First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Should There Be Laws Against Racism?
10181 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / The state of Wash...
Offline
Posted 8/5/15

A comment on the topic about Japan passing a law banning discrimination against Koreans a comment posted said no law can stop racism. well reply is as follows:


if no law can fix racism, should there not be any laws against racism?

should racist be allowed to practice racism or sexism because no law can stop them?

than what should be done about racists if no law can stop them?

Should people allow themselves to harassed bullied or even killed by racist because laws have no affect on racist?

Should people fight against racism?

Should we just give in to racism and submit to it?

Would any of you submit to racism be nothing can be done about it?

Explain all that please.
Posted 8/5/15 , edited 9/4/15
Racism is social injustice, so we should oppose it, yes.

To civilly speak out against it, and discourage its use in our daily lives.

But no, we shouldn't go quietly into the night.
Posted 8/5/15 , edited 8/5/15
I suggest you watch/listen to Steve Hughes Big Issues. He's an Australian comedian and not only is he really funny but he hits some really important points and one of those points in this particular special he did was about making racism illegal, that and how stupid the idea of 'health and safety is. So, yes, I suggest everyone try and listen to him because he reminds me a lot of George Carlin. He hits really important topics and makes really good points all the while being really funny and entertaining.

Personally, no, I don't think it should. Racism is something you evolve out of. It's something you overcome. Making more laws solves nothing, it just makes more exploits and more reasons jerks mess with people. Picture this, random guy asks if you got a cigarette (I dunno, just making something up) and you say no. He then brands you racist and involves the police. What you gonna do? Exaggerated example sure but seriously think about it.

In all my years I've never treated anyone different because of skin color because that's so stupid I can't even wrap my mind around it. If I dislike someone, its cause they're a jerk, or a free loader or they use people etc etc.

Morgan Freeman had an opinion on this and I agree with him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRnTovm26I4

It's a very old video so this is the best I could find and it cuts out but the uploaded put the last line in there on a slideshow but yeah. The man is 100% correct.


In response to how to deal with it. I dunno? If someone is rude they're just rude yeah? If someone burns a cross on your yard that's arson reguardless. Someone beats the shit out of someone else, that's assult. Etc Etc. You can't put laws on someone being rude. That's too nitty gritty and would cause problems for regular people more that stop the assholes doing it.
48423 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / AZ
Offline
Posted 8/5/15
Yes or else there would still be Jim Crow laws in the USA.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 8/5/15
Laws can prevent lots of racisms effects but racism itself can only be solved by social change.
17181 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 8/5/15
Just because a law is passed it doesn't mean that societal racism is solved but by allowing discrimination to be legal it allows people to further marginalized groups who are already at the edge of society. People need to know that this is not okay, there needs to be repercussions to prevent this from happening.
Posted 8/5/15
It's already illegal to discriminate on the basis of race and there are hate crime laws for crimes motivated by racial hatred.

It's true no law can stop racism, people have freedom of thought and there are and probably always will been those who will act contrary to the law. Even countries that have adopted laws against hate speech still have racists (countries that have accepted the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)).

Really, law is not a particularly effective solution since it tries to discourage behavior with punishment, it does nothing about the cause.
2841 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Houston, Tx
Offline
Posted 8/5/15 , edited 9/3/15
That would just egg people to try to be more racist

Going against the system or whatever they call it these days.
20739 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 8/5/15
Only if racist jokes between friends stay legal.

2047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 8/5/15 , edited 8/5/15
There should be laws against discrimination based on the color of your skin. However there should be no affirmative action.
27705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / TX
Offline
Posted 8/5/15 , edited 8/5/15
I really don't get what you mean by this TC. If your point is worldwide sure why not but if you're talking about America than there's already laws in place. Its already illegal to discriminate on people for race, orientation, gender, religion, in hiring, housing, and any services a business may provide so what would adding specifics laws for specific items accomplish. Make multiple laws that you can't discriminate against blacks, asians, mexicans, how about you save trees and just go with one law that says don't discriminate and here's are the penalties when you do.
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/herman/reports/futurework/conference/staffing/9.7_discrimination.htm
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws
Posted 8/5/15
Should racism be illegal? Depends how you look at it. Just like every law, there would always be people who would
break it.
2201 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/5/15
How would those laws work.

Where do you draw the line what is rasist,
is it feeling based,
or is it logic based.

Would ppl be afried to say what they think, even thou the thought itself isent rasist by any means, but they could be called a rasist and punished by the law.
This could be the biggest reason wy not to have it. Say for sientific studies. U measure jail time or iq and split it into groups based on culturel, home contry x generations back or skin color. Is this rasist? or is it just objective studie?
Is reaserch in groups different genetic structures rasist?
etc etc.

Will the laws be for all ppl, or is it group based?

Atm, atleast in sweden, we have laws against workplace discrimination of some groups. I think this law is stupid, it should be for all groups, since there are no groups, only individuals.
35033 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 8/5/15

brookline wrote:

if no law can fix racism, should there not be any laws against racism?


A law requiring a restaurant owner to provide full and equal service to consumers without regard to race/ethnicity isn't going to alter that owner's opinions surrounding that class. However, if the restaurant owner opts to bring that implicit bias into being an explicit one in the form of discriminated service people would have in a law prohibiting his doing so an avenue through which to redress their grievances against him. He'd stand to pay a fine in the best case, and risk losing his license to do business in the worst. The aim there is not to even bother with implicit biases. It's all about explicit biases, specifically economic discrimination. That law can do what it is supposed to do regardless of whether a person changes their mind or not.

What was being discussed in the other thread, however, wasn't a matter of explicit biases and economic discrimination. It was hate speech legislation, and that legislation's objectives are significantly more difficult to accomplish since part of its ultimate aim is to create an atmosphere in which implicit biases may be addressed and eliminated. It's true what was said: outlawing hate speech only drives it beneath the surface. Violent racists will still be plotting their crimes against ethnic/racial minorities, it's just that now they'll be creating their plots and disseminating their views through underground channels instead of out in the open. Racist parents will still be imparting their views to their children. Legislation alone is not a magic wand to take away implicit racism, and so a more lasting way to deal with implicit biases must necessarily be a grassroots effort taken up by outreach groups and everyday interactions between neighbours.


should racist be allowed to practice racism or sexism because no law can stop them?


I think that, short of something like calls for violence, racist or sexist opinions ought to be allowed to be expressed freely. How else are we to engage them? How else are we to hold those which have those opinions accountable for them? You don't heal a wound by hiding it.


than what should be done about racists if no law can stop them?


Education, outreach between neighbours, and other community building efforts are tools in the kit alongside laws. I think that the point was ultimately that laws can't do all the work for eliciting lasting social changes, and that there's a tendency to rely on them too heavily. It's not a completely unfair criticism.


Should people allow themselves to harassed bullied or even killed by racist because laws have no affect on racist?


Under no circumstances. That's not really what was meant, though.


Should people fight against racism?


Absolutely.


Should we just give in to racism and submit to it?


Never.


Would any of you submit to racism be nothing can be done about it?


I couldn't say. If I'm completely honest, the bystander effect is a thing that exists. I suppose I'd just have to see, even though I'd like to think I wouldn't.
27244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/5/15 , edited 8/5/15

brookline wrote:


A comment on the topic about Japan passing a law banning discrimination against Koreans a comment posted said no law can stop racism. well reply is as follows:


if no law can fix racism, should there not be any laws against racism?
There should be no laws against racist thought since that wouldn't work, obviously. But there should be laws in place that prevent mistreatment based on one's race.

Should racist be allowed to practice racism or sexism because no law can stop them?
Laws can't stop a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that we should just leave them and not try to decrease the damage.

Than what should be done about racists if no law can stop them?
You can't really do anything about how someone thinks except try to educate them.

Should people allow themselves to harassed bullied or even killed by racist because laws have no affect on racist?
People who are in danger should be able to defend themselves and not be punished when using reasonable force in a situation in which a reasonable person would feel threatened. Whether or not the attacker's motivation had anything to do with race is irrelevant.

Should people fight against racism?
I guess they should. But they need to be very clear as to what they mean when they use the word "racism" since a lot of weird definitions are getting thrown around. It's best to define the term and/or to use a dictionary definition to avoid confusion and needless argument. People end up talking past one another when it's the idea, not the word, that is supposed to matter.

Should we just give in to racism and submit to it?
We can't stifle thought but we can try to prevent behavior.

Would any of you submit to racism be nothing can be done about it?

If I had no choice and the alternative is death, sure. But that's a little extreme and we don't live in that kind of place.


I find that "racism" is used to mean two distinct things, which I have simplified below. People tend to talk past one another when they don't explain which definition they are using. Whether you think "racism" means one definition or the other is irrelevant. Whether you think one definition is right or wrong is also irrelevant. Just define your term before you use it, otherwise the argument won't make sense to the conflicting parties and you end up arguing about a word rather than the meat of the issue. "Racism" is a broad, yet strong word, so you don't want responses that are too emotional that are brought about by a misunderstanding.
1. Ideology based on the concept of race.
2. Systematic oppression based on race.

Obviously, the first definition is nearly unstoppable and unpreventable unless people can stop thought or are raised in an environment where people don't consider race. The second one is just unfair and obviously should not be supported by any governing body. So, should we try to control racist thoughts? We probably can't. Should we consciously treat people differently based on race and have that discriminatory behavior justified by the law? No.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.