Support NeoGAF

[rokkerkory]

There's a difference between condemning and banning hate speech, I'd have no proplem, in fact I'd prefer it if my government condemned hate speech. Banning it on the other hand is not only authoritarian but completely pointless. Europe has worse far right parties that are quickly becoming very popular and they have very strict anti-hate speech laws.

Never happening under Trump

 

[Red Mage]

I hate racism, but I oppose hate speech laws. Honest conversation is one of the best remedies for the stupid ignorance of racism.

 

[Ke0]

I hate racism, but I oppose hate speech laws. Honest conversation is one of the best remedies for the stupid ignorance of racism.

If I'm reading it correctly it's not asking for hate speech laws, not sure why so many people are saying that.

 

[M. Crassus]

Never happening under Trump

https://www.ajc.com/video/raw-video...rlottesville-violence/AfERyiJ6rZzCOa3f2bRMEN/

When left-wing narrative meets reality.

 

[mckmas8808]

I hate racism, but I oppose hate speech laws. Honest conversation is one of the best remedies for the stupid ignorance of racism.

How far are we allowing people to go before people can view it as dangerous?

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

How far are we allowing people to go...

As far as they can go under their 1st Amendment protections.

before people can view it as dangerous?

That's the whole point of the 1st Amendment. The government cannot step in, even if a bunch of people "view it as dangerous"? The law is very clear in that the government cannot take an active role. If we were alowed to censor things based on what some people "viewed as dangerous", then women wouldn't have gotten the vote, slaves wouldn't have been freed, Vietnam wouldn't have been protested, on and on down the list...

If you want to debate somone or expose them on the news or brawl with them in the street, you can accept whatever consequences come of that, but the government shouldn't be telling you and me what is or isn't acceptable speech.

 

[TheMikado]

As far as they can go under their 1st Amendment protections.

That's the whole point of the 1st Amendment. The government cannot step in, even if a bunch of people "view it as dangerous"? The law is very clear in that the government cannot take an active role. If we were alowed to censor things based on what some people "viewed as dangerous", then women wouldn't have gotten the vote, slaves wouldn't have been freed, Vietnam wouldn't have been protested, on and on down the list...

If you want to debate somone or expose them on the news or brawl with them in the street, you can accept whatever consequences come of that, but the government shouldn't be telling you and me what is or isn't acceptable speech.

I agree with the principle of free speech, but I also believe part of having free speech is where speech individuals express their opinions.

A public official should be free to condemn and disagree with speech they find offensive. This is an eroding of simple decorum. You don't need a law in place to have let people say calling other people
$h*t-F&#k @$$ Wipe is wrong.

The duty they have is to uphold standards of decorum and generally state that people should try to be decent human beings, not institute laws on what people can be thrown in jail for.

 

[TheMikado]

If I'm reading it correctly it's not asking for hate speech laws, not sure why so many people are saying that.

Exactly, the directive was that is was public officials duty to condemn just jerk behavior including racism.

Why you wouldn’t want your officials to encourage others be nice and treat others like human beings and rebuke people acting like jerks I have no idea. They’re still in their legal right to do whatever they want.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I agree with the principle of free speech, but I also believe part of having free speech is where speech individuals express their opinions.

A public official should be free to condemn and disagree with speech they find offensive. This is an eroding of simple decorum. You don't need a law in place to have let people say calling other people
$h*t-F&#k @$$ Wipe is wrong.

The duty they have is to uphold standards of decorum and generally state that people should try to be decent human beings, not institute laws on what people can be thrown in jail for.

I'm all about duty but we've eroded numerous sources of American duty by trashing our own religions roots, trashing our own history, trashing our own military, trashing our own police-officers.

Don't cry when "duty" goes away after all that.

 

[TheMikado]

I'm all about duty but we've eroded numerous sources of American duty by trashing our own religions roots, trashing our own history, trashing our own military, trashing our own police-officers.

Don't cry when "duty" goes away after all that.

So the solution is to further erode them?

Politicians have a duty to uphold the societal standards which keep our society together. Calling large segments of the population dumb or deplorable serves no one and shows a gross leadership problem. We need should focus on treating each other with at least a little common courtesy and respect.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

So the solution is to further erode them?

Politicians have a duty to uphold the societal standards which keep our society together.

You sound like a politician from 1910 insisting on a Christian governor or mayor. "We have to elect someone who will uphold our pure Christian values". I mean, ideally sure our politicians wouldn't act like fools and wouldn't stir up the masses and wouldn't insult one another, but that's not how things go. When there's discontent and heated disagreement, people tend to use aggressive words with one another.

Calling large segments of the population dumb or deplorable serves no one and shows a gross leadership problem. We need should focus on treating each other with at least a little common courtesy and respect.

Sure. I'd like to see the Left and the Right hold their politicians and their news agencies to higher standards. I don't see it happening any time soon, though, so in the meanwhile let's try to make the most rational decisions.

 

[TheMikado]

You sound like a politician from 1910 insisting on a Christian governor or mayor. "We have to elect someone who will uphold our pure Christian values". I mean, ideally sure our politicians wouldn't act like fools and wouldn't stir up the masses and wouldn't insult one another, but that's not how things go. When there's discontent and heated disagreement, people tend to use aggressive words with one another.

Sure. I'd like to see the Left and the Right hold their politicians and their news agencies to higher standards. I don't see it happening any time soon, though, so in the meanwhile let's try to make the most rational decisions.

That's the opposite of what I'm saying though especially with the obvious connotations of church/state issues in your example. Politicians should be expected to speak out on things which, while not breaking a law may be ethically immoral in society. I.E. using disparaging language when talking about a political opponent.
The rational decision isn't, "well since you aren't going to treat people decently, we aren't even going to suggest you should".

It's treat people decently. There's really no excuse not to encourage civil behavior. Its a building block of a functioning society.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

That's the opposite of what I'm saying though especially with the obvious connotations of church/state issues in your example. Politicians should be expected to speak out on things which, while not breaking a law may be ethically immoral in society. I.E. using disparaging language when talking about a political opponent.
The rational decision isn't, "well since you aren't going to treat people decently, we aren't even going to suggest you should".

It's treat people decently. There's really no excuse not to encourage civil behavior. Its a building block of a functioning society.

I definitely think our society should be holding itself accountable. But when our politicians are the ones who are speaking out about what is right and wrong, there is a risk of abuse and manipulation. There's a difference between someone being voted in saying "you think ____ is right and that's why you voted for me?" and a person being voted in saying "that opinion is offensive" or "insult insult insult". I think asking our politicians to "play nice" when it so obviously works to their advantage when they don't is fruitless. To put it another way, I don't think our politicians can be expected to speak nice if our citizens don't hold themselves to that standard. Lowest common denominator.

I agree with the ethics of what you're saying. I truly do. I just don't find it realistic or a priority compared to what else is going on right now. When our entertainers can say "F*** Trump" at a fancy Nationally-covered awards show, I think the issue of badmouthing one another extends far beyond our politicians...

 

[TheMikado]

I definitely think our society should be holding itself accountable. But when our politicians are the ones who are speaking out about what is right and wrong, there is a risk of abuse and manipulation. There's a difference between someone being voted in saying "you think ____ is right and that's why you voted for me?" and a person being voted in saying "that opinion is offensive" or "insult insult insult". I think asking our politicians to "play nice" when it so obviously works to their advantage when they don't is fruitless. To put it another way, I don't think our politicians can be expected to speak nice if our citizens don't hold themselves to that standard. Lowest common denominator.

I agree with the ethics of what you're saying. I truly do. I just don't find it realistic or a priority compared to what else is going on right now. When our entertainers can say "F*** Trump" at a fancy Nationally-covered awards show, I think the issue of badmouthing one another extends far beyond our politicians...

I agree that you can't force politicians to play nice in an environment which is rewarding it, but being polite costs taxpayers nothing and the issue here is that extensive time was taken just to rip out that language. It should have been an even greater waste of time to attempt to remove this information:

The internal administration documents show suggested edits Veprek apparently made, marked by his electronic State Department identifier on notes in the margins, according to a source familiar with the documents.
It's unclear if Veprek has the authority within the State Department to make changes to the documents, which are full of crossed out sentences and other comments vigorously contesting the UN statements.
Shortly after the edits were suggested, the US announced it was leaving the Geneva based Human Rights Council.
A State Department spokesperson said the agency does not comment on "leaked, alleged documents or internal deliberative material," but the agency did not deny the existence of the documents.
Rob Berschinski, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for human rights and member of the National Security Council under President Barack Obama, called Veprek's changes to the documents "explosive."
"It seems clear (Veprek) feels the UN language is targeted at the Trump administration, when it mentions racism in political circles," Berschinski told CNN. "Clearly, he is making these edits to reduce the power of the resolution, as relates to racism in politics."
Veprek appears to have struck out an entire section that links fighting racism with building a diverse democracy, crossing out the language, "acknowledging the linkage and complementarity of the combat against racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia with the long-term construction of a democratic, non-discriminatory and multicultural society, based on the recognition, respect and promotion of cultural, ethnic and religious diversity."
Veprek instead makes a case against multiculturalism in his comments. "What's the evidence for such 'complementarity?' Some commentators assert that a unifying culture (as opposed to multiculturalism) is the best way to promote social trust and combat racism."
The edits take issue with a passage that calls out racism in politics, crossing out language expressing concern over "the rise of extremist political parties, movements and groups that seek to normalize racism," as well as "xenophobia" and incitement of hatred and violence.

The problem here is that the message is very clear that he believes a homogeneous culture is preferably. The problem being that the US is NOT homogenous. Is it the governments place to make us culturally homogenous or allow the freedoms to be culturally diverse? How would he propose we force Americans to become a "unified culture"?

 

[bigedole]

I agree that you can't force politicians to play nice in an environment which is rewarding it, but being polite costs taxpayers nothing and the issue here is that extensive time was taken just to rip out that language. It should have been an even greater waste of time to attempt to remove this information:

The internal administration documents show suggested edits Veprek apparently made, marked by his electronic State Department identifier on notes in the margins, according to a source familiar with the documents.
It's unclear if Veprek has the authority within the State Department to make changes to the documents, which are full of crossed out sentences and other comments vigorously contesting the UN statements.
Shortly after the edits were suggested, the US announced it was leaving the Geneva based Human Rights Council.
A State Department spokesperson said the agency does not comment on "leaked, alleged documents or internal deliberative material," but the agency did not deny the existence of the documents.
Rob Berschinski, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for human rights and member of the National Security Council under President Barack Obama, called Veprek's changes to the documents "explosive."
"It seems clear (Veprek) feels the UN language is targeted at the Trump administration, when it mentions racism in political circles," Berschinski told CNN. "Clearly, he is making these edits to reduce the power of the resolution, as relates to racism in politics."
Veprek appears to have struck out an entire section that links fighting racism with building a diverse democracy, crossing out the language, "acknowledging the linkage and complementarity of the combat against racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia with the long-term construction of a democratic, non-discriminatory and multicultural society, based on the recognition, respect and promotion of cultural, ethnic and religious diversity."
Veprek instead makes a case against multiculturalism in his comments. "What's the evidence for such 'complementarity?' Some commentators assert that a unifying culture (as opposed to multiculturalism) is the best way to promote social trust and combat racism."
The edits take issue with a passage that calls out racism in politics, crossing out language expressing concern over "the rise of extremist political parties, movements and groups that seek to normalize racism," as well as "xenophobia" and incitement of hatred and violence.

The problem here is that the message is very clear that he believes a homogeneous culture is preferably. The problem being that the US is NOT homogenous. Is it the governments place to make us culturally homogenous or allow the freedoms to be culturally diverse? How would he propose we force Americans to become a "unified culture"?

Our culture in the US is not homogenous, but it's a lot closer than what's going on with muslim migrants in the EU, which is who I think that clause is really targetted at. I have no evidence for this assertion, but I definitely believe that the cultural gap between blacks and whites in America is not so vast (and actually, I do think it has been and will continue to converge) as that between muslims and western liberal (European) values.

I definitely agree with the edited statement that there is zero proof that mutli-culturalism is the best path forward, and over the last few years several real world examples have presented themselves quite to the contrary. Someone over in the other discussion about Germany and Merkel said it better:

The original plan was never to be multicultural. It was to be multiracial in a European values society which would be great and what I personally believe is the way forward. When the (mainly) Muslims didn’t play ball, they had to invent the term ‘multicultural’ and pretend it was a good thing. Well it isn’t, it’s just balkanisation of once unified and great countries. And the beginning of the end for them.

But there never was a real plan. For this to ever work you would first have to put European (or American) values on a pedestal and make sure they stay there. Then have a clear and profound integration program where it’s clear what is required and desired of immigrants. Not having it be fine to essentially create new colonies of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey within other countries. Large numbers of immigrants have no intention of ever being real Europeans, this is suicide for the host nations. Some native peoples homes, villages and towns have already become unrecognisable and are no longer European in nature. Of course it’s mainly the lower class people who have had to put up with it and this is where the ‘white flight’ comes from. It also sucks hard for the immigrants who DO want to be Europeans but find their new country is becoming the same as the one they left.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I agree that you can't force politicians to play nice in an environment which is rewarding it, but being polite costs taxpayers nothing and the issue here is that extensive time was taken just to rip out that language. It should have been an even greater waste of time to attempt to remove this information:

The problem here is that the message is very clear that he believes a homogeneous culture is preferably. The problem being that the US is NOT homogenous. Is it the governments place to make us culturally homogenous or allow the freedoms to be culturally diverse? How would he propose we force Americans to become a "unified culture"?

Hmm, I take that a bit different: I think he believes the definition of 'racism' and social construction shouldn't be in the hands of the Gov't, nor should the Gov't make a priority of that issue, nor should the Gov't pursue solutions for the issue while ignoring alternatives. The fact that 'racist' and 'xenophobia' has been used as a catch-all term against political opponents is probably why he doesn't want our politics to be centered around that. I happen to agree with his stance.

One might look at the surface and say "huh. He pulled out the anti-racist stuff. I wonder if he's a racist or that he's defending racists or at a minimum he isn't holding racists accountable".

Fair interpretation. I think another fair interpretation is that maybe Gov't shouldn't be the ones to call the shots on that. Pro-immigration discussion and pro-globalism discussion has been drenched in rhetoric and accusations of racism for a while now. I think if we're going to proceed with a rational, honest, non-combative conversation about world issues, then we should probably take the bite out of the "you're a racist" card to better facilitate those conversations, since that's where certain politicians always seem to take it. Not even Trump is so single-minded that he always resorts to "you're just trying to impeach me" victimhood mentality when things don't go his way politically.

If the goal is political civility and openness, then cutting out the "gotcha" stuff is the best way to go about it. This includes the vague, anti-racism rhetoric that is very open to interpretation and application. You don't go into an equitable political discussion trying to tie your opponents' hands first, do you?

 

[TheMikado]

Hmm, I take that a bit different: I think he believes the definition of 'racism' and social construction shouldn't be in the hands of the Gov't, nor should the Gov't make a priority of that issue, nor should the Gov't pursue solutions for the issue while ignoring alternatives. The fact that 'racist' and 'xenophobia' has been used as a catch-all term against political opponents is probably why he doesn't want our politics to be centered around that. I happen to agree with his stance.

One might look at the surface and say "huh. He pulled out the anti-racist stuff. I wonder if he's a racist or that he's defending racists or at a minimum he isn't holding racists accountable".

Fair interpretation. I think another fair interpretation is that maybe Gov't shouldn't be the ones to call the shots on that. Pro-immigration discussion and pro-globalism discussion has been drenched in rhetoric and accusations of racism for a while now. I think if we're going to proceed with a rational, honest, non-combative conversation about world issues, then we should probably take the bite out of the "you're a racist" card to better facilitate those conversations, since that's where certain politicians always seem to take it. Not even Trump is so single-minded that he always resorts to "you're just trying to impeach me" victimhood mentality when things don't go his way politically.

If the goal is political civility and openness, then cutting out the "gotcha" stuff is the best way to go about it. This includes the vague, anti-racism rhetoric that is very open to interpretation and application. You don't go into an equitable political discussion trying to tie your opponents' hands first, do you?

I do think it's fair for individuals to not support multiculturalism. Its their right as an American. However, America is a multicultural society, even from it's inception we have various religious groups of varying cultural backgrounds escaping here so they practice whatever they wanted to. Obviously this is an over simplification, but multiculturalism is in the DNA of America, thus the assertion where cuts out the entirety of the following statement does not make sense in the realities of present day or even past America and its commitment to protecting all citizens while having the rights of freedom and choice:

"acknowledging the linkage and complementarity of the combat against racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia with the long-term construction of a democratic, non-discriminatory and multicultural society, based on the recognition, respect and promotion of cultural, ethnic and religious diversity."

I'd even argue he would be right to remove the "linkage" aspect of the sentence. However the long-term construction of democratic, non-discriminatory and multicultural society based on the mutual respect of its citizens would have been accurate in acknowledging that part of our duty is to protect the individual rights of it citizens. This includes the right to be multicultural society. It was needless to remove the entirety of it. I'm not making claims of his intent beyond his own worlds of giving weight to a "unified culture". But it seems highly unnecessary to make the cuts to the document. It's the duty of a politician to aid in protection of citizens and their rights. Including their right to surround themselves in whatever culture they choose.

 

[TheMikado]

Our culture in the US is not homogenous, but it's a lot closer than what's going on with muslim migrants in the EU, which is who I think that clause is really targetted at. I have no evidence for this assertion, but I definitely believe that the cultural gap between blacks and whites in America is not so vast (and actually, I do think it has been and will continue to converge) as that between muslims and western liberal (European) values.

I definitely agree with the edited statement that there is zero proof that mutli-culturalism is the best path forward, and over the last few years several real world examples have presented themselves quite to the contrary. Someone over in the other discussion about Germany and Merkel said it better:

But again, our entire country was based on individual rights and the rights of the individual trump the rights of the collective. It's why we are distinctly different from European nations. We assert that no one holds a monopoly on culture or ethics and our laws right only should extend so fair as to create a fair and functioning society. We can't debate whether we are a multicultural country or not. We have been since inception.

Thus the only way to bring the US under one "cultural standard" would be to either force everyone to have one set of cultural beliefs or have no real definable culture. The US is far more of the latter. We even have "cultural" differences between thus advocating for a unified culture in the US doesn't make sense in the present, past, or future unless some drastic restrictions of freedoms occur.

 

[bigedole]

But again, our entire country was based on individual rights and the rights of the individual trump the rights of the collective. It's why we are distinctly different from European nations. We assert that no one holds a monopoly on culture or ethics and our laws right only should extend so fair as to create a fair and functioning society. We can't debate whether we are a multicultural country or not. We have been since inception.

Thus the only way to bring the US under one "cultural standard" would be to either force everyone to have one set of cultural beliefs or have no real definable culture. The US is far more of the latter. We even have "cultural" differences between thus advocating for a unified culture in the US doesn't make sense in the present, past, or future unless some drastic restrictions of freedoms occur.

I totally agree. I'm mainly addressing your specific passage about the changes the guy wanted. As a pretty capital L libertarian, I don't think the government has any place enforcing culture period. Everyone should be free to do what they want in the scope of the law. I do think the EU passage that was edited was awful and deserved to be stricken out as Veprek was suggesting.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I do think it's fair for individuals to not support multiculturalism. Its their right as an American. However, America is a multicultural society, even from it's inception we have various religious groups of varying cultural backgrounds escaping here so they practice whatever they wanted to. Obviously this is an over simplification, but multiculturalism is in the DNA of America, thus the assertion where cuts out the entirety of the following statement does not make sense in the realities of present day or even past America and its commitment to protecting all citizens while having the rights of freedom and choice:

"Multicultural" in its modern connotation can also be used to mean "distinct, untouched, uninfringed cultures existing side-by-side". This is a working definition being used in Europe to simultaneously advocate for more foreign immigrants and for less integration for those immigrants and for their children ("less integration" in the form of offering them welfare and isolated neighborhoods while not also introducing them to European values and culture through education, community outreach, celebrating national holidays, etc).

I'm fine for people from multiple cultures living in the same place in America. But there needs to be some melting. I think we agree that (to use a stereotypical example) that the cis-white Anglo-Saxon American Midwest neighborhoods could soften their hearts a bit to accept immigrants. The melting pot requires the residents to melt a bit and accept the newcomers. But it also requires the newcomers to melt, and that's not what is occurring. It's not a two-way street, and that's why people all over the world are concerned. It's not an American thing. It's not even an exclusively Western thing. Countries are realizing that there's a negative side to immigration if you don't also integrate these people.

And no, integrating them into your social services is not the same thing as integration into your society.

"acknowledging the linkage and complementarity of the combat against racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia with the long-term construction of a democratic, non-discriminatory and multicultural society, based on the recognition, respect and promotion of cultural, ethnic and religious diversity."

If I was in charge, I would also take issue with this kind of language. I'll break it down and tell you why:

acknowledging the linkage and complementarity of the combat against racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia -- okay, show me the linkage and show me the complimentarity. We have enough hard data. We can shine the light on it and let it be known for everyone to see. Let's identify this cancer and cut it out.Yet, this hasn't been done. It's a valid concern that many in Europe keep bringing up, much to the chagrin of the far-Left politicians.

with the long-term construction of a democratic, non-discriminatory and multicultural society -- sounds nice, just make sure you show me that linkage you brought up before. Also, what does non-discriminatory mean? Do we get rid of affirmative action? Do we get rid of illegal immigration which is political discrimination against legal immigrants? See, that phrase is highly malleable. I'd hate to see what someone in office could do with it...

based on the recognition, respect and promotion of cultural, ethnic and religious diversity -- How about based on the recognition, respect, and promotion of culture, ethnicities, and religion. Full stop. "Diversity" is an add-on that is entirely unnecessary. We don't win extra cosmic brownie points just because we crammed 10 religions into a geographical area instead of only 6. We don't win extra cosmic brownie points just because we hired 27 different races instead of 19. Diversity is a natural byproduct of respecting individual choice and individual rights. When you champion for Diversity for the sake of Diversity, then you end up with quotas. Are quotas good in your opinion? I don't happen to think so.

I also take issue with the term "promotion". That's a slippery slope. What are we obligating ourselves to do, and who will we be promoting? That goes against the 1st Amendment, doesn't it?

I'd even argue he would be right to remove the "linkage" aspect of the sentence. However the long-term construction of democratic, non-discriminatory and multicultural society based on the mutual respect of its citizens would have been accurate in acknowledging that part of our duty is to protect the individual rights of it citizens. This includes the right to be multicultural society. It was needless to remove the entirety of it. I'm not making claims of his intent beyond his own worlds of giving weight to a "unified culture". But it seems highly unnecessary to make the cuts to the document. It's the duty of a politician to aid in protection of citizens and their rights. Including their right to surround themselves in whatever culture they choose.

I think "multiculturalism" is a stunted, incomplete version of something we already have: individual freedom. Multiculturalism is built upon the idea that every culture has something to offer. This may be true in some cases. It may be untrue in other cases. It also depends on the context. But I don't think you can prove that multiculturalism is inherently good.

 

[Red Mage]

How far are we allowing people to go before people can view it as dangerous?

Unless it's a call for violence, harassment, or other criminal activity, whatever stupid crap that they want to say. Then we can explain to them why they are idiots.