It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Racist Freedom Of Speech Should Racists Be Rounded Up And Jailed? War On Racism?

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Okay, that's all well and good, obviously there's an issue.

But it doesn't answer my question. Does it matter 'where' the migrants come from, or does it just matter that they immigrate properly, according to the law and contribute to society at large?

~Tenth




posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Here's the comment of mine you quoted. I just posted a comment with lots of information on the UK's unwanted unsustainable immigration.

Perhaps you would like to clarify the purpose of your question as it seems you do not understand ''unwanted unsustainable immigration'' or are you attempting a straw man argument?

I suggest if you want to know more about the stats of the origins of immigrants to the UK you research it yourself.



Perhaps you do not care for white Europeans but I do and so do the rest of us and we care for our future and we care that our governments have foisted upon us unwanted unsustainable immigration.

edit on 23-6-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

I don't think criminalization of free thought and opinion is the answer at all.
Having an abhorrent and ignorant view is not a crime.

What should happen is that people who express violent opinions, groups who express anger toward other groups of people, should be watched very closely.

Threats to maim and harm SHOULD be a criminal offense, regardless of freedom of speech and opinion. That's where America consistently gets it wrong.

It's not freedom of speech to yell FIRE! in a crowded theater. It's not freedom of speech to threaten to abuse or murder people. It's not freedom of belief to actively abuse others based on your own warped ideology.

A good example is that "pastor" in Brooklyn, the guy who runs a "church" and puts signs up saying it's a Christians "duty" to stone gay people to death.

That is NOT freedom of opinion, freedom of religion, or freedom of speech, it's threatening and inciting violence against others. It's extremism, but people seem to forgive it when it's a Christian extremist rather than a Muslim one.

Maybe this is about race more than I thought? After all, plenty of people (even here) seem to think that a white guy murdering people based on their warped ideology is just "craziness", but if the same guy were Muslim he would rightly be called a terrorist.

Let people have their views and opinions, but the moment they start making threats toward others they need to be dragged into an interrogation room and questioned for a few hours about their links, the people they discuss with, their family, friends, associates... Then all those people need to be watched/questioned too.

People should be free to be ignorant fools, society will treat them accordingly. But when those ignorant thoughts become ignorant actions, that's when the law needs to step in and slap cuffs on them.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Sure, I will put it bluntly, it's not a straw man, it's a legitimate question, based on your previous posts. I don't need the stats, I wanted to know what you personally thought.

Would you consider an immigration application for a white European to be put before a non white European, in a sustainable immigration system, if one did in fact exist?

~Tenth



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Basically you are asking me an ''are you racist?'' question.

Do you ask all ATS members this? Are you just asking me because I mentioned the potential extinction of those of European ethnicity? Do you not agree that those of European ethnicity have the right to exist? Or is it because I mentioned ''white''?

It is no surprise to me that you are questioning me, it is obvious you are itching for banning me and you know I complained about you recently and your attitude towards me.

I am offended at your questioning.

However to answer it:

I would personally look at each individual application for immigration if it were my job to do so on an individual basis. I am sure there are a lot of boxes to tick and questions on immigration applications.

Now a question for you. Are you racist?

How about the guy that just posted a racist comment to me accusing me of saying ''white purity'', you didn't address it. Would you address it if it was a similar comment accusing a member of talking about ''black purity''?


originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Sure, I will put it bluntly, it's not a straw man, it's a legitimate question, based on your previous posts. I don't need the stats, I wanted to know what you personally thought.

Would you consider an immigration application for a white European to be put before a non white European, in a sustainable immigration system, if one did in fact exist?

~Tenth

edit on 23-6-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

The only reason I asked was because you insisted on defining your worry for 'white Europeans' that's all.

No I don't think anybody is outright racist for posting something like that, It was just an odd way of putting it, considering there could have been a half dozen other ways to refer to the UK in general.

So I asked. Be offended if that's how you feel, I apologize it was not my intent. Thank you for answering the question.

Personally, I was raised in a very racist house hold, it took me decades to shed a lot of my preconceived notions about race, even longer to do so with the subconscious way I would react in certain situations. I own that and I do my best to overcome it when it occurs.

Part of that is not sorting humans with a color code.

~Tenth



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

There is potential extinction for those of European Heritage, being concerned about that isn't racist. I mentioned white because those of European Heritage are regarded as white.

White is not a bad word. Ethnic Europeans matter and just because we are white shouldn't mean any feelings of guilt or non caring about our future.

There is a dichotomy in the world that needs sorting out.

People all around are celebrating their culture and ethnicity, even demanding special rights because of it, black rights / Muslim rights etc. and that's okay, I think we should all feel part of our own cultures, but that has to also be applicable to white people and European people. You can't have ''celebrate your ethnicity'' unless it is available for all. It shouldn't be some selective process of ''you can'' ''you can't''.


edit on 23-6-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

But that's the crux of the issue I'm trying to get at.

There are many other 'races' that are naturalized UK Citizens who are at just as much at risk of losing because of the terrible immigration policies put out by your government.

Those people, aren't any less important then those of 'white heritage' that you refer to. And looking at it from that one point of view, will not solve the problem for the country, but only serve to divide people further.

~Tenth



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

This isn't just about the UK, the original comment is about the potential decline of Ethnic Europeans. There is such a thing. I posted an article about it.

The decline is due to finances, finances are impacted by unsustainable immigration.

Here is the Yale article that expressly refers to ''white Europeans'' and ''European natives''.

Do you think white European natives are worth saving from extinction?

How about if it were ''black Africans'' or ''Aborigine'' or ''Sami'' facing extinction?

yaledailynews.com...


White Europeans: An endangered species?

Even if one ignores the statistical noise presented by the inclusion of millions of outliers, Europe faces a serious problem. Without a major shift in the current fertility trends, industrialized Europe will see its native population decline by about three-fourths over the 21st century. No civilization has ever recovered from such a population decline, and never before has such a decline been entirely voluntary.

There is, of course, a counterargument: Europe’s population has not been declining. In fact, most European nations have shown modest population growth thanks to a huge influx of immigrants from developing nations. Some economists have argued that because the infertility of Europeans is balanced by the high fertility of its immigrants, there will be no noticeable effects from the failure of Caucasians in Europe to produce offspring. If the population as a whole remains stable, the argument goes, economic growth will not be affected, and the European quality of life will likely remain constant. Europe could thus theoretically solve its demographic woes by promoting immigration.

Unfortunately, there are some major holes in that argument. Labor capital is not stable: Native Europeans tend to be highly educated and possess a varied skill set due to Europe’s laudable educational system, while the immigrant populations replacing the native populations are by and large less well educated. Crime levels are also not holding constant, and in Europe there has been an anti-immigrant backlash resulting from the widespread perception that immigrants are responsible for the increase in crime. There is also an 800-pound gorilla in the room: Given present trends, within about a century, Europe will cease to be a white, Christian continent.

No one wants to talk about racial or religious issues, but it merits consideration that the vast majority of immigrants to the European Union are Muslims from North Africa, the Middle East and Turkey. By the year 2150, barring a major shift in either native European fertility rates or immigrant nationality, Europe will be a largely Muslim continent with whites and Christians as minorities composing less than 20 percent of the population. Much of Europe has come to terms with that possibility, but a significant portion of the population is uncomfortable about the prospect of a change in Europe’s continental character, warranting wider spread support for xenophobic political parties across the continent.




edit on 23-6-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Wait, according to that data, the issue is declining birth rates.

If Europe's growth is so low, then logically, immigration of foreign nationals is required in order to keep the country afloat.

Secondly, the Caucasian flavor of humans has been in decline for decades now. We always knew that eventually we would all be some kind of light brown due to a variety of factors.

That's only scary to somebody if you care that much about the color of your skin. If it's about your culture, then that culture will live on, regardless of people's skin color in those people's descendants.

~Tenth



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

I don't think criminalization of free thought and opinion is the answer at all.
Having an abhorrent and ignorant view is not a crime.

What should happen is that people who express violent opinions, groups who express anger toward other groups of people, should be watched very closely.

Threats to maim and harm SHOULD be a criminal offense, regardless of freedom of speech and opinion. That's where America consistently gets it wrong.

It's not freedom of speech to yell FIRE! in a crowded theater. It's not freedom of speech to threaten to abuse or murder people. It's not freedom of belief to actively abuse others based on your own warped ideology.

A good example is that "pastor" in Brooklyn, the guy who runs a "church" and puts signs up saying it's a Christians "duty" to stone gay people to death.

That is NOT freedom of opinion, freedom of religion, or freedom of speech, it's threatening and inciting violence against others. It's extremism, but people seem to forgive it when it's a Christian extremist rather than a Muslim one.

Maybe this is about race more than I thought? After all, plenty of people (even here) seem to think that a white guy murdering people based on their warped ideology is just "craziness", but if the same guy were Muslim he would rightly be called a terrorist.

Let people have their views and opinions, but the moment they start making threats toward others they need to be dragged into an interrogation room and questioned for a few hours about their links, the people they discuss with, their family, friends, associates... Then all those people need to be watched/questioned too.

People should be free to be ignorant fools, society will treat them accordingly. But when those ignorant thoughts become ignorant actions, that's when the law needs to step in and slap cuffs on them.


You have it stated quite clearly and know the law reguarding hate speech pretty well. As for what new laws about racists groups that preach hate like the KKK I think some they need to be put in prison for preaching hate and violence. I think its just a matter of time.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

It is about ethnicity as the research says.

Culture is inexorably tied to ethnicity.

From your comment it appears you do not believe in protecting or celebrating ethnicity.

Your opinion is a minority.

Whilst a percentage (and it appears an increasingly smaller percentage) of Americans have bought into the 'no ethnicity melting pot', most of the world are fiercely protective of their ethnicity; subscribing to the 'no ethnicity melting pot' idea isn't something they are ever likely to consider.

In Europe where ethnic Europeans are facing potential extinction as mentioned in the previous research, there is a lot of immigration from around the world, most of which adheres to strong ethnic identity, heritage and culture, from food and clothes to education, family, tradition and religion.

Are you suggesting that you want all ethnicities to forget their ethnic identities?

Or are you in favour of ethnicities being protected?

Here are some examples:

www.globaled.org...


ETHNIC GROUPS (ALL OF CHINA)

Han Chinese

The Han Chinese make up 91.9% of China's population. The Han people dominate all of China culturally and politically.

Other Nationalities

China's 55 recognized minority groups total about 8% of the nation's population. Major ethnic groups in China are:

Zhuang
Uigur
Hui
Yi
Tibetan
Miao
Manchu
Mongol
Buyi
Korean


www.webindia123.com...


India is a fascinating country where people of many different communities and religions live together in unity. Indian Population is polygenetic and is an amazing amalgamation of various races and cultures.

It is impossible to find out the exact origin of Indian People. The species known as Ramapithecus was found in the Siwalik foothills of north western Himalayas. The species believed to be the first in the line of hominids (Human Family) lived some 14 million years ago. Researchers have found that a species resembling the Austrapithecus lived in India some 2 million years ago. Even this discovery leaves an evolutionary gap of as much as 12 million years since Ramapithecus.

There are many diverse ethnic groups among the people of India. The 6 main ethnic groups are as follows.

Negrito

Proto - Australoids or Austrics

Mongoloids

Mediterranean or Dravidian

Western Brachycephals

Nordic Aryans

Negroids
The Negritos or the Brachycephalic (broad headed) from Africa were the earliest people to have come to India. They have survived in their original habitat in Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The Jarawas, Onges, Sentinelese and the Great Andamanese are some of the examples. Some hill tribes like Irulas, Kodars, Paniyans and Kurumbas are found in some patches in Southern part of mainland India.

Pro-Australoids or Austrics
These groups were the next to come to India after the Negritos. They are people with wavy hair lavishly distributed all over their brown bodies, long headed with low foreheads and prominent eye ridges, noses with low and broad roots, thick jaws, large palates and teeth and small chins. The Austrics of India represent a race of medium height, dark complexion with long heads and rather flat noses but otherwise of regular features. Miscegenation with the earlier Negroids may be the reason for the dark or black pigmentation of the skin and flat noses.

The Austrics laid the foundation of Indian civilization. They cultivated rice and vegetables and made sugar from sugarcane. Now these people are found in some parts of India, Myanmar and the islands of South East Asia. Their languages have survived in the Central and Eastern India.

Mongoloids
These people are found in the North eastern part of India in the states of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, and Tripura. They are also found in Northern parts of West Bengal, Sikkim, and Ladakh. Generally they are people with yellow complexion, oblique eyes, high cheekbones, sparse hair and medium height.

Dravidians
These are the people of South India. They have been believed to come before the Aryans. They have different sub-groups like the Paleo-Mediterranean, the true Mediterranean, and the Oriental Mediterranean. They appear to be people of the same stock as the peoples of Asia Minor and Crete and pre- Hellenic Aegean's of Greece. They are reputed to have built up the city civilization of the Indus valley, whose remains have been found at Mohenjo- daro and Harappa and other Indus cities.

Western Bracycephals
These include the Alpinoids, Dinarics and Armenoids. The Parsis and Kodavas also fall in this category. They are the broad headed people living mainly on the western side of the country such as the Ganga Valley and the delta, parts of Kashmir, Kathiawar, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.

Nordics or the Indo-Aryans
This group were the last one to immigrate to India. They came to India somewhere between 2000 and 1500 B.C. They are now mainly found in the northern and central part of India.


www.naba.org.uk...


British Arabs: Identity, Politics and
Community

The results confirm that the term “British Arab” is a meaningful one with which people of
Arab ethnicity living in Britain do identify, regardless of their national origin. They also
indicate a strengthening of pan-Arab identity within the community over time, with the
youngest respondents, many of whom will have been born in the UK, being most likely to
express the strong view that their Arab identity was important to them.


www.diversitybestpractices.com...


21 African-American Organizations You Need to Know

edit on 23-6-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: rupertg

I have one NA friend and she states that the US flag offends her and is seen as a symbol of racism and oppression of her people.

I found this on Amazon. I can't quite wrap my head around it.
ASIN B00B13KG90 They are native American confederate flags.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Well I also wonder if laws are ever directed against hate speech in a more in your face manner which side would most people be on.

Would people be willing to die for the freedom to promote the hate speech of certain groups like the KKK?

I think most Americans would say good riddance to such groups.

However I think some Americans would put thier lives on the line to protect the rights of Any American to speak freely, reguardless of the content of the said free speech.

So I think there would be those who sided with groups like the KKK to speak freely even though they dont agree with the content of twhat the group is saying.

Personally in my opinion if you support the KKK's right to free hate speech your just as bad as they are and your part of the problem.


Ok , if you have an opinion that I find offensive, then I am well within my rights to legally remove your ability to express it? I have absolutely no patience for people who want to demean or harm others simply because they are different from them. Not the KKK, not the Black Panthers, Not the Nation of Islam, nor the Aryan Nation. Or whatever other racist pr#ks you'd care to name. But because I believe that they still have a constitutional right to express their opinions, you'd happily declare me to be as bad as them? What if the speech I fought to keep free was yours? How is that any different? I'm sure plenty of what you've said is offensive to those groups.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Most Americans would fight for the KKK to keep their free speech, even the people that the KKK hates on. Americans are actually fairly united on this... despite conservative persecution complex.

Actually, I would have to say that there's an increasingly loud voice in the US that is fighting to only keep free speech that doesn't contain opinions contrary to their own. Just watch how fast you'll be shouted down and belittled if you criticize ANY aspect of the LGBT community.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

THAT would make you WHAT then? A nazi yourself?
A social overseer to control the masses and their choices.
IT isn't such a simple idea and the experiment called American never had it easy in maintaining it.
I don't agree.
Taking the lazy approach to pass over whelming laws NOR killing those who are diffrent than you won't be tollerated as we have all seen.
TRY again to look for an answer if you wish to delve into such a complex issue.
You'd better be a genuis.


Well I will say this, I am no NAZI,but I do have my opinion on hate speech and I do not think it will be around forever. Of course some may want to fight and die for the right to express hate speech but at the end of the day I think it will be gone eventually. If hate speech is ever gone I will say, good riddence to it, and I hope our society will be better off without it.

And I fully concur with your opinion on hate speech. What I take issue with is that those who believe that way shouldn't have to right to free speech. Once you start that ball rolling, the world goes to hell quickly. How long will it be before YOU hold an opinion that has become unpopular? How long before it's YOUR head in the guillotine?
Societal evolution will relegate the hate-filled idiots to the waste bin. But legislating morality is extremely dangerous.
edit on 23-6-2015 by pfishy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Next somebody will want a ban on the word Christmas.




Yeah. It will be called 'Winter Holiday', or some such nonsense. Imagine if that actually happened...



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: supremecommander

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

No. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly must be preserved even if used abhorrently sometimes. The patriot act needs to go not be expanded.


Agreed.

I do suggest however that people who actively engage in hate speech should be profiled as potential terrorists. I don't care if the person is white or black. If you speak about another group of people in the manner Roof did, well I don't think that you can be trusted to be a functioning member of society.

If you hate blacks, you fit the profile of a terrorist.
If you hate whites, you fit the profile of a terrorist.

We are all Americans. I do not trust anyone that speaks openly about hating or wanting to harm my countrymen.

Then you will have to turn a HUGE segment of Hollywood in for being terrorists. They hate Christians. Oh, wait, I suppose that one will probably slide. It's an increasingly popular opinion it seems.
No, a terrorist is someone who would active seek to cause terror. Most racists are waaayyy too cowardly to do anything about their beliefs.They're just idiots, not terrorists. And yes, there are those who would actively seek to harm others in any hate group. But the vast majority don't.
That's akin to labeling all Muslims as terrorists because some Muslims have been. We all know that is a ridiculous way to think.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: Blaine91555

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
I think if there was a law against racism we may see a real racist war emerge.

A war on racism and racists being deemed terrorists I think we may be headed in that direction for better or for worse.

I dont see a down side to wiping out racism once and for all.


It's sad I have to say this before I dare respond but ...

Being a Racist is about as low as a human being can sink. Racism is the product of defective minds and they should be scorned by society.

Having said that, to end Free Speech to deal with it is and exercise in insanity. The repercussions of that would be horribly destructive. Who decides what speech is allowed or what the punishment is for engaging in speech deemed wrong by the current crop of people in power?

I find it odd that you don't see a downside to the elimination of Free Speech. Remember, once you let that Genie out of the bottle, your speech may become a target at some point.

Education is the answer, not more Big Brother speech and thought control that will lead to a society where speech is controlled by whoever is in power.


I think we need some hate speech laws to take on racism, which can be likened to verbal assult.

'Verbal assault' is by far the weakest blanket argument you can make. It's just plain ridiculous.
If someone directly calls for the death or harm of another, then they threatened them. Arrest the guilty party. But saying that you believe that a group is inferior to yours for whatever reason is NOT verbal assault. Saying that a certain group has negative traits that are patently false is slander. Sue them.
Free speech is not guaranteed to be without consequences.
But to use a weak, whiny blanket oh-they-hurt-my-feelings charge like verbal assault simply because they are idiots is just as inane as the hate speech itself.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

The only reason I asked was because you insisted on defining your worry for 'white Europeans' that's all.

No I don't think anybody is outright racist for posting something like that, It was just an odd way of putting it, considering there could have been a half dozen other ways to refer to the UK in general.

So I asked. Be offended if that's how you feel, I apologize it was not my intent. Thank you for answering the question.

Personally, I was raised in a very racist house hold, it took me decades to shed a lot of my preconceived notions about race, even longer to do so with the subconscious way I would react in certain situations. I own that and I do my best to overcome it when it occurs.

Part of that is not sorting humans with a color code.

~Tenth

Well, no, apparently now it's racist for a white person to say 'I don't see color'. And Napolitano just put out a memo at UC Berkley asking people to not use the phrase 'melting pot' in reference to American culture. Not paying attention to ethnicity is apparently just as bad as disliking it, it would seem.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join