Should Racism Be a Crime?

[DocWatts]

41 minutes ago, Opo said:

I completely disagree. 

Loosing your job can ruin your life. Especially if you now can't find a new one. 

The punishment should be proportional to the crime. Loosing your job and being removed from social media for the rest of your life because you said something stupid is stupid in and of itself. 

We should focus on reform not on punishment for the sake of punishment. 

Temporary bans and fines would stop the behavior without causing unnecessary suffering. 

Be honest and admit that you don't know what kind of ego backlash would it cause. 

Germany was successful with policing hate speech. 

Is a company reprimanding/firing someone for overtly racist behavior any more unreasonable than that same person getting fired for sexual harassment? Both create a toxic environment that would potentially make other people feel unwelcome / unsafe, or at the very least excluded. 

I'm not opposed to what you mention about reform being preferable to retributive punishment, but fines seem like an incredibly clunky way to combat cultural attitudes that are deeply tied to individual/group psychology.

And from what I understand Germany's Hate Speech Laws are a tiny tip of the iceberg of a larger cultural movement to de-Nazify the country. No way that would have been effective without the accompanying deep soul searching and nationwide truth and reconciliation efforts. Not to mention a widescale international effort to address the socio-economic and security issues that the Nazis were able to exploit in order to rise to power.

While I'll grant that things like Hate Speech laws might make sense in some places such as Germany, here in America we haven't successfully come to terms with our legacy of racism to anywhere close to the same extent as Germany. A guy whose political base included White Supremacists won 70 million Votes in our last election. Attempting to police racist behaviors without a much larger effort to address widescale societal attitudes is almost certain to not work.

 

Edited April 8, 2021 by DocWatts

[Opo]

9 minutes ago, Boethius said:

But on the other hand, I don't see that there is any reasonable defense for a white person who gets recorded on video hurling ethnic slurs at people of color. 

I'm not saying that that person is innocent I'm saying that the mob usually can't decide a healthy punishment. 

[Opo]

10 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

Is a company reprimanding/firing someone for overtly racist behavior any more unreasonable than that same person getting fired for sexual harassment? Both create a toxic environment that would potentially make other people feel unwelcome / unsafe, or at the very least excluded. 

12 minutes ago, Boethius said:

 Bug

They should fire someone if they're a racist. I just don’t think that companies should be the highest authority in regards to racial issues. Because their most important priority is profits so if enough people make a fuss about an employee being a racist and they don't have any evidence the company will fire the person because it cuts into their profits and it doesn't matter what happens to the employee. That's what I don't like. 

I want something above the company that will protect the rights of the people. 

[DocWatts]

3 minutes ago, Opo said:

They should fire someone if they're a racist. I just don’t think that companies should be the highest authority in regards to racial issues. Because their most important priority is profits so if enough people make a fuss about an employee being a racist and they don't have any evidence the company will fire the person because it cuts into their profits and it doesn't matter what happens to the employee. That's what I don't like. 

I want something above the company that will protect the rights of the people. 

That's a reasonable concern. But the way you address that in my view is as part of a larger effort to make sure that workers are protected from arbitrary treatment by their employers.

[lmfao]

@SS10 What does outlawing racist language mean anyway? Language only has meaning in context, so right off the bat, banning a word would be stupid

Even that specific question aside, "banning racism" is a terrible idea. When it comes to things like job discrimination and other similar issues involving opportunity, yeah some legislation should probably exist. 

Addressing systematic racism can be done by trying to improve various facets of society. But you can't ban people from being racist. 

4 hours ago, Preety_India said:

People who have never suffered racism will never understand the grave impact that racism has on people who potentially have to face it on the regular. 

This is true. But when it comes to this general topic of prejudices in society and people who experience it, I'll make this broader point. Not everyone who's experienced racism will think the same as you or as each other about how it should be handled. 

And neither should they, because everyone's an individual and is free regardless of what they've experienced. 

I experienced a lot of racism in my early life, and I'll probably have the opposite opinion of someone else who did. 

For example. I remember when I was 5 years old in primary school, some older kids would just call me chocolate bar constantly. And just throughout primary school I had lots of overt racism thrown at me. When I was roughly 9 years old and helping my older sister deliver newspapers, there were just some white teenage kids throwing small rocks and pebbles at us, yelling "Paki" over and over again. 

Thankfully I brushed most of this off as it happened on those days and in those moments, realising some people are retards and very annoying. I called those older kids white chocolate and they got bored of teasing of me. 

But some things do linger, and racial prejudices can be so masterfully hidden yet undeniably present. Of course it pisses me off thinking about it. And no one realises it but you or people of your own race in those situations. 

 

However, I think it's very important to not turn this into a game where you close yourself up in your shell. Wouldn't want to play a game of "the oppression olympics". Because the truth of the matter is that everyone gets shafted and traumatised by what life throws at them, although some people might have it worse. 

Edited April 8, 2021 by lmfao

[BadHippie]

Quote

Germany was successful with policing hate speech. 

As someone who lives in Germany I have to disagree. How was Germany successful? 

I think overall it would be more smart to raise consciousness as a whole, so people won´t feel attacked for everything. You can find a person who will get triggered by almost anything there is.

The only way to deal with this is to give people the ability to become conscious of their own emotions, and don´t identify with "things" and realize that words can never really hurt them. Of course that´s a hard goal and until then we may need some regulations. But to solve that we would need better sensemaking and not what we currently have here on this "spiritual" forum.

Edited April 8, 2021 by BadHippie
Adding stuff

[Opo]

9 hours ago, lmfao said:

@SS10 What does outlawing racist language mean anyway? Language only has meaning in context, so right off the bat, banning a word would be stupid

And yet there are still a lot of banned words. 

43 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

As someone who lives in Germany I have to disagree. How was Germany successful? 

There is a lot less racism now. 

Same thing would happen over time banning hate speech just speeds it up. 

45 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

The only way to deal with this is to give people the ability to become conscious of their own emotions, and don´t identify with "things" and realize that words can never really hurt them. Of course that´s a hard goal and until then we may need some regulations. But to solve that we would need better sensemaking and not what we currently have here on this "spiritual" forum.

Please tell that to the normie and report the results. 

About the sensemaking I'm all ears. 

[BadHippie]

Quote

There is a lot less racism now.

There may be less racism, but there is a lot more fascism currently going on. At least that´s my own experience living in Germany. Of course that depends on how we define fascism.

About sensemaking, I think Daniel Schmachtenberger did a great job of conveying how it works.

 

[Forestluv]

4 hours ago, BadHippie said:

How was Germany successful? 

Compare Germany's relationship to the Nazi flag / Nazism and America's relationship to the confederate flag / slavery / Jim Crow. Germany is at a higher developmental stage and part of that progress involved narrative control and banning certain words / symbols. 

Imagine if the majority of Germans believed Nazism was a "Lost Cause" and Germany would have been better off if those criminal allied powers minded their own business in the 1940s and allowed "freedom of speech" by Nazi Germany. 

[BadHippie]

@Forestluv

The problem with Germany is that they didn´t overcome the past in any meaningful way. Sure globally they think we are a parade example, but that´s just how it looks on the outside. It was more like we faked that we overcome the past, otherwise it wouldn´t be possible what currently happens in Germany. 

Dushan Wegner wrote something like: "The Germany are behaving like someone who got hit by a brown truck, while crossing the street with a red traffic light, and now is fighting against everything that is brown - instead of fighting for the general compliance with the traffic regulations." 

We drew the completely wrong conclusions from Naziism, I think. Most Germans either think Hitler won by seducing the people to the "evil" side, or that the majority of people suddenly decided to become "evil". I don´t like either of these explanations, if you look at it psychologically you will probably think so too. A lot of people even believe that the majority of the 60 Million Germans felt freed on the 8th of May 1945, the day of the liberation. 

If people actually understood that "evil" always comes in the robe of the good, we wouldn´t have this extreme rise of fascism that can currently be seen in Germany on almost all the Newspapers and the public-TV. There is an agitation going on against everyone who disagrees with the current politics, that is making me sick just watching it. 100 000 people or more demonstrating, I´ve been there, and the people get vilified as Nazis, even though I didn´t even see a single one on the whole demonstration. I´m sure there were some (it´s impossible to have this big of a demonstration without there being someone from almost any group), but definitely in a minority. 

If you read German Newspaper, it´s disgusting how they frame stuff. Like last week I read an article and they wrote: On the demonstration there were right-wing people and people who demonstrated with right-wing people. That´s just bad framing, but sadly it works on the majority of people in Germany. I could say the same phrase with left-wing and it would still be true.

Or check out the way experts get publicly killed for saying what they believe. There is no discussion, they just get instantly labelled as right-wing, conspiracy-theorists etc. etc. etc. Crazy times here in Germany. 

 

[Forestluv]

4 hours ago, BadHippie said:

 

The problem with Germany is that they didn´t overcome the past in any meaningful way. Sure globally they think we are a parade example, but that´s just how it looks on the outside. It was more like we faked that we overcome the past, otherwise it wouldn´t be possible what currently happens in Germany. 

"Overcoming the past in a meaningful way is relative".

Do most Germans consider Hitler a hero? Are there hundreds of statues of Hitler all over Germany glorifying him as a brave hero who fought for a good cause? Is there a massive 20m Hitler statue in the center of Berlin glorifying the bravery of Hitler? Do most Germans take pride in the fact that their descendants were Nazis - as if it was a noble thing? Do German communities and government fight against anyone who tries to deface or remove a Hitler statue? Are there laws against defacing or removal Hitler statues? 

If not, Germany is relatively more advanced than the U.S. 

[Preety_India]

@Forestluv decided to follow you finally. 

[Roy]

Culture decides language, not law. What's that childhood phrase?

"Stick and stones may break my bones but words can never break me."

Edited April 8, 2021 by Roy

[Forestluv]

On 4/7/2021 at 4:00 PM, SS10 said:

I'm not talking about racist assaults, I'm talking on a purely language perspective. 

Language and assaults are inter-related. 

Language itself can be an “assault” and language is connected to physical assaults. Trying to separate the two as if they were two unrelated categories will lead to myopic views. 
 

It would be like saying “Let’s discuss how we should treat alcoholics. Yet I only want to talk about the alcoholic’s violence. I’m not talking about when he drinks alcohol”. Separating the alcohol from the alcoholic’s violence will create a distorted view since his drinks, getting drunk and acting violently are intimately inter-connected. 

When considering public policy on internet moderation, it’s important to consider the relationships between intention, language and harm.

[Hardkill]

7 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Language and assaults are inter-related. 

Language itself can be an “assault” and language is connected to physical assaults. Trying to separate the two as if they were two unrelated categories will lead to myopic views. 

This is why cameras need to be installed in every single public space throughout the entire country. This would definitely catch tons of people within the entire US sounding racist. It also would save many more innocent minorities from being attacked or killed by racists.

Edited April 9, 2021 by Hardkill

[Forestluv]

8 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

This is why cameras need to be installed in every single public space throughout the entire country. This would definitely catch tons of people within the entire US sounding racist. It also would save many more innocent minorities from being attacked or killed by racists.

This is the strategy China uses. Lots of people like it, yet others don’t. There are pros and cons. 

I would prefer a moderate level of moderation coupled to education and increased consciousness. 

Ideally, people will treat others decently because they live in a decent society - not because they are under constant surveillance and fear consequences. Yet the reality is that a lot of people are harmed. The question becomes what is the best way to reduce it?

There are also others ways to reduce harm. For example, identifying susceptible people and providing them resources. Hate groups and cults recruit vulnerable people that don’t have support networks. They are vulnerable mentally/financially/socially and get sucked into white supremacy groups , Qanon etc. 

[Hardkill]

5 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

This is the strategy China uses. Lots of people like it, yet others don’t. There are pros and cons. 

I would prefer a moderate level of moderation coupled to education and increased consciousness. 

Ideally, people will treat others decently because they live in a decent society - not because they are under constant surveillance and fear consequences.  

I don't see how republican conservatives, alt-right extremists, and racists in our country will be able to increase their level of consciousness no matter how much we educate them.

[Opo]

3 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

I don't see how republican conservatives, alt-right extremists, and racists in our country will be able to increase their level of consciousness no matter how much we educate them.

Then you don't know any. 

Everyone is evolving all the time. 

42 minutes ago, Roy said:

Culture decides language, not law. 

And what decides law. 

[Forestluv]

9 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

I don't see how republican conservatives, alt-right extremists, and racists in our country will be able to increase their level of consciousness no matter how much we educate them.

Yet what you propose doesn’t just affect extremists. It affects everyone. To take it to the next level, imagine we had the resources to hire a police officer for every person. The police officer follows and monitors the person 24/7. This would massively reduce crime by 99.9%, yet it is also extremely invasive. People don’t want to live with a police officer looking over their shoulder 24/7. There is a balance between harm reduction and invasiveness.

[Forestluv]

53 minutes ago, Roy said:

Culture decides language, not law.

Is it not a combination?

Consider the forum. Isn’t the language expressed on the forum decided by both forum culture and forum rules?