| sapphi_snake said: I agree that times have changed, and the fact that rich people of colour benefit from affirmative action is quite stupid. Then again in the academic would scholarships are often given by merit, actual needs never being taken into account (so you can have a rich kid recieving a scholarship because he got good results, even though he's perfectly capable of paying it, and the money could've gone to help needier students). Sadly laws don't change as fast as scoiety does. Also, it's not people on the left who divide people into groups and treat them as nothing more than a representative of said group rather than as an individual, but people who are racist/sexist/homophobic, and who view being part of that group being in itsef anegative trait (while people who are part of their own group are "superior" by default). When trying to prevent discrimination you have to take this int consideration. Irrational speech (like racist rhetoric) has a more powerfuil psychological impact on people (especially when presenting arguments meant to incite fear). I've witnessed first hand how in a debate when one of the people is spweing irrational arguments that prey on people's emotions (especially fear) and the other is presenting rational arguments that actually make sense, the averege person (uneducated, or not educated enough), won't even take notice of the rational person's arguments. |
You make it sound as if the left can't be racist, sexist, or homophobic. At least in my country, leftists routinely call any black, gay, Asian, woman, and anyone else they feel belongs to them by rights, every name in the book if they disagree with them politically. Women become sluts and cunts, Asians become gooks, Hispanics become coconuts, blacks become monkeys... all for simply finding left-wing social and economic policies infeasible. And talk about stereotyping... I can't think of anything more racist than to say that all blacks have to be economic illiterates.
So because you don't trust people to hear an irrational argument and not act violently, the government has to act not just against violence, but against speech in the first place? If it's already illegal to incite violence, why isn't that enough? Because political correctness trumps actual correctness every time, hate speech laws invariably end up criminalizing the truth. If someone points out an inconvenient fact, like that every instance of rape in Oslo last year was committed by a Muslim, you might think that's fearmongering and defaming an entire group of people. You may even be correct that those are the intentions of the speaker. But it's also the truth, and truth should be an absolute defense.
