Kafkaesque wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:22 pm
LeTiss wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:14 am
We live in a world governed by PC. You cannot have a view on rising Muslim numbers without somebody called you a racist
Followed by
LeTiss wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:14 am
However, PC has become incredibly dangerous. In a 'free' country, the 2 things which define freedom are -
A) Having the freedom to form your own opinions about things
B) Having the freedom to voice those opinions
Freedom of speech is essential to a free country (and by implication I should be allowed to say what I want about Muslims). Calling you a racist; how dare people SPEAK such words about you. Do you seriously not see the hypocracy?
Accusations of racism play into social taboo. As per any society, if you are accused of breaking social taboo, this can lead to social excommunication which has disastrous consequences for the individual and his/her status. Systemically, speech which is judged to be "racist" will surely also then be supposed to "incite racial hatred". Therefore when you claim someone's speech is "racist", you are likely suggesting (by implication) that it it should be liable for criminal prosecution (under "hate speech" laws).
These are the reasons why it is correct to state that calling someone a "racist" suppresses free speech - it is invoking the power of social taboo, including a real (legal) procedural threat of social redress in our society beyond the fear of exclusion etc that accusations of heresy normally invoke.
LeTiss wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:15 am
But hey, I'm just a run of the mill white guy, what do I know
I somewhat agree with sa7med's response in the very next post, but you did toss it in there at the end of a rant, so....as a white male you (we, as it were, to be clear) have a foot up on the vast majority of the world's population, before you start life's journey. Our ancestors built this priviliged position off the backs, suffering and death of pretty much every other ethnicity on the planet (and women). When this position is under siege, it must be someone else's fault and failings, surely.
What absolute insane and simplistic garbage. What about if you are a white male who's homeless in a white-majority country such as Romania, versus a non-white child who is born into a privileged position in any non-white majority country across this planet? Or if you are a white male in Algeria? And no, we did not "build this privileged position off the backs, suffering and death of pretty much every other ethnicity on the planet (and women)" - again that is painfully simplistic, nonsense guilt-mongering.
By "white male", I think you actually mean "anglo-saxon" male or something like that. We have no reason to feel any more or less guilt than any other ethnic group regards our treatment of out-groups and relative assertion of our interests. In fact we should feel pride at having progressed beyond treating out-group members as slaves, which is the default for most other ethnic groups throughout history. And to claim that, relative to other ethnic groups and pretty much relative to any other civilisation throughout history, that women have endured particular suffering in our (white, anglo-saxon) society is just beyond insane. That's the direct opposite of the truth.
I don't have the solution; I just firmly believe two things.
First that we will not solve the issues at hand by making stoking the fire of us versus them, and creating hate speech on our side of things, as much as some of "them" do.
Religions (very well-organised, usually extremely successful, ideologies) necessarily identity out-groups. Central to Islam is the concept of 'Kuffar', which is that non-believers are "ungrateful". Muslims are educated to understand as all non-Muslims as such (i.e. "kuffar" - a clearly a derogatory reference).
Why on earth - and moreover, how is it sensible that - we constantly refrain from 'stoking us versus them' when for instance Muslims (and it is common to all religions, not just Islam) refer to us in degrading terms *institutionally* and teach their children to do the same via these same institutions? How does that work?
No they have to change their practices first. They are moving to our society and we are integrating them (giving them equal access). Therefore they must change their religion so that they do not refer to members of the host society in derogatory terms. If they do not, then they should be (communally) referred to in derogatory terms by us. That is fair and proportionate.
Secondly that we have absolutely zero right to claim a moral high ground, because we've developed certain principels within the last half a century or so, when we were at least as bad as anyone for much, much longer before then, and arguably still are.
How can we have absolutely no right to claim a moral high ground with regard any of our cultural practices within our own territory, this in comparison to the cultural practices of any new entrant ethnic group? How is that sustainable or practicable? Moreover, how is that even justifiable or correct, given that many of our practices just obviously have better outcomes (in comparison)? For example is our treatment of young females' anatomy as dictated by cultural practice, preferable to the cultural practice of FGM? Or do we have "zero right" to assert that our practice is better (morally superior).
