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

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51122275]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.[/QUOTE] so you think there is merit in the idea of people being brought up as racist? because the example he brought up was someone being brought up without a distinction between black and white skinned people do you think this is bad?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51122275]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.[/QUOTE] You're already socially conditioned. I would also say that the things he's saying it would be good to get rid of eg racism are learned so whats wrong with learning otherwise?

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51122294]so you think there is merit in the idea of people being brought up as racist?[/QUOTE] I think there is merit in the idea of letting people express themselves and come to their own conclusions based on interaction with other people rather than boxing them up and telling them how to think or else they go to fucking jail. I'd rather have an active hate group like the KKK going around saying niggers must die and not hurting anyone than have the entire country force-fed the thoughts and opinions of the government.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51122301]I think there is merit in the idea of letting people express themselves and come to their own conclusions based on interaction with other people rather than boxing them up and telling them how to think or else they go to fucking jail.[/QUOTE] so let me get this straight you have the opportunity to make the idea of racism impossible - we're not talking about any other form of expression, just racism would you do it?

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51122311]so let me get this straight you have the opportunity to make the idea of racism impossible - we're not talking about any other form of expression, just racism would you do it?[/QUOTE] Not by thought policing, mind control or hitting people with very large sticks. Not now, not ever. Absolutely not.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51122315]Not by thought policing, mind control or hitting people with very large sticks. Not now, not ever. Absolutely not.[/QUOTE] thought policing in this instance meaning educating from birth not to see a difference between races i mean, thought policing is just a garbage scareword for "education" really, but i'll buy into it but, it's enlightening that even if the process was through education and admitting that racism is wrong, you'd be against it unless you're willing to say that the idea of racism isn't wrong

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51122324]thought policing in this instance meaning educating from birth not to see a difference between races i mean, thought policing is just a garbage scareword for "education" really, but i'll buy into it[/QUOTE] You don't educate people by making their opinions illegal and jailing them for expressing beliefs you disagree with. That's called thought policing. That is much worse than idle racism. We aren't talking about education in schools or whatever. You don't get to move the goalposts around like this and go "see? you're racist!"

[QUOTE=thisguy123;51122219]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?[/QUOTE] I have to agree with Granadiac on this. I really can't get behind the idea of what is basically thought policing. If the government was the will of the people, and the people advocated for segregation, would it still be acceptable for them to enact the will of the people? Also, there are so many flaws with the idea of suppressing an idea out of existence, that it really cannot stand on its own. See: slavery, burning of books, Holocaust, jihad, Sedition Act, Red Scare, and many many more.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51122361]I have to agree with Granadiac on this. I really can't get behind the idea of what is basically thought policing. If the government was the will of the people, and the people advocated for segregation, would it still be acceptable for them to enact the will of the people? Also, there are so many flaws with the idea of suppressing an idea out of existence, that it really cannot stand on its own. See: slavery, burning of books, Holocaust, jihad, Sedition Act, Red Scare, and many many more.[/QUOTE] But if racism is learned than whats wrong with unlearning it? Is it the idea of losing racism, is it the principle or is it the bad precedent?

[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] Why would you do that?

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51122365]But if racism is learned than whats wrong with unlearning it? Is it the idea of losing racism, is it the principle or is it the bad precedent?[/QUOTE] Again, we aren't discussing the idea of educating racism out - that's fine, we're doing it in the US currently and it's working. This is a soft, passive approach and it's more about tackling ignorance. In the US you cannot go to jail for being a racist as long as you don't hurt people. thisguy123's post was calling for something far worse than educating it out - specifically to eliminate the ability to express something ala 1984 - which is achieved with information manipulation and imprisonment for "crimethink".

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51121581]The Internet is different but if JihadWatch or Stormfront try to make a magazine or a newspaper I would be for shutting them down or penalizing shops selling them. Books, are cultural heritage, store them in libraries and ban their retail sale or penalize bookstores selling them. Probably online ordering will work in these situations, and you ccan borrow books, so not really blocking speech entirely. As longa s it is not promoted it is OK for them to exist.[/QUOTE] You realize that media like books and internet is a form of free speech right? So youre against a guy preeching hate in public but youre fine with an internet news article doing the same? The removal of net neutrality or censorship or books, or censorship in general, is the exact same as restricting free speech. As soon as censorship hits close to home for you, its not right.....

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51122311]so let me get this straight you have the opportunity to make the idea of racism impossible - we're not talking about any other form of expression, just racism would you do it?[/QUOTE] It's a fantastic principle but as we can clearly see from these forums having a difference of opinion can get you dubbed as racist. Racism seems to be a much broader concept than it really is nowadays.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51122275]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.[/QUOTE] Not the thought police no, i wasn't referring to them, I was referring to how newspeak would bring about a generation of people UNABLE to form those thoughts, you yourself have had similar "thought conditioning" to see true freedom as something positive. It's been ingrained into you from birth to the point where it's difficult for you to see an opposing viewpoint, and in that regard I can't actually call your views "wrong" I simply disagree with them and think there's a better way. In fact you can actually GIVE abilities in this way as opposed to taking, there is an old aboriginal language that means people always speak in terms of cardinal directions, as a result they almost always know which way is north. [video]https://youtu.be/QYlVJlmjLEc?t=107[/video] The things Orwell wrote about were used in the context of a cruel and oppressive regime, what if they were instead used for something good? What if we used them to remove hatred and usher in a new generation of people of peace and tolerance. After all, the only real difference between a knife and a scalpel is how you use them.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51122329]You don't educate people by making their opinions illegal and jailing them for expressing beliefs you disagree with. That's called thought policing. That is much worse than idle racism. We aren't talking about education in schools or whatever. You don't get to move the goalposts around like this and go "see? you're racist!"[/QUOTE] move the goalposts? excuse me? you complained about thisguy making a post saying that although in 1984 the method was used to punish thought against the party, if people were brought up to not see a difference between the races, the effect would be positive you fucking moved the goalposts the moment the game fucking started i assume you complain about the fact the pledge of allegiance is still a thing in america, considering that it's an enormous example of brainwashing

I would rather that nobody had the power to delete viewpoints they disagree with. [editline]28th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51122424]move the goalposts? excuse me? you complained about thisguy making a post saying that although in 1984 the method was used to punish thought against the party, if people were brought up to not see a difference between the races, the effect would be positive you fucking moved the goalposts the moment the game fucking started i assume you complain about the fact the pledge of allegiance is still a thing in america, considering that it's an enormous example of brainwashing[/QUOTE] I do actually complain about the pledge, yeah. I didn't recite it after realizing how weird it was and I was part of the group that got the rule about saying it changed in my school. You are moving the goalposts, though, by talking about soft education like the US already has (which is working) when I was replying to someone literally advocating for fascism as long as it only applies to people they disagree with -- "first they came for the socialists..." and so on.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51122426]I do actually complain about the pledge, yeah. I didn't recite it after realizing how weird it was and I was part of the group that got the rule about saying it changed in my school.[/QUOTE] great, then perhaps the whole orwellian nightmare isn't something exclusive to europeans considering you pledge allegiance to your country at an age where you're barely capable of critical thinking

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51122365]But if racism is learned than whats wrong with unlearning it? Is it the idea of losing racism, is it the principle or is it the bad precedent?[/QUOTE] No one here is advocating for racism, and if you read back on my post I am explicitly clear about that. Racism, as Grenadiac said, should be educated out of the population, target the intolerance and ignorance that breeds it. Simply trying to hide it under the rug by banning speech about it is not going to do anything but make those in that category feel oppressed, and react worse than they would normally.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51122445]great, then perhaps the whole orwellian nightmare isn't something exclusive to europeans considering you pledge allegiance to your country at an age where you're barely capable of critical thinking[/QUOTE] You will find very few Americans reading 1984 and going "gee, that sounds great! I'm voting INGSOC today!" We have our Orwellian flavors which should be eliminated but people here aren't actively clawing to get more.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51122449]You will find very few Americans reading 1984 and going "gee, that sounds great! I'm voting INGSOC today!" We have our Orwellian flavors which should be eliminated but people here aren't actively clawing to get more.[/QUOTE] No, because your "Orwellian flavors" are usually called "Patriotism".

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51122478]No, because your "Orwellian flavors" are usually called "Patriotism".[/QUOTE] And what is your argument? At this point you've resorted to trying to get those sick zingers in when I very clearly agree with you regarding US patriotism. When are you going to go back to calling me a racist?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51122426]I would rather that nobody had the power to delete viewpoints they disagree with.[/QUOTE] The problem is that you see it as an entity censoring opinions and views because said entity disagrees with it, while it is a much more concrete issue that applies to very specific circumstances - it's not an abstract concept that is up to much interpretation, though there certainly is some interpretation which is why censorship varies between nations. Even in countries where the censorship can be considered quite broad such as in Sweden, you are still allowed to hold whatever viewpoint you want and express said viewpoint if you do it in a proper manner when relevant: [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Sweden#Hate_speech"]The crime does not prohibit a pertinent and responsible debate (en saklig och vederhäftig diskussion), nor statements made in a completely private sphere.[/URL] And in cases where hate speech is brought to legal attention, it goes through a long legal process and is more often than not dropped.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;51122492]The problem is that you see it as an entity censoring opinions and views because said entity disagrees with it, while it is a much more concrete issue that applies to very specific circumstances - it's not an abstract concept that is up to much interpretation, though there certainly is some interpretation which is why censorship varies between nations. Even in countries where the censorship can be considered quite broad such as in Sweden, you are still allowed to hold whatever viewpoint you want and express said viewpoint if you do it in a proper manner when relevant: [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Sweden#Hate_speech"]The crime does not prohibit a pertinent and responsible debate (en saklig och vederhäftig diskussion), nor statements made in a completely private sphere.[/URL] And in cases where hate speech is brought to legal attention, it goes through a long legal process and is more often than not dropped.[/QUOTE] Great but once again that's not what I'm arguing against, I'm arguing against "hey, imprisoning people for having the wrong opinion and mutilating the language to make it impossible to express things we don't like worked great in 1984, why don't we try it irl???"

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51122486]And what is your argument? At this point you've resorted to trying to get those sick zingers in when I very clearly agree with you regarding US patriotism. When are you going to go back to calling me a racist?[/QUOTE] You're welcome to point out where I called you a racist.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51122501]You're welcome to point out where I called you a racist.[/QUOTE] Please don't insult the audience by acting like you weren't trying to imply it [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51122324]but, it's enlightening that even if the process was through education and admitting that racism is wrong, you'd be against it unless you're willing to say that the idea of racism isn't wrong[/QUOTE]

I can't recall a single news thread here on Facepunch where crackdown on hate speech has actually been abused in order to censor something that hasn't been outright hatespeech - yet this discussion is constantly brought up in these threads. Non-authorities being upset over sexist video games or whatever don't count.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51122507]Please don't insult the audience by acting like you weren't trying to imply it[/QUOTE] no, i implied that you didn't think the idea of racism was wrong, and that you thought even if the process was through education, and admitting that racism was wrong, you'd be against the process i ask these questions because every single day on SH, there's another poster who posts a load of shit extremely close to racism, so excuse me if I don't give you the benefit of the doubt was I incorrect in either of those cases? do you think the idea of racism is wrong?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51122498]Great but once again that's not what I'm arguing against, I'm arguing against "hey, imprisoning people for having the wrong opinion and mutilating the language to make it impossible to express things we don't like worked great in 1984, why don't we try it irl???"[/QUOTE] Ah my apologies then, I'm not too big of a fan of newspeak either.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51122517]no, i implied that you didn't think the idea of racism was wrong, and that you thought even if the process was through education, and admitting that racism was wrong, you'd be against the process i ask these questions because every single day on SH, there's another poster who posts a load of shit extremely close to racism, so excuse me if I don't give you the benefit of the doubt[/QUOTE] So we're back to calling me a racist [because I disagree with you about censorship]. :ok:

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51122521]So we're back to calling me a racist [because I disagree with you about censorship]. :ok:[/QUOTE] if you don't see the difference between me asking you if you think the idea of racism is wrong, and calling you a racist, then i think i gave you too much credence when i first started arguing with you