It's interesting how nobody has commented on how an abolition of anti-discrimination laws could so easily be weaponised in support of identity politics. For example a feminist run store refusing men in the name of creating anti-patriarchal spaces or a business in a predominantly black neighbourhood refusing whites on the basis of cultural insensitivity. Something that would receive far less censure than a Jim Crow style policy. It would very likely blow up in your faces, and you'd spend whole weeks whining about it.
In addition it's impossible to accurately predict what attitudes will look like in 100 or 200 years in regards to what kind of behaviour consumers will and won't tolerate. Que sera, sera I guess?
However, that aside, nobody should ever have to face discrimination in their lifetimes, which fundamentally unethical and should never be afforded legal protection. And only by enshrining anti-discrimination principles in law can you properly ensure that.
__________________
Last edited by Beniboybling on Jan 2nd, 2018 at 01:24 PM
I would love that lol. I'm dead serious. I would love to see feminists open up a store and ban men in the name of the patriarchy. That would be such a perfect representation of modern feminism.
But we already see some of this shit go down in smaller ways. Like the recent college republican members that got kicked out of an on campus cafe for wearing MAGA hats. Shockingly I didn't see much of an uproar from the left over it, but then again these were white males and they probably deserved it.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Last edited by Surtur on Jan 2nd, 2018 at 02:34 PM
You're wrong, I covered this already. Multiple times in this thread, in fact.
Sacrifice individual freedom and interfere with business with asinine thought-policing laws because we don't know how the culture will be in 100-200 years.
Got it.
I disagree. Everyone should have to face it. We need to get rid of thinking like yours by teaching our children that their feelings can be hurt and that the world is not always 100% safe from ideas that we don't like.
Perhaps no legal protection to discriminate but not have laws which would allow thought policing. In other words, you cannot force me to act against my personal beliefs with the law. That's what we need.
I now feel it is discriminatory to not represent my beliefs that people who are registered Democrats should have to achoo 3 times towards the north, every morning. These are my principles. If you do not comply, you're being anti-discriminatory towards me.
Honestly, I think that cultural and societal contexts are much more potent determinants of discrimination practices than any law or statute. Civil rights acts existed in the 1800s but were irrelevant because the social and political capita didn't exist to actually enforce them. Magically put the Civil Rights act of 1964 into the Constitution in 1870 and abolish all discrimination laws in 2017 and you'll still see a lot more discrimination in the former case than the latter.
__________________ Join the new Star Wars vs. forum: Suspect Insight Forums (not url'd for spam prevention)
Gender: Male Location: 4th Street Underpass, Manhattan
And here we have a massive disagreement. I can understand not wanting kids to slack through life, and I can understand wanting children to understand that there are differing opinions on subjects. But to support discrimination isn't supporting differing opinions. Supporting discrimination means supporting outright malicious ignorance that prevents many people from reaching their true potential. Like I said, I understand how differing opinions can help better individuals, but I don't see how discrimination can do anything but hold individuals, and our species at large, back. Hell, in a million years, humans won't even have the phenotypes we have now, of course provided that ignorant discriminatory assholes don't destroy our species/planet before then.
You're not really directly talking about my point, however. My point is that it is stupid as f*ck to think you can shield everyone, all the time, against discrimination with thought policing laws.
I think everyone should be aware of and face discrimination instead of pretending we can just legislate discrimination away (it never works and it never will work).
Refusing people business on the basis of their race, gender, sexuality or whatever is not thought, it is action, and infringes on the freedom of the person being discriminated against.
But yes, because consumer whims are subjective and mutable, if something is wrong in principle, it needs to be given solid foundation which isn't dictated by the prevailing zeitgeist. You know, like the U.S Constitution.
Cool, that doesn't make discrimination acceptable.
If your personal beliefs lead you to action that is against the law then I bloody well can and will.
Nonetheless, if you repeal laws that prevent people from establishing "no blacks allowed" signs on the doors, how to you propose to a deal with those who ignore that sign and walk in anyway?
(please log in to view the image)
__________________
Last edited by Beniboybling on Jan 2nd, 2018 at 04:33 PM
We also don't have a very clear criteria for what kinds of discrimination are unethical. It's absurd to think no discrimination is justified - employers discriminate for hard working employees, for example. Nor does it have to be anything in your control or directly causative of the task at hand, because we employ statistical proxies and heuristics beyond our control all the time (e.g. standardized test scores, which can be changed with hard work* but have been demonstrated to have a significant genetic/innate component).
Discrmination, in other words, is a special case of bayesian probabilities - but it isn't always a prudent thing to use on a societal level. But when?
* (hard work also has a genetic component anyway)
__________________ Join the new Star Wars vs. forum: Suspect Insight Forums (not url'd for spam prevention)
No way in hell. Use the KMC search feature: if you can't find it, too bad. I'm not wasting my time on a troll.
You're either an idiot or you're trolling because you missed the point. You're actually just a troll and you're trying to strawman my point but have failed. Trying to control people's actions based on their beliefs is thought policing. It is an inaction, by the way. Forcing people to act in a certain way that you believe is thought policing and forced service at gunpoint: ergo, the entire point of this thread.
I have an idea far better than yours: don't force people to think, say, or act how you'd like. If they'd prefer to not think, not say, or not act, let them be.
Great! Go discuss your red herring with someone else, then!
So what did we learn from your trolling?
1. You're an idiot or a troll. It's getting harder to tell which, these days.
2. You're trying to move the goal posts to be about actions instead of inaction (unless you're trying to say the cake artist unmade a cake? lol)
3. You want to thought police everyone.
4. You ignored the fact that thought-policing has a very shitty slippery slope by just posting a meme. Too bad: you used the argument, first, so deal with the consequences of your poorly though-out thought-policing SJW bullshittery.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Jan 2nd, 2018 at 04:40 PM
Gender: Male Location: 4th Street Underpass, Manhattan
Again, I understand your argument. Let those who discriminate be undone by their own ignorance rather than forced laws. We have seen it done successfully before, such as the various white supremacists on Facebook who are exposed and subsequently fired from their jobs, or Papa John Schnatter, whose ignorant comments didn't get him arrested but did get him fired. I don't think the word "N****r" or "F****t" should be outlawed. That being stated, I do think that there should be laws preventing minorities and gays from being discriminated against in job opportunities, although these laws should be based on meritocracy rather than demographic appeasement.
No Dadudemon, you have to debate trolls because otherwise your a coward and the real troll. If someone makes a claim you have to empirically refute him, no matter what. You're saying it's trolling because you think it's offensive, not because you've done serious research on the issue.
It's funny because you outright stated that differences exist but then get angry when others even remotely imply it because anyone who thinks so must be a racist bigot (except for you!!)
__________________ Join the new Star Wars vs. forum: Suspect Insight Forums (not url'd for spam prevention)
I think that at least for now, we've gotten to the point that it is disastrous if a person is racist in their business because it gets quickly plastered all over the net. For example, there was a restaurant that was owned by two racist brothers. They kept it under wraps. Bla bla bla, someone found out, leaked, got posted to social media, and they got shut down because enough people stopped patronizing their business.
That's how it should work. But what if it was in the Bayou? And people didn't care or even supported those brothers? Oh well. But at least people would now know and could avoid the racist business (for example, as I stated earlier, I do not buy Tyson foods because of how poorly they treat animals).
Yes, dude, you're saying everything that I want to say. This is the world we live in and I'm glad it's like this.
I'm on the fence about this. I've seen arguments for why we should get rid of the American Civil Rights Act (TACRA) but I'm not sure I want to get rid of that law just yet. I think it should be updated to cover age, in the meantime. If someone wants to start a thread and argue for or against TACRA, I'd be open to debating both sides.
Do you think you sound intelligent when you say these things?
Trying to control people's thoughts is thought policing. That is why it's called thought policing. What aspect of anti-discrimination laws force people to think in a certain way, or alter their belief system?
And no, establishing a policy in which you do not serve or permit entry of certain persons in regards to your business is an action. You are actively refusing them a service that you are providing everyone else. Inaction would be not providing a service or a place of entry in the first place. And that's fine, nobody is suggesting we force bakers to bake gay wedding cakes when they don't provide a wedding cake service in the first place, but if they do, their practice has to comply with discrimination laws.
I will not force people to think or say in a way I like, I will expect people to act in accordance with the law when they do act, and the system of ethics it uploads.
Was this supposed to be some kind of gotcha? Try explaining what aspect of my argument was a red herring.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 2nd, 2018 01:21 PM
