You don’t know any facts about me or what kind of situations I have put myself in. Doesn’t matter because it is irrelevant.
You or me feeling sad about being discriminated against is no excuse to use force.
You do you man, you do you
You really can’t get the difference between the cognitive function of discrimination and blanket discrimination against an entire class of people?
[ol]
[li]That guy looks dangerous. I’ll avoid him.[/li][li]All blacks are dangerous. I’ll avoid them.[/li][/ol]
Any 2nd grader can explain why #1 is normal and #2 is reprehensible. Did you leave school before then?
You continue to amaze and delight with your dizzying psychic ability!
Ok… question then. Pretty much everyone around here cheered and snarked when that restaurant in Virginia refused to serve Sarah Huckabee Sanders because of her employment with the Trump administration.
How is that fundamentally different? She’s who she is- a hypocritical asshole, and that’s what they had issue with. How would we feel if she had sued the restaurant and won, for the same reason you cite?
That’s the thing- it doesn’t and shouldn’t work both ways, except in the cases where there’s a specific legally-defined protected class.
I don’t recall anyone being beaten and dragged behind a truck until death because they were a “hypocritical asshole”, however that has happened to someone simple because they were gay.
One of these kids is not like the other…
I guess I think that homosexuality should be a protected class, but I understand that is not the case country wide. I always thought that politics was about figuring out how to make this country a better place for everybody, so I don’t simply limit myself to the way things currently are but think about how they should be.
That’s a matter of choice, not inborn identity.
That’s actually a VERY telling statement- a lot of conservatives don’t think like that. Their contention is that the role of government is to fulfill a certain limited set of functions for the governed- things like defense, a court system, a postal system, etc… as defined in the Constitution and from Western tradition (i.e. mostly English, French, Roman and Greek). Anything outside that, is considered outside the role of government, and is strenuously resisted. That’s, IMO, a lot of the resistance to any kind of healthcare for all type scheme- it’s seen as something outside the role of the government. It’s also why conservatives are so bullish on defense spending- it’s seen as one of the few absolute core functions of a government, so they’re willing to spend on it.
Of course, there’s been a lot of barnacle-like accretion of other nonsense over the years, like the notion that the government mostly sucks at doing everything and that the private sector can always do it cheaper and faster*. But fundamentally, conservatives don’t look at the government or politics as a vehicle for effecting social change, or improving anyone’s lot. Which again, just makes them people see things differently, not automatically assholes.
*Which is often nominally true, except that the caveats are sometimes horrendous- horrible working conditions, low pay, all sorts of contract lawyering to weasel out of doing stuff, etc… all in the name of making a buck.
I agree about it being inborn identity, but I don’t think it matters in this case- why would a business owner be able to say “I’m not going to serve asshole Republicans” and have that fly, versus saying “I’m not going to serve Episcopalians” and have that not fly? Both are choices.
It seems to me that the best option is to allow it, and let the public opprobrium (or applause) take care of things. Better that than a government mandate that everyone HAS to serve everyone, even if it’s their private business.
If the point of a society is not to help each other and work towards the betterment of the society as a whole, then what is the point of society? To just step on each other trying to accumulate wealth and power?
Yeah I guess public opprobrium worked to get rid of segregation and Jim Crowe. We certainly didn’t need any sort of civil rights legislation to fix that, just the tut-tutting of concerned citizens.
I try. Liberals won’t allow that.
How many people discriminate against all blacks? Virtually zero.
You are not forced to live in this country, you are free to leave, so to act like you are being held against your will and forced to live in a way you do not want to is disingenuous.
Or you can try to convince the majority of your fellow citizens to change the country to fit your liking.
Like I said, you do you.
Politics is concerned about the use of force in society. All else are stories for schoolchildren.
Same to you pal.
I must evacuate the country I was born in to escape being hounded by schoolmarms? Seems like the schoolmarms should chill and let me be where I be.
No, you are free to pursue the life that you want, but you as a single individual person, are not free to force your will upon the rest of the citizens in this country. We have a process by which to enact political change. If you do not like democratic civilization, then I got bad news for you buddy.
It’s a broadly drawn example for the purposes of illustration, not a statement of fact.
And you avoided answering the question, so I’ll repeat it: Do you get the difference between the cognitive function of discrimination and blanket discrimination against an entire class of people?
It must be truly dreadful to live with such incredible fear and hatred inside you. Best wishes and love.
What’s that? You are all going to force your will upon me?
I don’t wish to force me will upon anyone. I wish to demolish the means by which others force their will on me.
Blanket discrimination is not a cognitive function? I think you mean to be precise in your language but are failing to do so.
If blanket discrimination against an entire class doesn’t actually exist in practice, why make laws against it?
Isn’t that what they wrote on Little Boy and Fat Man?