|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 5, 2018 18:57:24 GMT
calling a black person a monkey is certainly an objectively offensive and racist action, regardless of the person's intention as the usual context of that slur is to imply that black people are less than human. What does that even mean: "Objectively racist"? It's a very dangerous road, to sunder utterances from their intention. Anyone can then be condemned for anything, and intention is no defence. AND THIS IS WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 5, 2018 19:03:46 GMT
To answer your previous question, no, I don't segregation is the order of nature. If it was, there would be no need for Jim Crow LAWS and Apartheid LAWS and Nuremberg LAWS and STATUTES of Kilkenny.
I think human beings are innately tribal, and I see nothing wrong with that in itself. But it's not absolute.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 5, 2018 19:05:23 GMT
calling a black person a monkey is certainly an objectively offensive and racist action, regardless of the person's intention as the usual context of that slur is to imply that black people are less than human. What does that even mean: "Objectively racist"? It's a very dangerous road, to sunder utterances from their intention. Anyone can then be condemned for anything, and intention is no defence. AND THIS IS WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING. If intention is everything, racism would not exist at all, since anyone can claim that they didn't INTEND to be racist. Objectively racist means that the comment is racist in itself, without any consideration of intent. Subjective racism means that one intended to be racist and is therefore much more difficult to prove.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 5, 2018 19:07:58 GMT
If it's OK to ban pornography or obscenity (which I fully support btw), then it's legitimate to ban segregation, since they are both dehumanising to other people. While I agree that there are nuances where racism is concerned (and btw even though I think your position is abhorrent, it's not racist per se since you're not actively advocating segregation), calling a black person a monkey is certainly an objectively offensive and racist action, regardless of the person's intention as the usual context of that slur is to imply that black people are less than human. I might add that some things (like fornication) are still wrong even if there is consent. I honestly don't understand the hysteria about race. Racism is bad, yes, but lots of things are bad. The idea that if a soccer player calls another player fat, ugly, a moron etc. it's allowable but if he uses a racial slur, it's a national scandal...I don't get that. It's just bizarre to me. Hurting or humiliating or otherwise committing an ill against a black person is wrong because they are a person, not because they are black. I find it ridiculous when pro-life people play the "abortion discriminates" card. Is abortion worse, somehow, if the aborted human being is the member of a particular group? Crazy. I must admit it seems to me like an irrational, visceral reaction implanted by TV and the media. And I think the underlying psychology might actually be, paradoxically, quite patronising and racist. I think we should stick to the ideal of colour-blindness. And no, I don't think "correcting historical imbalances" is a good argument, because there are always imbalances. Perhaps because we know where racism has lead and we do not want to repeat those mistakes again? As for correcting historical imbalances, there is a duty to offer reparation as part of forgiveness and affirmative action is simply an extension of that.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 5, 2018 19:19:37 GMT
I honestly don't understand the hysteria about race. Racism is bad, yes, but lots of things are bad. The idea that if a soccer player calls another player fat, ugly, a moron etc. it's allowable but if he uses a racial slur, it's a national scandal...I don't get that. It's just bizarre to me. Hurting or humiliating or otherwise committing an ill against a black person is wrong because they are a person, not because they are black. I find it ridiculous when pro-life people play the "abortion discriminates" card. Is abortion worse, somehow, if the aborted human being is the member of a particular group? Crazy. I must admit it seems to me like an irrational, visceral reaction implanted by TV and the media. And I think the underlying psychology might actually be, paradoxically, quite patronising and racist. I think we should stick to the ideal of colour-blindness. And no, I don't think "correcting historical imbalances" is a good argument, because there are always imbalances. Perhaps because we know where racism has lead and we do not want to repeat those mistakes again? As for correcting historical imbalances, there is a duty to offer reparation as part of forgiveness and affirmative action is simply an extension of that. And we also know where totalitarianism, utopianism, and trying to achieve Year Zero ends. Young Ireland, we could keep this up forever. I'll have to leave you to draw whatever conclusions you wish about my moral character. It would be great to hear other viewpoints. Indeed, the paucity of contributors on this forum is what leads me to find (what I consider to be) the political correctness so oppressive. I imagine that the vast majority of lurkers incline more towards my view-- indeed, it's very notable that the majority of comments on PC articles, even on websites such as Vox or Slate or the Atlantic, are strongly in disagreement. It doesn't make me right, necessarily, but it does show I am by no means an extremist.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 5, 2018 19:33:55 GMT
What does that even mean: "Objectively racist"? It's a very dangerous road, to sunder utterances from their intention. Anyone can then be condemned for anything, and intention is no defence. AND THIS IS WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING. If intention is everything, racism would not exist at all, since anyone can claim that they didn't INTEND to be racist. That's a false dichotomy right there. When it comes to everything except subjects which have been swamped by political correctness, people can generally understand when an utterance or action is malicious or not malicious, and (just as importantly, if not more importantly) when it is serious or trivial. But PC is a crazy world where anything that CAN BE malicious IS malicious (even if "subconsciously"), and nothing is ever trivial. People talk about "political correctness gone mad". But political correctness IS mad...that's it's essential nature
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 5, 2018 20:19:09 GMT
I honestly don't understand the hysteria about race. Racism is bad, yes, but lots of things are bad. The idea that if a soccer player calls another player fat, ugly, a moron etc. it's allowable but if he uses a racial slur, it's a national scandal...I don't get that. It's just bizarre to me. Hurting or humiliating or otherwise committing an ill against a black person is wrong because they are a person, not because they are black. I find it ridiculous when pro-life people play the "abortion discriminates" card. Is abortion worse, somehow, if the aborted human being is the member of a particular group? Crazy. I must admit it seems to me like an irrational, visceral reaction implanted by TV and the media. And I think the underlying psychology might actually be, paradoxically, quite patronising and racist. I think we should stick to the ideal of colour-blindness. And no, I don't think "correcting historical imbalances" is a good argument, because there are always imbalances. Perhaps because we know where racism has lead and we do not want to repeat those mistakes again? As for correcting historical imbalances, there is a duty to offer reparation as part of forgiveness and affirmative action is simply an extension of that. It just seems to me so silly that we have all this anxiety about somebody making a racial joke or using a racial epithet, as though it's a small step from that to the Ku Klux Klan. It's hysterical. It's like New Atheists seeing all religion as one step on the road to witches being burned. Or anarcho-capitalists seeing a minimum wage as one step on the road to the gulag. I think things need to be seen in perspective. (And no, I don't think the same thing applies my own fear that ANY anti-discrimination laws open the floodgates more, for two reasons; because my argument is not a "slippery slope" one, but rather that there's no LOGICAL reason to draw the line anywhere; and also, because we can see that this has actually happened. Liberals DO IN FACT call for all kinds of interventions, including those that impede religious freedom, using the justification of the Civil Rights era-- often succesfully.)
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 6, 2018 7:55:44 GMT
If it's OK to ban pornography or obscenity (which I fully support btw), then it's legitimate to ban segregation, since they are both dehumanising to other people. The problem is you keep using "segregation" to mean both an enforced system of racial separation, and the free choices of private individuals. It could be argued that segregation still exists in the latter sense. In fact, it's hard to me to see how you could abolish it completely except to force intermarriage, intermingling, etc. And if this DID happen, wouldn't it be a shame-- I don't mean just the compulsion, but the end result? Wouldn't it be a shame if African-American culture and identity were to disappear? I am not one of these people who make fun of ebonics or Kwaanza, I think they are interesting. I'm not even opposed to Black History Month in principle, although I fear it's just an exercise in victimology. On the Irish Conservatives Forum, somebody mentioned a proposal for a Traveller history course in Irish schools, and had quite a negative view of this. I'm actually all in favour of ths in princple-- although, again, I would be opposed it if it was just an exercise in victimology. I supported the recognition of the Irish Traveller Community as a distinct ethnic group last year, as I said in this blog post. You see my opposition to anti-discrimination laws as pandering to prejudice, while to me it is more about defending diversity and trying to avoid a uniformity of thought, behaviour and culture being imposed on society. Here are some more of my musings on the identity politics of affirmation, as opposed to the identity politics of grievance, for anyone interested.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 11, 2018 9:11:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 15, 2018 19:30:24 GMT
The law in question is itself discriminatory, since it only applies to Catholic schools.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 15, 2018 19:36:39 GMT
As regards "objectively racist" I would say there is a long history of comparing black people to monkeys for racist purposes. Therefore I would say it is OK to call a white malefactor a monkey, but not to do so about a black malefactor. Similarly, I will say things,make jokes etc about certain of our religious and political leaders as a Catholic and an Irishman, but would be offended if the same remarks were made by an Orangeman or Protestant fundamentalists. There are jokes about Jews which only a Jew can tell, about blacks which only blacks can tell etc. This seems perfectly commonsensical to me and a simple recognition of reality. We can't pretend the world started yesterday and that there is not a history of bigotry (and worse) towards certain groups.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 15, 2018 19:52:46 GMT
As regards "objectively racist" I would say there is a long history of comparing black people to monkeys for racist purposes. Therefore I would say it is OK to call a white malefactor a monkey, but not to do so about a black malefactor. The problem is that, as the era of slavery recedes into the past, sensitivities seem to be increasing rather than diminishing. I think we should strive for colour-blindness-- there should be nothing that can be said by or about a person of one colour but not another. One can only speak for oneself, but I wouldn't be in the slightest bit offended by anyone telling a joke about Irish people. Religion is different because it should be treated with reverence, but any joke a Catholic could tell, I'd be perfectly happy to hear anyone else tell. I used to follow a Star Trek page for Irish fans of the show. I got into a debate about some episodes of the show which use paddywhackery in a tongue-in-cheek way. The other people on the page found it "offensive". I told them to lighten up and thought they were being ridiculous. It's hard to get past personal reactions in these matters, but surely giving all the power to the offence-takers is a mistake?
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 16, 2018 7:55:09 GMT
The law in question is itself discriminatory, since it only applies to Catholic schools. But if it was extended to all schools, it would be still an outrageous encroachment on religious freedom. Also, it's state discrimination, which is not what I'm arguing for in this thread-- it's freedom of association, which I suppose (if you want to put it this way) could be called private discrimination. Well, the freedom of Catholic schools to discriminate, put bluntly, is what's at stake here.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 23, 2018 17:46:33 GMT
Here's a very interesting exchange between someone who believes in free speech and someone who believes in "hate speech". www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXTjL-f-msUI'm on the side of Dave Rubin, and I would hope nobody on this forum would be on the side of the snotty feminist.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 24, 2018 12:35:16 GMT
|
|