Having an opinion is not, and cannot be outlawed. _Expressing_ these opinions out loud in a public forum, however, is a different matter. Hate speech (with its various definitions) is actually outlawed in many places around the world.
Multiculturalism: can make people fear for their lives.
People are only allowed to express their fears about one of those issues, and the government decides which of those fears is valid. This is despite the fact that both racism and multiculturalism can make people fear for their lives. That's utterly dystopian.
In general with social media moderating, I'm very much against harassment but I believe people should be able to freely express their beliefs. If you're not following a person who you disagree with, what does it hurt?
I am curious how multiculturalism makes people fear for their life. Do you mean that a certain group of people may lose their lifestyle? Or do you actually mean life-death scenarios? I am trying quite hard, but I cannot think of any situation of multiculturalism that makes somebody fear their own death. Unless, if in fact you are talking about violence and crime from immigrants, you are free to express it.
Furthermore, the principles of racism and multiculturalism are so different, that it’s interesting that you compare them. Almost always racism can be shown to be linked to violence and murder, but multicultralism is a policy that my country, Canada, has successfully modeled. I have never feared for my life. I think it is safe to say that although the implementation of multiculturalism policies may be flawed in some countries, multiculturalism itself doesn’t cause life-death scenarios.
>Almost always racism can be shown to be linked to violence and murder
If a nation says "we only want our people in our country" that would lead to violence and murder? How?
>but multicultralism is a policy that my country, Canada, has successfully modeled
Compared to what? Japan isn't multicultural and it has lower violent crime than Canada. I can't find an arrest breakdown by race for Canada, but here's NYC: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-5s21EXsAUjLzP.jpg
>multiculturalism itself doesn’t cause life-death scenarios
"Not surprisingly, the length of a conflict and its casualty rate is 25 percent higher in areas where an ethnicity is divided by a national border as opposed to areas where ethnicities have a united homeland."
Racism is not a political opinion. Political opinions are along the lines of "are my taxes too high" or "do we spend more on parks or on police".
A belief in the inferiority of another race isn't political, it's something else. I don't know what, but discriminatory and bigoted beliefs don't belong in political discussions or any discussions about how we govern ourselves or organize society.
Are you saying that it's beyond the pale to even have a conversation about diversity and immigration policy? Are you assuming that an inflow of people from anywhere in the world is always good or neutral?
First of all muslims aren't really a "race". Debates about race are completely irrelevant, they are criticizing islamic culture and religion. No one would care about someone mocking christian beliefs of culture.
Second you are right. Beliefs about differences between races aren't political. They are scientific. These are scientific question that are completely beyond politics. Your morality or political opinions have no impact on the truth value of scientific claims. Censoring things does not make them untrue.
The whole "islamic culture" thing is just a populist move. In the end they dont care if the refugees are islamic or christian (there are actually a lot of christian people in the arabic speaking region)
Also they are constantly talking about saving the german/north european culture/people. This is more about race and racism than anything else.
Regarding the second part: Its obviously true that there is a scientific base to racial questions but discussions about it are rarely based on scientific research. Most of the time its a political / cultural conflict.
>In the end they dont care if the refugees are islamic or christian (there are actually a lot of christian people in the arabic speaking region)
Yes they do. Even Trump has supported increasing Christian refugees. Although religion is far from the only important factor to Western culture.
>Also they are constantly talking about saving the german/north european culture/people. This is more about race and racism than anything else.
I fail to see how wanting to preserve your race is racism. I like my own people and want to see them continue. It doesn't mean I literally hate and oppose other peoples.
And I really do think you underestimate the cultural aspect of it. If they were brown skinned but otherwise culturally indistinguishable from Europeans, I think far fewer people would care. Labeling your opponents "racists" is just a convenient way of dismissing their concerns.
>Its obviously true that there is a scientific base to racial questions but discussions about it are rarely based on scientific research.
That's more of an issue that average people don't know how to do scientific research or think scientifically. I think they intuitively see things like "hey this group of people seems to do way worse" and "the mainstream oppression narrative doesn't really make sense." Without having the knowledge to dig up the actual statistics and figures to prove that.
>I fail to see how wanting to preserve your race is racism. I like my own people and want to see them continue. It doesn't mean I literally hate and oppose other peoples.
As soon as you value people based on their race ("your people" are worth more than others) you are in racist territory.
>And I really do think you underestimate the cultural aspect of it. If they were brown skinned but otherwise culturally indistinguishable from Europeans, I think far fewer people would care.
In Germany the most racism takes place in regions where nearly no immigrants/refugees live. The people are just afraid and do not try to find out if "they" are that different after all (spoiler alert: they are not)
>Labeling your opponents "racists" is just a convenient way of dismissing their concerns.
This is true and i dont want to dismiss anybodies opinion but if you talk about banning a whole race/religion from entering your country (trump) or refuse to help refugees from certain reasons (german afd in the article) and discredit them at every opportunity you are by definition a racist.
>As soon as you value people based on their race ("your people" are worth more than others) you are in racist territory.
Then 99.99% of humans who have ever lived are "racist". It's an meaningless mindkilling word, stop using it.
The weirdest thing about this is most liberals qualify as "racist" by your definition, when they take the outside view. For instance China taking over Tibet. And flooding it with Chinese immigrants, to outnumber and replace the Tibetan people. Or similar things done by Russians to areas they conquered. Or some aspects of what happened to the native americans. Liberals seem pretty upset by these things and even consider them genocide.
>In Germany the most racism takes place in regions where nearly no immigrants/refugees live.
Because immigrants congregate in cities, and cities tend to be more liberal. Besides don't take what people vote for too seriously. When put to it, even liberal whites show a strong preference for living in white neighborhoods.
Racism does not have to be about "the inferiority of another race". Racism can be "I don't think it's good for the economy that so many people from outside are coming" or "this culture is completely incompatible with ours and I don't want these people here". It's a pretty lax word. By outlawing "racism" you're outlawing discourse.
This is not true; as in, racism has a clear dictionary definition as "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
Volksverhetzung is juristically exhaustively defined and none of your "racism can be" statements fulfill that definition.
Volksverhetzung is not about "inciting hatred", which does not convey the concept. This article also isn't about Volksverhetzung, it's about the NetzDG, a new law.
If you try to define all Christians as X, you're probably mistaken.
If it's a negative definition designed to insult then it's probably discrimination.
The whole point of being anti racism, anti religious discrimination etc., is that race and religion are not good qualifiers for making assumptions or decisions.
The parent asked you if disliking Christianity was racist, not if it was religious discrimination. Please answer them.
If, say PEW Research asks a statistically significant portion of people who identify themselves one way, and a large amount of them self declare they have awful views, is reporting this bad because it's 'negative'?
