So you believe in the supremacy of law over morality?
There’s nothing immoral with telling an anarchist he is not welcome to buy his donuts at my store. Thus, no conflict with law or morality.
Are you fucking with me? That’s not remotely what I said.
What I said was that this is not like Jim Crow, and I offered one way that it’s not. There are several others that are equally or even more important, morally speaking.
I also said it was douchy.
Jesus. Leave it to dopers to tar and feather anyone who doesn’t join the tar and feather brigade.
All the Anarchists I’ve met have relied on the state to pay their welfare checks and usually their mums to supply them with somewhere to live.
Would the Anarchists have supported the owner if the cop had been a gay, black, female ?
Speaking personally, if a coffee shop or doughnut shop ejected me, I would feel equally as insulted as if it were for my skin color, gender, age, attire (uniform), occupation (cop), or subscription to some kind of philosophy (anarchist). Unless a particular individual makes specific trouble in a casual service or retail establishment, service should be offered, just like to anyone else. If you generally don’t require people to identify, declare, or meet certain characteristics before entering, then discovery of any particular characteristic should not be a bar to service. I don’t think anyone should ever be ejected or refused service based on that person’s identity. Regardless of whether it’s legal, it’s just wrong. I think it is immoral. Offering simple retail services in a society, you should be willing to deal with people you dislike or disagree with.
Question #1 - If a group of people smash the windows of the cafe in protest are they accepted as anarchists?
Question #2 - Is there a coffee discount for new members?
Interesting. The ones I’ve known have basically lived in poverty in group housing, working very low-wage jobs like cashier at a restaurant or seamstress or (in one odd case) designing smartass stickers for an anarchist sticker company. They’ve not been, on average, any better or worse folks than others I’ve known: some real assholes among them, as well as some real stand-up people.
For me, if someone ejected me from their restaurant because I were white (for example), I’d be irritated and amused. If someone ejected me for some reason that were associated with historical oppression, it’d bother me much more.
Someone might find out I’m a member of a teacher’s union and eject me, sure. That’d be their right. On finding out about their overwrought hostility toward teacher unions, I’d certainly have no desire to give them my money, and I’d let other teachers know likewise. I wouldn’t compare it to Jim Crow, because that’d be idiotic and offensive. I’d compare it to other legal acts of douchiness.
This applies even if we make the analogy closer: let’s say that they ejected me from their coffeeshop for working on teacher’s union business there, telling me that as long as I were on the job as a union member I wasn’t welcome. Still legal; still douchey.
Remember the cop wasn’t ejected because he was a cop: he was ejected because he was working as a cop. Slight difference, but it’s the difference between ejecting someone for identity and ejecting them for current behavior.
Still douchey. I’m putting that over and over so people (non-idiots, natch) won’t accuse me of saying their behavior was all right. Still douchey. But not comparable to acts of discrimination based on identity.
No, they’re accepted as cops. (I know that doesn’t make any sense, but neither does what you posted).
No not very.
I’ve personally known quite a few Anarchists, plus members of the Social Workers Party and all sorts.
Quite often they were nice people, but they were nearly always hypocrites.
I.M.E. they converted to radical politics (usually at quite a young age), for reasons more related to social trauma, (Their girlfriend left them for a middle classed
dick head with a car and money for example).
Or they found that, spotty and nerdy that they were they became exciting and dangerous to impressionable girls in puberty when they espoused revolution and rebelling against authority.
Positive reinforcement works,and so they continue,. while convincing themselves that they’re doing it for ethical reasons rather then for those of reinforcing their vulnerable self esteem.
They were always very unimaginative.
Losers basically.
Not much to say, except likewise.
You’ve never come across stories of anarchists causing… anarchy?
What I don’t understand is why mention is made of the cop (or any patron) paying for the coffee. Aren’t anarchists supposed to be against teh ebil money ?
While you may be offended, it is not a matter of morality to insure that other people are not offended during business dealings.
If someone doesn’t want to refuse service to, say, a member of Hells Angels, then the biker’s feelings don’t make it immoral to do so.
I don’t understand why people who are in business should be compelled to serve people that they simply do not like, unless there is an issue of racism or sexism, which is a compelling national problem that deserves a government response. If someone wants to be the Soup Nazi and refuse service to people for trivial reasons, well, good luck with your business, but you aren’t going to go to hell for it.
To me it is a matter of morality to ensure that society in general, in this case taking the form of public accommodations, is not arbitrarily hostile to individuals seeking ordinary services. Hell doesn’t enter into it.
If a person doesn’t want to deal with whatever members of the public choose to show up, then he shouldn’t be engaged in a public accommodation.
Do you and Ludovic have a bet going about who can say the biggest non sequitur about my posts or something? C’mon, you can tell me.
Anybody remember the Battle of Seattle World Trade Organization riots? A bunch of unemployed factory workers and some tree-huggers were going to peacefully march past a hotel downtown and, at worst, challenge the sound-proofing properties of the convention center so the delegates might take notice, in not interest.
But a contingent of Portland anarchists came up for the event, and targeted the windows of every Starbucks in sight for smashing (and in downtown Seattle, that was a lot of windows). This was all the cops needed to hose down everyone is sight with tear gas and rubber bulets. As dowtown office workers left their jobs for the day they wandered right into it, and cops ran up to them and sprayed mace into their faces. I later overheard a MP from Fort Lewis happily telling a young woman he hoped to charm about how he’d used his “dummy-be-good” stck on the groin of a protester.
While the anarchists who started this were happy to perform the “propaganda of the deed,” they weren’t so proud as to do it without wearing black knit cozies over their faces. As they’d expected, the cops made hundreds of people spend days on the dirty concrete floors of holding cells, trying to find who’d done the window-smashing, or, failing that, at leats showing everyone that the cops are in charge of the situation.
Cops, anarchists: go fuck each other or just go fuck yourselves. Either works for me.
As I saked earlier, how do you feel about restaurants with dress codes?
Who but a massive idiot would try to rob an anarchist cafe? I doubt they’ve ever had more than $6.75 in the cash register at any one time.
Though maybe hordes of Portlanders stream into the place every day for Sacco & Vanzetti TofuBurgers and Bakunin Beans.
I bet the local “anarchist” would have a fucking cow if a local McDonalds, gas station, or used clothing store told em to get the fuck out and never come back…
In general, I object to most dress codes except when they are necessary to identify people for purposes of public health, safety, or security. I particularly object to any dress code for patrons of a public accommodation that accepts walk in business beyond a minimum public hygiene standard. To that extent private membership organizations or clubs with dress codes are less objectionable to me.