next »

[s0]

perhaps someone should tell this dude that hate speech laws in liberal democratic states are notoriously ineffective.

example: nazism and anything associated with it (symbols, certain phrases, the "sieg heil" greeting, holocaust denial) is outlawed in both germany and austria. yet both of these countries have political parties with barely covered up neo nazi ties currently going strong. the far right austrian presidential candidate is openly(!) part of a group that doesn't accept austria as a sovereign state and wants to restore the german reich.

the state in liberal democratic systems is fairly "weak". not weak enough for the tastes anarchists and hardcore libertarians ofc, but that's beside the point. to actually enforce hate speech laws with any effectiveness would require levels of state power and surveillance (less what the NSA does, more like what the Stasi in east germany did) that far outstrip anything a liberal democratic state can do. it would require a totalitarian system. otherwise these laws, even if people occasionally get punished for breaking them, are mainly paper tigers.

[Torchkas]

I believe he was also worried about the state of his job and colleagues. If you watch his update video, there will be a live debate hosted at the Toronto university surrounding the issue. Seems like the teacher got what he wanted.

[s0]

welp

[gimymblert]

We see these argument everytime a minority gain rights and respects, we see how much they are moot after the facts, it doesn't solve anything either but help reduce the normalization of direct aggressiveness against said minority. Hindsight anti woman voter rhetorics help cast those argument in historical ridicule.

[s0]

btw: "the world is being overrun by radical leftists". lol i wish.

[gimymblert]

BTW not thought through Opinion time:

I believe a lot of angst (that actually come from both minority and left over from the dominant group who turn to racism as a rationalization of their condition) have been given birth by what I call compromise currency, actually best exemplify by Hillary clinton. Basically the need of the base (the declining middle class which comprise minority and dominant) are quite similar, but politician class their wish into white and left, pit them together, and use compromise to trade their plight as a way to maintain power and keep their position and status. With compromise they can point at what they did to maintain fervor of their base. The compromise currency work like that, some need are traded for other in the other camp, which mean some stuff are done and some are undone, it's a dance that keep no progress ever being done in any direction at all. The thing is the concept of race and dominant group as been conceptualize to keep the base from conceiving a common destiny and working together, pitting all group against each other to create opportunity for politics to gather compromise currency, they can promise to fix things created artificially and ignore actual problem when they see fit, that's a diversion tactics. They can always endlessly promise to fix things, and of course teh hidden cost of compromise currency is desillusion waste, the bigger the waste the more angry people get, until it blows up, nothing matter anymore. This election is only the beginning, the worse can happen. I don't think it's a PC going too far or racist going to far, those thing are symptoms of the growing impatience in the face of complacent elite. People hang to whatever reason give them a reason rationalize their anger and lash on.

[s0]

this is very close to marxist critiques of liberal democracy lol

[gimymblert]

well libertarian must love marx then IDK lol

[s0]

left-libertarianism is a thing that exists ya know.

[gimymblert]

Is that open source? bringing production in the hand of people with anti propriety sentiment?

[s0]

well libertarian must love marx then IDK lol

i don't think marx himself said those things, but modern marxist thinkers definitely have.

the real question tho is: what do you propose instead of the compromise based system we have now? that's where the left/right spectrum really starts mattering as well. do you think a people's revolution can fix things? do you think the government should be abolished or kept small or replaced with a new one? do you believe society can work itself out or do you think it needs leaders? etc. etc.

also, sorry if i'm misunderstanding you, but from your post it seems like you think racism is a "fake" problem or a problem created by elites? it's seductive to atttribute every social problem to divide and conquer strategies by the ruling class and thereby reduce society to a simple formula, but there are plenty of problems that are "bottom up" just as much as they are "top down", racism being one of them. society does not necessarily follow logical rules and is paradoxical in many many ways. then there's the problem of common class interests. in some limited way, they do probably exist, but there isn't any sort of consensus among people of a class as to what constitutes those interests (besides western societies don't have neatly defined classes anymore). sure you could again explain this away as divide&conquer, the masses being brainwashed into wanting something they don't really want etc. but in the end, there are just genuinely divergent ideas of what people want and expect out of life (which is where the left/right spectrum comes in again).

[gimymblert]

No racism (as in black and white) as historical roots in being fabricated to divide and conquer, it's like other my own history, it's documented.

In the early day of Caribbean colony with the first import of slave, colon and lave mixed and inter married. They codified rules so it does not happen and wreak havok on their power. A lot of early white colon where actually poor white people forced away into the colony, they had a shared grudge against the government and weren't treated better (they are the irish excuse of caraibean). However with social stratification enforced through given privilege, they enforced the attitude we have now. That damn "code noire" is something that you can read right now!

Similar phenomenon happen in the state, but more notably after abolition, poor white and poor black lived together in the same condition, owner double down on the status of white (hence why we have country song of pride that basically we are poor but at least we are white) by selectively giving privilege to poor white over black because white.

Also happen in africa, documented in many place, (see Rhodesia and white washed Queen sheba).

I mean common, I share those thing in many different form in the sj thread.

Also it's very different from nationalist/tribes/family/caste kind of "racism", like the one who fuelled the slave trade in africa.

I'm saying that the historical fake dichotomy of racism like in the US and the Caribbean is used by current politics as opportunities, mostly because it has been carved systematically by history and unquestioned mindset and ritual.

[Dacke]

original libertarianism belongs in the tradition of socialistic anarchism

the term was hijacked by US rightwingers, which is why we mostly hear about US libertarianism

the real question tho is: what do you propose instead of the compromise based system we have now? that's where the left/right spectrum really starts mattering as well. do you think a people's revolution can fix things? do you think the government should be abolished or kept small or replaced with a new one? do you believe society can work itself out or do you think it needs leaders? etc. etc.

yes to all of these. It all depends on what time frame we're talking about. I think both bottom-up and top-down problems need to be addressed bottom-up. I think it's naive to think that regular people will just be good by themselves, and even more naïve to believe that elites will work towards a true common good. But to fix both of those things, I think the only sustainable solution is to create bottom-up-movements based on solidarity across groups and "rejection of illegitimate power structures" (to quote Chomsky)

[s0]

original libertarianism belongs in the tradition of socialistic anarchism

the term was hijacked by US rightwingers, which is why we mostly hear about US libertarianism

yes. the "correct" term would be liberal but that has a different meaning in the US and hence would cause confusion over there. that's why right wing anti-tax free market liberals started calling themselves libertarian. and because US culture influences everyone else, this terminology, which is actually peculiar to the US system was adopted by people in other parts of the world.

EDIT/TANGENT: i think this is kinda a problem with english language socio-political discussion in general. even non-americans like us almost involuntarily adopt a US perspective simply because US terminology is so widespread and US discourse is so dominant in the anglosphere. when i talk about my home country's political system in english i have to translate a lot.

[s0]

@gimmy: true. i was wrong about racism lol. in my defense i wrote that post at 5AM. i was staying up late because couldn't sleep. thanks for the history.

i guess what i wanted to say is that there's both top down and bottom up bigotry, even if racism is mostly top down.

[Schoq]

Tangentially let me complain about the phenomenon of europeans spending way too much time reading and discussing American politics on reddit to the point that they, in discussions with countrypersons about domestic politics, start bringing up distinctly American issues (like conservatives obsessing over which bathroom trans people use) and using American terminology (like liberal to mean leftist instead of liberal) and sound like dumasses

[s0]

Tangentially let me complain about the phenomenon of europeans spending way too much time reading and discussing American politics on reddit to the point that they, in discussions with countrypersons about domestic politics, start bringing up distinctly American issues (like conservatives obsessing over which bathroom trans people use) and using American terminology (like liberal to mean leftist instead of liberal) and sound like dumasses

yeh thats part of what i meant

[gimymblert]

[Schoq]

dammit I literally just

[Dacke]

And the answer lies in the population; it's understanding and perception of power. The only answer I can see is to create a population that's ideologically motivated to work for solidarity and reject illegitimate power structures.