Danish Politician Convicted of Racism For Offending Muslims

[Imran Siddiqui]

She'd also need an industrial strength... microscope

[Sava]

boom!

[Sava]

^^^ i really enjoyed that one

[Imran Siddiqui]

Resolved: This thread is now about the racism of Poly posters and handjobs

[My Hubby Loves Civ]

Seriously? Alright, you boys can masterbate to your delight! I will find a more fulfilling thread elsewhere!

[Imran Siddiqui]

[Elok]

Looking at the original tweet, it's entirely possible he was simply careless, and he (and his supporters here) take "Muslims" to mean "radical AK-toting Muslims/Taliban/IS." It's equally possible he/they consider/s that distinction trivial, because "raghead sand-****** immigrant scum," etc.

In an effort to steer the conversation away from finger-pointing: saying "eh, ignore him, he's just a racist" makes sense in the very specific case of racism because race is largely an illusion. The people we think of as "black," for example, may be very different genetically or have multiple non-black ancestors. All they have in common, really, is a high-melanin phenotype. A racist's whole position is based on fallacious thinking and may therefore be ignored (at least, his position on race; he may well be right about other things).

This logic does not apply for belief systems composed of ideas which (unless the believers are total hypocrites) will have some implications for the believers' way of life. It's totally rational to believe that a person's actions might be affected by his/her beliefs, and especially by active group membership. We do this all the time, when we conclude that YE Creationists are ignorant or that KKK members are potentially dangerous. The problem with this politician's argument is that the group in question is enormous and diverse; he's viewing the question too simplistically (assuming we take his tweet literally).

But I don't believe for a second that this controversy, or others like it, are about logic. He's getting chewed out for being offensive to prevailing values, not for being wrong. I can't say I care for that; in the long run, it does a great deal of harm and precious little good. We use "bigot" much the same way we used to use "heretic."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Being 'careless' in this fashion is a big deal. You've just tarred an entire, as you say "enormous and diverse", group with one feather. I mean that's kind of the definition of being a bigot, no? And the politician's previous positions seem to indicate that maybe this wasn't careless at all (or intentionally careless as a dog whistle).

[Aeson]

If you want a thread to not degenerate so quickly, start it with a [CIVIL] tag in the title.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Shhh... you can't give away all our secrets so quickly

[Aeson]

Um... how was Hitler stopped?

By Hitler.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

looks like the wife left this thread. I guess we can talk about anything now.

[Elok]

I mean that's kind of the definition of being a bigot, no?

I believe opinions should be approved or condemned based on their rightness or wrongness, not on whether they can be summed up by an epithet. In this case, the most literal interpretation of his remark is wrong, because some Sufi living in Manhattan is probably not interested in blowing up buildings. The less-literal radicals-only interpretation is also wrong, in that those schmucks are unlikely to prove half the threat Hitler did. And the threat they do pose is unlikely to be answered by purely military means.

The implication of our modern use of "bigot" is that a person and/or his ideas should be rejected on sight because they offend our morals. This is a dangerous precedent to establish, first because it separates policy decisions from logical reasoning and second because it tends to encourage hysterical behavior, as everyone rushes to condemn anyone so marked for fear of being thought a sympathizer. Over time, the term can easily become a simple cudgel to beat down dissent from the ruling ideology's orthodoxy. That's how it worked for Catholics and Communists, and I don't see why it should be any less ruinous for modern liberals.

[My Hubby Loves Civ]

If you want a thread to not degenerate so quickly, start it with a [CIVIL] tag in the title.

Thank you. I will keep that in mind. Is there some place I can learn more about making good threads on this forum? Hints? Tips? Or is it all learn as you go?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sometimes it is quite alright to reject someone because their morals are so beyond the pale. I'm fine with excluding the ideas of, say, the KKK from modern discussion. Policy decisions need not always be subject to the thrall of hyper-rationality either. Sometimes our emotional reactions are perfectly fine for establishing baselines. After all, we don't ignore folks who use the word '******' as an epithet because of some logical rationalization we've come up with. And yes, those people do indeed "offend our morals" and their opinions should be rejected until they can actually decide to not vocally express beyond the pale expressions. Do you normally find yourself in rational conversations with people who wish to exterminate all religion and religious believers because "they are evil" (or not even taking it that far, Bill Maher)? Why or why not?