Racism

submitted by Death_By_Democracy from self.AskSaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Death_By_Democracy[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The words are important exactly because they provide a rationalisation for the crime, and other words such as 'antisemitism' have the power to prevent any examination of what is really going on there. I'm not saying the words are a crime, but I am saying that the failure to take the power of words seriously is a moral and intellectual failure because the words are often bound up in the actions some people take.

I'm not saying the words are the crime. But I am saying that failure to act appropriately on the words says something about a person.

If someone tells me face to face that Palestinians are sub-human (which I have been told on a couple of occasions by Zionists on line) they are going to get a punch in the throat. I won't be shrugging my shoulders and saying 'Well, you are entitled to that view' because that view is a view that needs to be dealt with with some action. I find it hard to understand why anyone would look at a situation where someone can say that another group are subhuman and decide 'Yeah, that's OK because free speech'.

[–]HugodeCrevellier 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If someone tells me face to face that Palestinians are sub-human (which I have been told on a couple of occasions by Zionists on line) they are going to get a punch in the throat.

That's basically criminally insane. If something can be thought, then it can be said. And people can think both correct and incorrect things. We don't need nor want self-appointed thought-enforcers assaulting people over wrong-think. The partially successful goal of the Enlightenment was to replace dogma with reason. So, let's not descent back into some neo-abrahamic dark ages, where diverging from the approved orthodoxy gets you assaulted.

[–]Death_By_Democracy[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

From here, it looks like you haven't even considered the question, but instead you have got on your high horse to whine about the right of others to say what they fuck they want.

Let's try another approach...

If something can be thought, then it can be said.

I think I might shout 'bomb' in a busy theater. I thought it, and now I am going to say it, because that's perfectly fine. Sure, a few people might get trampled in the stampede to the door, but fuck 'em - that's not my problem. I was just using my right to free speech.

[–]HugodeCrevellier 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

No, nice try. In a few cases, as a matter of immediate safety, the freedom of speech may be curtailed by law. 'Yelling fire in a crowded theatre' is a specific (the most commonly known) example of this. What you, on the other hand, are threatening and advocating, violence, assaulting someone (punching them in the throat!) for expressing an opinion, is a serious crime and should land you in jail.

[–]Death_By_Democracy[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Right - so now, according to you, freedom of speech can be curtailed, but that's OK if the law says it is OK?

I think you'll find I haven't 'threatening and advocating, violence, assaulting someone (punching them in the throat!) for expressing an opinion'.

But nice try.

Given past experience I would imagine your finger is smashing the report button right now. So bye.