| >See I actually think that it's a good thing to call for, say , "stamp out racism". Does stamping out racism to you involve preventing people from freely and equally participating in the political process? By which I mean being able to utilize the same means to advocate for their interests and political beliefs as any other law-abiding group would be - able to gather in public spaces without fear of physical retaliation, able to utilize the services of major companies that provide electronic resources like payment processing and social media communication and other internet services, and things of that nature. >Would you say this if you believed there was an actual possibility that, one day the target of their racism would be you? Yes, I would still say what I have said. >Just imagine that you're living in your country, born there etc, but the brewing racist population happens to not include your particular ethnic group Certainly I would not want to share a country with people that thought that way about me. You must be able to rely on your countrymen in times of serious crisis, and obviously I could not rely on those people. I would advocate for physically removing them if I believed that they posed an existential threat to people of my ethnicity and if I believed that such a removal would be feasible. If it was not feasible due to their numbers or influence or whatever I would get out of there for my own safety. What I would not want under any circumstances is for them to remain in my country but be prevented from advocating for their perceived interests in the same way that everyone else is able, or in other words for them to see that the interests of others are being openly and plainly put ahead of their own perceived interests - if they are not themselves able to advocate for their perceived interests, why should they trust anyone else to further their interests for them, least of all people that are preventing them from advocating for those interests? That is a recipe for civil war, and that is the outcome I would most seek to avoid if I believed they were too powerful to be physically removed. >but there is really no reason why they would not continue being racists How many people are you talking about? Enough to influence the outcomes of a democratic government? >Everywhere in the world and history where such a situation occurred, it happened with some amount of tension and suffering (ranging from economic inequality to holocaust). What do you think that telling certain people that they can't advocate for their interests using the same means as everyone else is going to do to tensions? >I think you're underestimating the amount of neonazis today. Not all of them are quite as on-the-nose with their logo as these guys, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_(political_party)#.... A neo-nazi is not a Nazi, and only the dress-up types actually call themselves neo-nazis. |
Neither fascists nor Muslim terrorists deserve those rights. And if you say it's not comparable, please reminds that for the past 12 months, there has been more terror attacks committed by white racists than Muslim jihadists in Western countries.