Discrimination (from garden path thread and elsewhere)

Discussions worth keeping around later.
User avatar
Torco
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2372
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:45 pm
Location: Santiago de Chile

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by Torco »

Travis B. wrote:I.e. it's not colonialism if I agree with it.
yup

no one is speaking about empathy: you don't need empathy to figure out that your enemies are people who sincerely believe what they do, you don't need empathy to figure out you need to tread carefully when you're fighting nonviolent injustices with violence. you just need reason and principles.

that "law is violence" makes you think of libertarians only is, i must say, your failing: communists know law is violence, liberals have known that law is violence for at least three hundred years, bakunin <hardly a libertarian> knew laws were violence. the chinese political philosophers have known law is violence for aeons. the romans knew law was violence, machiavelli knew laws are violence, locke knew laws are violence, mill and ricardo and smith knew laws are violence. the dudes that wrote deuteronomy knew laws are violence. That we like <some> laws doesn't mean laws are not violence. That some laws can be just doesn't mean laws are not violence. That you and I agree that we probably can't have a minimally livable and decent society without laws doesn't make laws not violence, just like that we think we're right in punishing savages for cutting the clits off their daughters doesn't make that an imposition of our own values unto theirs, just like the fact that we think bigots should be punished doesn't erase that punishing bigots is violently opposing nonviolent injustice. things aren't black and white.

Obviously not believing in ethics-based empathy is not the same as ignoring emotions. emotions are important, but they're not *that* important.
You're going for some sort of super edgy combination of solipsism and gold mean fallacy, where nothing is right or wrong and every argument is a naval-gazing monologue.

What part of "it's right to impose violently our beliefs on people who are themselves not being violent towards others though we should be appropriately sober about the kind of thing we're doing" is anything remote like "nothing is right or wrong".
Do you have a rubric for which laws are necessary for a functioning society and which are evilviolent moral policing colonialism?
How kind of you to inquire, as a matter of fact I do! something is moral policing when you're policing morality and views, instead of actions. This is such a case. obviously not selling a cake is not a crime, the crime is not selling it for certain reasons: if I don't sell bob a cake because he's a pedophile, or a fascist, no one gives a fuck: if I don't sell bob a cake because he likes penis then this law does give a fuck. the objective here is to reduce the amount of people who believe bigotry against homosexuals is okay the way the amount of people who believe bigotry against blacks is okay has been reduced, because that's the only way for discrimination not to be a thing: it's obviously not about the cake, but, as zompist argues, it's about what kind of a world we want to build, and that there be a world where people espouse the wrong morals <"I ain't selling no cake to no niggers/faggots/whatever*" > are so few and marginalized they don't even speak those morals, let alone act on them. This is how you know when something is moral policing: alternatively, If we have a law, say, that says that if I punch your kid in the face I should be punished, that's not moral policing: the law doesn't care about my reasons or feelings, or my views regarding the kid: it just cares for action, and as such polices action and not views, which is a different thing.

User avatar
faiuwle
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:26 am
Location: MA north shore

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by faiuwle »

I really don't see what the problem is with thinking some things are bad, which is basically what you all are saying, here.
no one is speaking about empathy: you don't need empathy to figure out that your enemies are people who sincerely believe what they do,
That is literally what empathy *means*.
you don't need empathy to figure out you need to tread carefully when you're fighting nonviolent injustices with violence. you just need reason and principles.
Which includes empathy.
that "law is violence" makes you think of libertarians only is, i must say, your failing:
True; I've probably spent too much time listening to crazy libertarians. But I really don't think law is violence. Enforcement of laws can certainly be violent, and violence is sometimes necessary, but law itself is not violence. In this case, enforcement isn't even violent. Explain to me how a fine is violence but kicking someone out of your store is not.
Obviously not believing in ethics-based empathy is not the same as ignoring emotions. emotions are important, but they're not *that* important.
I'd say a lack of empathy is concerning, but the real reason I said that was because of your statements about how emotions should play no role in ethics at all. I don't know what you mean by "ethics-based empathy".
What part of "it's right to impose violently our beliefs on people who are themselves not being violent towards others though we should be appropriately sober about the kind of thing we're doing" is anything remote like "nothing is right or wrong".
Yes, this does seem to contradict the rest of what you've been saying.
Do you have a rubric for which laws are necessary for a functioning society and which are evilviolent moral policing colonialism?
How kind of you to inquire, as a matter of fact I do! something is moral policing when you're policing morality and views, instead of actions. This is such a case. obviously not selling a cake is not a crime, the crime is not selling it for certain reasons: if I don't sell bob a cake because he's a pedophile, or a fascist, no one gives a fuck: if I don't sell bob a cake because he likes penis then this law does give a fuck.
Are hate crimes also no different than regular crimes? What about 1st/2nd/3rd degree murder versus manslaughter? Should the sentences be the same? Is it moralizing if they are not? There are tons of places where the law is different depending on motive. This isn't exceptional.
the objective here is to reduce the amount of people who believe bigotry against homosexuals is okay the way the amount of people who believe bigotry against blacks is okay has been reduced, because that's the only way for discrimination not to be a thing: it's obviously not about the cake, but, as zompist argues, it's about what kind of a world we want to build, and that there be a world where people espouse the wrong morals <"I ain't selling no cake to no niggers/faggots/whatever*" > are so few and marginalized they don't even speak those morals, let alone act on them.
IMO, that would be a nice side-effect, but the real purpose is to end discrimination. By making it illegal.
It's (broadly) [faɪ.ˈjuw.lɛ]
#define FEMALE

ConlangDictionary 0.3 3/15/14 (ZBB thread)

Quis vult in terra stare,
Cum possit volitare?

zompist
Boardlord
Boardlord
Posts: 3368
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 8:26 pm
Location: In the den
Contact:

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by zompist »

Dewrad wrote:
Xephyr wrote:
faiuwle wrote:Dude, genital mutilation is wrong. It's not oppressive Western colonialism to say it's wrong. This is not a controversial issue. And it's not because of some nebulous determination of who the "bad guys" are.
Glad to see that we agree that genital mutilation is wrong. But why on earth is that not at least some form of "Western colonialism"?
Cev is entirely right here. Of course genital mutation is wrong, and of course it's a case of Western liberal values telling us it's wrong. How is this not "Western colonialism"? Suttee was wrong, and it's Western liberal values that stopped it. Similarly the end of the slave trade. Also foot-binding. Just because current Western liberal values insist that colonialism is Bad does not imply that it was wrong. (Utilitarian argument, no moral absolutes etc etc. We can refer to it as colonialism when we disapprove of its outcomes, but otherwise it's... what?)
This seems both right and wrong. Obviously a lot of our particular morality is determined by where we happened to be born. And obviously the winners in history have an enormous influence on morality.

But your position seems to equate to there being no possibility of moral argument except by geography— e.g. we can't deplore suttee except by appealing to "Western liberal values". Or more cynically we say the British can suppress it for no reason except that they have Gatling guns.

A rejoinder to this would be that human moralities don't differ in infinite and arbitrary ways. C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man contains a useful list of moral beliefs shared worldwide. The Chinese Empire didn't need "Western liberal values" to disapprove of Brits getting Chinese addicted to opium (to say nothing of their appropriating Chinese territory by force). The Moghuls didn't need "Western liberal values" to stamp out suttee in the period where they controlled India. Suttee was also by no means universally approved within Hinduism. (Very few statements are true about all Hindus.)

Every human empire has discovered differing moralities within its domain, and come up with the same useful doublethink: "some things are bad for me and everyone in the empire; some things are bad for me, but allowed in some areas."

For a century or more the process has been happening on a global scale. And sometimes it's the West that gets schooled! The very idea that colonialism is bad is primarily due to the ex-colonies— i.e., the rest of the world. (There were of course Westerners who thought it was bad, but they never prevailed until actual anti-colonial movements did.)

Yet another approach would be to derive morality from material conditions— the Marxists went pretty far with this. And it's not entirely wrong! One reason women's rights have been enhanced worldwide is that contraception and lowered infant morality free up women's time from childrearing; another is that a developing nation does well to employ all adults rather than half of them. And though this sort of thing may not be as satisfying as having a universal moral code from the All-Father, surely it's more satisfying than having one that's just defined by "The West".

User avatar
Viktor77
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2635
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:27 pm
Location: Memphis, Tennessee

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by Viktor77 »

Holy moly my one little comment started off this entire argument and I hadn't even seen it before today.
Falgwian and Falgwia!!

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

zompist
Boardlord
Boardlord
Posts: 3368
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 8:26 pm
Location: In the den
Contact:

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by zompist »

Torco wrote:that "law is violence" makes you think of libertarians only is, i must say, your failing: communists know law is violence, liberals have known that law is violence for at least three hundred years, bakunin <hardly a libertarian> knew laws were violence. the chinese political philosophers have known law is violence for aeons. the romans knew law was violence, machiavelli knew laws are violence, locke knew laws are violence, mill and ricardo and smith knew laws are violence. the dudes that wrote deuteronomy knew laws are violence. That we like <some> laws doesn't mean laws are not violence. That some laws can be just doesn't mean laws are not violence. That you and I agree that we probably can't have a minimally livable and decent society without laws doesn't make laws not violence, just like that we think we're right in punishing savages for cutting the clits off their daughters doesn't make that an imposition of our own values unto theirs, just like the fact that we think bigots should be punished doesn't erase that punishing bigots is violently opposing nonviolent injustice.
If your position is that all law is violence— OK, fine, now I know that when you say "violence" you mean nothing at all. A law that requires the baker to keep rats out of the kitchen? Violence! And who cares? You say yourself that we need this "violence" to have a minimally livable society. Is this supposed to bother legislators? "Watch out, you may be doing what's necessary to create a minimally livable society!" Oh noes.

But even with this definition of violence, your notion that bigotry is "nonviolent" is incoherent. Of course bigotry is violent, in a much more direct sense. Just as the laws depend on police, majority injustice depends on parents, teachers, and shop owners who will in extremity use force to impose their views.

Plus, you do remember that the entire discussion was sparked by laws that enable religious discrimination? The whole point was for those bakers ask the state, with its notorious violence, to back up their desire to throw certain people out of their stores. If you want to insist that all law is violence, then these laws are violence too.
things aren't black and white.
Things aren't universally gray either— and if they were, why would you bother to argue about them?

I've repeatedly brought up the comparison to racial segregation, which was supported by exactly the same sort of arguments that you and Sal have made: it's an imposition by outsiders, it's against our religion, it's not respectful of our culture, we are good sincere people. And no one had to be "absolutely insane" to be a segregationist; it was taught as correct behavior in that culture. It was also as clear an example of intolerable oppression as you could find anywhere.

What's different about discrimation against gays/lesbians? Is it that prejudice against them is just nicer somehow than racism?

You could respond that getting your wedding done is a much lower problem than getting the right to vote, go to school, etc. Which is partly a rhetorical trick: you cannot seriously believe that the biggest problem gays face is with the baker. But granted that the bakery thing is not the end of the world... that argument cuts both ways. It is not tyrannical for a baker to take thirty seconds to write "Adam and Steve" on a wedding cake.

Because things are not "black and white", we are constantly making tradeoffs, moral or political. Do you really think Adam and Steve want to go to a baker who hates and sneers at them? They have to make compromises with people who disdain or just misunderstand them every day. It's not that I can't see the pain of the baker who can't adapt to the fast-changing modern world. Everybody's got pain in the world, and I don't see that the baker, and the baker alone, gets the right to have a world that never challenges his worldview.

User avatar
Torco
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2372
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:45 pm
Location: Santiago de Chile

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by Torco »

OK, fine, now I know that when you say "violence" you mean nothing at all.
that's absurd.
See a thing is violent or not, zompist, regardless of whether it is justified or not and viceversa: I get it that "justified" sounds nice and "violence" sound naughty and thus it might appear to someone that they're contradictory, but rationally it shouldn't: someone, for example, could be cowardly and generous, his generosity not denying his cowardice. someone else could be stupid and kind, his stupidity not denying his kindness. I get it, also, that it's nice to feel like one is not the kind of person that is for using violence against others, but we are.
You say yourself that we need this "violence" to have a minimally livable society. Is this supposed to bother legislators?
Yes! of course it should. Violence qua such is bad, but laws are necessary because lawlessness is more bad, and laws are violence. therefore only necessary laws should exist, and there should be relatively few, and laws shouldn't be a thing lightly implemented: they come at a moral cost, and at significant moral hazard: if you're wrong about the necessity of a law you'll be using violence against people for no good reason, and if you're wrong about the justice of a law, you'll be using violence against others to make the world worse. Laws are violence, you see, not because of a whim of torco, but because a law is -and has always been- a threat: it amounts to a corporate entity -the state- telling everyone "yo, do this or i'll bloody well make you" or "if you do that i'll force you to live in a terrible terrible place", or even kill you some places. If I go to your house and tell you that you'll either behave in a certain way or i'll punch you in the face, or abduct you into a building out of which you'll only get out when I decide to, that's a threat of violence. some classical objections to this point are that
> some laws demand payment of fees and not immediate arrest or bodily harm.
>> yeah, and what happens if you don't pay the fine? you get your stuff taken from you, your business closed, and yourself arrested, eventually.
> but you should pay the fine and do what the nice police officers say! the law says so!
>> exactly: obey the law or else. and laws that are not enforced [that is to say, laws for which the "or else" part doesn't exist] are called dead letter for good reason: they don't work as laws.
> but if the laws are not formulated or enforced there will be even more violence
>> that's an argument for their necessity, not their peacefulnes.

Bigotry is not violence, bigotry is a certain psychological orientation so unless you're willing to say that the mere having some views or feelings constitutes violence, obviously it's not. As for whether discrimination is or isn't violence, that's a more interesting question. "majority injustice" is not at all related to the point of bigotry *or* discrimination, though: discrimination need not be exercised by a majority: a lot of relevant forms of discrimination, however, are rich people discriminating against poor people, and obviously the rich are a minority. I'm not closed to discrimination being violent qua such but I myself can't see a tenable case there. And "because if people discriminate that's bad", while a great case for discrimination being unjust [and indeed so unjust it should be opposed by violence, to some degree], is not a case for it being specifically violent, because, again, though violence sounds bad, not all bad things are violence because they're bad, and a thing is not on the whole always bad because it involves violence.
Plus, you do remember that the entire discussion was sparked by laws that enable religious discrimination?
What are these laws that enable religious discrimination? is any legal system that doesn't forbid everything which is unjust enabling everything that is unjust?

Vijay
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by Vijay »

Viktor77 wrote:Holy moly my one little comment started off this entire argument and I hadn't even seen it before today.
Exactly.

Also, I just want to say I come from the southern US (OK, technically, I wasn't born in the South, but I have spent almost all my life in the South nevertheless). Honestly, you can get over the freaking Civil War if you are from the South. It's not that hard.

zompist
Boardlord
Boardlord
Posts: 3368
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 8:26 pm
Location: In the den
Contact:

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by zompist »

Torco wrote:
You say yourself that we need this "violence" to have a minimally livable society. Is this supposed to bother legislators?
Yes! of course it should. Violence qua such is bad, but laws are necessary because lawlessness is more bad, and laws are violence. therefore only necessary laws should exist, and there should be relatively few, and laws shouldn't be a thing lightly implemented: they come at a moral cost, and at significant moral hazard: if you're wrong about the necessity of a law you'll be using violence against people for no good reason, and if you're wrong about the justice of a law, you'll be using violence against others to make the world worse.
Of course laws should be made carefully. But when all laws are violence, yet laws are necessary, then saying that a law is violence really is saying nothing interesting. It just means you get to amp up your rhetorical violence. It's of zero help in deciding whether a given law is worth making or not.
Bigotry is not violence, bigotry is a certain psychological orientation so unless you're willing to say that the mere having some views or feelings constitutes violence, obviously it's not. As for whether discrimination is or isn't violence, that's a more interesting question.
Oh come on. If you're going to define public health laws as violence, then for god's sake the thing that produces murders, beatings, suicide, and people being thrown out of their families is violence. And if a government fine is "violence" because it may be backed up by force, then you've given up the notion that "violence" must be directly physical. Everyday majority discrimination is backed up by the threat of violence too.

I don't see the point of this game— you want to delegitimize government only not really, you want to legitimize the feelings of these sincere bakers only also condemn them as bigots. Violence is terrible and yet necessary, and yet it's awful to call something oppression. It feels to me like you're playing word games.
discrimination need not be exercised by a majority
Yes, that's what is generally meant by qualifying a noun with an adjective. The fact that anti-gay prejudice is backed by a majority in Southern states is relevant to the discussion, because the bakers can count on the support of the community. Discrimination that's not backed by power could exist, but precisely because it has no power, it's not much of a threat.

This is why all along I've been talking about framing. Talking about the baker as if he were a powerless persecuted minority is a misleading frame, because it ignores that that baker is not a powerless minority— he has the backing of his neighbors, his pastor, the other bakers, the police, the state legislature, the governor. It's a framing that those people like because it sounds so much better than "We want to continue to hassle gay people." And getting people to use your framing, and only your framing, is half the battle in politics. All the more reason to look carefully at what frames we use.
Plus, you do remember that the entire discussion was sparked by laws that enable religious discrimination?
What are these laws that enable religious discrimination?
If you don't know, why not look up some news reports or something?

User avatar
Curlyjimsam
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:57 am
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by Curlyjimsam »

I'm not sure it's fair to stereotype people as "refusing to serve gay people" when, in almost much every case of this happening I can think of, what's actually going on is a refusal to provide services for a same-sex marriage or similar. The same bakers, florists etc. do serve gay people in other situations.

User avatar
Matrix
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 722
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by Matrix »

Into this discussion on what violence is, I would like to insert this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyitF-6tBu4
Image

Adúljôžal ônal kol ví éža únah kex yaxlr gmlĥ hôga jô ônal kru ansu frú.
Ansu frú ônal savel zaš gmlĥ a vek Adúljôžal vé jaga čaþ kex.
Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh.

User avatar
mèþru
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1984
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:44 am
Location: suburbs of Mrin
Contact:

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by mèþru »

The laws are laws about denying service to people asking for an endorsement of gay marriage in their service, such as asking for a wedding cake with two men on it. The discussion discussed whether this is okay and if their is a level at which a cake for a gay wedding is not supporting gay marriage.
On western colonialism:
The way I see it, the current trend against faiuwle's type of colonialism is, in itself, colonialism.
On religious freedom and cake for gay people:
I believe that most active posters on this board are for Muslims doing all of the things zompist mentioned. I have noticed that the conlanging community tends has leftist tendencies. I do not believe that being prejudiced against someone is punishable - acting on that prejudice is. You can't arrest a man in the United States for believing that Hitler is the messiah (a thought), but you can if he vandalises someone's home (an action).
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť

User avatar
jal
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2633
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by jal »

What violence needs, at the very least, is an act. Without an act, I don't think it's fair to say something constitutes violence. Therefore I reject the idea of equating laws to violence. Laws may permit certain violence, but they are not violence themselves. Bigotry, on the same level, is also not violence. Bigotry may lead to violence pretty often, but, again, it is not violence itself.


JAL

jmcd
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1034
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:46 am
Location: Réunion
Contact:

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by jmcd »

Matrix wrote:Into this discussion on what violence is, I would like to insert this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyitF-6tBu4
Right from the get-go he seems to describe coercion, not violence.

User avatar
jal
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2633
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by jal »

jmcd wrote:Right from the get-go he seems to describe coercion, not violence.
But can't coercion be a form of violence?


JAL

jmcd
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1034
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:46 am
Location: Réunion
Contact:

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by jmcd »

The way I would define them is that they can, and often do, co-occur but one is not a subset of the other.

User avatar
mèþru
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1984
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:44 am
Location: suburbs of Mrin
Contact:

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by mèþru »

Don't try to impose definitions of violence on each other (which, according to some of you, is violence in itself). Just try to understand what others mean when they use that word.
For clarification: When I use the word violence I refer to either using physical force or the threat of such.
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť

cunningham
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: The Swamp

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by cunningham »

The reality is that we gays are good at baking anyway and making gay marriage the law of the land just wasn't good enough for the loudest and proudest fairies so they felt the need to target Christian bakeries and feel Daddy's oppression just one more time.

rotting bones
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:25 pm

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by rotting bones »

Nort, businesses should be forced to sell a service defined in terms of a sequence of actions X, which they would sell to a client with tastes A, to a client with tastes B, provided X does not change with respect to A and B. Do you accept the proposition that in some cases, it is possible for the tastes of the client to leave the service they are provided with unaltered, or must the service change on the basis of the client's tastes in every single case?
If you hold a cat by the tail you learn things you cannot learn any other way. - Mark Twain

In reality, our greatest blessings come to us by way of madness, which indeed is a divine gift. - Socrates

cunningham
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: The Swamp

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by cunningham »

Resurrecting this thread again because I'm infumigated (yes I know not a word) that the Christian bakers lost the appeal and had to pay 500 pounds for breaking the 'sexual orientation and political discrimination law'.

Go. To. A. Different. Bakery.

Stop acting like victims. Gays are not oppressed anymore in the Western world. This is coming from me, a gay man.

User avatar
linguoboy
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by linguoboy »

cunningham wrote:Stop acting like victims. Gays are not oppressed anymore in the Western world. This is coming from me, a gay man.
That is so awesome that you have this psychic connexion with all other gays in the Western world which lets you know exactly what their experiences are so you can determine that none of them constitute oppression. How do I get that too?

Travis B.
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 3570
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Location: Milwaukee, US

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by Travis B. »

You tell me that a group that regularly gets thrown out of their homes so as to become homeless by their own parents is not oppressed.

Yeah.
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.

User avatar
jal
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2633
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by jal »

cunningham wrote:Resurrecting this thread again because I'm infumigated (yes I know not a word) that the Christian bakers lost the appeal and had to pay 500 pounds for breaking the 'sexual orientation and political discrimination law'. Go. To. A. Different. Bakery.
There's a number of things to say about that, but in this case, they broke the law and got fined. Which is a good thing, since people breaking the law should be punished or we'll spiral into anarchy. That said, whether or not said law is a just law, I'm not sure. Of course this discussion has been had a million times but with the US as battle field, and it all revolves around whether or not someone having a public business can or cannot, and if they can, to what extend, refuse a certain service to certain people, and/or refuse a particular service to all people. There's a lot of grey areas there.
Stop acting like victims. Gays are not oppressed anymore in the Western world. This is coming from me, a gay man.
I've heard women saying feminism is dumb, since women aren't oppressed anymore in the Western world. Those women were as wrong as you are. (Perhaps you do not include, say, the US, most of Eastern Europe and various parts of Middle and Southern Europe to "the Western world"?)


JAL

User avatar
Frislander
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 836
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:34 am
Location: The North

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by Frislander »

What is important here is to note that there are actually two different issues here. The prospective clients are claiming that they are being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation, while the bakery is saying that their objection is to the message they are being asked to put on the cake. These are actually two separate things. Now I do not sympathise with the bakery, but their arguments raise some interesting question.

Let's look at the scenario in a different way. Say a straight couple walks into the shop and asks for the same cake. Would the bakery serve them? If the answer is yes, then it is a definite case of homophobia, proves the claimants' arguments correct and is morally condemnable. If the answer is no, on the other hand, then we run into dangerous territory. In this case the bakery is working on not supporting the "message" of the cake, and is extendable to other things as well. Say you walked into the same bakery and asked for a cake with an anti-religious slogan on it, completely contradicting their beliefs more than any pro-gay-marriage cake could. Or you walked in and asked for an overtly racist or misogynistic cake (by the way I do not equate these last two things with those mentioned in previous sentences). Are the bakers under any obligation to serve you then?

This is such murky territory that it has caused Peter Tatchell, that famed human rights campaigner, to change his mind about the whole thing.
https://frislander.tumblr.com/

First known on here as Karero

User avatar
jal
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2633
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by jal »

Frislander wrote:What is important here is to note that there are actually two different issues here.
Yes, that's what I meant to say: there's
Say a straight couple walks into the shop and asks for the same cake. Would the bakery serve them? If the answer is yes, then it is a definite case of homophobia
"refuse a certain service to certain people" (but not to others), and
If the answer is no, on the other hand, then we run into dangerous territory. In this case the bakery is working on not supporting the "message" of the cake, and is extendable to other things as well.
"refuse a particular service to all people"

Pesonally, I think the former is always a big no-no, but the second should be allowed, as someone creating something (as opposed to just selling it) should have control over what they create. It's analogous, imho, to not being able to force a regular store to buy (from a supplier) then sell (to the public) a pro-gay cake.


JAL

cunningham
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: The Swamp

Re: Discrimination (from garden path thread)

Post by cunningham »

linguoboy wrote:
cunningham wrote:Stop acting like victims. Gays are not oppressed anymore in the Western world. This is coming from me, a gay man.
That is so awesome that you have this psychic connexion with all other gays in the Western world which lets you know exactly what their experiences are so you can determine that none of them constitute oppression. How do I get that too?
You're not being systematically thrown off buildings by Muslims. Nobody is throwing rocks at you. You have the same rights as everyone else. You. are. not. oppressed.
Travis B. wrote:You tell me that a group that regularly gets thrown out of their homes so as to become homeless by their own parents is not oppressed.

Yeah.
That happens just as much as anyone else. And it did not happen to you either. Oppressed means not having equal rights. Not people being big fat meanies.
Travis B. wrote:I've heard women saying feminism is dumb, since women aren't oppressed anymore in the Western world. Those women were as wrong as you are. (Perhaps you do not include, say, the US, most of Eastern Europe and various parts of Middle and Southern Europe to "the Western world"?)
The West means Western Europe including Southern Europe and the Anglosphere (USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, Ireland). Eastern Europe isn't even that bad either and I used to live in Siberia. Pretty much anywhere in the world besides the Middle East just doesn't even care anymore. Nobody is being oppressed. The only thing being oppressed in this world are rational people who aren't indoctrinated by cultural Marxism.

Post Reply