8 ms·

Aside from me absolutely being in favor of even offensive and racist speech out of general principles, you'd be surprised (or not) by how easily "racism" can be

Aside from me absolutely being in favor of even offensive and racist speech out of general principles, you'd be surprised (or not) by how easily "racism" can be redefined to include all kinds of things that are very, very dubiously racist by any normal definition. There are extremely woke people who consider even questioning any of their arguments about race or class as a racist act. There are cases where a person making clear cut criticisms of islam as a religion is labeled racist because of its general association with the arabic world, and so forth. The list goes on. The number of people and public figures I've seen labeled as so called fascists or racists when their own clearly stated postures are emphatically not racist by any rational notion is large. Once some authority gains the right to prohibit racist speech, it's very, very easy for their definition of racism to shift as well. Out of many criticisms of the U.S. that the country deserves, its mostly rigid protection of free speech rights in a formal sense is one good thing, and it hasn't led to a hell of bigotry, or at least no more so than have weaker protections for free speech in other countries.

beaconstudios 5y ago
> Out of many criticisms of the U.S. that the country deserves, its mostly rigid protection of free speech rights in a formal sense is one good thing, and it hasn't led to a hell of bigotry, or at least no more so than have weaker protections for free speech in other countries. Depends on how you measure it. The US has some pretty notable racial issues, even compared to other Anglosphere countries. I wouldn't put that down to freedom of speech laws, but it's also not a very good defense of those laws to say that it's affected the level of bigotry in the US.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  But is racism actually worse in the US? I feel like in many other western nations it's just more socially acceptable, and not so controversial.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    I suppose it depends on what you mean by racism. Interpersonal racism seems to fly under dogwhistles moreso than outright statements now that it's socially unacceptable (in most places), where e.g. casual racism against Romania people is still pretty common in Europe. Judging from economic outcomes, though, I'd say the US is still pretty racist, even if being individually racist is mostly condemned (though I think it's fair to say from the Trump presidency that there was still quite a lot just bubbling under the surface).
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      That's fair, though I understand economic outcomes are very sticky across generations (IIRC descendants of Irish immigrants, for example, remain significantly poorer than other white people). Even if we could wave a magic wand today and eliminate racism altogether, I'd expect this inertia to result in black families having significantly less wealth on average than white families for many years to come.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        It's true that economic status is sticky (or in other words, social mobility is limited), but with black people in the US it goes beyond that into underfunding, predatory policing, gentrification etc that serve to compound existing inequities. While I think that we should aim to uplift poor people more generally through economic reform, in the specific case of black people in the US there are still definite institutional thumbs on the scale.
    - ciupicri 5y ago
      There's no such thing as racism against Romanians, since it's not a race, but it could be xenophobia. Or maybe you're making a confusion with Romani (Roma, gypsies) people.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        "romania people" is a misspelling halfway in between, so I wish you wouldn't assume they meant the wrong one.
- helloworld11 5y ago
  Many countries, including many in Europe have some very serious, heavy racial issues that are both more ingrained than those of the U.S and in quite a few cases more violent or openly discriminatory. The U.S. however is generally at or close to the center of global media familiarity and attention, so naturally, the theme of its own racial issues is disproportionately magnified. How many major countries are overtly ethnically homogeneous in the world, willfully closed or hostile to anything even resembling the mass immigration from all corners that the U.S has welcomed for many decades with only moderate tension? How many people in European states will openly speak of certain groups, like gypsies, muslims and so forth with extremely derogatory words, but barely be called out on it by anybody? I've seen it many times, and go back to my point above, that in the U.S. the same things would and do simply get more intense media attention. The U.S absolutely does have a number of very serious racial conflicts simmering at all times, but all things considered, I'd say the country does a remarkably good job of usually keeping them from getting worse, regardless of its high tolerance for free speech of even the most offensive kind.
  - ciupicri 5y ago
    What European countries?
    - zhengyi13 5y ago
      Every single one with a Roma population, likely. Anecdotally, I remember having discussions with Danish family in the 90s, about racially-related issues in America, and in the shape that they took, I recognized how woefully unprepared they were to really look at their own racist attitudes (e.g. vis a vis Turks and immigration). When I returned in 2019, and had a chat with a gentleman supervising a number of different immigrants on some sort of work-integration program... well, I wasn't much impressed with his expressed attitude towards the workers.
    - nonethewiser 5y ago
      France. Big time.
    - mardifoufs 5y ago
- noirbot 5y ago
  I think the important comparison there, and something I often keep in mind, is that the US is a lot more diverse racially, even with its segregation, than a lot of other countries in the world. It's a lot easier for a country that's 90% the same race to not have open and prevalent racial issues, since there will be entire cities/areas where you won't even meet someone of a different race. It's easier to be morally upstanding about you presume you and your fellow citizens would handle a potentially racist situation when it's hypothetical and not just a fact of life. None of this is meant to excuse any of the awful stuff in the US, but to point out that there's a lot of confounding factors. It was a lot easier for Europe to take the high ground on abolishing slavery early on when they were century old empires who could still fill their coffers by exploiting people in Asia and Africa directly instead of importing them.
- nullc 5y ago
  > even compared to other Anglosphere countries lol. I find it hard to not laugh at that. Having done business in US, UK, and varrious places in Europe, my first exposure to business culture outside of the US left me utterly shocked about the high levels of blatant and unabashed racism that was ubiquitous outside of the US. It often involved racial groups that weren't legible to me as an American but was was particularly striking in how unprofessional it was. In the US someone might quietly dislike some race or another, but in a professional context someone explaining a project delay with "You know those <race> can't be trusted to get anything right." would be shocking, but I encountered statements like that outside of the US a dozen times across multiple countries.
  - mardifoufs 5y ago
    Yeah, honestly it just shows how little americans know about the outside world. That there is even a discourse around racism in the US shows that people care enough about the issue. Outside the anglosphere, it is so normalized and institutionalized that it's not even a controversial issue. And when it is, it would be for issues that are way outside of the normal anglo overton window on racism. For example, it's generally accepted in france that you can't go to university if you wear a headscarf. It's not even a debate anymore really. Same goes for roma people, you won't ever really get any discussion on the racial dynamics or the socioeconomic circumstances that lead to the higher crime rates etc. It does not matter, the only discussion is around how much discrimination is maybe too much. The discrimination itself isnt even an issue.
ng12 5y ago
This is exactly why we need free speech. It's a pragmatic position. Of course I would like to live in a world where people don't spew vitriol. But for the reasons you outline that cannot happen except in an authoritarian society. As an illustrative point both Russia and China have constitutionally protected freedom of speech. They just added enough caveats that it's worthless.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > except in an authoritarian society. I would point out that governments in authoritarian societies have a habit of labelling certain groups of people as enemies (either because those groups challenge them politically, or because it's convenient to have a scapegoat to blame the government's own failures on), so in practice you end up with just as much, if not more, vitriol spewed in authoritarian societies.
heavyset_go 5y ago
> Out of many criticisms of the U.S. that the country deserves, its mostly rigid protection of free speech rights in a formal sense is one good thing, and it hasn't led to a hell of bigotry, or at least no more so than have weaker protections for free speech in other countries. Yet you can't say "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" in public schools because the judiciary lost their minds at the idea of marijuana use and its illegality. There certainly is/was bigotry when it comes to marijuana, its users, and speech around it.
throwawaylinux 5y ago
I have been called a racist for voicing my opposition to efforts to repeal constitutional prohibitions against racism. These lunatics somehow make up definitions that absolve themselves of their racism and condemn the anti-racists. These racist maniacs would absolutely have me censored and punished for my views, and their putrid racist ideology is infecting academia, entertainment, "news", politics, and even the law. So no you certainly can't rely on "reasonableness" or the social standard of the day to bound the limits of speech.

beaconstudios 5y ago

> Out of many criticisms of the U.S. that the country deserves, its mostly rigid protection of free speech rights in a formal sense is one good thing, and it hasn't led to a hell of bigotry, or at least no more so than have weaker protections for free speech in other countries. Depends on how you measure it. The US has some pretty notable racial issues, even compared to other Anglosphere countries. I wouldn't put that down to freedom of speech laws, but it's also not a very good defense of those laws to say that it's affected the level of bigotry in the US.

rootusrootus 5y ago
But is racism actually worse in the US? I feel like in many other western nations it's just more socially acceptable, and not so controversial.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  I suppose it depends on what you mean by racism. Interpersonal racism seems to fly under dogwhistles moreso than outright statements now that it's socially unacceptable (in most places), where e.g. casual racism against Romania people is still pretty common in Europe. Judging from economic outcomes, though, I'd say the US is still pretty racist, even if being individually racist is mostly condemned (though I think it's fair to say from the Trump presidency that there was still quite a lot just bubbling under the surface).
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    That's fair, though I understand economic outcomes are very sticky across generations (IIRC descendants of Irish immigrants, for example, remain significantly poorer than other white people). Even if we could wave a magic wand today and eliminate racism altogether, I'd expect this inertia to result in black families having significantly less wealth on average than white families for many years to come.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      It's true that economic status is sticky (or in other words, social mobility is limited), but with black people in the US it goes beyond that into underfunding, predatory policing, gentrification etc that serve to compound existing inequities. While I think that we should aim to uplift poor people more generally through economic reform, in the specific case of black people in the US there are still definite institutional thumbs on the scale.
  - ciupicri 5y ago
    There's no such thing as racism against Romanians, since it's not a race, but it could be xenophobia. Or maybe you're making a confusion with Romani (Roma, gypsies) people.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      "romania people" is a misspelling halfway in between, so I wish you wouldn't assume they meant the wrong one.
helloworld11 5y ago
Many countries, including many in Europe have some very serious, heavy racial issues that are both more ingrained than those of the U.S and in quite a few cases more violent or openly discriminatory. The U.S. however is generally at or close to the center of global media familiarity and attention, so naturally, the theme of its own racial issues is disproportionately magnified. How many major countries are overtly ethnically homogeneous in the world, willfully closed or hostile to anything even resembling the mass immigration from all corners that the U.S has welcomed for many decades with only moderate tension? How many people in European states will openly speak of certain groups, like gypsies, muslims and so forth with extremely derogatory words, but barely be called out on it by anybody? I've seen it many times, and go back to my point above, that in the U.S. the same things would and do simply get more intense media attention. The U.S absolutely does have a number of very serious racial conflicts simmering at all times, but all things considered, I'd say the country does a remarkably good job of usually keeping them from getting worse, regardless of its high tolerance for free speech of even the most offensive kind.
- ciupicri 5y ago
  What European countries?
  - zhengyi13 5y ago
    Every single one with a Roma population, likely. Anecdotally, I remember having discussions with Danish family in the 90s, about racially-related issues in America, and in the shape that they took, I recognized how woefully unprepared they were to really look at their own racist attitudes (e.g. vis a vis Turks and immigration). When I returned in 2019, and had a chat with a gentleman supervising a number of different immigrants on some sort of work-integration program... well, I wasn't much impressed with his expressed attitude towards the workers.
  - nonethewiser 5y ago
    France. Big time.
  - mardifoufs 5y ago
noirbot 5y ago
I think the important comparison there, and something I often keep in mind, is that the US is a lot more diverse racially, even with its segregation, than a lot of other countries in the world. It's a lot easier for a country that's 90% the same race to not have open and prevalent racial issues, since there will be entire cities/areas where you won't even meet someone of a different race. It's easier to be morally upstanding about you presume you and your fellow citizens would handle a potentially racist situation when it's hypothetical and not just a fact of life. None of this is meant to excuse any of the awful stuff in the US, but to point out that there's a lot of confounding factors. It was a lot easier for Europe to take the high ground on abolishing slavery early on when they were century old empires who could still fill their coffers by exploiting people in Asia and Africa directly instead of importing them.
nullc 5y ago
> even compared to other Anglosphere countries lol. I find it hard to not laugh at that. Having done business in US, UK, and varrious places in Europe, my first exposure to business culture outside of the US left me utterly shocked about the high levels of blatant and unabashed racism that was ubiquitous outside of the US. It often involved racial groups that weren't legible to me as an American but was was particularly striking in how unprofessional it was. In the US someone might quietly dislike some race or another, but in a professional context someone explaining a project delay with "You know those <race> can't be trusted to get anything right." would be shocking, but I encountered statements like that outside of the US a dozen times across multiple countries.
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  Yeah, honestly it just shows how little americans know about the outside world. That there is even a discourse around racism in the US shows that people care enough about the issue. Outside the anglosphere, it is so normalized and institutionalized that it's not even a controversial issue. And when it is, it would be for issues that are way outside of the normal anglo overton window on racism. For example, it's generally accepted in france that you can't go to university if you wear a headscarf. It's not even a debate anymore really. Same goes for roma people, you won't ever really get any discussion on the racial dynamics or the socioeconomic circumstances that lead to the higher crime rates etc. It does not matter, the only discussion is around how much discrimination is maybe too much. The discrimination itself isnt even an issue.

ng12 5y ago

This is exactly why we need free speech. It's a pragmatic position. Of course I would like to live in a world where people don't spew vitriol. But for the reasons you outline that cannot happen except in an authoritarian society. As an illustrative point both Russia and China have constitutionally protected freedom of speech. They just added enough caveats that it's worthless.

dane-pgp 5y ago
> except in an authoritarian society. I would point out that governments in authoritarian societies have a habit of labelling certain groups of people as enemies (either because those groups challenge them politically, or because it's convenient to have a scapegoat to blame the government's own failures on), so in practice you end up with just as much, if not more, vitriol spewed in authoritarian societies.

heavyset_go 5y ago

> Out of many criticisms of the U.S. that the country deserves, its mostly rigid protection of free speech rights in a formal sense is one good thing, and it hasn't led to a hell of bigotry, or at least no more so than have weaker protections for free speech in other countries. Yet you can't say "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" in public schools because the judiciary lost their minds at the idea of marijuana use and its illegality. There certainly is/was bigotry when it comes to marijuana, its users, and speech around it.

throwawaylinux 5y ago

I have been called a racist for voicing my opposition to efforts to repeal constitutional prohibitions against racism. These lunatics somehow make up definitions that absolve themselves of their racism and condemn the anti-racists. These racist maniacs would absolutely have me censored and punished for my views, and their putrid racist ideology is infecting academia, entertainment, "news", politics, and even the law. So no you certainly can't rely on "reasonableness" or the social standard of the day to bound the limits of speech.