Napoleon Ier wrote:Of course there's something wrong with Holocaust denial. It implies that the Jews don't deserve Israel,
The Jews don't 'deserve' Israel, and even if they did, it certainly wouldn't be on account of the holocaust, since the seizure of Palestinian land from people who took no part in the Holocaust is a punishment of the innocent on account of the guilty, a clear contravention of pararagraphs 2 and 3, Sixth Schedule for the Standing Orders on British Democracy.and it was all actually part of a massive conspiracy to oppress Palestinians.
No, it wouldn't, since it could very well only imply that based on a misguided premise, an unsound and invalid conclusion was made by people who believed that the Jews did indeed 'deserve' Israel, and that the oppression of the Palestinians was an incidental a by-product of the aforesaid misinformed logical consturct.
I regret the way I made that point. I don't want to bring in whether or not Jews deserve to be in Israel or not. Really, my point was that when people deny the Holocaust, they are basically calling Jews liars and manipulators of history, and of the actions of world governments. Since the Holocaust clearly happened, I would say the vast majority of deniers are racist. They wouldn't deny it out of ignorance -- an ignorant would simply say they weren't sure, or hadn't heard of it.
It's similar to saying you're "for states' rights" in the US. It's really a code word for being a racist.
Oh, but if you're for States' rights anywhere elkse in the world you're not necessarily a racist? Therefore by definition, Libertarians residing within the US are all racists? Is supporting States' rights therefore a form of 'hate-speech' that should be banned,in your opinion? Is anyone who supports regional rights in their own country and then comes to the US automatcally a raacist, regardless of his actual beliefs on the hierarchy of races? Is there any logical a priori proof which would demonstrate the validity of above premise based on a common definition of "racist"? I'll gove you a hint: no, there isn't.
First of all, I am in no way proposing any legislation about this at all. I thought I'd made that clear already. This is all my own opinion.
Secondly: you seem to have this problem of being overly pedantic just so you can yell at people. No, supporting states' rights or being a Libertarian doesn't make you a racist, and shouldn't be banned as hate speech, or any of that.
But when politicians say they're "for states' rights", that's clearly not the message they're putting across. Most voters don't give a shit about Federalism or states' rights. But ever since the origin of the term, states' rights in the US has been associated with Southern defense of a racist status quo, be it John C. Calhoun defending slavery, or Jim Crow, or Ronald Reagan's speech in Philadelphia proclaiming his support for states' rights.
Lee Atwater wrote:
"You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
Yes, I know this is from the Wikipedia article I already posted. But I learned all this stuff in school -- that article is legit. I even remember this exact quote.
Basically, you misunderstood my point. While states' rights isn't an inherently racist idea, in the US it has had a long history with racism, and politicians appealing to Southern votes have long used it as a code word, a kind of wink and a nudge, to get Southerners' votes.
