I liked Foxy's first post on this thread - generally I find Psychology Today very much a mouthpiece of "Identity Politics" of which Politic Correctness is one of their weapons. This article seems less extreme. How Prof. Dobrin frames the issue implies conflation of possibility with probablility when he says "free speech" on one side "use with care" on the other. It's also important to look at the proportions. Social Science does this a lot. Soc-Sci isn't objective or scientific (see Kant - Four Fold Root Of Reason). The research community still don't understand the brain and anthropology due to their complexity. Bob Whitaker says Soc-Sci is self serving he seems to believe that they are the drivers of the Identity movement. If you go to a movie theatre and shout "movies are stupid" this is inapproapriate "context" for free speech. You can be fired for private conversation - this power over peoples beliefs is concerning. Some governments seem to be adopting symbology that is recognised as part of gay minority culture. If you are not gay obviously you are not part of gay culture doesn't mean that you attack them in the street - but you have the right not to be forced to identify with them if you don't. One day at work someone said I was homophobic because of the colour of the clothes I wore. Most people in society are not homosexuals so obviously they don't want homosexual behavior. Does that mean they are homophobic, depends on the definition, possibly it does - does that mean its bad to be homophobic? Sounds like blaming the victim - I certainly felt victimized and intimidated.

Intersectionalism is strong affirmative action and open to exploitation. Everyone is a minority and sometimes others just won't be able to understand us. People will say things that hurt us. To ask the majority to be like us is probably worse than, the majority asking us to be like them - you could call them both bigotted. But if we save our minority-ness for our minority-communities we can be happy and live in peace. You can't have minority communities in a multicultural society because of laws on discrimination. That is the burden and the beauty of individuality. The world doesn't care I'm a snowflake that's ok as long as the world lets me do my thing in my own space with people I let in.

If you annoy everyone around yourself and then you become afraid of them who is to blame?

Hate speech is part of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law". The bill drafted in 1956 adopted in 1966 but not the US until 1992. There has been concern by various sources that the principle is too broad also controversial USSR lobbying. The long term see the UN and EU as un-sustainable. Its concerning that law is being created that isn't directly subject to public review through the ballot box. A countries legal juresdiction and precedence is interesting - in Australia Fed Law trumps State and Council law but in the US Council and States trump National Law - I find a bottom up approach fairer. It keeps power closer to the people and gives communities self determination. Multiculturalism is part of Identity Politics and is still experimental. When societies meet there is a dominance competition. We see this in multicultural countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia (riots against ethnic Chinese businesses) and horrifing Indian machette politics. The US has had ethnic problems for more than 200 years from the slave trade which needs fixing by segmentation.

If everyone is from basically the same ethnic group as even if there is shuffling between the middle class and the elites there is still stability. Multicultural societies will be a battle for dominance. The way that global businesses and socialists see the conflict in the world is similar and I suspect they welcome this conflict as they believe they'll precipitate. Without formal legal structures to protect traditional community structures such as cultures and families we will be subject to the tragedy of the commons like a supernova collapse. The only thing stopping implosion is Nuclear Weapons. It'll be interesting to see which monocultures end up holding the nuclear weapons. If Australians are not dominant in Australia they're submissive they'll be bred out. The way that the UN and League of Nations ensured world peace was to set the rules and act against bad players. Nuclear nations can't really act against each other - stalemate - hence the perm members. Being a perm member means that they can be more powerful than other countries but not more powerful than each other. Russia's economy collapsed and needed to be bailed out but those with the weapons were never really desperate. According to Elon Musk the future looks very dim and our only hope is space.

When in Rome do as the Romans. Be a good guest in someones elses home. Australia is my home. It will become a cultural battlefield in less than ten years. Australia has its own ethnic issues with native cultures. Every culture should have their own country. Aristotle talked about tyranny of the masses as being bad - but its better than a tyranny of the few.

I believe that the UN shouldn't be interfering with laws within countries but only between them. The UN was created to prevent global war it should stick to its brief.

In the end its always about Power. Who wants it and who's got it. It's a mistake to think Political Correctness / Hate Laws are about fairness.

Dearest Foxy,

So would you call "Behead All Those Who Insult The prophet" on a placard at a demo, acceptable free speech, or hate speech ? If someone objected to that, yet pointed out that it would be sanctioned by the Koran, along with many, many approving references there to mutilation, torture, slavery and the inferiority of women and unbelievers, would that also be hate speech ?

To point out that some people believe, on the basis of their religious texts, in such abominations is surely 'free speech' ?

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I think you know the difference between free speech
and hate speech - from whichever religious group
it comes.

Dear Canem Malum,

Your posts really add a great deal to the discussions.
Much food for thought. Thank You.