"Be accepting of others views" doesn't apply to racism?

[Daveman]

I would slap them round the face with a picture of Usain Bolt and say "YOU ARE INFERIOR!" over and over again.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

Because opinions, as they are, usually can't be considered right or wrong. But saying something like that is just, without a doubt, unequivocally wrong.

How can one opinion be considered right/wrong but not another? Why would I be wrong for saying that black people are inferior to white people, but not for saying that the color blue is inferior to the color red?

Because colors are differences in light and black people are human beings with darker skin and a mind unlike a shade of light. There's a bit of a difference, just a bit. By a bit I mean it's bloody different.

They're both opinions, aren't they? What makes one more objectionable than the other?

Because a black person is the same as a white guy it's just a difference in skin color, it's a fact. You can judge all you want but there's no proof saying there's any difference besides some physical differences. You can think that a black guy/gal isn't as attractive, but to say a wavelength of light is the same as a human being is stupid, humans have self awareness and intelligence, light waves DO NOT.

Go ahead and say that kinda stuff outloud, I may not be so judgmental, I'd shrug it off as idiotic rants but someone else will certainly stomp your face in.

You didn't address the core issue. Why is one opinion acceptable, but another opinion isn't acceptable? Why should people tolerate opinion X and not opinion Y? Moreover, why should people be socially allowed to physically attack a person based on opinion X, but not on opinion Y?

I'm pretty sure I did, but I'll simplify for you since you can't seem to make sense of it.

The color red- a color wave length
A black man- a living breathing person who has every right to live freely as you do

There's a BIG difference in judging there seeing how one is a person who has a mind of his own and light doesn't have a mind at all.

Here's something more simple for you

Walking up to a video game console and saying it sucks isn't going to get anyones feelings hurt because it's an object with no emotions or mind of it's own, saying a man sucks because he was born with different skin is called offending a person with a MIND, HEART, and SOUL, and is segregating against an entire people who were born this way. You cannot hurt the device in any form because it doesn't have the makings TO feel, though the person DOES.

I'm really hoping this makes sense to you because this is beyond the point of breaking it down for you. If you can't tell the difference between hurting a persons feelings and yelling sounds at an object with no ability to hear/comprehend/feel then you should be talking to a doctor

So opinions are only acceptable if they don't hurt other peoples feelings? Isn't that a little tyrannical and completely subjective?

 

[ThreeWords]

Since racism is making a round on the forums, I figure I may as well throw this in. When people say they are open minded and don't try to force their opinions on others, this usually doesn't include racism. If you went to work (or whatever your daily grind is) tomorrow and said openly that you hate black people and think they should be made into slaves, there wouldn't be a lot of people who would respond with "While I disagree with your opinion I respect it as your belief". Why is this not included?

Whahaha!

I love this sort of thing, and agree entirely. Racism, while wrong in my opinion, is an equally valid point of view. To suppress it is to try to force your mindset on another person, which is unacceptable. Of course, a rational argument against racism is fine, but you can't just condemn someone for their veiws, however wring they are in your opinion

 

[Finnboghi]

That's not the difference between right and wrong, though. That's a description of why certain people hold beliefs to be right and wrong. Big difference.

What?

That's completely the difference between right and wrong.

They're only abstract concepts which can be applied to a given action or belief.

Or a direction.

The difference between right and wrong is your opinion.

You can only have an opinion of you hold a belief about a given event or concept.

I disagree. I believe there is an objective right and wrong of some sort.

But how?

No matter what, someone will always disagree.

Even if it's only one person against billions, does it make them wrong just because they don't agree?

Terri Schiavo is a good example - many people said she should be allowed to die in peace, others said they couldn't make that decision for her.

So which is objectively right?

And how do you determine it?

Do you go with the majority?

What the lawyers and politicians say?

Do you form a committee to decide?

The simple fact is, right and wrong must be subjective because no two people are the same.

You're entitled to that opinion, sure. Freedom of speech.
And the co-workers are entitled to call you every derogatory name in their repertoire and get you fired.
Freedom of speech is nice like that. Allows you to spot the idiots who you don't want to be around.

So wait, why do the coworkers get more rights?

Of course they can say whatever they want about you.

But why are they allowed to get you fired?

What did they do that gives them the right to physically harm you (yes, I consider getting fired to be physical - money is necessary for physical sustenance)?

Is it because they're PC?

Think of it as getting a ban or a probation here.
If you act unpleasantly, you have every right to get booted.
People don't like gross idiocy, especially when it disrupts their work.

And I really don't follow your logic here...

You're saying that if I express an opinion that the mods don't agree with, they "have every right" to ban me?

That ties back to the whole issue - why does freedom of expression stop when you cross a certain line?

 

[Seanchaidh]

The problem is that "Hitler made me happy" isn't an opinion it's a statement of fact. It has no bearing on if he's right or wrong.

I think you're kinda missing my point, but let me say this--you can turn "black people...should be made into slaves" into a statement of fact just by rearranging the words into "black people do not possess the same freedoms as other people."

By doing that you removed the normative component; you're no longer talking about what should be but what is. Are you saying that any claim of 'should be' can be evaluated as true or false based on what in fact is the case?

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

@The "skin tone" vs "favourite colour" argument.

The problem there is that you're comparing two diferent types of opinion there.

"Black people are inferior to white." Can be tested to be proved right or wrong. This means that you can provide a cohesive argument to backup your opinion or to invalidate it.

I disagree. When you consider the ridiculously large amount of people you'd be dealing with, saying something like "white people are inferior to black people" can be seen as subjective if for no other reason than if you were somehow able to test the vast population to provide accurate data, the sheer number of different arenas from which to compile would be an insurmountable task. An example would be if white people showed higher aptitude for math, while black people showed a higher aptitude for reasoning skills. How would these two completely different subjects be compared to one another? Would the ability to do math be equal to the ability to reason? What about in the areas of athletics? What if black people are better at running, but white people are better at jumping? Not only that, but how do these traits compare with their scholastic counterparts?

Saying "black people are inferior to white people at [X]" could be proven one way or another, but the entirety of multiple races combined with no specific set of skills would have to be subjective as black people would be better skilled at [Y] while white people would be better skilled at [Z]. Not only that, but the argument could be made that if you did find one group to be "better" than the other, you probably didn't do enough testing or have enough areas of testing to favor whatever group.

In essence, the question would be too large for anyone to answer factually.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

My experience with people talking about different topics leads me to believe it's not that special. It certainly isn't unique and it damn sure ain't rare.

In the context of the OP, it's special--whether rare/unique or not--because I think the reaction of people to racism assumes that the person has thought the opinion through.

But unless the OP comes in and actually weighs in on the matter, THAT'S AN OPINION!

Guh, I hate this world. It's not you, it's this discussion. I think it has given me a tumor.

Like I said before, sentence structure matters. Terminology matters.

Well, not really. As long as sentence structure and terminology is *consistent* things are okay--and that's the problem here.

What's inconsistent?

However, my problem isn't so much with semantics as it is with the basic underlying thought process brought out by the vocabulary.

Opinions, no matter how flagrantly aggravating it might be, cannot be regarded as wrong.

However you want to regard them, people are using the word 'opinion' in a broader sense than you. None of what you said is relevant to what the OP is saying (I think)--they are using the word 'opinion' in the sense you do not.

This is why we have dictionaries, so people don't have to have opinions on words!

 

[Finnboghi]

...I'm seeing less and less how we disagree on this matter.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you--I'm more pointing out where you and other people may differ.

Regardless of whether being fired is considered physical harm, or some other non-desrcript form of harm, it is still harm.

My point is not what kind of harm is being inflicted - it's that harm is being inflicted.

Right, but not every 'harm' is unfair. You could say I discriminate against men--I'm a heterosexual male. I harm them by rejecting their sexual advances.

You need to link up the harm with the *right* to be free from that kind of harm.

If we were to tone it waaaaaaaaaaay down and take two coworkers who prefer dogs and cats, the distinction becomes clearer;

If I say I prefer cats, and my coworker prefers dogs, and he gets me fired for preferring cats, then he has violated my right to free speech, and has harmed me.

If we were to bring it back to the current level, the distinction is there;

If I say caucasians are better, and my coworker says asians are better, and I get fired for thinking white people are superior, then my right to express my belief has been violated once again.

Well that's the question: does having that 'right' merely mean no one can stop you from expressing it, or does it mean no one can create a negative consequence for you for expressing that opinion.

Very well said.

Although, the major distinction here is that your example uses two different forms of expression.

Being a heterosexual male as well, I agree that I would be denying the sexual advances of another male.

However, that is my right.

Just as it is his right to discriminate against unattractive dudes.

A simple way of looking at it is this;

I have the right to choose who I interact sexually with (of those who attempt to interact sexually with me).
He has the right to choose who he attempts to interact sexually with.

The difference here is consent.

I don't get to choose which girls I have sex with - I get to choose which girls I talk to.

Whereas two people expressing their opinions (i.e. doing the same thing), and one of them being fired for it (i.e. not the same recourse), is a violation of the right to expression of opinion - either neither should be fired, or both should.

Regardless;

I would put forth that the term 'right' implies that there will be no negative recourse to an action.

I could express my opinions in North Korea, if I wanted to.

Doesn't mean I have the right to do so, though.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

It's not just with rascism.
For example I support fascism but if I ever mention it (on the internet not in real life) I get people calling me a nazi or rascist or whatever, so intolorance doesn't just cover rascist issues.

That's because fascism of various stripes has been shown to lead to the deaths of millions of people. Like it all you want, it's been "proven" that fascism leads to death on a massive scale.

 

[BonsaiK]

Since racism is making a round on the forums, I figure I may as well throw this in. When people say they are open minded and don't try to force their opinions on others, this usually doesn't include racism. If you went to work (or whatever your daily grind is) tomorrow and said openly that you hate black people and think they should be made into slaves, there wouldn't be a lot of people who would respond with "While I disagree with your opinion I respect it as your belief". Why is this not included?

Regardless of your beliefs, you can't announce that you disrepsect people and then expect respect from others for your disrespectfulness. It's paradoxical.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The problem is that "Hitler made me happy" isn't an opinion it's a statement of fact. It has no bearing on if he's right or wrong.

I think you're kinda missing my point, but let me say this--you can turn "black people...should be made into slaves" into a statement of fact just by rearranging the words into "black people do not possess the same freedoms as other people."

By doing that you removed the normative component; you're no longer talking about what should be but what is. Are you saying that any claim of 'should be' can be evaluated as true or false based on what in fact is the case?

No, the normative component is still there--the racist isn't talking about "what is"--the racist is arguing that the "what is" should change (repeal of 13th Am., etc.) to line up with the normative claim about the rights of black people as they are, not as they are currently recognized to be.

What I'm saying is any claim of 'should be' can be tied to some sort of normative statement where the "are" doesn't describe how the world is, but rather, describes some essential nature of the things in the world which the world doesn't recognize and act in accordance with.

For example, think of how "people shouldn't steal" can be tied to the statement "people continue to own their property even when they cannot stop people from taking it"

Ownership is a matter of social convention, though; you're sneaking a normative term right back in, just like using the words "is right to do" or "is wrong to do" as if the 'is' makes such phrases describe matters of fact.

 

[Thirsk]

Well, I would never deny anyone to state racist remarks or speak any of their other silly ideas, but then I claim just as much right to say they're crazy, hateful nutjobs who'd be better of swimming in a dumpster.
Hatred towards racists is as much a view as racism is.

Just my five cents.