Should Racism be a chargeable offense?

[Quackquackhonk]

i wonder if all those who stand behind free speech as a reason to not criminalize racism realize that free speech isn't absolute, and that the harm caused to society (at the very least, to the targets of racism itself) should override any free speech protections?

[Des-Bal]

i wonder if all those who stand behind free speech as a reason to not criminalize racism realize that free speech isn't absolute, and that the harm caused to society (at the very least, to the targets of racism itself) should override any free speech protections?

I wonder if people realize hitler was right?

The issue isn't people "not realizing" something it's them disagreeing with you.

[Quackquackhonk]

i wonder if all those who stand behind free speech as a reason to not criminalize racism realize that free speech isn't absolute, and that the harm caused to society (at the very least, to the targets of racism itself) should override any free speech protections?

I wonder if people realize hitler was right?

in what regard?

make an argument and lets see how well you stand out.

The issue isn't people "not realizing" something it's them disagreeing with you.

there reasons for disagreeing with me are based on them not realizing the wrongness of their own position.

[Des-Bal]

there reasons for disagreeing with me are based on them not realizing the wrongness of their own position.

That's what everyone says about everyone, it is the very nature of a position. You can't assert that as an absolute truth.

[Quackquackhonk]

there reasons for disagreeing with me are based on them not realizing the wrongness of their own position.

That's what everyone says about everyone, it is the very nature of a position. You can't assert that as an absolute truth.

the truth lies in the argument, which you haven't touched.

[Quintium]

there reasons for disagreeing with me are based on them not realizing the wrongness of their own position.

Doesn't this betray a worrying level of insecurity on your part, though? I want all ideas in public debate - even mine - to be open for debate. That's the only way we, as a society, can progress - by questioning ideas that have visible flaws rather than keeping quiet out of fear. The very idea of an orthodoxy that we can't question repulses me.

[Des-Bal]

the truth lies in the argument, which you haven't touched.

You didn't make an argument you stated an opinion.

"the harm caused to society (at the very least, to the targets of racism itself) should override any free speech protections"

[Quackquackhonk]

there reasons for disagreeing with me are based on them not realizing the wrongness of their own position.

Doesn't this betray a worrying level of insecurity on your part, though?

no.

I want all ideas in public debate - even mine - to be open for debate.

i want defensible ideas to be open to public debate, not all ideas.

That's the only way we, as a society, can progress - by questioning ideas that have visible flaws rather than keeping quiet out of fear.

questioning ideas that have no merit and that only exist to promote the continued harm and degradation of others is a waste of time.

The very idea of an orthodoxy that we can't question repulses me.

so you've said.

[Quackquackhonk]

the truth lies in the argument, which you haven't touched.

You didn't make an argument you stated an opinion.

"the harm caused to society (at the very least, to the targets of racism itself) should override any free speech protections"

that's an argument against the free speech one, that there is harm inherent in racist attitudes and the espousal of racism, and that this harm overrides any free speech considerations.

[Cameroi]

no. but it is why we can't expect outlawing murders to prevent them from happening. only people never wanting to kill each other can do that.

and in a culture that did not romantacize nor reward aggressiveness, a LOT fewer people would want to.

certainly AT LEAST as many fewer, as the prospect of probable punishment.

So we can apparently outlaw something even if it won't stop the behavior we've outlawed?

that IS true. and yes, we could do that with racism. just as west germany, in the 70s, before reunification, attempted to outlaw nazi references in a postive light.

the problem is much the same as what they ran into, and that is the difficulty of attempting to discern intent.

[Des-Bal]

that's an argument against the free speech one, that there is harm inherent in racist attitudes and the espousal of racism, and that this harm overrides any free speech considerations.

You're saying the harm outweighs the free speech considerations.

"No it doesn't." Is the only possible way to respond.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

No. Thought police and suppression of free speech tend to be bad things.

[Italionia]

Obviously YES!

[The Traditional Catholic Papal States]

My Lord, not another one of these open ended questions.

First, please define racism.

[Des-Bal]

that IS true. and yes, we could do that with racism. just as west germany, in the 70s, before reunification, attempted to outlaw nazi references in a postive light.

the problem is much the same as what they ran into, and that is the difficulty of attempting to discern intent.

So your issue isn't with "should" or krishnamurti.

[Quackquackhonk]

that's an argument against the free speech one, that there is harm inherent in racist attitudes and the espousal of racism, and that this harm overrides any free speech considerations.

You're saying the harm outweighs the free speech considerations.

yes.

"No it doesn't." Is the only possible way to respond.

you could have asked me to declare and describe in detail what "harm" is inherent in racist thought and the espousal of racist attitudes and theories.

[Mewtinigrad]

Of course not. It may be ugly at times, but it's the beauty of living in a free country. We get to have whatever views we want without prosecution.

Yes, because my freedoms should end when liberal feelings begin.

I want /pol/ to leave

[Des-Bal]

you could have asked me to declare and describe in detail what "harm" is inherent in racist thought and the espousal of racist attitudes and theories.

I should have told you to state your position?

[Veceria]

One time racism: Warning.
Two times: IRL ban.

[Saveyou Island]

Great... now... outside the US?

Most Western countries have either an explicit or implicit right to freedom of speech in their constitutional setup.

Never said they didn't, just wondering about the countries outside the US, as he didnt even touch em.

[Quackquackhonk]

you could have asked me to declare and describe in detail what "harm" is inherent in racist thought and the espousal of racist attitudes and theories.

I should have told you to state your position?

you said "no it doesn't" is the only possible way to respond.

its not.

you should have followed up by pressing me on harm created by racism.

[Archlemeing]

NO! Do... do you... uh... do you think?

[Saveyou Island]

Obviously YES!

Explain why?

[Verdum]

Nope.

[-San Andreas]

Yes its should because its mainly the white people that insult the black people saying shit with their outrageous mouth