mpjh wrote:You miss it entirely. By criminalizing the acts that used racism to keep another group down, the government prevents the chief aim of racists - oppression.
This can be true, yes. However, that is all the government can do ... regulate behavior. I thought you were saying something different.
Though I will add a subtle, but important clarification. Those who's prejudice turns them to violance and oppresion are specifically those who wish to keep others down. However, for most, it is a matter of wanting to keep
themselves up. This is important because it helps us to understand why people think as they do.
A person who is comfortable with themselves usually doesn't need to look down on others or treat others badly, not matter their beliefs. The irony about many people with true prejudice is that
they don't really see themselves as putting others down. That is WHY there is typically a huge backlash against many so-called affirmative action programs. People feel as if they are being punished for doing no wrong.
Then, when you enter the "PC" world, things change again. Too often "PC" is really its own, far more oppressive kind of prejudice than that put forward even by ardent racists. Why? Because those who truly believe in the whole "PC" way think they are just "inherently superior" and therefore have no need to even question their ideas. Yet, the real truth is that PC often ignores real and true differences between people and ironically winds up discriminating against just about everyone as a result. Becuase, part of having a belief ... ANY belief, is an inherent idea -- maybe up front, maybe just in the deep, dark recesses of the mind, that everyone else is just wrong. That, inherently is an idea PC tries to disguise. And, thereby limits people's abilities to express themselves.
I mentioned before living in Mississippi. Ironically, a lot of the blacks got along "better" (superficially, in a work way) quite well with some of the highly prejudiced whites, better than with some of us who did not consider ourselve prejudiced. Why? Because they each knew
exactly where they stood with each other. They were fine working together, joking, playing cards. If something happened to one's family, the hat would be "passed around" and EVERYONE would contribute .. no matter the color. BUT, only the blacks would ever even think of going to the black person's house.. and of course the same in reverse for the whites. Those weren't the only "divisions", of course... there was social class, etc. However, those were the main ones. Those of us not from there too often crossed boundaries we did not know existed. And, so, we were sometimes viewed with suspicion as a result.
In a diverse society, asking everyone to think the same way, even accept what everyone else thinks, is too much to ask. Really, all we can do is ask people to "mind their manners" in public. It means that people who have horrible ideas, even, are allowed to exist and live freely, but the cost of NOT allowing that is far too great to risk. Further, I still believe the old saying "nasty things love the dark". It is when we tell people that they
cannot speak, cannot say what they feel that we drive all this into the dark corners and, ironically allow it to flourish. And, sometimes, turn even well-intentioned things into something dark. (as in turning a celebration of culture into a discrimination against others)
mpjh wrote:
The same is true of prejudice against people with different sexual preferences. The end of the raids on gay bars, the end of the raids of people's bedrooms searching for contraceptives, the end of the prohibition on inter-racial marriage, the end of the refusal to sell homes in certain neighborhoods to black families, the end of the bar to voting for blacks, and many others were acts enforced by the local racist ad bigots that oppressed people. Government criminalized those act, and they have, for the most part, ended.
You grab them by the short hairs and their minds and hearts will follow.
There are 2 points here. First, none of those rules came first. ALL came only after a long and hard fought battle and nation-wide change of opinions. Nor did any of it come easily. Only AFTER a large majority of people said "this is just wrong" and were not only willing to say that, but were willing to actually stand up for what they believe.. only THEN did things change.
The same is going to be true of homosexuality. If the government tries to force people before they are ready, it will result in a backlash.. one probably worse than what we saw down south. Because while most people are willing to just live and let live, some will always take it a step further. People are truly threatened by homosexuality because they truly feel it is "catching". That is, they feel it is something not caused strictly by biology, etc.
Anyway, this is getting off the topic of the Holocaust. However, there is a parallel. The Nazis succeeded because they were able to paint the Jews as the cause of the economic problems in Germany post WW I. Right now, homosexuals are not a target of that sort of belief. It is immigrants drawing people's ire and focus in that regard. However, there are 2 things that will move people to do things they won't otherwise consider. Extreme economic hardship /
perceived threat of economic hardship (real or not) AND threat to one's children's morals/welfare. Homosexuality doesn't really touch the first, but it certainly touches the second.
Younger people are more and more willing to accept that homosexuality is not a threat. BUT, if you remember your history of Germany, you understand that those feelings of fear and hatred are not necessarily that far below the surface. If people, even younger people, truly feel that THEY are being threatened, that they are not allowed to think as they wish, believe as they wish in the privacy of their homes and churches and, even to a non-threatening extent, in public.. then they WILL become less tolerant.