LogFAQs > #976273630

ChocoboMogALT posted...

You still haven't said one bad thing about racists or racism. Not even, "I may disagree with their beliefs, but..." You're just strictly running defense. How stupid do you think we are?
Fuck off.

Expecting everybody to preface discussion of constitutional protection of shitty beliefs with now I dont agree with these shitty beliefs, but or you get to accuse them of having those shitty beliefs is ridiculous.

Torgo posted...

And if they don't "go back where they came from" - what is the next step that logically follows?

The spectrum ranges from nothing to actively working towards a genocide. To act as if there are not people who just think races are better off separate but arent going to take any discriminatory or violent action about it is not a position based in reality.

Unsuprised_Pika posted...

If those beliefs involve wanting people treated as lesser(or worse) for immutable characterstics and are shared or encouraged its not. Simply spreading such filth is an act of aggresion. Words are an action. If you say "(slur for racial group) are lazy subhumans. The world would be better off without them" thats tantamount to a call for genocide even without directly saying it.. Merely spreading it is harmful to that group and society overall.

I dont agree that beliefs that can be extrapolated to an extreme conclusion should always be regarded as being that extreme conclusion.

I am not sending someone to prison for simply buying into a stereotype or something.

But there are racist acts or beliefs "lesser" then a straight up lynching or direct violence that if taught to children, shared in a conspiritorial manner or with intent(or gross negligence) to encourage harm or cause others to discriminate or harm should indeed result in legal consequences. And in some cases simply for sharing it at all.

So where do you, personally, draw that line for when discriminatory beliefs (again, Im talking about beliefs, not actions) reach a point of deserving legal punishment?