The Infant Sophistry of Modern American Political Thought

[Montecarlo]

Netflix has a series called, simply enough, “Babies.”  In one episode experimenters presented babies with two foods to determine the babies preference.  They then presented a puppet who either expressed the same preference, or opposing preference.

Enter a puppet show.  The puppet is playing with a ball, and drops it.  A helper puppet returns the ball.  Our hero loses the ball again, and this time a villain puppet steals it.

At the end, the babies were allowed to choose who they liked more: the helper or the villain.  Where the main puppet enjoyed the same food preference as the baby, the helper was more popular.  When it had the opposing preference, the villain was the puppet of choice.

I have no idea if the body of scientific literature backs up this experiment.  But it seems to me the Lilliputian vs Blefuscudian rivalry is alive and well in America.  Specifically, it really doesn’t matter how horrible or deceptive or immoral someone is.  If they open their eggs from the correct end, they are an ally.

You hear it in the language.  We’re going to “take back” the White House/senate/country.  As if it was something stolen from the Good Guys by the Bad Guys.

It is likely the majority of those who cheered when McConnell sunk Garland’s nomination are cheering at his intention to confirm Ginsburg’s replacement.  And lest you nod your head in agreement, aghast at the behavior of those Little Endians, I invite you to consider those who rallied to “believe all women” when Kavanaugh was accused, but instinctively defended Biden when he had his own accusations.  These reactions happened well before there was any idea on the credibility of the accusations.  In fact, the credibility of the accusations is immaterial.  Biden opens his egg from the big end, so he is therefore a good guy.

Conservatives like to poke fun at college snowflakes who can’t handle uncomfortable ideas, but then will say they don’t want homosexuality and multiculturalism “shoved down their throats,” which I can only interpret as a desire to live in a religious conservative safe space, free from other pesky people doing what they want.  Freedom for me, not for thee.

Liberals were horrified when bakers refused a custom wedding cake for a gay wedding, but cheered when Sarah Huckabee Sanders was refused service at a restaurant.  It appears the liberty to judge those according to your personal ethical code and act on those judgments is not universally applied.  Freedom for me; not for thee.

Part of my frustration may be that I feel like a political outcast. 

I want people to be treated equally under the law, but I don’t think it’s possible or desirable for people or individuals ever to be equal. 

I want Republicans to recognize that centuries of slavery and segregation and broken window policing have disenfranchised Black Americans and we ought to do more than say “pull yourself up by your bootstraps”

I want Democrats to recognize that the schools, police, and prosecutors in large cities with high concentrations of Black Americans are largely cities with Democratic city councils, Democratic mayors, and Democratic attorney generals (and many of the associated states are heavily blue too) - they do not need a single republican vote or voter to enact real change.  I want them to do something other than blame Trump.

I want Libertarians to stop acting like giant businesses are any less oppressive than big government.

I want people to be free to speak their mind and make their own value judgments without fear of being fined, losing their business, or going to jail.

I want civil servants to have access legal representation so they can investigate the government without fear of the DOJ of threatening to destroy them, and they can’t even afford to hire legal representation.

But most of all I want people to recognize they are not engaged in a bitter battle with the enemy.  They are part of a civic discourse with their fellow citizens.  That isn’t to say it should always be polite or easy.  Americans like fighters and they want to know who they elect will fight, not just sit back and have an intellectual discussion.  So let’s fight.  But not as enemies, but as citizens.

[ministashy]

Great lecture.  Maybe you should aim it at Republicans.  Oh wait, the ones still in office have hitched their wagon to the Mitch and Trump train and are firmly in the 'might makes right' camp.  Good luck with that.

[Montecarlo]

Great lecture.  Maybe you should aim it at Republicans.  Oh wait, the ones still in office have hitched their wagon to the Mitch and Trump train and are firmly in the 'might makes right' camp.  Good luck with that.

You just won the Office of War Information Post of the Year

[Bloop Bloop]

Generally I do dislike the tribalism of modern politics and the thought that it's either "us" or "them". I see this on both sides of politics. It's a pernicious influence.

It even happens here on FIRE forums where, for example, someone who spends 1/50th of her income on first class flights will tend to be met with lukewarm reactions at best but another person who spends 1/50 of his income on a fancy bicycle will get a much more positive reaction.

It's best to try to avoid group think and the desire to belong to any "group" whatsoever.

[ministashy]

Ah yes, the classic 'both sides'-ism and the 'I'm an independent, free thinker!  I don't belong to no stinking party because I'm an Enlightened Intellectual (tm), unlike the rest of you poor deluded peasants.'

I'm sure the over 200K Americans who have now died on Trump's watch will no doubt applaud your enlightened political sensibilities.  If, yanno, they were still alive.  As will no doubt the women who will die from illegal abortions if the Supreme Court decides to allow the states to pass laws that will strangle abortion clinics into extinction within their borders. 

[Bloop Bloop]

You know it's possible to oppose Trump's handling of issues x, y, or z, and to support abortion, without labelling yourself a Democrat (or whatever). It's even possible to vote Democrat without labelling yourself a democrat. It's possible to just vote on, or think about, each issue on its on merits.

Some people are so wedded to an in-group that they turn everything into "us versus them" and it's an unhappy way to live.

[GuitarStv]

It is likely the majority of those who cheered when McConnell sunk Garland’s nomination are cheering at his intention to confirm Ginsburg’s replacement.

Replacing a supreme court justice 3/4s of the way through a presidential term (as in Obama's case) is different than replacing a supreme court justice after voting for the new president is already underway.  I'd argue that the two scenarios are quite different.

And lest you nod your head in agreement, aghast at the behavior of those Little Endians, I invite you to consider those who rallied to “believe all women” when Kavanaugh was accused, but instinctively defended Biden when he had his own accusations.  These reactions happened well before there was any idea on the credibility of the accusations.  In fact, the credibility of the accusations is immaterial.  Biden opens his egg from the big end, so he is therefore a good guy.

Kaveanaugh was accused of sexual assault, and Republicans explicitly blocked and prevented a fair investigation from taking place.  Biden was accused of sexual assault and investigation into the matter showed no compelling evidence that it took place.

"Believe all women" had little to do with it.  What end of an egg you open first has little to do with it.  It's the difference in approach taken that was concerning.

Liberals were horrified when bakers refused a custom wedding cake for a gay wedding, but cheered when Sarah Huckabee Sanders was refused service at a restaurant.  It appears the liberty to judge those according to your personal ethical code and act on those judgments is not universally applied.  Freedom for me; not for thee.

Again, falsely equating situations will lead you astray in assumptions here.  Do you really see no difference between denying someone service because of the sexual orientation they were born with, and denying someone service because of the conscious and deliberate choices to do others harm that they've made as an adult?

I want people to be free to speak their mind and make their own value judgments without fear of being fined, losing their business, or going to jail.

I'm quite curious about this one.  This appears to be a contradiction.

Let's say I own a business franchise.  The 61 year old manager of one of my stores turns out to strongly believe that children under the age of 3 should be sexually available for men over the age of 60.  You have clearly stated that in this scenario you want this 61 year old to be able to loudly speak his mind on the subject of man-boy sexual relations . . . but doing so will naturally negatively impact the business that I own.

For your desire of 'freedom to speak their mind' to be realized, I (as the store owner) appear to be required to ignore this manager and simply eat the business losses.  Is that correct?

I want civil servants to have access legal representation so they can investigate the government without fear of the DOJ of threatening to destroy them, and they can’t even afford to hire legal representation.

But most of all I want people to recognize they are not engaged in a bitter battle with the enemy.  They are part of a civic discourse with their fellow citizens.  That isn’t to say it should always be polite or easy.  Americans like fighters and they want to know who they elect will fight, not just sit back and have an intellectual discussion.  So let’s fight.  But not as enemies, but as citizens.

On these two points at least, we are in agreement.

The government needs to be kept in check, and whistleblowers need to be listened to and better protected.  The past decades have shown that this is not the case (Carmen Segarra, Chelsea Manning, and Edward Snowden).  Both Republicans and Democrats have fought hard to prevent whistleblowing from going on.

Polarization and an unwillingness to listen to reason (from either political side) is certainly a problem today.

[Montecarlo]

It is likely the majority of those who cheered when McConnell sunk Garland’s nomination are cheering at his intention to confirm Ginsburg’s replacement.

Replacing a supreme court justice 3/4s of the way through a presidential term (as in Obama's case) is different than replacing a supreme court justice after voting for the new president is already underway.  I'd argue that the two scenarios are quite different.

I don't want to argue how similar or different the two scenarios are.  My example there was to show (in this case) Republicans prefer stickin' it to their enemies than a consistent, value-driven approach towards democratic norms and jurisprudence.

And lest you nod your head in agreement, aghast at the behavior of those Little Endians, I invite you to consider those who rallied to “believe all women” when Kavanaugh was accused, but instinctively defended Biden when he had his own accusations.  These reactions happened well before there was any idea on the credibility of the accusations.  In fact, the credibility of the accusations is immaterial.  Biden opens his egg from the big end, so he is therefore a good guy.

Kaveanaugh was accused of sexual assault, and Republicans explicitly blocked and prevented a fair investigation from taking place.  Biden was accused of sexual assault and investigation into the matter showed no compelling evidence that it took place.

"Believe all women" had little to do with it.  What end of an egg you open first has little to do with it.  It's the difference in approach taken that was concerning.

I think you and I remember different.  Democrats rallied to Biden's defense and castigated Kavanaugh before any facts were established.

Liberals were horrified when bakers refused a custom wedding cake for a gay wedding, but cheered when Sarah Huckabee Sanders was refused service at a restaurant.  It appears the liberty to judge those according to your personal ethical code and act on those judgments is not universally applied.  Freedom for me; not for thee.

Again, falsely equating situations will lead you astray in assumptions here.  Do you really see no difference between denying someone service because of the sexual orientation they were born with, and denying someone service because of the conscious and deliberate choices to do others harm that they've made as an adult?

If I'm not mistaken, you are suggesting the act of discriminating is fine, as long as you discriminate against the right people?

I want people to be free to speak their mind and make their own value judgments without fear of being fined, losing their business, or going to jail.

I'm quite curious about this one.  This appears to be a contradiction.

Let's say I own a business franchise.  The 61 year old manager of one of my stores turns out to strongly believe that children under the age of 3 should be sexually available for men over the age of 60.  You have clearly stated that in this scenario you want this 61 year old to be able to loudly speak his mind on the subject of man-boy sexual relations . . . but doing so will naturally negatively impact the business that I own.

For your desire of 'freedom to speak their mind' to be realized, I (as the store owner) appear to be required to ignore this manager and simply eat the business losses.  Is that correct?

It's a tough one, I admit.  I don't wish any business owner to be burdened with an crack-pot employee who gives the business a black-eye, no matter how good they are at their job.  I also don't wish all people with unpopular opinions to be ostracized, and in some cases, criminalized.

I know some people are going to lose their mind and misinterpret what I'm about to write, as conflating racial justice and pedophilia, but here goes...

The typical NFL viewer is highly patriotic, almost jingoistic.  They don't like to see symbols of America affronted.  Colin Kaepernick made a public statement, by kneeling during the anthem, that offended the NFL's customers.  And his career was destroyed.  I don't feel comfortable with that.  I think it makes perfect sense to not like Kaepernick's kneeling, but still cheer when he tosses a touchdown pass.  I don't think that makes as much sense if he advocated for NAMBLA.

But most of the progressive gains the past century were positions that were once considered unpopular, offensive, and subversive.  There has to be allowance for that kind of thinking.

[GuitarStv]

And lest you nod your head in agreement, aghast at the behavior of those Little Endians, I invite you to consider those who rallied to “believe all women” when Kavanaugh was accused, but instinctively defended Biden when he had his own accusations.  These reactions happened well before there was any idea on the credibility of the accusations.  In fact, the credibility of the accusations is immaterial.  Biden opens his egg from the big end, so he is therefore a good guy.

Kaveanaugh was accused of sexual assault, and Republicans explicitly blocked and prevented a fair investigation from taking place.  Biden was accused of sexual assault and investigation into the matter showed no compelling evidence that it took place.

"Believe all women" had little to do with it.  What end of an egg you open first has little to do with it.  It's the difference in approach taken that was concerning.

I think you and I remember different.  Democrats rallied to Biden's defense and castigated Kavanaugh before any facts were established.

We do seem to remember it differently.  It was discussed it pretty thoroughly here for example:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/the-sexual-assault-allegations-against-joe-biden/

 . . . and generally, Democratic supporters were interested in seeing the evidence.

Liberals were horrified when bakers refused a custom wedding cake for a gay wedding, but cheered when Sarah Huckabee Sanders was refused service at a restaurant.  It appears the liberty to judge those according to your personal ethical code and act on those judgments is not universally applied.  Freedom for me; not for thee.

Again, falsely equating situations will lead you astray in assumptions here.  Do you really see no difference between denying someone service because of the sexual orientation they were born with, and denying someone service because of the conscious and deliberate choices to do others harm that they've made as an adult?

If I'm not mistaken, you are suggesting the act of discriminating is fine, as long as you discriminate against the right people?

Of course the act of discriminating is perfectly fine!  But no, the problem is not 'right people' it's 'right reasons'.

I'm in charge of hiring people to work at my company.  Two people come in - one is a guy with two days of stubble on his face, ripped jeans, a t-shirt with mustard stains on it, smelling a little funny, and an OK resume.  The other is clean cut, wearing a dress shirt and khakis and has an OK resume.

I'm very likely to discriminate against the first person and hire the second.  The choices the first person made indicate potential problems.  It would be foolish not to recognize this.

Now this is very different from discriminating based upon something the person doesn't choose.  If I'm making my decision based upon something they didn't choose (being gay/straight, being male/female, being black/white), then I'm making a discriminatory choice for foolish reasons.  A person's choices/behaviour can tell me who they are.  Their skin colour can't.

I want people to be free to speak their mind and make their own value judgments without fear of being fined, losing their business, or going to jail.

I'm quite curious about this one.  This appears to be a contradiction.

Let's say I own a business franchise.  The 61 year old manager of one of my stores turns out to strongly believe that children under the age of 3 should be sexually available for men over the age of 60.  You have clearly stated that in this scenario you want this 61 year old to be able to loudly speak his mind on the subject of man-boy sexual relations . . . but doing so will naturally negatively impact the business that I own.

For your desire of 'freedom to speak their mind' to be realized, I (as the store owner) appear to be required to ignore this manager and simply eat the business losses.  Is that correct?

It's a tough one, I admit.  I don't wish any business owner to be burdened with an crack-pot employee who gives the business a black-eye, no matter how good they are at their job.  I also don't wish all people with unpopular opinions to be ostracized, and in some cases, criminalized.

I know some people are going to lose their mind and misinterpret what I'm about to write, as conflating racial justice and pedophilia, but here goes...

The typical NFL viewer is highly patriotic, almost jingoistic.  They don't like to see symbols of America affronted.  Colin Kaepernick made a public statement, by kneeling during the anthem, that offended the NFL's customers.  And his career was destroyed.  I don't feel comfortable with that.  I think it makes perfect sense to not like Kaepernick's kneeling, but still cheer when he tosses a touchdown pass.  I don't think that makes as much sense if he advocated for NAMBLA.

But most of the progressive gains the past century were positions that were once considered unpopular, offensive, and subversive.  There has to be allowance for that kind of thinking.

Kaepernick was in the right . . . and although he was blackballed by the NFL, the situation was eventually rectified.  While not fair or correct, there's no painless way to force society to change for the better.  Unpopular, offensive, subversive messages NEED pushback from those in the wrong because this behaviour helps to reinforce the correctness of the message and the need for change.  It has weight at least in part, because of the risk to the person bringing the message.  I don't think it's possible to sanitize this part - it's always going to be messy.

If everyone had just ignored Kaepernick and gone about their business, his message would not have been anywhere near as powerful.  While I agree that there has to be allowance for a message, I very much disagree that this should manifest in some sort of broad spectrum tolerance of everything because maybe something that someone is saying will be the way of the future.

We do not have to accept NAMBLA to stop police from murdering black people with no legal repercussions.  I think that some sort of blanket 'acceptance' of all ideas actually weakens the important ones by removing risk . . . and it does so at the same time that we create a more welcoming environment for things we don't want (like pedophilia).

[former player]

Generally I do dislike the tribalism of modern politics and the thought that it's either "us" or "them". I see this on both sides of politics. It's a pernicious influence.

It even happens here on FIRE forums where, for example, someone who spends 1/50th of her income on first class flights will tend to be met with lukewarm reactions at best but another person who spends 1/50 of his income on a fancy bicycle will get a much more positive reaction.

It's best to try to avoid group think and the desire to belong to any "group" whatsoever.

I'm struggling to understand what the problem is with cheering on the purchase of a bicycle (entirely mustachian, good for individual health and plantary health if it replaces ICE usage) and being "lukewarm" about polluting airplane travel.  And if anything (you can check out my "flight free in 2019/2020 threads for evidence) even mustachians are far too inclined to give themselves free passes on airplane travel.

[bacchi]

Generally I do dislike the tribalism of modern politics and the thought that it's either "us" or "them". I see this on both sides of politics. It's a pernicious influence.

It even happens here on FIRE forums where, for example, someone who spends 1/50th of her income on first class flights will tend to be met with lukewarm reactions at best but another person who spends 1/50 of his income on a fancy bicycle will get a much more positive reaction.

It's best to try to avoid group think and the desire to belong to any "group" whatsoever.

I'm struggling to understand what the problem is with cheering on the purchase of a bicycle (entirely mustachian, good for individual health and plantary health if it replaces ICE usage) and being "lukewarm" about polluting airplane travel.  And if anything (you can check out my "flight free in 2019/2020 threads for evidence) even mustachians are far too inclined to give themselves free passes on airplane travel.

Bloop is (probably) only thinking about it with re: to money spent.

I.e., Spending $5000 on first-class tickets is the same, financially, as spending $5000 on a carbon-fiber bike.

[robartsd]

I.e., Spending $5000 on first-class tickets is the same, financially, as spending $5000 on a carbon-fiber bike.

Not quite - the cost of the bike is distributed over many years of usage, the plane tickets are consumed much more quickly.

@GuitarStv makes a good point about discriminating based on choices vs. discriminating based on inherent characteristics. I still don't understand why people care so much about forcing businesses to serve them when the business owner doesn't want the business - take the revenue to a competitor (and encourage others to do so if you feel so inclined).

I tend to blame the voting system for some if the issues we see in American politics. It is far too easy for the two leading parties to keep control of the system because voters cannot effectively express more than which of the leading candidates they dislike the least.

[GuitarStv]

I still don't understand why people care so much about forcing businesses to serve them when the business owner doesn't want the business - take the revenue to a competitor (and encourage others to do so if you feel so inclined).

Historically, what happens if we ignore prejudice on the part of shop owners is we get unfriendly neighbourhoods with lots of "No Blacks", "No Irish", "No Jews" signs in their windows.  Especially in a small town this might make it very difficult for the discriminated against minority to get any service.

Denial of service because of your skin colour or sexual orientation is also pretty aggressively emotionally damaging to the person discriminated against - and it has historically to deeply divide a community.  It's a lot easier to think of others as subhuman if you can limit all your contact with them.

If the cost of avoiding all that is simply telling some racists or homophobes that they've got to serve everyone equally . . . seems like a no brainer.

[Montecarlo]

Of course the act of discriminating is perfectly fine!  But no, the problem is not 'right people' it's 'right reasons'.

I'm in charge of hiring people to work at my company.  Two people come in - one is a guy with two days of stubble on his face, ripped jeans, a t-shirt with mustard stains on it, smelling a little funny, and an OK resume.  The other is clean cut, wearing a dress shirt and khakis and has an OK resume.

I'm very likely to discriminate against the first person and hire the second.  The choices the first person made indicate potential problems.  It would be foolish not to recognize this.

Now this is very different from discriminating based upon something the person doesn't choose.  If I'm making my decision based upon something they didn't choose (being gay/straight, being male/female, being black/white), then I'm making a discriminatory choice for foolish reasons.  A person's choices/behaviour can tell me who they are.  Their skin colour can't.

There used to be a debate about whether homosexuality was innate or a choice.  I always thought the debate was silly, because who cares if someone is born gay or becomes gay?  The very fact of the debate seemed slightly homophobic to me.  I remember high school classmates arguing that gayness was okay, since it wasn't really their choice.  As if it's not okay if you choose it?

Your distinction seems to open the door for people who believe homosexuality is a choice to discriminate against homosexuals, which is clearly not what you intended.

Regardless, your distinction seems to be that discriminating against and individual is okay if they make bad choices, but not okay based on innate traits.  This distinction clearly falls apart very easily.

If you're playing pickup basketball with strangers, and you're team captain, are you picking the tall, lean, muscular man or the short fat guy?  You haven't seem them play.  Maybe the tall guy has two left feet and the short guy has a great headfake.  But 100/100 we're going to select the tall guy.

While most of the time in jobs we rely on performance to tell us whether someone is good, innate traits are big components of that performance.


The biggest problem in what you write is that there is an implication of universalism.  That there exists some set of choices people can make, and they are now eligible to be discriminated against.  What choices are they?  What services can they be discriminated against?  Can we refuse Sanders if we run a diner?  What about an opera house?  What about a university?  What about a hospital?  What if she wasn't a spokesperson, but she voted for Trump and kinda now regrets it?  That was a choice.  What forms of discrimination are acceptable against that person?

What about me?  I lived in a swing state in 2016 and I didn't vote.  Surely I had outside influence to prevent the Trump debacle from happening, and I did nothing.  What establishments are justified in turning me away?


For me it's pretty simply.  Don't discriminate in housing, food, transportation, and medicine, basically ever.  Keep businesses small, so individual business owner's personal discrimination choices are unlikely to disenfranchise people.

[terran]

...
Regardless, your distinction seems to be that discriminating against and individual is okay if they make bad choices, but not okay based on innate traits.  This distinction clearly falls apart very easily.

If you're playing pickup basketball with strangers, and you're team captain, are you picking the tall, lean, muscular man or the short fat guy?  You haven't seem them play.  Maybe the tall guy has two left feet and the short guy has a great headfake.  But 100/100 we're going to select the tall guy.

While most of the time in jobs we rely on performance to tell us whether someone is good, innate traits are big components of that performance.
...

1) It's been well established that discrimination based on necessary characteristics of the job is legal. A strip club (either male or female) can discriminate on the basis of sex, for example.
2) A pickup basketball game is not an employment situation. If it was, then picking on the basis of shortness and fatness alone would be discrimination, although not illegal as neither shortness nor fatness are protected classes. If you picked the Black guy instead of the white guy to play professional basketball without a tryout then you would be in trouble. If you had the tryout and hired the better player then you wouldn't be in trouble.

[ctuser1]

Keep businesses small, so individual business owner's personal discrimination choices are unlikely to disenfranchise people.

Others much more qualified on legal matters (e.g. terran) are answering more of the core questions you are asking.

I just wanted to respond/react to this bit that I often see thrown around.

As an employee, I much rather prefer large corporations over and above small businesses!!

DW started working at a small, privately held corporation in a tech role. Initially, she faced many, many cases of hostile "bro culture" that is endemic in tech. She had zero choice but to put up with some of the pernicious effects of that issue because the CTO himself was part of that "bro group". Had she been at a megacorp like I have always been a part of - a lot more emphasis would be placed on "harassment trainings"  and all managers would be scared stiff of engaging in any behavior that would be borderline discriminatory (e.g. with women in tech).

Mega-corps have also been far more responsive to any issues I have ever raised. There have been multiple such cases from small to big for me, and - while slow - mega-corps have always came around and done the right thing in the interest of the employees. e.g. a mega-corp with > 100k employees changed the healthcare benefits for everyone starting in Jan-2020 because I discovered a gap and raised stink with the upper management about it.

This is not just one example - I have had this experience with several such mega-corps and > 1 such issues. No such luck with small corporations - the culture there is what the owner chooses it to be. If the owner is a jackass - that's what you put up with as an employee!!

[GuitarStv]

Of course the act of discriminating is perfectly fine!  But no, the problem is not 'right people' it's 'right reasons'.

I'm in charge of hiring people to work at my company.  Two people come in - one is a guy with two days of stubble on his face, ripped jeans, a t-shirt with mustard stains on it, smelling a little funny, and an OK resume.  The other is clean cut, wearing a dress shirt and khakis and has an OK resume.

I'm very likely to discriminate against the first person and hire the second.  The choices the first person made indicate potential problems.  It would be foolish not to recognize this.

Now this is very different from discriminating based upon something the person doesn't choose.  If I'm making my decision based upon something they didn't choose (being gay/straight, being male/female, being black/white), then I'm making a discriminatory choice for foolish reasons.  A person's choices/behaviour can tell me who they are.  Their skin colour can't.

There used to be a debate about whether homosexuality was innate or a choice.  I always thought the debate was silly, because who cares if someone is born gay or becomes gay?  The very fact of the debate seemed slightly homophobic to me.  I remember high school classmates arguing that gayness was okay, since it wasn't really their choice.  As if it's not okay if you choose it?

Your distinction seems to open the door for people who believe homosexuality is a choice to discriminate against homosexuals, which is clearly not what you intended.

Fortunately for us, the debate is ended.  Sexual preferences are not consciously made.  It's as much a part of who we are as skin colour.  There's no door to open for discrimination, because there's no choice made.

If someone chose to be black, would it be OK to be racist?  I dunno.  Fortunately (like homosexuality) it's not a choice.  Now religion (and religious beliefs/practices) are an interesting case, as religion is freely chosen.  I think your best argument to make would be on those grounds.

Regardless, your distinction seems to be that discriminating against and individual is okay if they make bad choices, but not okay based on innate traits.  This distinction clearly falls apart very easily.

If you're playing pickup basketball with strangers, and you're team captain, are you picking the tall, lean, muscular man or the short fat guy?  You haven't seem them play.  Maybe the tall guy has two left feet and the short guy has a great headfake.  But 100/100 we're going to select the tall guy.

I don't think your argument here proves what you think it does.

You gave an example where choosing someone based upon what they were born with rather than their actions and history leads to a mistake being made.

That's kinda what I was arguing.

The biggest problem in what you write is that there is an implication of universalism.  That there exists some set of choices people can make, and they are now eligible to be discriminated against.  What choices are they?  What services can they be discriminated against?  Can we refuse Sanders if we run a diner?  What about an opera house?  What about a university?  What about a hospital?  What if she wasn't a spokesperson, but she voted for Trump and kinda now regrets it?  That was a choice.  What forms of discrimination are acceptable against that person?

Some level of discrimination is a perfectly normal part of living in a society and happens daily without the slightest eyebrow being raised.

What if a person is a nudist?  Is it OK to discriminate against a nudist because he or she refuses to wear clothing?  We already do this every day at most work places.  Why is this discrimination allowed if the nudist isn't even harming anyone?  Why do I have to wear pants when I go to pick my son up from elementary school?  When will this discrimination stop?  Should it stop?

FWIW, as much as I am of the opinion that Sanders is kinda a horrible human being . . . I would not personally deny her service in my hypothetical restaurant.  That seems petty and vengeful.  But I can think of many cases where denial of service would be quite appropriate.  What if an abusive husband who physically and sexually abused his wife for a decade before getting divorced wanted to eat at her restaurant?  Should she be forced to undergo the trauma or being required to serve this person?

As with most things in society, there's a balance to be struck.  I can't tell you exactly where the line is, but it's somewhere between telling a black guy he can't eat in your restaurant because of the colour of his skin and telling a serial abuser he can torment his victim with the full backing of the government.

For me it's pretty simply.  Don't discriminate in housing, food, transportation, and medicine, basically ever.

I'm sure you don't believe that it's just to force me as a restaurant owner to serve the person who sexually assaulted me for a decade, right?

The problem with simple rules is that they tend to fall apart in specific cases.

Keep businesses small, so individual business owner's personal discrimination choices are unlikely to disenfranchise people.

Hmm.  What's the maximum size of a business that you think should be allowed?  There are some serious ramifications involved in enforcing this one . . .

There's also a problem with your initial assumption.  At least in my experience small businesses are much more likely to act in discriminatory manners than larger ones.  Larger ones serve more markets so typically stand to lose more by acting in this way.

[Montecarlo]

Some level of discrimination is a perfectly normal part of living in a society and happens daily without the slightest eyebrow being raised.

What if a person is a nudist?  Is it OK to discriminate against a nudist because he or she refuses to wear clothing?  We already do this every day at most work places.  Why is this discrimination allowed if the nudist isn't even harming anyone?  Why do I have to wear pants when I go to pick my son up from elementary school?  When will this discrimination stop?  Should it stop?

FWIW, as much as I am of the opinion that Sanders is kinda a horrible human being . . . I would not personally deny her service in my hypothetical restaurant.  That seems petty and vengeful.  But I can think of many cases where denial of service would be quite appropriate.  What if an abusive husband who physically and sexually abused his wife for a decade before getting divorced wanted to eat at her restaurant?  Should she be forced to undergo the trauma or being required to serve this person?

As with most things in society, there's a balance to be struck.  I can't tell you exactly where the line is, but it's somewhere between telling a black guy he can't eat in your restaurant because of the colour of his skin and telling a serial abuser he can torment his victim with the full backing of the government.

For me it's pretty simply.  Don't discriminate in housing, food, transportation, and medicine, basically ever.

I'm sure you don't believe that it's just to force me as a restaurant owner to serve the person who sexually assaulted me for a decade, right?

The problem with simple rules is that they tend to fall apart in specific cases.

You made my point better than I did.  Figuring out when, where, to whom, and for what reason it is appropriate to discriminate is enormously complex, subtle, and subjective.

And yet, a substantial amount of the population thinks it's okay to haul a baker in front of a tribunal when they discriminate by not selling junk food to someone.

[Montecarlo]

Keep businesses small, so individual business owner's personal discrimination choices are unlikely to disenfranchise people.

Hmm.  What's the maximum size of a business that you think should be allowed?  There are some serious ramifications involved in enforcing this one . . .

There's also a problem with your initial assumption.  At least in my experience small businesses are much more likely to act in discriminatory manners than larger ones.  Larger ones serve more markets so typically stand to lose more by acting in this way.

I would structure as a revenue tax on all revenues above a certain threshold.  Let's call it 200 billion in revenue.  So if you make 199B in revenue, no tax.  If you make 210B in revenue, that's 1B in tax.

It is very hard to make a profit when 10% of your revenue is going straight out the door in tax, so it would be a natural ceiling.

That directly affects 8 companies.  Walmart does 500B in revenue and would almost certainly have to split into multiple companies.
Amazon does 280B.  While 8B in taxes wouldn't be fun for them, worse would be their growth story would be destroyed and their stock would plummet.

The goal would be to initially avoid adjusting the limit up.  So as the economy grows, more and more companies would find themselves bumping up against the limit and we would see less consolidation at the top of the market.

I have what I will call a Warren-like suspicion of giant businesses.  I worry about the outsized influence they hold and what that can do to the country and to competitive practices, and would like to see that gradually decreased.

[GuitarStv]

Keep businesses small, so individual business owner's personal discrimination choices are unlikely to disenfranchise people.

Hmm.  What's the maximum size of a business that you think should be allowed?  There are some serious ramifications involved in enforcing this one . . .

There's also a problem with your initial assumption.  At least in my experience small businesses are much more likely to act in discriminatory manners than larger ones.  Larger ones serve more markets so typically stand to lose more by acting in this way.

I would structure as a revenue tax on all revenues above a certain threshold.  Let's call it 200 billion in revenue.  So if you make 199B in revenue, no tax.  If you make 210B in revenue, that's 1B in tax.

It is very hard to make a profit when 10% of your revenue is going straight out the door in tax, so it would be a natural ceiling.

That directly affects 8 companies.  Walmart does 500B in revenue and would almost certainly have to split into multiple companies.
Amazon does 280B.  While 8B in taxes wouldn't be fun for them, worse would be their growth story would be destroyed and their stock would plummet.

The goal would be to initially avoid adjusting the limit up.  So as the economy grows, more and more companies would find themselves bumping up against the limit and we would see less consolidation at the top of the market.

I have what I will call a Warren-like suspicion of giant businesses.  I worry about the outsized influence they hold and what that can do to the country and to competitive practices, and would like to see that gradually decreased.

I'm on board with busting up super companies as much as the next guy (probably more - I'm one of those heretics who doesn't believe that money is free speech, and that strong limits on some of the money in politics is generally good policy) . . . but am still not seeing exactly how that links back to less discrimination for folks.  Do any of the 8 companies you listed have ongoing problems with discrimination?

[Montecarlo]

My thought process is when there are more employers competing for labor:

• They are less likely to be asshats and discriminate
• even if they do, there are more options available for those who got discriminated against

[Sid Hoffman]

I vote but I realized I enjoy life more when I no longer feel that I have to change the world myself. Accept it and move on. MMM has a great article about the circle of control versus the circle of concern. It applies absolutely to being overly concerned about the actions and beliefs of a third of a billion people in the USA while the only person you actually have control over is the one which is yourself.

[ctuser1]

My thought process is when there are more employers competing for labor:

• They are less likely to be asshats and discriminate
• even if they do, there are more options available for those who got discriminated against

Majority of the 8 names doing 200B+ revenue are amazing employers who really try to take care of the employees.

-----------------------

Employers often enjoy a virtual monopsony in the employment market *even* if there are many of them and *even* if it is in a very competitive market like tech.

Forget the factory town with only one employer. Take my own case. I am a code monkey working in a big city (NYC). i.e. I am in a lucrative field with many employers all vying to hire me. If I wanted to change my job, then I can likely land one paying 4 to 5X (or even more, if I go to a hedge fund) the median wage within a couple of months. I can almost surely increase my earning by $20-50k/year in the process.

But, I am still quite stuck where I am. Why?
1. I have been here many years and worked out a brand for myself. If a big boss calls a meeting that clashes with when my kids soccer game, I can tell him to move it to next day. That is an amazing perk worth a lot in a hyper-aggressive work environment when you have kids. I won't get that for at least a few years, till I have proven myself to everyone around and established my brand again if I went to a new place.
2. I will lose "tenure". If my employer lays me off today, the custom is that I will get a substantial severance proportionate to my length of tenure at that place.
3. Then there are some financial "golden handcuffs" that are easily remedied. e.g. a few tens of thousands of RSU's etc.
4. I have built a network around me, learned who are the workaholics in each of my upstream and downstream systems who will turn things around for me the fastest, learned the code and frameworks around me etc. etc. etc. In a new place, I will be busting my balls for several years learning everything around me and spending 2X the time achieving half the work. i.e. no more MMM browsing during work hours for me for a few years.

Mine is just a single anecdotal evidence. However, you don't have to take my single anecdotal evidence as proof. There are actual studies and peer reviewed papers discussing this:
https://rooseveltinstitute.org/2017/12/18/how-widespread-is-labor-monopsony-some-new-results-suggest-its-pervasive/

Trying to apply the first principles of the supply and demand economics to more complex systems with irrational actors often doesn't work, you need a slightly more advanced set of tools. Fortunately, there are actual economists whose job it is to do this (including some I know personally). And - FYI - very, very, very few of them claim that their research supports any specific ideological dogma like the Austrian School or the Chicago school etc. Classical countercyclical economics has the most adherents - but still any professional economist will caveat the heck out of that if you talked to them about it. Trying to apply super-simplistic supply and demand logic to a tiny part of a complex system and claiming that supports an "ideology" is the real infant sophistry in the American politics of today.

[Montecarlo]

Trying to apply super-simplistic supply and demand logic to a tiny part of a complex system and claiming that supports an "ideology" is the real infant sophistry in the American politics of today.

Who did that?

[Montecarlo]

You know, I actually enjoyed reading your well written and thoughtful rebuttal until you made an ass out of yourself with putting words in my mouth

[Montecarlo]

I think it is interesting that your rebuttal includes both a personal anecdote that supports my case (that in your highly competitive labor market, if you desired to leave your current employer you could make more money), and the research paper you linked found supporting evidence that labor monopsony depresses wages (which also supports my hypothesis)

[ctuser1]

When you accuse others (groups, individuals) of "infant sophistry" and then I turn around and try to point out you are the one engaging in "infant sophistry" instead - that is not personal attack.

-----------------------------------

Why do I think you are engaging in an "infant sophistry" yourself that you accuse others of?

Deconstructing your entire writeup will take way too much time. I will not be able to do that (at least not right now). But let me give you one example.

One of your key logical stepping stones is this passage:

Liberals were horrified when bakers refused a custom wedding cake for a gay wedding, but cheered when Sarah Huckabee Sanders was refused service at a restaurant.  It appears the liberty to judge those according to your personal ethical code and act on those judgments is not universally applied.  Freedom for me; not for thee.

This belies your misunderstanding of the intent behind the civil rights laws. There is a concept of protected groups (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group). Any discrimination towards protected groups is bad and illegal. Any discrimination NOT based on that is kosher. Discrimination against a gay couple is illegal and IMO immoral, but against Sarah Huckabee Sanders for her political opinion is NOT. If Sarah Huckabee Sanders was discriminated against because she is female, that would have been immoral and illegal.

You start from this basic misunderstanding of the text and the intent of the discrimination laws and launch into a "both sides" tirade. You also seemingly aren't aware of this basic flaw in your premise that you set up. Terran pointed out this flaw upthread, but you move past that without any adjustment or acknowledgement of that and move onto the next sophistry.

99% of the cases where such basic flaws exist in someone's epistemology, it is the result of building up an epistemology around a set of pre-conceived notions -> infant sophistry.

--------------------------------

On employer/employee issue, my posts were intended to show that a simplistic criteria like you suggest is no good.

[Montecarlo]

@ctuser1

I don't think you and I are in disagreements of the facts on this one.

The gay couple who wanted a cake were in fact discriminated against.
Sanders was in fact discriminated against.

There may be justification for one and not the other.  Don't mistake these for my words, but take as from a hypothetical person.

America is founded on Judeo-Christian values, and as such freedom of religion and freedom of speech were enshrined in our constitution by the founding fathers.  When a local artist chooses to respect his religious beliefs and denies service that would oblige him to support an activity his religion specifically prohibits, he is exercising one of the fundamental rights we hold dearest.  Those who would force this artist to render services against his conscious are undermining the fabric of America.

Freedom of speech is also a fundamental cornerstone of American society.  When Sanders was denied service for her political opinions, it has a chilling affect on freedom of speech.  It makes it more difficult for people to want to speak up, have a voice, and put their ideas out there if they risk being shunned and denied service.  While the actions of the restaurant owner are not illegal and should not be prohibited, it is our obligation to speak out against these actions where they are seen.

Of course, this argument relies heavily on some premises you may reject, and I don't begrudge that at all.

This belies your misunderstanding of the intent behind the civil rights laws. There is a concept of protected groups (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group). Any discrimination towards protected groups is bad and illegal. Any discrimination NOT based on that is kosher. Discrimination against a gay couple is illegal and IMO immoral, but against Sarah Huckabee Sanders for her political opinion is NOT. If Sarah Huckabee Sanders was discriminated against because she is female, that would have been immoral and illegal.

You start from this basic misunderstanding of the text and the intent of the discrimination laws and launch into a "both sides" tirade.

Your argument appears to rest on two key premises, and if those are not accepted, your argument appears to founder.  (You also state I misunderstand civil rights, which I think is wholly unsupported)

That premise is bolded in above.

The fact is, any reasonably educated person can construct nearly any justification they want.  Simply start with the right premises and the argument you want follows logically.

My proposition is that by even trying to justify one and not the other, one risks engaging in sophistry.  The particular element of sophistry I am referring to is the to-hell-with-justice-let-the-winner-take-all mind set some of the sophists advocated, or at least appeared to concede was the way of the world.  By taking that step towards a justification, one is really engaging in an elaborate rationalization, and then expecting that others see it the same way or they are "bad" and "immoral" (your words).

You are explicitly saying "my form of discrimination is defensible and theirs is immoral".  All the rationalization in the world doesn't change that.

[Montecarlo]

against Sarah Huckabee Sanders for her political opinion is NOT. If Sarah Huckabee Sanders was discriminated against because she is female, that would have been immoral and illegal.

By this logic, if the gay couple were discriminated against because they supported gay marriage (as a political opinion) but not because they were themselves gay, would that be defensible?

Seems like a loophole there

[ctuser1]

You are explicitly saying "my form of discrimination is defensible and theirs is immoral".  All the rationalization in the world doesn't change that.

I think worded things somewhat carefully. I did not say - carte blanche - "my form of discrimination is defensible and theirs is immoral".

I said discrimination based on sex is immoral. I stand by that.

I did not say discrimination based on non-protected groups are "moral" - I said "kosher", in the context of the law. It is possible there are immoral things that are not illegal. e.g. I personally think that some of the expanded powers that the border security has over 75%+ of US population is immoral - but the law disagrees with me.

It is also possible I did not footnote and caveat my post above sufficiently for clarity.

If you go back to your original post, you had used this as a moral/immoral wedge issue, without sufficient justification, and had set up the "both sides" bs. "both sides" = whataboutism = a logical fallacy.

If/when you jettison your pre-conceived whataboutery, I will no longer have any justification to turn your phrase around against you.

 

[Montecarlo]

You are explicitly saying "my form of discrimination is defensible and theirs is immoral".  All the rationalization in the world doesn't change that.

I think worded things somewhat carefully. I did not say - carte blanche - "my form of discrimination is defensible and theirs is immoral".

I said discrimination based on sex is immoral. I stand by that.

I did not say discrimination based on non-protected groups are "moral" - I said "kosher", in the context of the law. It is possible there are immoral things that are not illegal. e.g. I personally think that some of the expanded powers that the border security has over 75%+ of US population is immoral - but the law disagrees with me.

It is also possible I did not footnote and caveat my post above sufficiently for clarity.

If you go back to your original post, you had used this as a moral/immoral wedge issue, without sufficient justification, and had set up the "both sides" bs. "both sides" = whataboutism = a logical fallacy.

If/when you jettison your pre-conceived whataboutery, I will no longer have any justification to turn your phrase around against you.

 

I don't think I am engaging in whataboutery, because that generally comes in the form of defending something (something usually indefensible, which is why they defender is employing the rhetorical slight of hand).  I'm not defending anything at all.

I am explicitly advancing both-sidery, because I believe that both sides are fucking destroying the country.  Let me ask you this.  If you accept the premise that I believe that, does it not follow logically that I oppose both sides, and does it not logically follow that I see circumstances where both sides appear to engage in thinly disguised tribalism, with little regard to values or first principles?

I am forced to come to the conclusion that you believe any attempt to put the left and right on the same moral plane is misguided.  That may be a fair position, but I think you and I are coming from very different premises, and I think you have misinterpreted my message as being rhetorically disingenuous rather than one that arises from a premise you don't agree with.

"Two men say they're Jesus.  One of them must be wrong."

[ctuser1]

I am explicitly advancing both-sidery, because I believe that both sides are fucking destroying the country.  Let me ask you this.  If you accept the premise that I believe that, does it not follow logically that I oppose both sides, and does it not logically follow that I see circumstances where both sides appear to engage in thinly disguised tribalism, with little regard to values or first principles?

If I accept the premise at it's face value - then it would follow that you oppose both sides.

I question the logical setup you used to support the premise, and suspect you arrived at the premise first and then tried to find logic to support it.

You compare Jim Crow laws side by side with liberal snow-flakery and cancel culture. Do you have any sense of proportion when you do that? Do you understand that one side is hiring tens of thousands of armed militia to AGAIN disenfranchise blacks in the 2020 election?

But of course, if I accepted that a paper cut is same as someone else's head being chopped off, then my argument will fall apart!!

... I think you and I are coming from very different premises, and I think you have misinterpreted my message as being rhetorically disingenuous rather than one that arises from a premise you don't agree with.

"Two men say they're Jesus.  One of them must be wrong."

I don't know about premises.

If you follow basic news and look up statistics, you would know that we still effectively have apartheid in much of the South.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-restrictive-voting-laws-block-fergusons-citizens-having-their-fair
https://source.wustl.edu/2020/08/fighting-voter-suppression/

And Trump is on the record denouncing democracy because it is against his side:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/trump-republican-party-voting-reform-coronavirus

I guess in some world these are equal to the liberal snow-flakery. If you live in that world, then I'd grant your premise.

[Montecarlo]

You compare Jim Crow laws side by side with liberal snow-flakery and cancel culture. Do you have any sense of proportion when you do that? Do you understand that one side is hiring tens of thousands of armed militia to AGAIN disenfranchise blacks in the 2020 election?

I did what?  Which one of my examples was a Jim Crow law?

I'm guessing you're referring to the Masterpiece Bakery...?

If you want to talk about false equivalents:

the entire executive, legislative, and judicial power structure of the United States telling Black Americans to stfu and stay in their hollers, while maliciously prosecuting, jailing, and executing innocent men, while turning a blind eye to lynchings
DOES NOT EQUAL
and old man who doesn't want to decorate a piece of fucking junk food.

Unreal...

[GuitarStv]

If you want to talk about false equivalents:

the entire executive, legislative, and judicial power structure of the United States telling Black Americans to stfu and stay in their hollers, while maliciously prosecuting, jailing, and executing innocent men, while turning a blind eye to lynchings
DOES NOT EQUAL
and old man who doesn't want to decorate a piece of fucking junk food.

Unreal...

The entire executive, legislative, and judicial power structure of the United States told homosexuals that they were deviants and criminalized their behaviour.  This isn't exactly ancient history . . . as late as 1981 the District of Colombia attempted to repeal their sodomy laws and this was vetoed.  It wasn't until 2010 that gay people were allowed to openly serve in the military and harassment/discrimination are still very commonplace in that profession.

Someone could brush off refusal to serve breakfast to a black man in a diner the same way that you're doing.  An old man doesn't want to fry up some fucking eggs?  But historically, ignoring and allowing this type of open discrimination against people has caused much more damage than benefit to society.

Is today the same for gay people as the 1950s were for black people?  No, definitely not.  But that shouldn't be used to normalize discrimination, or to dismiss the huge hurdles and problems that LGBTQ people still encounter on a daily basis.

It's important to remember that the supreme court didn't say that the baker who refused to serve the gay couple was behaving in a legitimate or legal manner.  The court case simply said that the Colorado court did not rule in a fair way.

[ctuser1]

You compare Jim Crow laws side by side with liberal snow-flakery and cancel culture. Do you have any sense of proportion when you do that? Do you understand that one side is hiring tens of thousands of armed militia to AGAIN disenfranchise blacks in the 2020 election?

I did what?  Which one of my examples was a Jim Crow law?

I'm guessing you're referring to the Masterpiece Bakery...?
...

No.

Quoting from your first post:

Conservatives like to poke fun at college snowflakes who can’t handle uncomfortable ideas, but then will say they don’t want homosexuality and multiculturalism “shoved down their throats,” which I can only interpret as a desire to live in a religious conservative safe space, free from other pesky people doing what they want.  Freedom for me, not for thee.

How do you posit this is achieved? Did Jim Crow laws play a role in the past in achieving this?
Do they perhaps still play a role in the kind of disenfranchisement that I linked two posts above??

And then you turn around and mention the liberal snowflakery with equal gusto - as if these two things are equal!!

[Montecarlo]

You compare Jim Crow laws side by side with liberal snow-flakery and cancel culture. Do you have any sense of proportion when you do that? Do you understand that one side is hiring tens of thousands of armed militia to AGAIN disenfranchise blacks in the 2020 election?

I did what?  Which one of my examples was a Jim Crow law?

I'm guessing you're referring to the Masterpiece Bakery...?
...

No.

Quoting from your first post:

Conservatives like to poke fun at college snowflakes who can’t handle uncomfortable ideas, but then will say they don’t want homosexuality and multiculturalism “shoved down their throats,” which I can only interpret as a desire to live in a religious conservative safe space, free from other pesky people doing what they want.  Freedom for me, not for thee.

How do you posit this is achieved? Did Jim Crow laws play a role in the past in achieving this?
Do they perhaps still play a role in the kind of disenfranchisement that I linked two posts above??

And then you turn around and mention the liberal snowflakery with equal gusto - as if these two things are equal!!

Read it again.  I only mentioned liberal snowflakery to make fun of conservatives who hand-wring about things they find uncomfortable.

You're being rhetorically disingenuous by implying everything on my list is somehow equated as equal wrongs in my mind.  Talk about logical fallacies.  You are banning any comparison between things that aren't equal.

[Montecarlo]

The entire executive, legislative, and judicial power structure of the United States told homosexuals that they were deviants and criminalized their behaviour.  This isn't exactly ancient history . . . as late as 1981 the District of Colombia attempted to repeal their sodomy laws and this was vetoed.  It wasn't until 2010 that gay people were allowed to openly serve in the military and harassment/discrimination are still very commonplace in that profession.

Someone could brush off refusal to serve breakfast to a black man in a diner the same way that you're doing.  An old man doesn't want to fry up some fucking eggs?  But historically, ignoring and allowing this type of open discrimination against people has caused much more damage than benefit to society.

Is today the same for gay people as the 1950s were for black people?  No, definitely not.  But that shouldn't be used to normalize discrimination, or to dismiss the huge hurdles and problems that LGBTQ people still encounter on a daily basis.

It's important to remember that the supreme court didn't say that the baker who refused to serve the gay couple was behaving in a legitimate or legal manner.  The court case simply said that the Colorado court did not rule in a fair way.

Can we agree that mob lynchings are worse than not serving eggs?

You're making it sound like there was a slippery slope, that normalizing discrimination in minor ways led to mass disenfranchisement.  I'm pretty sure slavery came before refusal to serve, not after.

I'm not trying to dismiss anything, that was CLEARLY never my intention.  You all are seeing an enemy that doesn't exist.  Put down your pitchforks.

[talltexan]

random question: has there ever been an issue with a person's religion requiring that he/she not leave a tip at a restaurant?

Imagine being seated at a sit-down restaurant, and opening with, "I just want to let you know that I won't be able to leave a tip for this meal"?

[ctuser1]

You compare Jim Crow laws side by side with liberal snow-flakery and cancel culture. Do you have any sense of proportion when you do that? Do you understand that one side is hiring tens of thousands of armed militia to AGAIN disenfranchise blacks in the 2020 election?

I did what?  Which one of my examples was a Jim Crow law?

I'm guessing you're referring to the Masterpiece Bakery...?
...

No.

Quoting from your first post:

Conservatives like to poke fun at college snowflakes who can’t handle uncomfortable ideas, but then will say they don’t want homosexuality and multiculturalism “shoved down their throats,” which I can only interpret as a desire to live in a religious conservative safe space, free from other pesky people doing what they want.  Freedom for me, not for thee.

How do you posit this is achieved? Did Jim Crow laws play a role in the past in achieving this?
Do they perhaps still play a role in the kind of disenfranchisement that I linked two posts above??

And then you turn around and mention the liberal snowflakery with equal gusto - as if these two things are equal!!

Read it again.  I only mentioned liberal snowflakery to make fun of conservatives who hand-wring about things they find uncomfortable.

You're being rhetorically disingenuous by implying everything on my list is somehow equated as equal wrongs in my mind.  Talk about logical fallacies.  You are banning any comparison between things that aren't equal.

You are right, you didn't compare Jim Crow with snowflakery. You compared it with "Liberals were horrified when bakers refused a custom wedding cake for a gay wedding".

Do you still think they are comparable?

(I probably mis-remembered what you compared with what. That still doesn't change the substance of my criticism - does it?)

--------------------

There is a fundamental problem with the "both sides" stance that you are failing to see for whatever reason.

When one side has actively devolved to power grab and suppression of democracy, and the other side - for whatever cynical reasoning of their own, they are politicians after all - does just what any moderately corrupt political party/system/organization does, then there is a very clear good and evil demarcation that is created. 

Your both sides complaint trivializes the danger that America faces today from the right, where no such similar danger is visible from the left.

I'll have similar opinion about a both-sider who was waffling and equivocating standing at the precipice of the Bolshevik revolution and Stalinist takeover in the US!!

[GuitarStv]

The entire executive, legislative, and judicial power structure of the United States told homosexuals that they were deviants and criminalized their behaviour.  This isn't exactly ancient history . . . as late as 1981 the District of Colombia attempted to repeal their sodomy laws and this was vetoed.  It wasn't until 2010 that gay people were allowed to openly serve in the military and harassment/discrimination are still very commonplace in that profession.

Someone could brush off refusal to serve breakfast to a black man in a diner the same way that you're doing.  An old man doesn't want to fry up some fucking eggs?  But historically, ignoring and allowing this type of open discrimination against people has caused much more damage than benefit to society.

Is today the same for gay people as the 1950s were for black people?  No, definitely not.  But that shouldn't be used to normalize discrimination, or to dismiss the huge hurdles and problems that LGBTQ people still encounter on a daily basis.

It's important to remember that the supreme court didn't say that the baker who refused to serve the gay couple was behaving in a legitimate or legal manner.  The court case simply said that the Colorado court did not rule in a fair way.

Can we agree that mob lynchings are worse than not serving eggs?

Yes.  I made comments to that effect in my post.

You're making it sound like there was a slippery slope, that normalizing discrimination in minor ways led to mass disenfranchisement.  I'm pretty sure slavery came before refusal to serve, not after.

Agreed, slavery and sodomy laws came first.  Normalized discrimination has continued long after both were abolished.

I'm not trying to dismiss anything, that was CLEARLY never my intention.  You all are seeing an enemy that doesn't exist.  Put down your pitchforks.

If your intent is not to dismiss, then it might behoove you to more carefully consider the language that you use - which is easy to read as dismissive of the problems faced by LGBTQ people today.

[Poundwise]

On discrimination against Sanders vs discrimination against the gay couple,  I think the issue is discriminating against somebody for what they DO vs somebody for who they ARE.  One is fair, one isn't. 

Like, I can choose not to do business with Sanders because she's a jerk and I've seen her being a jerk (saying that it's “It is very biblical to enforce the law" with respect to tearing infants and toddlers from their parents). But would it be fair for me to refuse service to ALL white women who have brown hair?  No!

It would have been okay to choose not to do business with the gay couple if I knew them personally and they were jerks.  But it would not be okay to dis them because of harmless things that they can't help (like being gay.)

Things that people have control over, okay to discriminate against:
Clothing (no shirt, no shoes, no mask, no service)
Language (no swearing, use your inside voice)
Bringing children

No control/hard to change, don't discriminate:
Color
Weight
Sex
Sexual orientation
Physical or mental handicaps
Whether you have children at all

Etc. 

On both-sideism... I'm not going to cast a stone because that is where I was just a few years ago. I felt that this was a mark of how very sophisticated and level headed I was. I liked to say, "I vote the person, not the party!" In retrospect, I was simply ignorant. I do believe there is a right and a wrong-- the causing of human pain being wrong, authoritarianism being wrong-- and it is clear to me that by this standard, Trump/Tea Party Republicans are far worse than the moderate Democrats.   

[Bloop Bloop]

Weight is well within one's ability to change. The fact that most people don't change their weight much doesn't mean that it's not within one's ability any more than the fact that most people aren't financially independent means that it's impossible to become so.

[GuitarStv]

Weight is well within one's ability to change. The fact that most people don't change their weight much doesn't mean that it's not within one's ability any more than the fact that most people aren't financially independent means that it's impossible to become so.

Weight is well within one's ability to change . . . but there are some confounding factors that can come into play.

Sleep - people who sleep less, end up weighing more and carrying more body fat.  This often comes down to wealth.  If you're sweltering in an inner city apartment with loud traffic noises outside your one open window you're probably not sleeping as well as a wealthy person on a feather bed in an air conditioned home.

Stress - stress hormones have been shown to increase appetite and cause weight retention.  There are a variety of reasons for this, but consistently people with lower levels of education and lower paying jobs have been shown to carry an extremely high allostatic load.  The side effect of this is increased weight gain.

Foods available - We've gone out of our way in society to make cheap and quick to prepare foods very unhealthy and calorie dense.  If you're working long hours at a minimum wage job, you are statistically much more likely to increase consumption of quick foods that require little to no preparation time.  If you're poor, it's harder to afford quick foods that are healthy for you.

Correspondingly, we can look at how obesity rates track very closely with income level.  The poorest in our society are typically the fattest.  Given the above, I'm not sure that it's entirely fair to say that poor people just need to stop eating as much.  There are structural things in place that make this more difficult for them than for rich people like you and me Bloop.

[RetiredAt63]

Weight is well within one's ability to change. The fact that most people don't change their weight much doesn't mean that it's not within one's ability any more than the fact that most people aren't financially independent means that it's impossible to become so.

Weight is well within one's ability to change . . . but there are some confounding factors that can come into play.

Sleep - people who sleep less, end up weighing more and carrying more body fat.  This often comes down to wealth.  If you're sweltering in an inner city apartment with loud traffic noises outside your one open window you're probably not sleeping as well as a wealthy person on a feather bed in an air conditioned home.

Stress - stress hormones have been shown to increase appetite and cause weight retention.  There are a variety of reasons for this, but consistently people with lower levels of education and lower paying jobs have been shown to carry an extremely high allostatic load.  The side effect of this is increased weight gain.

Foods available - We've gone out of our way in society to make cheap and quick to prepare foods very unhealthy and calorie dense.  If you're working long hours at a minimum wage job, you are statistically much more likely to increase consumption of quick foods that require little to no preparation time.  If you're poor, it's harder to afford quick foods that are healthy for you.

Correspondingly, we can look at how obesity rates track very closely with income level.  The poorest in our society are typically the fattest.  Given the above, I'm not sure that it's entirely fair to say that poor people just need to stop eating as much.  There are structural things in place that make this more difficult for them than for rich people like you and me Bloop.

And even when people do manage to lose weight, it doesn't happen instantaneously.  You can put your mask on in the parking lot before entering a store, but you can't lose weight that fast.  Also, just to get even more off topic and toss this in, we are exposed to so many chemicals that have hormonal effects that interfere with body metabolism. And of course you can't change your skin colour and other basic attributes at all.  I've only recently realized that in the UK having red hair seems to be an issue, there are all sorts of ideas around being ginger.  Was Ron Weasely being a ginger an important part of the plot?  And of course redheads are said to have bad tempers, so people may think that it is "normal" for a redhead to be angry/upset and dismiss it when they would take that anger/upset more seriously otherwise.  And of course blondes are ditzes (/s).  We have so many social constructs that are hurtful.

[Davnasty]

@ctuser1

I don't think you and I are in disagreements of the facts on this one.

The gay couple who wanted a cake were in fact discriminated against.
Sanders was in fact discriminated against.

There may be justification for one and not the other.  Don't mistake these for my words, but take as from a hypothetical person.

Discrimination - the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Sanders was not discriminated against by definition unless you're claiming she was refused service because she fell in the category of "white house press secretary who lies to the American public on a daily basis", but that would be outside of the intended use of the word. That may seem like "just semantics" to some, but if you can't use the same word to describe the two incidents then the basis of the argument falls apart.

A better example would be a restaurant owner refusing service to a Trump supporter. In that case the word discrimination would be an accurate description. It's still quite different than discrimination against a protected class (protected classes exist for a reason) but at least it's a step closer to a logical argument..

I'll agree with your broader point though, infant sophistry is rampant in politics. You just need better examples. Also I believe it's usually going to be more pronounced on the conservative side of politics because people who tend toward conservatism also tend towards staying in one place and being less exposed to alternative views. Less exposure means less chances to see a variety of associations between people and traits. Less associations means the ones you are familiar with are stronger. I believe my opinion on this is informed by logic rather than policy related bias, but if anyone sees flaws in that logic, please let me know.

[ericrugiero]

But most of all I want people to recognize they are not engaged in a bitter battle with the enemy.  They are part of a civic discourse with their fellow citizens.  That isn’t to say it should always be polite or easy.  Americans like fighters and they want to know who they elect will fight, not just sit back and have an intellectual discussion.  So let’s fight.  But not as enemies, but as citizens.

I agree with your premise and most of your examples.  It's human nature to excuse our own shortcomings and blind spots while being highly sensitive to those from the "other side".  There are lots of examples in this thread and in this forum.