France does, at the very least on paper, prohibit various forms of hate speech, so it’s not that hypothetical. How these are, or are not, applied has long been an open can of worms.
What are your views on certain religion’s racist, misogynistic, homophobic filth?
Did I say I’d ban blasphemy?
Why do you think this is some sort of gotcha, or like I haven’t addressed it in this thread already? And obviously - it should go without saying but apparently not in this thread - if I’m in favour of limiting Islamicists, I’m also in favour of limiting Christian bigots, and Buddhist ones, and Pastafarian ones…
and if someone starts preaching atheist-based racism, they can also fuck right off too.
One thing I don’t think I’ve made clear - when I talk about prohibbiting racist etc speech, I’m talking strictly of public speech here. You can spout whatever vile drivel you like in private, I don’t give a shit. But publish it, or yell it at someone on the street, and you’re fucked.
And who makes that determination? And once that is institutionalized would that not become yet another power center for folks to fight over?
“Objective criteria”? Do you think the law is a science lab? No, it’ll be entirely subjective.
Who makes it? Les damnés de la terre, I should think. Or just me, I’m cool with that, too.
And…?
And the results wouldn’t be what you would hope. There is a reason why it’s important to put constraints on all institutions that have power and the reason is that when the unscrupulous ascend to a position of power in an institution the so-called stated purpose of that institution is irrelevant.
They weren’t “allowed” and they did not “get a pass.” They were literally murdered. The thing you keep insisting you’re not defending. It’s about as far from “getting a pass” as imaginable.
As for the teacher who showed the cartoons to discuss a current social issue in his class, the congregants killed for going to a church, and the victims of convenience who just happen to be near whatever member of the self-appointed racism non-passers is setting off his equality vest at a given time, I guess they should have thought twice before doing such racist things too.
It’s not murderers who determine whether they get a pass or not; in France it could come down to something like the Constitutional Council (I.e., politicians)
Hmmm, I’m reminded of this little speech from “A Man For All Seasons”
And yet.
That’s the point. I’m not. I don’t think it is wise to do so but already we see how far your approach is taking you and once you’ve started on this path…?
There is no racism that can plausibly be based on atheism
and yet, and yet. We may already be feeling the inexorable pull of a slippery slope.
Your no doubt well-intentioned desire to protect people from offence is difficult to ring-fence. The above is the obvious extension of what you are proposing. I’m sure you don’t intend to help lay the ground work for such an Orwellian state of affairs but, you are. After all if a little bit of free speech restriction is good isn’t more of the same even better?
I’m vehemently opposed to it. We all should be.
Hmm, I’m pretty sure an atheist, purely biological and deterministic universe, racist argument could be made. I have a feeling that eugenics and what not can be derived from that.
Atheism does not require that one believes in a purely biological and deterministic universe.
And how on earth can eugenics be derived from a lack of belief in a god? Sketch me the direct logical link if you can. I can see where it might come from a specific, positively stated worldview but that is not atheism. You may as well say that can you see how paedophllia can be derived from a lack of belief in the Loch Ness Monster. The two concepts have no connection between them. I simply cannot see how you get from one to the other without injecting a whole other set of ideas that are not contingent on atheism.
In other words, an atheist can very well be a racist, but if he is, his racism is derived from some other aspect of his worldview, not from his lack of belief in a god.
While religious beliefs or tenants can be the direct source of racism.
exactly, the bottom statement is trivially easy to give examples for.
Slopes are only as slippery as we make them, and that one’s getting plenty of sand laid down.
Let’s get one thing absolutely fucking clear - it’s not “offence” that I want to protect people from.
Racism is not mere offence
“Obvious” is in the eye of the beholder. “Possible”, I’ll grant you.
Funny, an Orwellian state, to me, would be the kind where the government controls what you can and can’t wear, and sanctions public displays of hate for certain groups of people. So, looks like they already got there before me.
You do realize that “slippery slope” is a fallacy, not an inevitability, right?
You see 1984 in sensible restrictions, I see 1930s Germany in tolerating racist media.
Only one of these things we see has actually already happened.
Of course there is. You could associate elevated religiosity with only certain racial groups - “maybe” there’s a religion gene that is higher in certain ethnicities - and work to stamp them out in order to stamp out the perceived evil of religiosity.
There’s no ideology racists can’t possibly bend to serve them. It’s only comfortable White privilege that lets anyone think differently.
Are you describing France? I’m not a aware of a state sanction for public displays of hate. The clothing restrictions I’ve already criticised strongly and were this a thread on clothing that’d be relevant.
Of course you neglect to mention one of the key points of 1984, that of language and control of speech and its necessary evolution to thought-crimes.
Some countries are indeed taking a meandering path down Orwell’s authoritarian way but I fail to see why we should straighten the road for them.
It is not necessarily a fallacy. It all depends whether there is a reasonable and plausible link between one action and a future consequence. My concerns about minor restrictions in speech risking a wider restriction in speech is no more a fallacy than your implication that anti-semitic cartoons risk leading to the gas chambers. Both of course risk confusing correlation with causation where there is actually another larger force at work.
Then I question your reading of history. Plus, you assume that the restrictions being applied are sensible and that the targets of those restrictions are necessarily “racist”.
Lots of societies in the past have and continue to tolerate potentially offensive publications (Racism being just one aspect of this) and yet managed not to descend into totalitarian regimes.
I also know of regimes in the past that have indeed sought to control what people say, think wear and behave complete with the limitations on freedom of religions. All done with the noblest of intentions.
What utter nonsense. What is it about a lack of belief in god that would lead a person to want to stamp out religion?
Seriously, draw me the line here. Feel free to refer to the tenets of atheism that would take someone there (hint, there are no tenets).
And there’s your misunderstanding. Atheism is not an ideology.
You are incidentally correct that racists can bend any ideology (and ideology can indeed be used to bend people to racist though and acts). People who are atheists can have myriad ideologies constructed or imposed but atheism itself is not one.
On the theme of what I said to someone else.
If someone does not believe in the Loch Ness Monster they could think that racist paedophilia is fine. Would you think such a connection is valid? Sure it could be true but only by piling in a load of associated thoughts, worldviews and ideologies that are not contingent on the a-monsterism.