PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Racism by association?
The photographer should have just said she was booked that day.
NY's Proposed Ban on Large Sugary Drinks
- Thread starter Scat
- Start date
Racism by association?
The photographer should have just said she was booked that day.
Someone who turns away business because they are racist, sexist and/or anti-homosexual is making a mistake. A business mistake. Does their mistake hurt the person they refuse service to? Yes. Does their mistake hurt their business more? Yes.
Let the racists and homophobes make mistakes as well as expose their stupidity. It opens the door for non-racists and non-homophobes to take advantage of the mistakes and move in on their business.
The notion that if we allowed people to make stupid, self-defeating decisions they wouldn't be able to resist it and they'd go around hurting themselves and others just because is silly. We're afraid of phantoms.
Let the racists and homophobes make mistakes as well as expose their stupidity. It opens the door for non-racists and non-homophobes to take advantage of the mistakes and move in on their business.
The notion that if we allowed people to make stupid, self-defeating decisions they wouldn't be able to resist it and they'd go around hurting themselves and others just because is silly. We're afraid of phantoms.
In the USA, avoiding dark-skinned doctors/businessmen/etc. is easy. Power inequlity gives one sort of bigotry far more reach than the other.
Unless there are strong cultural forces that intervene. When 5% of the populatioon has trait X, and 20% of the population will boycott/threaten/snub you for serving people with trait X, the sensible business decision is to not serve people with trait X.
This is only true in an efficient market with plenty of competition. It would likely work the opposite in the old racist south where rich white people with the power and money refuse to frequent an establishment that caters to blacks. Power has a way of destroying freedom and markets just as the opposite spectrum does.
IMO, it's better to educate to the point these laws become unneccessary, but that takes time.
I agree that education is the key. However I am not willing to sacrifice "freedom" until that time comes.
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
Maybe now they can also cut back on there fat people.
Not sure we're on topic here exactly. . . . .
I know people who are very effective at resisting "education". . . . they make any appeal to using education to solve any problem sorta ridiculous. . . . they do the opposite of what the "educators", well. . . . propagandists.. . . . dictate. That's why a lot of do-gooders have the habit of saying "There oughtta be a law!". Serious do-gooders run for public office just for that reason.
Most people would not recognize "education" of the sort that just enables the object of "education" to think for themselves, and act accordingly, calling it some kind of huge social injustice.
Never said it would be easy. It will take years, possbily decades, but it is possible to weed out alot of the problems, or at least drastically reduce them, thru education.
"Freedom" is a broad term with varying definitions. The Right in this country isn't willing to sacrifice "freedom" of property ownership even if it means a return to serfdom under our Wall Street Overlords. Corporations have pretty coercive control over legislation these days so I wouldn't say defending property rights at all costs (and freedom of speech through monetary contributions) makes us more free. Sooner or later none of us will afford land so we'll rent small parcels from the landlords--a term rooted in the seignorialism/manorialism itself. The Right won't be happy valiantly defending their vision of freedom until they're thanking the Lords of the Manors for protecting them by paying even more tribute to their military industrial complex.
Freedom requires checking powers and control. It's a balancing act that protects the big guy from the socialist and the small masses from the powerful. America is somewhere in the middle of that two way street. While we're forming "a more perfect union", we'll need accommodating laws to check the powerful and protect the innocent.
There was a reason I put freedom in "". You go back to non partisanship. Neither side is willing to sacrifice anything or anything else. People need to pick the fights they feel are worth fighting. They just feel that everything is worth a fight and you cannot give ground on anything.
To be honest I only see this intensifying no matter who is elected. Each side will just continue to ratchet it up a notch to "1 up" the other side and eventually something will happen.
