Who gets to determine if a party is a hate party?
If you read certain things written by Labor or Greens voters you could say they represent haters of conservative people.
True. They stop short of banning conservative thought though, don't they?
Hate to post at length but the OCB bearded Slovenian is on the money about this point
Today's racism is precisely this racism of cultural difference. It no longer says: 'I am more than you.' It says: 'I want my culture, you can have yours...'
See, to me that isn't really racism UNLESS it forbids the mixing of cultures altogether for reasons of 'cultural purity' or the like. There's nothing wrong with maintaining your cultural roots. There must be respect to other cultures and other peoples however.
I mix with people every day who not only consider me inferior to them, but so much so that I not only will, but deserve to, spend eternity suffering because of my inferiority. Not just a few years, eternity.
It is the actions of these nutters that I would concern myself with (rather than the beliefs) since these are things that actually affect people.
This little side discussion began when GS said he didn't want bigots to be allowed to hold office anywhere in the world. I took him to mean by this that people with bigoted views should not be allowed to hold office. This strikes me as thought police type stuff.
I feel I've started this side-discussion arse-backwards a bit. I'm anti-censorship in a LOT of ways. There's even a thread here on SRP where I'm arguing FOR Dutch bigot Geert Wilders to be allowed to air his (to my mind) nonsense views on the evil of Islam.
Like yourself, actions concern me more than beliefs. But actions are FUELLED by beliefs, are they not? The trouble is defining the 'line' where beliefs become dangerous. Ten people shouting about the evils of immigration might seem fair enough. But if those ten people are stockpiling weapons in readiness for a massacre of immigrants then that obviously needs to be stopped.
Belief becomes action in some cases.
When others are hurt, that's crossing the line. When others are oppressed, that's crossing the line. I do realise it seems a paradox to be intolerant of intolerance in the name of tolerance but I believe there is right and there is wrong.
Evo makes a valuable point though. The very nature of 'intolerance' is in large parts subjective. There would have been many who would have claimed Abbot is intolerant at the last election, as there would have been for Rudd, or Howard, or Hanson, or Christine Milne, etc. How do we clearly define lines of intolerance, sicko? If you believe that bigotry has no place in public office, even if democratically elected, things start to get...messy. What about people who are against gay marriage for religious reasons? What about people anti-immigration? To take it further, what about the far left who would clamp down on free speech if it to were offend sensibilities? What about socialists? Or what about family first? People who look through history and society from a Marxist perspective will arrive at different conclusions of 'intolerance' to one that may look through it through a prism of traditionalism, or post-modernism, or this or that.
Don't get me wrong, I've always found the whole 'but he was democratically elected' argument (ironically used by many leftists to justify Latin American cronies as well as the right) to be pretty bloody weak. But there's a difference between saying 'democratically elected or not, they're still morally/ethically wrong', and 'this particular group should absolutely, definitely not have any right to attain or strive for public office'.
Good points, placebo. The idea of 'thought police' makes my blood run cold, and I don't like the idea that I myself seem to be advocating the concept - even if it seems benign to me.
I've travelled the world and I love contact with other cultures. To hate others, or even to discriminate against others due to superficial differences such as skin colour is to me so abhorrent I want to see this kind of thought and action eradicated wherever it stands. It's a scourge, a true scourge, on the face of this earth.
Reading The Dice Man's insights into life in France I realise there are massive social problems that arrive with the arrival of a different culture. The law seems to go easier on them than for the ordinary Parisian. Assimilation is a difficult thing for the new arrivals and the temptation to only associate with those of a similar background and establish enclaves of your own kind is extremely problematic for the host culture. Employment is an issue. You arrive and you can't find a job and you go on social security that's raised by taxes on the hard work of others.
Resentment grows.
It's all understandable as a cause-and-effect chain of events, and the trick is how to deal with it. You could tackle it through both cultures approaching each other with a view to educating each about the other and strengthen cross-cultural ties. Or you could blame them for every new ill the nation faces and wait for anger to rise and any policies favouring discrimination and cultural separatism to be justified by events.
A change of thought and approach may just help ease racial/cultural differences. Of course everyone needs to buy into the concept and that means either convincing or dismissing the 'Nah, they won't be reasoned with under any circumstance. We have nothing to discuss' crowd.