6 ms·

“hate groups” exist in the USA because this is a free country. In places without our commitment to freedom and human rights those type of groups would have been

“hate groups” exist in the USA because this is a free country. In places without our commitment to freedom and human rights those type of groups would have been suppressed by the government. Edit: just to be clear some of your other points are fair although I find the “Indian reservations” a bit dated - they are treated as local sovereigns (e.g. casinos, being allowed to violate state level hunting regulations) and are even now being allowed to expand their territory in some places .

semi-extrinsic 7y ago
The US "commitment to freedom and human rights" rings a bit hollow, IMHO. If you look at western Europe, free speech is restricted a little more, so "hate groups" are illegal. Yet in pretty much all other aspects, these countries are better at ensuring human rights for their citizens. I'm fairly sure that the US is lagging due to historical reasons. Without a war like Germany experienced, there is too much resistance towards a "clean cut" elimination of racism, so you get an exponentially slow decay instead.
- justaman 7y ago
  Germany implemented laws that forbid holocaust denial for example. The US has no such laws pertaining to its groups.
- greedo 7y ago
  So Germany, Japan (and other countries that experienced destructive wars) have eliminated racism?
  - semi-extrinsic 7y ago
    Well, eliminated is a bit strong, as you can never eliminate an ideology. The main point, however, is that Europe has shown over a span of several decades that restricting hate speech a) does not lead to any slippery slope where other forms of speech are restricted and b) that restrictions of hate speech are effective at reducing racism in society.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  > If you look at western Europe, free speech is restricted a little more I wouldn't call that "free speech".
  - Frondo 7y ago
    According to the Cato institute, the most free countries in the world are mostly in Western Europe: > The jurisdictions that took the top 10 places, in order, were New Zealand, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark (tied in 6th place), Ireland and the United Kingdom (tied in 8th place), and Finland, Norway, and Taiwan (tied in 10th place). Selected countries rank as follows: Germany (13), the United States and Sweden (17), Republic of Korea (27), Japan (31), ... So, yes, I would call what they have free speech, in any meaningful use of the word. Source: https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      Hmph. Citing a libertarian organization founded by, of all people, Charles Koch and funded by the Koch brothers. [1] 1. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Cato_Institute https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Cato_Institute
- Aunche 7y ago
  > The US "commitment to freedom and human rights" rings a bit hollow, IMHO. Another example of this is how many governments we overthrew during the Cold War, and how many dictators we installed in their place.
- yitosda 7y ago
  I don't think the prevalence of hate groups is necessarily related to any countries' commitment to freedom and human rights. Virtually everyone outside of the hate groups wishes they didn't exist, but it's precisely the commitment to freedom that makes it hard to shut them down. Is this a human rights issue? Again, we agree that we don't want these groups to exist, but I don't think there's ever been a "right to not have people hate you". I don't see a direct line from human rights to lack of hate groups.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
>“hate groups” exist in the USA because this is a free country. In places without our commitment to freedom and human rights those type of groups would have been suppressed by the government. Looking at the history of the KKK, for instance, I find this assertion frankly laughable. The KKK flourished then withered as a pretty direct measure of its government support, not because of some worthy indifference to the organisation. And if you stand up against them, as the Panthers did, well even the NRA will suddenly support gun control.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >Looking at the history of the KKK, for instance, I find this assertion frankly laughable. The KKK flourished then withered as a pretty direct measure of its government support, not because of some worthy indifference to the organization. Which level of government are you talking about? The KKK flourished when local and state government turned a blind eye. In both cases the Feds eventually stepped in. > And if you stand up against them, as the Panthers did, well even the NRA will suddenly support gun control. The NRA of the 1960s is not the NRA of today. You may as well compare the 1890 democratic party with the 1950 democratic party.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    Or the KKK of the 1960s with the KKK of today.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > The KKK flourished when local and state government turned a blind eye. In both cases the Feds eventually stepped in. The KKK flourished when it was a major power in directing local, state and federal (including Presidential nomination) politics of one major party and generally had a blind eye turned to it by the other, at any level where that party had any influence. There wasn't just s “blind eye” from government as a whole, it was a major active player.
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    >The KKK flourished when local and state government turned a blind eye. Local and state governments weren't turning a blind eye back then, they were turning a hooded one. >The NRA of the 1960s is not the NRA of today. I'd agree with you there, while they were just as politically insidious, it seems that back then they had some kind of remaining tether to reality.
low_poly_shiba 7y ago
if the USA is so free, how come its Communist Party is outlawed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954 >The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, which outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in, or support for the Party or "Communist-action" organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations.[1] How come all the communists were purged from e.g. Hollywood, including the writer of Kirk Douglas' "Spartacus"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism > During the McCarthy era, hundreds of Americans were accused of being Communists or Communist sympathizers; they became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private industry panels, committees, and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, academicians, and labor-union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs were sometimes exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment or destruction of their careers; some were imprisoned. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts that were later overturned,[3] laws that were later declared unconstitutional,[4] dismissals for reasons later declared illegal[5] or actionable,[6] or extra-legal procedures, such as informal blacklists, that would come into general disrepute. You can just repeat to yourself "I am free", but it doesn't make it so!

semi-extrinsic 7y ago

The US "commitment to freedom and human rights" rings a bit hollow, IMHO. If you look at western Europe, free speech is restricted a little more, so "hate groups" are illegal. Yet in pretty much all other aspects, these countries are better at ensuring human rights for their citizens. I'm fairly sure that the US is lagging due to historical reasons. Without a war like Germany experienced, there is too much resistance towards a "clean cut" elimination of racism, so you get an exponentially slow decay instead.

justaman 7y ago
Germany implemented laws that forbid holocaust denial for example. The US has no such laws pertaining to its groups.
greedo 7y ago
So Germany, Japan (and other countries that experienced destructive wars) have eliminated racism?
- semi-extrinsic 7y ago
  Well, eliminated is a bit strong, as you can never eliminate an ideology. The main point, however, is that Europe has shown over a span of several decades that restricting hate speech a) does not lead to any slippery slope where other forms of speech are restricted and b) that restrictions of hate speech are effective at reducing racism in society.
Fjolsvith 7y ago
> If you look at western Europe, free speech is restricted a little more I wouldn't call that "free speech".
- Frondo 7y ago
  According to the Cato institute, the most free countries in the world are mostly in Western Europe: > The jurisdictions that took the top 10 places, in order, were New Zealand, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark (tied in 6th place), Ireland and the United Kingdom (tied in 8th place), and Finland, Norway, and Taiwan (tied in 10th place). Selected countries rank as follows: Germany (13), the United States and Sweden (17), Republic of Korea (27), Japan (31), ... So, yes, I would call what they have free speech, in any meaningful use of the word. Source: https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    Hmph. Citing a libertarian organization founded by, of all people, Charles Koch and funded by the Koch brothers. [1] 1. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Cato_Institute https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Cato_Institute
Aunche 7y ago
> The US "commitment to freedom and human rights" rings a bit hollow, IMHO. Another example of this is how many governments we overthrew during the Cold War, and how many dictators we installed in their place.
yitosda 7y ago
I don't think the prevalence of hate groups is necessarily related to any countries' commitment to freedom and human rights. Virtually everyone outside of the hate groups wishes they didn't exist, but it's precisely the commitment to freedom that makes it hard to shut them down. Is this a human rights issue? Again, we agree that we don't want these groups to exist, but I don't think there's ever been a "right to not have people hate you". I don't see a direct line from human rights to lack of hate groups.

inflatableDodo 7y ago

>“hate groups” exist in the USA because this is a free country. In places without our commitment to freedom and human rights those type of groups would have been suppressed by the government. Looking at the history of the KKK, for instance, I find this assertion frankly laughable. The KKK flourished then withered as a pretty direct measure of its government support, not because of some worthy indifference to the organisation. And if you stand up against them, as the Panthers did, well even the NRA will suddenly support gun control.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>Looking at the history of the KKK, for instance, I find this assertion frankly laughable. The KKK flourished then withered as a pretty direct measure of its government support, not because of some worthy indifference to the organization. Which level of government are you talking about? The KKK flourished when local and state government turned a blind eye. In both cases the Feds eventually stepped in. > And if you stand up against them, as the Panthers did, well even the NRA will suddenly support gun control. The NRA of the 1960s is not the NRA of today. You may as well compare the 1890 democratic party with the 1950 democratic party.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  Or the KKK of the 1960s with the KKK of today.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The KKK flourished when local and state government turned a blind eye. In both cases the Feds eventually stepped in. The KKK flourished when it was a major power in directing local, state and federal (including Presidential nomination) politics of one major party and generally had a blind eye turned to it by the other, at any level where that party had any influence. There wasn't just s “blind eye” from government as a whole, it was a major active player.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  >The KKK flourished when local and state government turned a blind eye. Local and state governments weren't turning a blind eye back then, they were turning a hooded one. >The NRA of the 1960s is not the NRA of today. I'd agree with you there, while they were just as politically insidious, it seems that back then they had some kind of remaining tether to reality.

low_poly_shiba 7y ago

if the USA is so free, how come its Communist Party is outlawed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954 >The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, which outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in, or support for the Party or "Communist-action" organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations.[1] How come all the communists were purged from e.g. Hollywood, including the writer of Kirk Douglas' "Spartacus"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism > During the McCarthy era, hundreds of Americans were accused of being Communists or Communist sympathizers; they became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private industry panels, committees, and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, academicians, and labor-union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs were sometimes exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment or destruction of their careers; some were imprisoned. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts that were later overturned,[3] laws that were later declared unconstitutional,[4] dismissals for reasons later declared illegal[5] or actionable,[6] or extra-legal procedures, such as informal blacklists, that would come into general disrepute. You can just repeat to yourself "I am free", but it doesn't make it so!