Post by Amadan on Mar 24, 2018 9:15:23 GMT -5
<abbr data-timestamp="1521894242000" class="o-timestamp time" title="Mar 24, 2018 8:24:02 GMT -4">Mar 24, 2018 8:24:02 GMT -4</abbr> iolo said:
If free speech means they can't stop you talking to yourself in the lavatory, big deal. I mean access to the means of public discussion, which in the US prevents any serious questioning of the capitalist ideology and all the guff that goes with it. The problem with Americans and 'race' is that nobody in this wide world knows what they are babbling about, except their desperate urge to hate and spite other people. Dislike of outsiders exists in all primitive communities. Racism was a lying invention in the Seventeenth Century to justify imperialism and the enforcement of slavery on easily identifiable groups, as you know. Hate speech, as you know, is speech uttered to express hate.
I think you know less about conditions in the US than I know about conditions in the UK.
Nothing prevents serious questioning of capitalist ideology in the US, except that capitalism is popular here and socialism and communism is unpopular, so there is naturally resistance to unpopular ideas. But free speech laws protect Marxists just like they protect racists. Don and you could have a nice little talk about how the sheeple won't seriously entertain critiques of The System, but the fact remains that there are no legal barriers to such critiques.
Everything else you said is wrong too.
Lots of people babble about race, but lots of people actually do know what they are talking about.
Dislike of outsiders exists in nearly all communities, primitive and otherwise.
Racism was not invented in the 17th century. People have always been tribal. There was less awareness of other races/ethnicities, and no one had come up with scientific theories of biological inferiority, but no one "invented" the idea of holding people who look, act, and talk different in contempt and using such differences as justification for conquering/oppressing them. Read what the Romans used to say about the Germans and the Franks and the Celts, etc. It would certainly be considered "racism" in today's world. The Chinese and the Japanese and the Koreans could all tell you a thing or two about ethnocentrism. So could the Hopi Indians. Anyone who claims that racism is some white/Western invention that only came along because of industrial-era slavery is talking out of their ass.
And yes, I know hate speech is "speech uttered to express hate." That's tautological. Also meaningless, legally. If I say I hate you, that's hate speech, right? No, you're talking about a legal principle. In the US, there is no such as "hate speech" legally. This is a good thing, IMO. Because I'm not talking about talking to yourself in the lavatory, I'm talking about access to the means of public discussion. In the US, you cannot be forbidden to advocate for socialism. That doesn't mean anyone is going to give you a platform to do it, but the government can't forbid you, and can't fine or otherwise penalize someone who does give you a platform. They can't do it to someone who advocates racist ideas either. If they could forbid one, they could forbid the other. If they can make it illegal to say "Gas the Jews," they can also make it illegal for Charles Murray to publish The Bell Curve. I use the latter example deliberately, because here on CG we had a long and contentious thread about whether or not Charles Murray was really a racist and whether The Bell Curve is actually a racist book. The point here is not whether or not it is, but the fact that because some people consider it to be a racist book promoting racist ideas, "hate speech" laws could easily be applied to prohibit its publication, or prosecute Charles Murray for writing it, and I have no doubt that if such laws existed, some people would try to do that. Whatever you think about The Bell Curve, if you actually think Murray and his publishers should go to jail for publishing it, then you are an enemy of free speech. And as I understand UK hate speech laws, it's not impossible that that could happen there if someone were to decide that his book was "causing harm or promoting racial hatred."