Resturant Owner Defends "Muslims Get Out" Sign, Says there was not enough room for "Extremists" - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51117285]Wasnt me that posted that by the way. You have a bad record of misquoting me. So if your people can handle that then why should speech be restricted? So peoples feelings dont get hurt. Thats shitty reasoning.[/QUOTE] Calling people niggers, saying black people should be killed etc. is not about hurt feelings, it's about speech that fosters hate towards specific ethnic/cultural groups. Obviously something Germany of all places would (and should) be wary of.

[QUOTE=Tools;51120953]I constantly receive bs from atheists, but that's perfectly okay for whatever reason as it's "enlightening me the truth" The right to protest should include protesting others' religions, thus I defend this guy's choice of not wanting to service people of muslim belief.[/QUOTE] What if I run the local bus service and say no tools allowed. If you refuse to serve someone it probably means you'll refuse to hire them. It's a recipe for bad times.

[QUOTE=hijacker;51117297]I agree, at the same time he is free to run his business as he pleases. This is a minor detail that all the SJW Extremists/PC/Religion apologists seem to forget.[/QUOTE] That's actually not true, there's a reason that there are no segregated shops in first world countries anymore and unanimous decision isn't why. [editline]28th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RainbowStalin;51118567]So if I open a shop with a "no nigger" policy its ok as long as I don't physically hurt anyone.[/QUOTE] no but if your shop has a sign that says "no niggers" in the window that's legal as long as you don't actually refuse to serve black folks

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51121091]Calling people niggers, saying black people should be killed etc. is not about hurt feelings, it's about speech that fosters hate towards specific ethnic/cultural groups. Obviously something Germany of all places would (and should) be wary of.[/QUOTE] Do you honestly think that people in 2016 are going to be so easily swayed by a bigot? We live in the age of information. You have access to the worlds cumulated knowledge via that phone in your pocket. Everyone has access to that information and the ability to find out what is and isnt true. 1930s Germany is not comparable to 2016 America. 1930s Germany was in a massive depression, had their pride destroyed in Versailles, and was clamoring for anyone to get out. 2016 America is nothing like that. If you support the censorship of our speech, do you support the destruction of books and websited that cover controversial or hateful subjects? [editline]28th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Trebgarta;51121159]How is this not false adverisement if I expect to be served in a Mussie-free sanctuary but instead face a dirty Muslim inside?[/QUOTE] Because his sign doesnt say "this facility has no muslims", it says "muslims get out". I understand what point youre trying to make but its a dumb one.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51121420]If you support the censorship of our speech, do you support the destruction of books and websited that cover controversial or hateful subjects?[/QUOTE] Talking about a controversial topic isn't the same thing as hatespeech

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;51121430]Talking about a controversial topic isn't the same thing as hatespeech[/QUOTE] In my mind it is, but let me rephrase. Do you support the destruction of books and media and removal of net neutrality for media that is hateful?

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51121433]In my mind it is, but let me rephrase. Do you support the destruction of books and media and removal of net neutrality for media that is hateful?[/QUOTE] I do not support the removal of net neutrality under any circumstances, nor do I support the destruction of books or media that is hateful, no, but I am for banning some media to be sold.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;51121640]I do not support the removal of net neutrality under any circumstances, nor do I support the destruction of books or media that is hateful, no, but I am for banning some media to be sold.[/QUOTE] What media is deserving of being banned in order to preserve the freedom of speech?

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51121649]What media is deserving of being banned in order to preserve the freedom of speech?[/QUOTE] Media that would incite violence or prejudicial action toward a protected individual or group.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51121420]Do you honestly think that people in 2016 are going to be so easily swayed by a bigot? We live in the age of information. You have access to the worlds cumulated knowledge via that phone in your pocket. Everyone has access to that information and the ability to find out what is and isnt true. 1930s Germany is not comparable to 2016 America. 1930s Germany was in a massive depression, had their pride destroyed in Versailles, and was clamoring for anyone to get out. 2016 America is nothing like that. If you support the censorship of our speech, do you support the destruction of books and websited that cover controversial or hateful subjects?[/QUOTE] Where did I say that the US (or Germany for that matter) is gonna go through with Holocaust 2.0 electric boogaloo? It doesn't have to be full scale genocide, it could be a rise in hate crime. Either way it's something we should prevent. At the same time, fuelling hate for specific ethnic groups could - should a devastating economic (or otherwise) crisis happen, even if it is very unlikely - lead to an environment ripe for an opportunistic far right, fascist party. It might be unlikely, but it's been shown before that it isn't impossible for humans to commit or simply accept heinous crimes against ethnic and cultural groups. I don't buy that the internet is a stopping block - confidence in the mainstream media in the US is at a low point, and on the internet you can simply decide to get all your news from Info-wars or whatever; the internet is a great place to host all kinds of echo chambers.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;51121655]Media that would incite violence or prejudicial action toward a protected individual or group.[/QUOTE] Ok, so what qualifies as a "protected individual/group"? Why does this need to exist. Secondly, so long as there is not a threat of physical harm, why should any speech be punished?

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51121674]Ok, so what qualifies as a "protected individual/group"? Why does this need to exist. Secondly, so long as there is not a threat of physical harm, why should any speech be punished?[/QUOTE] In sweden it an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation would qualify. And it needs to exist to protect minorities from harrassment and discrimination, and so that they can feel safe in public and in work enviroments.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51121664]Libel; promoting hatred against non-fiction races,religions, ethnicities; calling for violence IRL etc.. Really, you can come up with the answers to these questions.[/QUOTE] I have my own opinions on the matter that I could spout, but that wouldn't make for a good discussion. The only thing, as I said above, that I could support punishing, is speech which actively promotes physical harm on another. Simply saying "Jews are inferior" or "No Muslims allowed" is not something that should warrant any legal action as it is not directly causing harm to anyone. Let polite society outcast those who do so. [editline]28th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=MrJazzy;51121684]In sweden it an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation would qualify.[/QUOTE] So it's minority protection. Personally, I am against that, so I guess I don't really need to delve into it much more. But in America, we afford similar titles to those, and it leads to ostracization of those who challenge those groups, which is silly. If you cannot challenge an ideology/group, then you have lost freedom of speech. I suppose I should be clear that I don't advocate things like what this restaurant owner did, or that one group/idea is greater than another. But, when you start giving protections to others because of fear that they may become offended, then liberties for those outside that group are lost. But, by all means, should someone take action that is prejudice or harmful to another group, then that action should be punished. Simply speaking your mind, no matter how pants-on-head-retarded it may be, should not be illegal.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51121689]I have my own opinions on the matter that I could spout, but that wouldn't make for a good discussion. The only thing, as I said above, that I could support punishing, is speech which actively promotes physical harm on another. Simply saying "Jews are inferior" or "No Muslims allowed" is not something that should warrant any legal action as it is not directly causing harm to anyone. Let polite society outcast those who do so. [editline]28th September 2016[/editline] So it's minority protection. Personally, I am against that, so I guess I don't really need to delve into it much more. But in America, we afford similar titles to those, and it leads to ostracization of those who challenge those groups, which is silly. If you cannot challenge an ideology/group, then you have lost freedom of speech. I suppose I should be clear that I don't advocate things like what this restaurant owner did, or that one group/idea is greater than another. But, when you start giving protections to others because of fear that they may become offended, then liberties for those outside that group are lost. But, by all means, should someone take action that is prejudice or harmful to another group, then that action should be punished. Simply speaking your mind, no matter how pants-on-head-retarded it may be, should not be illegal.[/QUOTE] You should still be allowed to have a sensible discussion on why you dislike a protected group or individual, and ideologies don't count. Also, no, protecting minority groups doesn't take away liberties for people outside of that group - I mean, I guess by definition it does because being to put a sign outside your restaurant that says "Muslims Get Out" is a liberty.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51121719]You think perfect polite society is a given, but you have Trump as a candidate. And Islam isnt an idelogy, and Niggers arent a group to be challanged. Political parties and terrorist orgs arent protected groups but it isnt cool to say Fuck Muslims after a terrorist attack.[/QUOTE] Please don't try to exaggerate my argument with the "nigger" comment. Islam is an ideology, any religion is. If I can't question the tradition and morals of Muslim faith, then my freedom of speech is lost. If I can't challenge Black Lives Matter's effectiveness, or the protests in Charlotte, NC, then my freedom of speech is lost. And you are absolutely correct, it is never cool to say "Fuck Muslims", just like I said in my post. But, just because it isn't nice to say doesn't mean it should be illegal. You mistake me arguing for prejudice and stupidity. I'm not. I am simply arguing for someone's right to have stupid and prejudice opinions.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;51121745]You should still be allowed to have a sensible discussion on why you dislike a protected group or individual, and ideologies don't count. Also, no, protecting minority groups doesn't take away liberties for people outside of that group - I mean, I guess by definition it does because being to put a sign outside your restaurant that says "Muslims Get Out" is a liberty.[/QUOTE] Right, but if you were to come to America (and I imagine the situation would be similar elsewhere) and challenge any of the things I mentioned above, you would be labeled either racist/homophobic/islamophobic, etc. That just isn't the case. Sure, those things exist and are real, but just because you criticize something does not put you in one of those categories. It's a very sensitive topic because I don't think, as I have said, that it should be restricted in speech. But when speech turns to action, and there are things like refusing service to Muslims or refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. None of those are inherently violent, but they are morally wrong to me. But morally wrong, doesn't translate to illegal. Should they be refusing service on those criteria? Absolutely not. But should it be punishable legally for them to do so, I can't say for certain, there are great arguments on both sides of the spectrum about it. I want to say no, but yes is also a correct answer. Common sense tells me that those businesses would only be hurting themselves by being insensitive to their customer demographic, and that the natural order of things would sort it out without intervention.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51121803]My point is Muslims and Blacks are ought to be equally protected. This is the strongest word to demonstrate that point, make it clear to you people. Islam isnt an ideology, you can base your ideology off of Islam but no, religions arent ideologies, that is why they are protected under international agreements, but we are just gonna shout yes and no here, there is no convincing. Nobody says you cant You have a right to have prejudicial opinions, you dont have a right to promote them in public. There is this attitude that banning press and media from libel and hate speech equals to average John Doe being escorted to a FEMA Gulag because he happened to think "Maybe the fault is on Islam" and CIA Thought detectors caught it. No[/QUOTE] I'll be quite honest. You don't seem to be interested in having a civil discussion about this rather than just trying to land witty zingers. I don't know why Muslims or blacks deserve additional protections in order to be equally protected. That seems counter-intuitive to me. There is no need to use expletives either to try to drive a point home. We use civility and discussion for that. I also know that nothing legally bars me from criticizing others, but when I have to fear being ostracized as I mentioned, and you ignored, then it becomes an infringement on my right. And by "criticizing", I don't mean holding up signs calling for Jim Crow. I mean actually criticizing how silly it is to be violently rioting and destroying property and people, or how the BLM movement is failing to gain any progress. I also disagree on your final point. If you have a freedom of speech, you have the freedom to promote whatever you would like (sans violence, as we said previously). However, that doesn't mean people are entitled to listen to your idiotic ideas or that you are entitled to act them out. I also hate to pull the dictionary card in a debate, but I feel it is necessary: [img]https://puu.sh/rqI2e/28890a4d23.png[/img] If that does not constitute a religion, then I suppose you win by default...

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51121810]Right, but if you were to come to America (and I imagine the situation would be similar elsewhere) and challenge any of the things I mentioned above, you would be labeled either racist/homophobic/islamophobic, etc. That just isn't the case. Sure, those things exist and are real, but just because you criticize something does not put you in one of those categories. It's a very sensitive topic because I don't think, as I have said, that it should be restricted in speech. But when speech turns to action, and there are things like refusing service to Muslims or refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. None of those are inherently violent, but they are morally wrong to me. But morally wrong, doesn't translate to illegal. Should they be refusing service on those criteria? Absolutely not. But should it be punishable legally for them to do so, I can't say for certain, there are great arguments on both sides of the spectrum about it. I want to say no, but yes is also a correct answer. Common sense tells me that those businesses would only be hurting themselves by being insensitive to their customer demographic, [B]and that the natural order of things would sort it out without intervention.[/B][/QUOTE] They don't

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51121810]Common sense tells me that those businesses would only be hurting themselves by being insensitive to their customer demographic, and that the natural order of things would sort it out without intervention.[/QUOTE] the market can't resolve social and ethical issues relying on it to do so is sad

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51121829]Common Sense, people labelling, outcasting... Society is dynamic. You are raised in 2000s America, so you think everybody all the time are polite and nice and know better. In 1950s, American society labelled you. Society labelled you as a "niggerlover" if you didnt hate blacks. Do you really think delegating this task to the people works? You are very short-sighted if you do. Public doesnt police itself. People dont know better. If you want to give people the constituitonal right to be a dumbass, you shouldnt be expecting them to be polite & self-controlling at the same time. (I am giving all these african american examples to show you my point. You are indifferent to gays or muslims, but thankfully blacks are a universally understood topic in America. AFAIK.)[/QUOTE] I feel you have a very pessimistic and bleak view of the people of this "2000s" generation. Every generation is more progressive than the last. We aren't in 1950's we're in 2016. Also, society labels me as a racist or an islamophobe if I disagree with black movements or Islam. I fail to see how you haven't drawn that parallel as well. I have faith that the world will not become some racial cesspit if you don't specifically tell people not to be mean to others. Sure, that attitude will exist if you don't, but it always will. If you try to hide it in a corner, it is just going to get stronger and feel oppressed and lash out. However, you're just advocating for less freedom of speech in order to meet your ideals, which is wrong. People do change, people do have common sense. Some people more than others, but vastly more people do than don't. Unfortunately, those that do not are often the loudest. Do not confuse a vocal minority for the majority. As a side note: You also severely misunderstand my character if you find me indifferent to with the gay community. [editline]28th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=MrJazzy;51121849]They don't[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;51121868]the market can't resolve social and ethical issues relying on it to do so is sad[/QUOTE] Do either of you care to provide anything beyond that? I know that there are cases for both sides, but I also think that alienating your consumers is in no way beneficial financially. Someone that eventually comes along with a more logical mindset is going to overtake them.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51110102]Thats fucked up. Vigilante justice. If I write that on a billboard I should be fined. And have a criminal record saying I hate niggers. If I say that personally then of course I wont be prosecuted because it is not a slippery slope. Mass media such as billboards need to be regulated. You have federal regulation of TV in America. If they swear in daytime they are fined. Do you disagree with that too? Yes it is your inner paranoid America-drois talking. Look at the rest of the civilized world before you make baseless assumptions[/QUOTE] not getting business because you have a racist billboard on your restaurant isnt vigilante justice. If he was really denying muslims entry then he can already get shitcanned over discrimination laws, but he shouldnt be prosecuted for speech, especially speech that didnt incite violence.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51121803]There is this attitude that banning press and media from libel and hate speech equals to average John Doe being escorted to a FEMA Gulag because he happened to think "Maybe the fault is on Islam" and CIA Thought detectors caught it. No[/QUOTE] I don't know how many times you've been corrected on this but since you stubbornly persist in not learning, I'll say it again: Libel and hate speech are illegal in the US, and that's not the same as free speech. Again, there's a massive difference between a sign saying 'I hate blacks' and holding a public speech calling for the people to start lynching minorities. One is a harmless expression of an unsavory opinion and the other is inciting violence. Apples and oranges. In any case, no, the attitude is that banning press and media from expressions of free speech that don't meet typical standards for libel and hate speech on grounds of 'moral sensitivity' is ripe for abuse, given the historical applications of such laws in quashing dissent against the political, religious, moral, or governmental status quo. When you set up the premise that offensive speech should be punished through law, the arbitrary criteria for determining what is 'offensive' become a means of control. Ironically, you demonstrated this yourself with your magazine covers on the previous page- those are fine apparently, but a comedian is facing court and potentially jail time over insulting a head of state. What is acceptable versus offensive is an entirely arbitrary boundary that can be moved at will by the courts. I don't worry about people getting sent to gulags for having the wrong opinions. I worry about people being fined because a merely controversial statement like 'traditional Islamic laws are incompatible with Western democracy' becomes considered illegally Islamophobic out of misguided overprotectionism. I worry about this century's Thomas Paine or Voltaire being forced to choose between silence or imprisonment because their criticism of society, just like that of the predecessors I named, is considered offensive to the public. This is not conspiracy theory tinfoil-hat nonsense about gulags, it's stuff that we saw during the Red Scare or under the Sedition Act, it's stuff we're seeing right now in Russia and Turkey. Limitations on free speech enacted in the 'public interest' are very easily expanded to protect the state against criticism and from there to crack down on dissent. And yes, I am waxing poetic over a hateful, narrow-minded, xenophobic, likely racist expression of intolerance on a store sign in this particular example. The price of free speech is tolerating the free speech of others, and this 'fair-weather' support of free speech, ending right when free speech is used in precisely the capacity that free speech laws are intended to protect, utterly misses the point.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51121997]*babble*[/QUOTE] I don't know how to continue forward with you on this. Since you've started replying to my posts you have made gross misjudgments about my character and experiences. You have also resorted to absolutes in your arguments, which leaves no room for discussion. I am not going to continue on with a baseless character battle. The last thing I will say will be that I do hope you can find the motivation to open yourself up to the decency of the common person, and have a little faith that the vast majority of the people in the world are not out to do harm to others.

Snip

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51121875]Do either of you care to provide anything beyond that? I know that there are cases for both sides, but I also think that alienating your consumers is in no way beneficial financially. Someone that eventually comes along with a more logical mindset is going to overtake them.[/QUOTE] Not if the people you are alianating don't make up a big portion of your consumers, and even less so if most of your consumers don't care or share the views - see 1950s America.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;51122170]Not if the people you are alianating don't make up a big portion of your consumers, and even less so if most of your consumers don't care or share the views - see 1950s America.[/QUOTE] This is why I said I have a hard time making a decision on this part of the argument. Morally, it should not be allowable for service to be refused on account of discrimination. But at the same time, that also is an infringement on the freedom of speech. Personally, I find the idea of refusing service deplorable, and it isn't right. But the centrist side of me says that it isn't as easy as that to disallow it. As I said before, I do have faith that the culture will change for the better, and I am confident that it is nothing more than an obnoxiously loud minority causing problems. Once the older generations die out, I think it will become more of a historical detail rather than a present issue.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51122090] I am not going to continue on with a baseless character battle. The last thing I will say will be that I do hope you can find the motivation to open yourself up to the decency of the common person, and have a little faith that the [B]vast majority of the people in the world are not out to do harm to others.[/B][/QUOTE] While true there's certainly enough nasty people out there to warrant a police force, and if communities were capable of balancing their own system there would be no need of government. The fact of the matter is that all facets of modern life cannot be operated on the same scale, you need groups for high up things, more local groups for the nitty gritty and just about everything in between. In theory the government should be enacting the will of the people, if the people want to stop other people from putting up signs with hateful things written on them and the government steps in to do so then the government is doing it's job. I understand the US values freedom as one of it's sacred tenants but over here things are different, so from my perspective I think its important that the government have the ability to quench hatred where it is seen and prevent it form spreading, sure it's just opinion but when it becomes public it has the chance to spread to others. If a child grew up in a world where nobody could express racial hatred in any way, either via opinion or otherwise then they would not grow up with a concept of hating others. You might find this strange but it was touched on in 1984, if you eliminate the ability to express something, for example in language as was the goal of newspeak, then people loose that concept and cannot even form thoughts on the subject. Granted in 1984 it was used to detrimental effect to subdue the populace but if used correctly you could have a person grow up not actually knowing the difference between black people and white people or Muslims and Jews, which in my opinion is great because there isn't one, not intrinsically anyway differences in people come from their actions. America values freedom but that freedom can give people the right to inflict hatred and in a strange way encroach on the freedoms of others. From where I was raised nobody should ever do that and nobody should even complain that they can't do that, because why would you ever care if you can;t do something nasty if you didn't intend to do it?

This is the first time I've seen someone reference 1984 as a positive example of the benefits of thought policing, congrats [editline]28th September 2016[/editline] Is there some particular reason Europeans are so eager to live in an Orwellian nightmare? I don't get it

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51122227]This is the first time I've seen someone reference 1984 as a positive example of the benefits of thought policing, congrats [editline]28th September 2016[/editline] Is there some particular reason Europeans are so eager to live in an Orwellian nightmare? I don't get it[/QUOTE] maybe because europeans are capable of reading into his argument without taking the salient point as being "OMG 1984!!!!!!!!"

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51122262]maybe because europeans are capable of reading into his argument without taking the salient point as being "OMG 1984!!!!!!!!"[/QUOTE] I don't see any other way to interpret this. He is in very clear terms calling for 1984esque thought policing by simply deleting opposing viewpoints. That is Orwellian in a very real sense - by his own admission, even - but to him it sounds great.