite restricting your free speech, because anything you have to say that includes the word 'fuck' can without much effort be reworded to not include it without actually changing in meaning.

Click to expand...

(1) Are you seriously suggesting it's okay for a government to ban speech? Okay for them to write you a ticket or jail you for speaking certain words? Do you realize how totalitarian and ultra-conservative of a notion this is? I'll repeat: free speech is meaningless unless it tolerates speech we hate.

(2) And how is the government saying "you can't say fuck" not restricting freedom of speech? I think that's the definition of restricting freedom of speech. You can justify it all you like (the children! what if they accidentally happen upon this adult television show and then hear "fuck" and their lives are ruined forever even though they probably hear it somewhere else as well), but you can't argue it's not a restriction of freedom of speech.

Butterfree said:

Freedom of speech as a concept is more about the freedom to express any sentiment you wish than about the freedom to express it in whatever manner you wish.

Click to expand...

No, freedom of speech is the freedom to say whatever you want, however you want, without fear of government censorship or persecution. Now, the consequences of your words may come back to bite you, but it's not the fucking government's job to protect us from ourselves. Period.

Aobaru said:

(1) Are you seriously suggesting it's okay for a government to ban speech? Okay for them to write you a ticket or jail you for speaking certain words? Do you realize how totalitarian and ultra-conservative of a notion this is? I'll repeat: free speech is meaningless unless it tolerates speech we hate.

(2) And how is the government saying "you can't say fuck" not restricting freedom of speech? I think that's the definition of restricting freedom of speech. You can justify it all you like (the children! what if they accidentally happen upon this adult television show and then hear "fuck" and their lives are ruined forever even though they probably hear it somewhere else as well), but you can't argue it's not a restriction of freedom of speech.

No, freedom of speech is the freedom to say whatever you want, however you want, without fear of government censorship or persecution. Now, the consequences of your words may come back to bite you, but it's not the fucking government's job to protect us from ourselves. Period.

Click to expand...

Which is why censorship of mass media is carried out by the producers of aforesaid media to ensure the largest audience possible to have the most investors possible. Hence, there is no censorship by government of words we speak that is going on.

Aobaru said:

(1) Are you seriously suggesting it's okay for a government to ban speech? Okay for them to write you a ticket or jail you for speaking certain words? Do you realize how totalitarian and ultra-conservative of a notion this is? I'll repeat: free speech is meaningless unless it tolerates speech we hate.

(2) And how is the government saying "you can't say fuck" not restricting freedom of speech? I think that's the definition of restricting freedom of speech. You can justify it all you like (the children! what if they accidentally happen upon this adult television show and then hear "fuck" and their lives are ruined forever even though they probably hear it somewhere else as well), but you can't argue it's not a restriction of freedom of speech.



No, freedom of speech is the freedom to say whatever you want, however you want, without fear of government censorship or persecution. Now, the consequences of your words may come back to bite you, but it's not the fucking government's job to protect us from ourselves. Period.

Click to expand...

Do you not see any difference between the restriction of what you can express and the restriction of how you can express it? I'm not personally advocating jailing people for saying particular words - it's just wildly disproportionate retribution for an activity that's not that harmful, for one thing, and pretty much impossible to enforce - but as far as I'm concerned 'freedom of speech' is about the former and not the latter - that you can't be punished for what you believe or for expressing those beliefs no matter what they are. And that is a very important freedom for human rights in general.

The freedom to express yourself in any manner whatsoever is not nearly as necessary, and runs into the problem that there are quite a lot of manners of expression which cause real harm to other people. Hell, murder can be a manner of expressing yourself, but we ban it anyway because somebody else is getting hurt by your "expression". If your manner of expressing yourself is actually causing harm to people, infringing on their other rights, then yes, I fully believe it should be illegal, like anything else which seriously harms other people. I doubt racial slurs are actually harmful enough to warrant that, not that I'd exactly know, but because you can still passionately express every aspect of your racism as freely as you like, I really don't think very much of your supposed freedom to use the particular word 'nigger' to do it. If the word 'fuck' were actually illegal, I'd sigh, roll my eyes and think, "Well, that's rather silly", and argue in favor of revoking the law, but it wouldn't cross my mind to do it in the name of freedom of speech. The 'freedom' to say particular words strikes me pretty much the same way as, say, the 'freedom' to change the desktop background on your computer. Yeah, of course you should have it unless there's a really good reason you shouldn't, but that doesn't mean it's fundamental to my ability to life a fulfilled life as a human being and member of society, the way my right to express my views is.

Again, I'm not actually personally advocating banning words - but I honestly don't think the idea of doing so is an affront to the true spirit of freedom of speech so much as just a generally poor idea for a law, more akin to "having unsafe sex is now illegal and can get you jail time" than to "criticism of the government is now forbidden".

Eloi said:

Which is why censorship of mass media is carried out by the producers of aforesaid media to ensure the largest audience possible to have the most investors possible. Hence, there is no censorship by government of words we speak that is going on.

Click to expand...

Um... have you heard of the FCC?

Butterfree said:

The freedom to express yourself in any manner whatsoever is not nearly as necessary, and runs into the problem that there are quite a lot of manners of expression which cause real harm to other people. Hell, murder can be a manner of expressing yourself, but we ban it anyway because somebody else is getting hurt by your "expression". If your manner of expressing yourself is actually causing harm to people, infringing on their other rights, then yes, I fully believe it should be illegal, like anything else which seriously harms other people. I doubt racial slurs are actually harmful enough to warrant that, not that I'd exactly know, but because you can still passionately express every aspect of your racism as freely as you like, I really don't think very much of your supposed freedom to use the particular word 'nigger' to do it. If the word 'fuck' were actually illegal, I'd sigh, roll my eyes and think, "Well, that's rather silly", and argue in favor of revoking the law, but it wouldn't cross my mind to do it in the name of freedom of speech.

Click to expand...

I think where we differ here is that I don't think that using racial slurs is an infringement on the rights of others. There's no right not to be offended. If I go up to a black person and call them a "fucking nigger", they have every right to never talk to me again, or tell their friends how much of a racist asshole I am. But they can't go to the police like a five-year-old child and say "That man hurt my feelings."

So yes, I would argue there should be restrictions on freedom of expression, but only so far as to punish infringements on the rights of others; those rights being life, liberty, and property. But me using a racial slur against a black person neither takes their life, steals their liberty, or harms their property.

Aobaru said:

Um... have you heard of the FCC?

Click to expand...

Which exists because the representatives of the majority of the U.S. American population created it. Seriously, there is no big scary Government monster that's going to eat you, its a group of people elected by an even bigger group of people that obviously approves of the actions of the aforesaid due to the elected officials maintaining office.

I think where we differ here is that I don't think that using racial slurs is an infringement on the rights of others. There's no right not to be offended. If I go up to a black person and call them a "fucking nigger", they have every right to never talk to me again, or tell their friends how much of a racist asshole I am. But they can't go to the police like a five-year-old child and say "That man hurt my feelings."

So yes, I would argue there should be restrictions on freedom of expression, but only so far as to punish infringements on the rights of others; those rights being life, liberty, and property. But me using a racial slur against a black person neither takes their life, steals their liberty, or harms their property.

Click to expand...

Yes, in one-on-one personal interaction that would be silly, but people being allowed to use slurs in mass media (what we were talking about) will create the impression of massive oppression, which could and does lead to suicide (at least amount QUILTBAGgers), and is otherwise known as discrimination.

Furthermore, you not being able to say slurs doesn't take your life, steal your liberty, or harm your property. But discrimination in all forms harms life and liberty in the people discriminated.

I am not sure why saying slurs is a right you're worried about protecting.

Having lived all my life in a country without absolute freedom of speech (which I've never really thought much about/had a problem with; we don't get the Westboro Baptist Church picketing our soldier's funerals, huzzah), can a USian explain how name-calling and verbal bullying (which, fyi, is often far, far more damaging than physical bullying) is dealt with in American schools?

Dannichu said:

Having lived all my life in a country without absolute freedom of speech (which I've never really thought much about/had a problem with; we don't get the Westboro Baptist Church picketing our soldier's funerals, huzzah), can a USian explain how name-calling and verbal bullying (which, fyi, is often far, far more damaging than physical bullying) is dealt with in American schools?

Click to expand...

Well if you are in the South:

"Billy Bob, don't call other students 'fag'!"
"Awww, but why?"
"'cuz that implies that gays exist, and gays existin' runs counter to book learnin'. Now go back to studin' Creationism 101 and disprove them depostic Darwinists to prove the existence of Lord Almighty!"
"M'kay teach'!"

More seriously though, they usually give the kid being bullied and the bully detention for disrupting educational process. ...Yeah, its a sucky system.

In my school they have a form that you fill out called a "Student Complaint Form" if something bothers you. Eventually you get called down to guidance, and I don't know what happens from there since I never experienced it or asked anyone. I think they call more kids down individually if you listed witnesses on the form and they interrogate them.

I actually never see or hear any bullying, really. I guess I'm lucky/ignorant. :P

In my school, there are many teachers who don't tolerate personal insults. "Fag" is especially frowned upon thanks to us having a highly respected lesbian teacher as well as always having one or two QUILTBAG students with high social standing. The GSA was established this past school year as well, so there should be even more strong enforcement against the word. Racial slurs are also deemed unacceptable due to the small amount of minority students, but this isn't as heavily enforced due to the slurs being used primarily by the minority they are generally used to describe. Relatedly, I LOVE Illinois for semi-recently passing a new law regarding bullying! It specifically mentions both race and sexual orientation. I can't recall it exactly but I looked it up beck when it was passed and was really happy.

My two cents: Basically what Butterfree said. It would be silly and unenforceable to "ban" offensive slurs, but the inability to use them wouldn't impede your freedom to express any and all of your opinions or viewpoints.

i dont think its racist to recognize differences in different races. pretending they dont exist is silly because its physically undeniable. taking it further and supposing a race is superior to another is what id call racist.

putting a black man from africa and a white man from new england in antarctica, it isnt racist to expect the white man to survive longer putting all things into perspective. on an intellectual level they may be equal, however biologically having descended from people living in colder temperatures, the white man has an advantage. recognizing that isnt racist.

as for freedom of speech, of course hate speech falls under that. if its somebodys belief that youre less than them for being a 'nigger', as long as they dont act physically on that, they have every right to voice that opinion. and swearing, arguing that is useless.. these are things the most totalitarian and barbarian governments have in place as punishable, i find it kind of backwards for anybody in a first or even second world country to be arguing that as a reasonable model.

It's all ideological redirect; we're literally brainwashed into racism or sexism. Not blatant bigotry, but subconscious bits of prejudice.

I believe that I do not discriminate, and I am also in a mixed relationship. But, alas, I cannot deny subjections and stereotypes I've casted on other races/cultures.

Eloi said:

Which exists because the representatives of the majority of the U.S. American population created it. Seriously, there is no big scary Government monster that's going to eat you, its a group of people elected by an even bigger group of people that obviously approves of the actions of the aforesaid due to the elected officials maintaining office.

Click to expand...

Earlier you said that democracy consists of a bunch of mean old 'bullies'.
Now you're saying that democracy is totally repesentative of what's good and right.
So do you only agree with 'bullying' people you don't agree with? Or if the government goes against your views in some way, is it suddenly because society is terrible and evil?

(what we were talking about)

Click to expand...

Nope. As far I can tell, you're the one who brought up the media. I'm pretty sure everybody else is talking about private interactions. I was at least.

I mean, nobody's seriously suggesting that Krishnan Guru-Murphy should come on tv tonight, look at the camera and just be all "Couple niggers were shot this morning" *Shrug* "Fucking arseholes."
But I mean, if he did, the only people he'd harm is himself and Channel 4.

Danichu said:

(which, fyi, is often far, far more damaging than physical bullying)

Click to expand...

I actually find the concept of bullying to be pretty dumb/amusing*, but as far as I can tell, 'verbal bullying' encompasses every nasty, mean thing you can say, whereas 'physical bullying' means a game of fisticuffs in the middle of a crowd of kids before a teacher breaks it up.
So uh, when physical 'bullying' becomes serious it's actually called assault.

EDIT: *in the same way an AIDs victim would find it amusing/dumb when someone complains about having a sniffly nose.

Aobaru said:

I think where we differ here is that I don't think that using racial slurs is an infringement on the rights of others. There's no right not to be offended. If I go up to a black person and call them a "fucking nigger", they have every right to never talk to me again, or tell their friends how much of a racist asshole I am. But they can't go to the police like a five-year-old child and say "That man hurt my feelings."

Click to expand...

do you not see a marked difference in calling someone a racial slur because they are black (for example) and calling someone a name regardless of their ethnicity? Calling someone a nigger is offensive not only because you're being really rude, but also because you're using oppressive language against a minority; you're implying that you're better than them because they're black and you're not. Do you not realise how damaging an effect this can have on a person? Imagine you're a white, cisgendered male for a second; if someone calls you a 'white asshole' or something, it's offensive, yes. But you can then walk away from that person and then go about your day among other white people - who are the majority - and quite easily forget about the insult. Minorities cannot do this. It doesn't have a profound, damaging effect against you because you are in a priveleged position; you are part of the majority. Someone throwing names at you because you're white has no gravity because you are in a dominant position. Someone throwing names at you because you're black reflects not only of previous oppression but also of current oppression - we can't pretend that black people are treated as equally as white people in America because they just aren't - like most other minorities!

relatedly, in Australia, if you throw racial slurs at someone because they're black/asian/etc and they tell a policemen, you'll get told off - but you probably won't get charged or anything unless you're being very abusive. I'm kind of surprised that this isn't the case elsewhere. what exactly is child-like about telling an authority that someone's being verbally abusive? I don't understand. what they're doing isn't *illegal*, sure, but they're still being a bully for no reason other than they can and because they want to be racist.

So yes, I would argue there should be restrictions on freedom of expression, but only so far as to punish infringements on the rights of others; those rights being life, liberty, and property. But me using a racial slur against a black person neither takes their life, steals their liberty, or harms their property.

Click to expand...

what about someone's right to be happy? if you call someone a racial slur it is harmful and pretending it isn't is... silly. punching someone also does none of those things, so I'm not really sure what you mean here. arguably someone's quality of life comes into it somewhere, and I would definitely call being racist to people affecting their quality of life?

Shinji lover said:

putting a black man from africa and a white man from new england in antarctica, it isnt racist to expect the white man to survive longer putting all things into perspective. on an intellectual level they may be equal, however biologically having descended from people living in colder temperatures, the white man has an advantage. recognizing that isnt racist.

Click to expand...

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.

Alvyren said:

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.

Click to expand...

You must not read a lot.

It's not completely ridiculous, it's just an incorrect slightly crazy blanket statement. It all depends on the skills of the 2 people, not their skin color.