CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC ALERT
- Thread starter Cenna
- Start date
- Status
Infinite Citadel
Odium
Institutionalized Racism definitely not. If we're talking about the right for someone to hold racist beliefs (they'd be breaking the law if they were openly racist or w/e) without breaking other laws (discrimination etc), I'd say it should be legal. People can hold their own opinions, even if they're terribly wrong. The hard part is reasoning with people with said opinions so that they learn they're terrible opinions in the first place 
Patrick MacFarlane
Commander-in-Chief of Russian Armed Forces TKR RP
Racism in law or practice by an influential part of government or military should be illegal. However if someone wishes to hold racist beliefs and continue to feel that way, so long as they do not break any laws, it should be legal because we are not a a communist dictatorship and controlling how people think is a violation of basic human rights that are given to all mankind.
So this needs to be clarified in the polls question or poll choices because it's impossible to answer in its current state
So this needs to be clarified in the polls question or poll choices because it's impossible to answer in its current state
John Henry Eden
President Of The Enclave
Racism that holds apparent harm or contempt for another should be illegal because by law injuring another is illegal. Though I do believe (not personally as thoughts) that a person who holds racist thoughts and does not express them harmfully should be allowed to do so.
The problem even like that unexpressed it rather easy for someone (ie Trump) to try to make it sparking into something damaging because the thoughts build into resentment and hatred in them over time, so I am not really sure I'd on say they're ok to be allowed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Patrick MacFarlane
Commander-in-Chief of Russian Armed Forces TKR RP
Calling illegal immigrates all criminals/rapist/murders/etc, wanting to deport Muslims/block their countries, Hesitated to denounce the KKK, & etc.
What makes you think he's not one?
Patrick MacFarlane
Commander-in-Chief of Russian Armed Forces TKR RP
All illegal immigrants are criminals! ILLEGAL!!!!! They come into this nation ILLEGALLY and put strain on the system. (I personally am in favour of a much milder plan than his, one that gives a grace period for registration and not just deportation but we're talking about trump).
There are muslims out there who would see our nation destroyed. I understand that all are not this way but radicalization is real as American's saw in San Bernardino and those who are already of the Muslim faith are especially susceptible to the conversion, much more than the average joe without any animosity toward the United States (I feel that he is being a little overboard here too and that we rather should suspend muslim immigration until a tighter system of monitoring is put into place to reduce the risk to Americans).
Donald Trump is his own person as was his father. The Klan was a part of his families history and not damning a group is not the same as endorsing them.
I believe that his stances against illegal immigration and Muslim immigration are not racist but rather they are unorthodox opinions (as we know Trump has many) on an undeniable issue facing our national security on some instances. I personally think he is a little too polar on some issues and I chose not to endorse him myself, but nonetheless I must defend the man who gets a bad wrap as a racist which simply is not true.
Woot
Well-known member
I think the recent controversies with Trump are a good example of the problems of thought policing. Every nation has immigration controls and plays favorites with different immigrant groups, nobody has completely open borders because that would be insane. But if you try to enforce or expand immigration laws to a greater level than than the left wants you're a 'racist'. It's the ultimate weapon of suppression, scream 'racist' long enough and loudly enough at anyone who dares to step out of line and maybe you can cow the opposition into submission without any debate or compromise. The worst things Trump has ever said are along the lines of "Immigrant group x is full of bad people, let's stop letting them all in", and that's enough to get him branded as Hitler reincarnate and the ultimate 'racist'. Making 'racism illegal' would be a tool of the majority to completely shut down any social view that they slightly disagree with.
More generally, in principle, I think people ought to be able to think and say just about anything they want. The current 1st Amendment protection in the United States is that you can stand on a street corner with a burning cross and a gun and shout "death to all ****s" - anything short of imminent incitement of likely violence against a specific person is legal. I like that. Does this actually result in more good, in a utilitarian sense, than if we turned the world into a safe space? Maybe and maybe not, but I care more about liberty than I do about the feelings of thin skinned people who can't handle opposition and want to be told what to think.
More generally, in principle, I think people ought to be able to think and say just about anything they want. The current 1st Amendment protection in the United States is that you can stand on a street corner with a burning cross and a gun and shout "death to all ****s" - anything short of imminent incitement of likely violence against a specific person is legal. I like that. Does this actually result in more good, in a utilitarian sense, than if we turned the world into a safe space? Maybe and maybe not, but I care more about liberty than I do about the feelings of thin skinned people who can't handle opposition and want to be told what to think.
Let me re-phrase that, he's said they're all violent criminals. There is a difference that pushes it to racism in my eyes.
We radicalize christians the same way unintentionally as we saw in the charleston church shooting or the Bundy ranchers' conflicts with the federal government, it's a poor argument to defend him wide spread racism towards them over the actions of the few when the actions of the few come from a different group they're written being less serious with nothing being done about it because of racial views, thus it borders on racism.
Patrick MacFarlane
Commander-in-Chief of Russian Armed Forces TKR RP
There are a lot of violent illegal immigrants. Although I am not saying that all of them are violent I have to understand the stance that removing them from the country does eliminate violent crime to some level.
Yes, Christians can be "radicalized" but those are people that are abiding here. If we had reason to believe that there would be an influx of radicalized Christian immigrants that wanted to harm our nation then I would lobby for the restrictions on that as well. Domestic radicalized people need to be thrown in prison. incoming dangers need to be halted at the border. It is about preservation and the simple fact is that right now there is a threat to our nation's safety from a radical Islamic caliphate which has stated they will send refugees to attack the western powers. Until we can determine which Muslims can be deemed a threat I think it wise to limit the potential dangers coming into our nation. It is not racist to protect your nation, the slander, yes, that is wrong but the intention here is to protect the nation from those coming in. Not to hate on Muslims around the world.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798 The comment about violent illegal immigrants is still wrong. Not sure why people repeat that line. I've seen research showing that descendants of illegal residents have a slight increase in violent crime, but they also mentioned confounding factors such as where on the poverty spectrum that tends to put them and where they end up having to live.
Also, saying that an entire group needs to be kept out because they're more likely to do "x" is pretty much text book discrimination (racism when race is used). You can argue that it has a point all you want, but you're still saying that the individuals don't matter, only that they're "insert race, religion, etc. here".
Rin
Oathkeeper
Case study: Malaysia-Singapore
Both these countries faced a lot of race issues. Migrants from China entered Malaya to strip mine the land. The native Malays never had the capital to do anything. The Chinese became rich. Like the Jews of Europe, but richer.
This caused a lot of racial tension between the Malays and Chinese. Also the British colonists were asshats and kept the racist fire hot to prevent independence.
Singapore was a part of Malaysia at one point, but open racial (non-violent) conflict caused them to divorce from Malaysia. This divorce would not have happened if politicians didn't stir racism tensions. Both sides responsible for the divorce were very disappointed and regretted pushing the politics so hard.
There was another racial issue later in 1969 (again, brought up during an election). This one caused a riot with a few hundred deaths and triggered a national emergency.
So yes, free speech and racism can kill.
The Prime Minister stepped down. They decided to make seditious speech illegal.
Today, those laws are used to crack down on opposition politicians. Criticize the incumbent and you'll go to jail. Despite it being illegal, politicians still use racism as a way to get ahead. They just do it more subtly.
Summary: When racism was banned, people stopped killing each other in riots. But they didn't stop being racists. And the laws were abused and became a slippery slope to clamping down on free speech.
So I say, yes, racism should be legal, because illegalizing it doesn't actually prevent racism!
Both these countries faced a lot of race issues. Migrants from China entered Malaya to strip mine the land. The native Malays never had the capital to do anything. The Chinese became rich. Like the Jews of Europe, but richer.
This caused a lot of racial tension between the Malays and Chinese. Also the British colonists were asshats and kept the racist fire hot to prevent independence.
Singapore was a part of Malaysia at one point, but open racial (non-violent) conflict caused them to divorce from Malaysia. This divorce would not have happened if politicians didn't stir racism tensions. Both sides responsible for the divorce were very disappointed and regretted pushing the politics so hard.
There was another racial issue later in 1969 (again, brought up during an election). This one caused a riot with a few hundred deaths and triggered a national emergency.
So yes, free speech and racism can kill.
The Prime Minister stepped down. They decided to make seditious speech illegal.
Today, those laws are used to crack down on opposition politicians. Criticize the incumbent and you'll go to jail. Despite it being illegal, politicians still use racism as a way to get ahead. They just do it more subtly.
Summary: When racism was banned, people stopped killing each other in riots. But they didn't stop being racists. And the laws were abused and became a slippery slope to clamping down on free speech.
So I say, yes, racism should be legal, because illegalizing it doesn't actually prevent racism!
Welp I don't I can argue against this case for it, so I'd accept it due to this example.
- Status