Education and debate are far more for the benefit of those who may be influenced by the bigots than it is for the bigots themselves. It allows others to see them for what they are and to understand why bigotry is irrational and unjust. People don't learn anything from silence.
The U.S. election is a good example of what happens when a large portion of the population are inadequately educated and uninformed/misinformed.
False equivalence. That's inciting a panic rather than expressing an idea or opinion.
If you're comfortable "living" as a marionette, that's fine, but I would never have anyone dictate to me what I can or cannot think, feel, or say.
You make some good points here. I'm not sure how forbidding people from expressing racist sentiments aloud is dictating what they can think but okay.
The next problem with censorship is that the power to censor is carried out by the controlling party. That's why we assert free speech as an inalienable right. A democracy does not always represent the best of society. This is evident with slavery and how it was abolished. If US censored civil rights activists, where would we be now.
IMO, we shouldn't fear or control any speech. Let it be voiced as a reminder that people still have to work and be active in their societies and governments.
Actually this is something I tend to forget because I tend to view democracy as the best system of government. You make a good point here; especially the bit in bold.
There was a time when racism and xenophobia were the societal mainstream in America, and it was through open challenge, exposure, and debate which turned the tide of public opinion and brought about change in public policy. At the time, censorship of racism was not really an option, since it was those who were in favor of civil rights who were more likely to be censored or jailed for their views.
So, when you say that "people will begin to think it's an acceptable position," they've already been thinking that for generations upon generations. In this case, trying to censor anything is like trying to defuse a bomb which has already gone off.
Besides, the establishment has already legitimized and made acceptable certain aspects of nationalism by supporting national liberation movements in retaliation against racism and colonialism. We might say "it's a good thing that [insert name of former Western colony] is now independent and that they've thrown out the white European imperialists who have oppressed them." This might be a common view nowadays, but if we say that such a view is acceptable, then that gives a tacit endorsement of nationalism which is a bit difficult to put back in the bottle once it's been released.
The West has painted itself into an ideological corner by saying that nationalism is "good" for some parts of the world but "bad" for other parts of the world. That's why some people think it's an acceptable position - because it's already been endorsed and propagated in our society for the past several decades.
Okay, excellent points. I can definitely empathise with the final paragraph: nationalism in the UK seems to be bad when it's Scottish but okay when it's British and I've never understood why aside from Scottish nationalism is simply inconvenient to some.
I'm slowly coming round to your way of thinking, people.
I don't understand why you defend this criminal organization called EU all the time. Besides, I remind you that your country, the United Kingdom was even wealthier and more prosperous than it is now, before joining the EU:
Do you have any sources to back these claims up; specifically that the UK was wealthier before joining the EU?
So leaving the EU has no negative consequence, although the MEPs say the opposite;
Wishful thinking. You don't view the likely possibility of the UK having to renegotiate a lot of trade deals from a far weaker position than before as a bad thing? You don't think the possibility that Brexit will cost UK households hundreds of £s per year is a bad thing?
there must be a reason why the EU Bureaucrats intimidated, threatened, and blackmailed the British government for months, trying to dissuade it from leaving the Union.
If you put decades of your life into a project that some selfish person then threatens by walking away, would you not be annoyed and want to protect it from damage? And what blackmail? The EU have said consistently they're only prepared to set out the terms of Brexit once Westminster actually triggers Article 50 and the negotiations actually begin.
Our countries have definitely lost their sovereignty, as for labor legislation, fiscal matters, monetary policy.
How? Such legislation only has to meet standards agreed upon by all 27 member states - national parliaments are still free to word such laws as they see fit. Further, all EU member states are still by any definition sovereign, independent nations.
The policies of the EU literally impoverished my country which used to be the 6th largest economy in the world once. Now it's devastated by unemployment, crisis of the big and small entrepreneurship, loss of competitiveness thanks to the Chinese, massive immigration from Africa.
Are you sure that might also be due to other factors such as how Italy's successive governments have spent money within the country? I'll admit I'm not aware of the political situation in Italy so this is just speculation on my part.
Trust me: the EU is a criminal plan. I have a law degree...so I studied Macroeconomics thoroughly and I know how these things work in detail.
Have you got a qualification in criminal law? What parts of the EU do you view as criminal, in what ways are they criminal and what laws do they violate? Please provide specifics.
It seems that you are worried about the great economic losses of the so called European bankers. Yes...they will lose lots of money...but...they'll survive.
I'm actually worried about the loss of various legal protections & rights workers in EU countries enjoy. The bankers can go hang as far as I'm concerned; their meddling & corrupt practises have caused our economies quite enough damage already.
Unfortunately, you are right, but this is partly due to the fact that the EU bureaucrats are playing dirty, because they are afraid of losing their interests.
In what ways are they playing dirty?
The EU cannot work, if it was created with the only purpose to make a particular financial élite wealthier and wealthier at the countries' expenses.
That's a big 'if' which you've yet to conclusively evidence.
Once we get rid of this EU, we can create another Union, based upon the absolute sovereignty of the member states, economic cooperation, free trade. But nothing else.
A lot of the EU regulations that people complain about are designed to create a universal standard so that trade between the member states is easier. Economic cooperation is the primary principle of the EU.
As for immigration, the UK has the right to control its borders, because it is a tiny island with a huge population.
65 million people over an area of 242,945 km
2 isn't that big for an area of that size. Shanghai (the most populous city in the world) has a population of roughly 24,256,800 spread out over 6340.5 km2. It's also worth pointing out that the largest concentrations of population density are situated towards one end of Britain.
I could say 'it's more a case of not tolerating intolerance' but at this point I suppose that would be meaningless semantics...
