Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sprin]

If a mexican want to refuse service to white people or refuse to hire white people he can

I... strongly suspect this is not the case?

He argued my first one was a false equivlancy wether it happens or not is irrelevant the question is "should someone be allowed to do this"

[Elephant Parade]

If a mexican want to refuse service to white people or refuse to hire white people he can

Except that white people are typically the majority, (? — too lazy to look up demographic statistics, but it's probably true for most of America and, for this point to make sense, it only needs to be true somewhere) meaning that they'll go out of business—whereas someone discriminating against LGTBQ people doesn't have that problem, since they're a minority.

[Rolepgeek]

Sprin, I'm not sure you understood what we're saying.

Currently, it is considered acceptable to discriminate based political party, which is what Naziism is about. If you don't want to hire someone who's black because they're part of a black supremacist movement? Like, literally one which has goals similar to Naziism did? That I consider acceptable. If you don't want to hire someone who's black, because they're black, that's fucked up. If you don't want to hire someone who's gay because they happen to be really aggressive about it and call people 'breeders' or the like? That I consider acceptable. If you don't want to hire someone who's gay because they are an abomination unto the Lord (and particularly if you say that while wearing a cotton/polyester blend; I have some respect for people who are at least consistent in their beliefs, which is why most Christians saying things like that is fucking ridiculous), that's fucked up. If you're hiring them for a clergy position, I can see why it could be relevant, but if it's to be a fry cook? No, it does not have bearing on their ability, and it should not be a factor.

And no, currently, no one can discriminate on the basis of race in service or hiring, legally speaking. That's why affirmative action is so controversial despite being otherwise minor.

Furthermore, the most likely people to have experience with cooking asian food are asians. And most of the time, restaurants like that have servers of the ethnicity the restaurant is supposed to have food from, and the rest of their staff is rather varied. But it's still a preference due to ability, not 'because I don't like them'.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

@Sprin,

I vote for no on that account, though I'll cede that the matter could be a slope most slippery in actual legislation.

EDIT: Also not a big fan of affirmative action.

[EnigmaticHat]

If a Mexican in the US refused service to all white people they'd get sued in a minute.  And almost certainly lose.  The anti-discrimination laws cast a wide net.

[redwallzyl]

i recall a story i saw about a Nazi being employed by a nice old Jewish man and being reformed by him due to how he shattered his preconceved racest notions. i think it was a cracked article funnily enough.

[Sprin]

If a Mexican in the US refused service to all white people they'd get sued in a minute.  And almost certainly lose.  The anti-discrimination laws cast a wide net.

Ive been trying to say no one should be sued for not associating with people

[Sprin]

i recall a story i saw about a Nazi being employed by a nice old Jewish man and being reformed by him due to how he shattered his preconceved racest notions. i think it was a cracked article funnily enough.

Great


Not the point Im making

Yes its not good to discriminate
Both parties benefit from the transaction

Im saying "why not let the racists ruin their own buissness because its their choice"

[wierd]

Whoosh!! Missing the fucking point.

You say they can eat dick? They say you can go to hell. Everyone loses. That's the point.

You are dramatically deceived if you think that fundamentalists and racists have somehow the same moral standing as people struggling to be recognized. When was the last time a gay person shot up a religious gathering? When was the last time a religious person shot up a gay gathering?

This false equivalence has to stop. The conservative party isn't just "different." The message produced by party leaders have as core principles things that are inconsistent with not just the ethics of the western world, but even inconsistent with the ethics they profess to hold: treat others as you would like to be treated, and minimize the interference of the many upon the few. These broken ethics don't go away, and they do incite violence.

The lash-back against "safe spaces" is not, I think, about safe spaces as a concept, but rather the fear the average uneducated voter has for the educated, a lever to be used to further wedge apart the gap between rural and urban populations. I think ultimately it comes down to racial divides once more; white liberals are "othered" so that they cannot serve as a bridge between white conservatives and minorities. Thus, they are portrayed as SJW nazis with whom no dialog can exist, not "normal people." This propaganda prevents conservative voters from coming to understand just how much they've been lied to.

Unrelated, here's a terribly disappointing video.

Oh, I remembered annother of Trump's campaign promises: nationwide roll-out of the unconstitutional practice of stop-and-frisk. I recall that constitutional fundamentalism arises frequently in regards to White American's 2ed amendment rights, but rarely for Arabic-*, Latino- and Black-Americans' 4th and 14th. Even if it was truly random, (although I can think of no practical way to remove bias from the system,) it is baldly unconstitutional in the most obvious way: it consists entirely of a police officer shaking someone down without cause. I really can't comprehend how someone could see it as anything but a violation of our most deeply held rights.

*And Sikh, since Americans now see turbans as automatically evil. I blame Professor Quirrel.

Whoosh again.

No. Pttg, there are people other than hostile gay people, and hostile haters.

There is this massive herd of inoffensive people in the middle who have to live with the Shit the other two stir up.

They get labeled as haters, the way you just excluded all others just now, and they get call fag lovers and deviants from the other side just the same.

When you divide the world into Us and Them, you CREATE "them".  Is that the world you want? Because that us the world you are making with division and exclusion like you just shown.

Safe spaces are inherently devisive. That is how they fucking work; non gays are kept out, so gays can talk gay things, like how scared they are of non gays.

That's like a church that keeps nonchristians out. Its divisive, and destructive.

Echo chambers are always bad.

[Folly]

Would you like me to force say a jew to hire a nazi? Of course you wouldn't.

You probably wouldn't have to force him. A Jew gets an opportunity to profit off a Nazi's labor while paying him inadequate wages, and can be a dick to him all day and fire him the second he steps out of line? Luckiest Jew ever imo.

[Sprin]

Would you like me to force say a jew to hire a nazi? Of course you wouldn't.

You probably wouldn't have to force him. A Jew gets an opportunity to profit off a Nazi's labor while paying him inadequate wages, and can be a dick to him all day and fire him the second he steps out of line? Luckiest Jew ever imo.

Now replace jew with racist and nazi with black man and let me know if you see the issues I do

[Antioch]

The Electoral College is a tyranny of the minority...

I think a better statement would be it's a tyranny of regionality, and for that reason I'm kind of okay with it. A president can't win a grossly higher amount of the popular vote and lose in the electoral college. That's just not how it works, all it really does is weight votes in a way as to make sure that NYC (hyperbole, because it's a huge fuckin city) doesn't decide every president ever.

Now, I haven't read Red's article yet, but that's just my two cents.

Actually the theoretical amount of votes needed to win the electoral college is like 23%

And that is with only 2 contestants.

In practise it is unlikely, but these are results the systems allows for.

surprisingly many people defend this system where you can theoretically get 77% of the votes and still lose.

[wierd]

Equal opportunity law is a two edged sword. Yes, the Jew cannot disqualify on basis of Nazism.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Would you like me to force say a jew to hire a nazi? Of course you wouldn't.

You probably wouldn't have to force him. A Jew gets an opportunity to profit off a Nazi's labor while paying him inadequate wages, and can be a dick to him all day and fire him the second he steps out of line? Luckiest Jew ever imo.

Now replace jew with racist and nazi with black man

Same thing. Racist is pissed, but still makes his money, black guy is pissed, but still makes HIS money. Both parties profit as long as they treat each other well. What's the problem there?

Anyways, I've made my point clear and will now back out. I enjoyed the discussion. Peace.

EDIT: Black guys' probs not pissed, buts still makes his money w/o robbing (in terms of payment, that is) the racist. So whatever.

[wierd]

Would you like me to force say a jew to hire a nazi? Of course you wouldn't.

You probably wouldn't have to force him. A Jew gets an opportunity to profit off a Nazi's labor while paying him inadequate wages, and can be a dick to him all day and fire him the second he steps out of line? Luckiest Jew ever imo.

Now replace jew with racist and nazi with black man and let me know if you see the issues I do

No. Equal opportunity law is for everyone.

The black man must also consider hiring the racist. There is no favorites.

Need I remind that in addition to race, religion, gender, and age, there is another word in there?

"Creed"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creed

See def #2, since #1 is already handled by religion.

That handily covers Nazism, or any group affiliation.