Danish Politician Convicted of Racism For Offending Muslims

[Elok]

I can't say I've ever encountered such a person. The closest to them I've encountered have appeared to be too stupid and blinkered to be worth arguing with; they base their beliefs on an extremely skewed or simplistic reading of history and human nature that would take about a month of arguing to dispel, even assuming they were interested in doing so. The KKK are, AFAICT, similarly irrational. Although I've known very bigoted people who could compartmentalize surprisingly well; if your mechanic hates how the ****s and ******s are taking over America, you're generally safe assuming he's a loon and steering the conversation elsewhere--but that doesn't mean he's wrong when he says your transmission's going bad. Many people with hateful opinions are quite bright in general, they just have an elaborate superstructure of misguided notions holding up a prized set of bizarre beliefs. Exhibit A, our old friend Heraclitus. I think it's more productive to understand it that way than to cleanly divide people into sheep and goats.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Calling someone a bigot has never meant they don't know about your transmission issues. In fact that knowledge may be inversely related .

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course, ceteris paribus, I'd rather give my car business to the mechanic who didn't express views that blacks are inferior (or whatnot).

[My Wife Hates CIV]

yeah... right. $$$$$$$$$$$ see right by morals they do.

[Elok]

Calling someone a bigot has never meant they don't know about your transmission issues. In fact that knowledge may be inversely related .

You appear to be lumping together a large class of people based on stereotypes. What's the word for that?

My issue here is that, while it might not seem that way, there's a big difference between "ignore him, he's a crank" and "ignore him, he's a bigot." We can simply ignore fools; moral transgressors we feel compelled to actively punish. We're also much more emotionally involved in the latter, and therefore less likely to think clearly.

For example, you'd rather not give your car business to the racist. Possibly he is actively harming people with his beliefs--cheating black people who come into his shop, or shouting at them when he meets them in the street. I could see not giving him your custom then; hell, given your heritage, he'd likely do both to you too, and I could hardly blame you. But suppose, for the sake of argument, that your area has no black people, or that he is supremely good at compartmentalizing and directs all his ire at "those ******s" in the nebulous out-there rather than the ten black people he knows and marks as exceptions? I'm sure we've both known people like that, and they're for all practical purposes indistinguishable from people who believe in UFOs or dowsing or lizardmen. Basically harmless cranks. Why punish him?

Of course we're getting away from the Danish politician here; he does appear to be doing harm. My point is, we could all stand to think with our heads, not our guts. Our guts are, after all, best known for producing a lot of ****.

[Imran Siddiqui]

My issue here is that, while it might not seem that way, there's a big difference between "ignore him, he's a crank" and "ignore him, he's a bigot." We can simply ignore fools; moral transgressors we feel compelled to actively punish. We're also much more emotionally involved in the latter, and therefore less likely to think clearly.

For example, you'd rather not give your car business to the racist. Possibly he is actively harming people with his beliefs--cheating black people who come into his shop, or shouting at them when he meets them in the street. I could see not giving him your custom then; hell, given your heritage, he'd likely do both to you too, and I could hardly blame you. But suppose, for the sake of argument, that your area has no black people, or that he is supremely good at compartmentalizing and directs all his ire at "those ******s" in the nebulous out-there rather than the ten black people he knows and marks as exceptions? I'm sure we've both known people like that, and they're for all practical purposes indistinguishable from people who believe in UFOs or dowsing or lizardmen. Basically harmless cranks. Why punish him?

Social harm and stigma are basically the only ways to get people to change. The long sordid history of Jim Crow showcases the "why punish him" mentality. When you boycott; when you make it hurt, then you can perhaps effectuate true change by showing just how outside the pale that position is. And it may not change with him - but his kids may look and say when an entire group of people is saying his views hurt them and he stands tall that perhaps dad was a horrible racist (regardless of any positives) and we shouldn't be that way.

Nothing happens when good men and women see evil and decide *shrug*. In essence it just perpetuates the evil - as the famous quote goes (paraphrased), evil persists because good people do nothing.

[Elok]

Jim Crow was changed by using federal law, and at times armed force, to overthrow actually unjust local laws--not to punish people for merely possessing or expressing unpleasant opinions. The mentality behind those laws, AFAICT, has endured for an astonishingly long time--basically as long as it took for all their holders to become so old as to be socially irrelevant in our youth-oriented culture. Presently most of them will die, but such of their kids as were sufficiently sheltered from secular-liberal ideals will carry on their beliefs in private. Social stigma, by itself, does not appear to change anybody's opinion. It may compel them to hide their opinions for fear of reprisal, but that's about it. And given how very unpleasant extralegal "social stigma" can be to those on the receiving end, and the extremes people will go to express their displeasure (see: fate of uppity darkies under that same Jim Crow system), I am extremely reluctant to give license to any self-appointed moral authorities trying to impose "community standards." It was obnoxious when done by the Moral Majority in the Eighties, and it's obnoxious when done by ****heads on HuffPo or Salon today.

[Elok]

To put it another way, try a different analogy than Jim Crow. How does a modern campaign to shame and ostracize bigots differ from the effort to "expose" supposed communist subversives in the fifties, except in the choice of targets? Either group can be harassed, threatened, or made to lose their livelihood merely for a socially unacceptable leaning, without any evidence of actual harm done by said leaning. And in both cases the quest can easily disguise any number of baser motives. It's ugly and I don't like it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd strongly disagree. Living in the South one can see the difference. The younger generation is far less tolerant of racism as the older generation is. Why? The social stigma of racism. It was and is simply seen as unacceptable. Boycotts help show that this was not ok.

For the record, Jim Crow was changed using federal law AFTER boycotts and marches by protesters (under King and others) to highlight the horrid stain of racism. Why should the Birmingham bus companies be punished you may ask? Because change does not occur until people feel the pinch of their unacceptable beliefs. The power of losing profits changed the rules. And then after that came the power of federal action.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

oh my yes... there is a big dfference between north (new england states the most) and south.... hmmm... south could be FL... or AK. that's a big difference too. CA and west is as stange too. I guess it takes a 1500 miles or so.

[Elok]

Okay, Imran, we are talking (in the OP) about some douchebag Danish politician making an inappropriate tweet. More broadly, we are talking about impotent groups or private individuals expressing or holding opinions we don't like. That is rather far from a whole system set up to oppress a chunk of the population. As I've said before, I believe in the moral validity of boycotts if and only if the entity boycotted is doing something which ought to be actually illegal. Anything else is essentially an attempt to coerce others into self-censorship. And you can even boycott without activating the self-righteous ****head lobe of the lower brain.

The Jim Crow analogy is in general a poor one to use, precisely because it was such an exceptionally terrible set of circumstances. No group today is treated in remotely the same fashion. It's like everybody recognized Godwin's Law, then moved on to the next most clear-cut horrible thing in our national memory instead.

[grumbler]

As the OP of this thread, I don't think that one liner bickering and name calling is effectively adding information nor solutions. Call a truce on difference of opinion and focus on Denmark and not each other. Thank you.

I've been here, on and off, for a very long time, and can tell you that, if the personal attacks and red herring posts stopped, this board would hear crickets. You sound like a reasonable person, so i recommend you reconsider staying here. This isn't a place where adults discuss adult things.

Now, as for the unfortunate statement by Mogens Camre, I have no idea what he is on about, but I do think that his statements tangentially touch on a difficult subject. That is: to defeat ISIL, is the West willing to pay the price it paid to defeat the Axis in WW2? Kill millions of innocents (probably tens of thousands, in proportion) in order to get at the guilty? Harden one's heart in the name of the greater good? If it is not, then what WILL stop ISIL and its barbaric ways, and how many innocents will die because the West wouldn't gird its loins and take on the burden of innocent deaths?

If it is really true that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing," what is the something that good men must do to prevent the triumph of the evil (and I have no hesitation in calling it such) of groups like ISIL?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Okay, Imran, we are talking (in the OP) about some douchebag Danish politician making an inappropriate tweet. More broadly, we are talking about impotent groups or private individuals expressing or holding opinions we don't like. That is rather far from a whole system set up to oppress a chunk of the population. As I've said before, I believe in the moral validity of boycotts if and only if the entity boycotted is doing something which ought to be actually illegal. Anything else is essentially an attempt to coerce others into self-censorship. And you can even boycott without activating the self-righteous ****head lobe of the lower brain.

The Jim Crow analogy is in general a poor one to use, precisely because it was such an exceptionally terrible set of circumstances. No group today is treated in remotely the same fashion. It's like everybody recognized Godwin's Law, then moved on to the next most clear-cut horrible thing in our national memory instead.

The Danish politician, as has been pointed out, belongs to basically neo-fascist party and has a history of questionable statements about Muslims. So yes, it kind of does apply due to the fact that it appears his party seems like they wouldn't mind legally enforced discrimination. Making unacceptable comments about enacting / enforcing discrimination against other people in the society is beyond the pale and should be fought by increased stigma and boycotts.

And I don't actually have an issue with attempting self-censorship for opinions that are as morally reprehensible as enforced discrimination on a group due to their religion (or race). Actually I think it is something we should push for - your opinion is harmful in and of itself and therefore we want you to cease making these sort discriminatory remarks.

[Elok]

Actually I think it is something we should push for - your opinion is harmful in and of itself and therefore we want you to cease making these sort discriminatory remarks.

This is one degree removed from thoughtcrime, makes a mockery of the idea of freedom of conscience, and is only relatively benign insofar as the bullying is pointed at people you don't like. I submit to you that you would disapprove quite harshly if precisely the same tactic were used against groups you don't disapprove of--that is, you would disapprove of the tactic itself, not just that the gun was aimed at the wrong people. Say if the thing were reversed, and anyone voicing approval of Islam or Islamic immigrants faced boycotts and ostracism?

[My Wife Hates CIV]

ok so you think he is too harsh??? drunk... MHLC is asking, 'did you eat'?

but I like your posts.