On 21-12-2010 19:34, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> I am just describing what happens in practice. If you don't like it for
>> philosophical reasons, try to find another planet to live on.
>
>    Why? The whole idea with democracy is that the people can affect the
> politics of their society. If you perceive something as being wrong with
> society, you don't fix it by conforming and just accepting it as something
> inevitable. You fix it by voting. (Of course there has to be a few other
> people who also vote like that, but that's the basic principle in democracy.)

I think it is a common concept that a democracy has to do what the 
majority wants while at the same time protecting the rights of minorities.

>    Your expression sounds like "this is how things are, and there's nothing
> you can do to change it, so learn to live with it". No, that's not how
> democracy works. We are lucky enough to live in democratic countries, and
> we should use the possibilities that brings us to better the society.
>
>    The moment when people start believing that they cannot affect their
> society is the moment when the whole idea of democracy has been destroyed.
> (Unfortunately this is a way too common belief.)

It is not that I think I cannot change it, I don't *want* to change it.

>>>> If that minority is more vulnerable.
>>>
>>>     More vulnerable to what? To getting offended?
>
>> physical violence, economic exclusion, that sort of thing.
>
>    Basically what you are suggesting is that the solution to violence and
> discrimination is censorship: Limiting people's freedom of speech when
> it happens to be criticism of a minority.

Not even close. So much off that I even hesitate to respond.
But let me put it this way: when I say that all christians are 
pedophiles everybody knows that is not true and it won't affect their 
attitude against any christian that they meet. When I say that all 
muslims are thieves and potential terrorists then that is just as much 
nonsense but it might affect people. Simply because of the fact that 
most people mainly meet people that are alike. So most people from the 
majority know almost exclusively people from that majority. The only way 
they 'meet' minorities is in the papers when someone from that minority 
commits a crime. Hence it is too easy to believe my bogus claim. 
Therefore you have to be more careful when speaking about a minority 
that about a majority. You can of course say what is true, but you 
should avoid half truths cherry picking and white lies to make a point, 
if that point is negative for the whole group. (You should never treat a 
person as just a representative of a group in stead of as an individual, 
but that is obvious).
If you ever wondered why even the most die hard xenophobes say of people 
from abroad that they know personally: sure all ... are ..., but not 
this one. This is why.
People from a minority in general know relatively more from the 
majority, so there the problem is not so great. Though there are closely 
knit minorities with all sorts of strange ideas about how the majority 
thinks. It is from these groups that sometimes things are said and 
written that also leads to prosecution for hate mongering. (which is a 
limitation to free speech here).

I have in this discussion never used the words 'censorship' or 
'criticism' and would prefer it if you also don't use them, especially 
when explaining what you think I have said. I don't want another endless 
discussion about straw man arguments.

>    Well. I don't believe that the ultimate solution to violence and
> discrimination is censorship. Double standards are not the answer. That
> only fights the symptoms, not the core problem. In fact, oftentimes it
> *aggravates* the symptoms rather than removing them.
>
>>>     Why is it more permissible to offend the majority but less permissible
>>> to offend a minority? What difference does it make? How is offending a
>>> minority a worse crime than offending the majority? That *is* a double
>>> standard.
>>>
>>>     (How do you even *define* the "majority" that needs less protection?
>
>> In a democracy a majority needs no special protection, a minority does.
>
>    *Why* does the minority need special protection?

because it is a minority and can be outvoted in a 'democracy'. Simple as 
that.

> Why are double standards necessary?

I would not call them 'double standards', you do. That is probably a 
reflection of our different understanding of how a society works. Let's 
leave it at that.

>    As I said, double standards, besides being hypocrisy, are only fighting
> symptoms (sometimes even just perceived symptoms), not the core problems.
> A working society should need any double standards.
>
>    (And here when I'm talking about "a minority that requires special
> protection" I'm referring to otherwise completely normal and abled
> people whose only difference to the "majority" is inconsequential with
> respect to their role in society, such as eg. ethnicity, background or
> sexual orientation. Of course there are people who need special treatment
> because of practical reasons, eg. because of being handicapped. I'm not
> talking about those.)
>

Post a reply to this message