sami1337 wrote:While i think you're right, freedom of speech does not mean freedom to discriminate and racism.
I disagree, on a couple of various levels.
First of all, I'm on a general crusade against the crusade against discrimination. To act means to discriminate -- to discriminate is to choose one thing because you like it better than the alternative. Somehow, though, "discrimation" in popular speech has come to mean discrimination in a couple of various very narrow classes, namely the choice between either various skin colors or other racial features, or the choice between genders -- and it is implied that this discrimination is bad. The implication that discrimination in gender or race
cannot, under any circumstances, be reasonable, is just stupid. And of course, such thinking leads directly to even worse stupidities like
affirmative action and similar things which is, of course, just enforced discrimination.
The same problem is present with regards to racism too. Of course, I shan't deny that racism and its cousins has lead to a couple of less-than-desirable consequences in the last century or so, but the reaction is just as ridiculous. Nothing is solved by repressing the very notion of racism; it's just another form of political correctness, and I'd argue that political correctness is, indeed, every society's number one public enemy. Why do you think nazism took such a hold in Nazi germany if not for political correctness? And to think that now, they try to use the exact same mechanism to the opposite effect. I cannot see anything good come from that. Also, there's no reason why racism itself should be illegal; its consequences, murder, theft, vandalism and the other various skills we've got in Haven, are already outlawed since time immemorial. "Racism can lead to bad things, so let's outlaw it." The same kind of reasoning permeates some of the worst laws of society: "'Monopoly'* can lead to bad things, so let's outlaw being better than others", leading to stupid and needless inefficiency -- "Intoxication can lead to bad things, so let's outlaw it", leading to people being put in jail for doing noone any harm whatsoever -- and, of course, not to forget "Controversial opinions can lead to instability of the state, so let's outlaw them", leading to the USSR, North Korea and China.
Second, it
is really just a symbol. You'll notice that JTG didn't do anything that was actually racist** -- he just did something that he knew to be politically incorrect in order to draw ire, which is something I can deeply sympathize with. I, too, often do politically incorrect things just in order to aggrevate those who police political incorrectness (just when Jorb and I read this thread, we considered making Hirdsmen a position for men only for the same reason).
Thirdly, I know, of course, very well that the swastika can mean lots of things other than nazism, but I couldn't care less. The tendency to assign values to symbols or pure words, rather than the concepts to which they may or may not refer, is directly mentally unhealthy. I don't really think I need to expand on it. If I do need to, I suggest, instead, watching episode 10 of season 2 of "Bullshit!" (the one on profanity). I could say the same thing myself, but they do it more humorously than I could anyway. :)
Just in case it is somehow unclear from that, bringing out the banhammer for people drawing swastikas is probably among the last things I'd ever do. I'd rather burn Haven. Of course, the same thing goes in the other direction as well -- I wouldn't bring out any banhammer for people starting villages with strict 50/50 gender requirements or profanity bans or adhering to communist dogmas either, even though I'd look down upon them; and that is one of the central tenets of liberalism that I really appreciate:
I don't have to like it***.*
"Monopoly" here used in the invalid sense of being better than others (while at the same time, of course, encouraging actual, true monopolies -- the Swedish state monopoly on liquor comes to mind; not that that should diminish my loathing for other government sponsored entities, though).**
Of course, he couldn't, since Haven is for whites only. ;)***
Naturally, that doesn't mean that you should have to accept it in the middle of your own village either****. I hope you will find the clue-generation from landscaping and village claims useful for similar future endeavors from JTG. :)****
Mostly for the reason of him disturbing the public order and harmony, though, which is what I consider the real crime which JTG is committing. Preventing that is nothing I would look down upon. To take a more specific example; say that you put up a public billboard in the town, made for public use for posting whatever one might want to post as a form of sanctioned graffiti and that JTG, then, posted rasistic twaddle there. If you then banned that specific graffiti, that is something I'd frown upon (but still not do anything about; cf. "I don't have to like it").