|
Disinterested posted:Well, why should the onus be on the victim in a given situation to change their behaviour, particularly w/r/t to corporate culture as opposed to a small business? Now consider: what if you live in a community where everyone treats you in this way and it's permissible. Strawman posted:Should every black person assume every chain restaurant is run by a white supremacist, or just every Dennys? Where can black people eat in your world? Are you aware that you're making every effort possible to excuse and ignore the actions of racist white people in order to blame their victims? Hey now, all thrakkorzog is saying is that if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that skirt. Oh, wait, poo poo. Ahem. All he's saying is that they should take responsibility for their actions and stop giving racists money. Clearly, by going to this place and having a meal, they're enabling racists, and hence, they're the real racists.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 21:57 |
|
|
YF19pilot posted:So, when you live in a small town in the shadow of DC, where your restaurant options are either Denny's or drive 30 minutes to the next town over to get food; why should we tolerate the one convenient location for food being allowed to tell us to bugger off because my dad doesn't pass the paper-bag test? Why should we just "shut up and vote with our wallets" instead of making a fuss about it? On the other hand, once in the 90s my family went to a Black Eyed Pea in Prince George's County, and received horrible service, we believed, because we were white. Unfortunately my still-paleocon mom uses this, and this alone, as an example why things like the Voting Rights Act are okay to be gutted, because clearly racism goes both ways. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:Hey now, all thrakkorzog is saying is that if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that skirt. Don't put words in my mouth you motherfucker. I'm sure that by legalizing racial harmony, nobody's pissed in soup, the corn or potatoes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
Are you just going to ignore that salient post a dude made about Chick-Fil-A, or does your worldview permit that homophobia can be profitable and survive the free market?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:Don't put words in my mouth you motherfucker. No one in this thread is putting words in your mouth, but whoever did is a disingenuous racist. Of course they won't, that wouldn't be profitable 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:poo poo in my mouth you beautiful man. The law not magically making everyone not racist doesn't invalidate the good done by the CRA and other laws, court decisions, and executive initiatives designed to end race based discrimination. It's the same logic behind us still having laws against murder despite people continuing to murder each other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:Don't put words in my mouth you motherfucker. You're the one who wants to re-instate racial discrimination as acceptable in private businesses, using the logic that "if [insert minority here] don't like it, they can find some place else to eat". Or, put somewhat more starkly: If she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that skirt. Victims of degradation, abuse, and discrimination need laws to protect them. They are not guilty of provoking the acts committed against them, and for you to use this kind of 'reasoning' ( so called ) is, frankly, rather obscene.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:The law not magically making everyone not racist doesn't invalidate the good done by the CRA and other laws, court decisions, and executive initiatives designed to end race based discrimination. So do you think it's a good a idea to have people that hate you handling your food? Does everybody love you? thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Jun 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Do you think it's a good idea to have people who hate you enforcing the law, or deciding who gets to vote, with no accountability? Not everything is as "easy" to avoid as a racist restaurant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:So do you think it's a good a idea to have people that hate you handling your food? Does everybody love you? So your argument is the CRA is bad because racism is still real? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in this the thread about jrode
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:So your argument is the CRA is bad because racism is still real? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in this the thread about jrode Racism isn't a real problem because it isn't profitable, and is also black people's fault for giving money to racists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:So do you think it's a good a idea to have people that hate you handling your food? Does everybody love you? How will legalising racial discrimination stop people spitting in your food?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:So do you think it's a good a idea to have people that hate you handling your food? Does everybody love you? No and yes, respectively. It's one of the benefits of being white and not poor in America. Do you have an actual point you'd like to make or are you just going to continue spouting disjointed nonsense?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:So do you think it's a good a idea to have people that hate you handling your food? Does everybody love you? You seem to have a big time Nirvana Fallacy/False Dichotomy going on here. "This solution isn't perfect, so we shouldn't do it at all and in fact should just vote with our wallets instead," is not a good argument. There's evidence out there that bigoted/racist/whatever owners and restaurants would do just fine, and in fact did do just fine in recent history, even if they were allowed to be bigoted/racist/whatever. If you have a better solution than some authority figure outside of the market looking at the market and going "cut that poo poo out," I'd like to hear it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
Even if you just stick to restaurants, abolishing the CRA is absurd. Expand it to other services, and it becomes a nightmare. Car broke down during a trip? Hope the closest mechanic doesn't hate your ethnicity/religion, or you're really hosed. Car crashed? Hey buddy, I didn't spend 8 years in medical school to treat your mongrel kind. Go bleed somewhere else, and if the longer trip kills you, too bad so sad. We're sorry ma'am, we'd love to have you stay at our fine motel during your trip but your husband is an undesirable. Spend a few more hours driving to a pricier place. For people who claim to love capitalism so much, libertarians sure ignore the awesome stabilizing effect of "can you pay for this legal service? Then you're entitled to receive it without fuss". But apparently their ideal setting is Serbia just before the blood began to flow in the 90's; a community rigidly divided and always one bad scuffle away from a lynching. But at least no one spits in anyone's food there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
hey thrakorzog, are you a libertarian? I've been assuming you are, but I realized you never said and I never asked! If you are, do you have a particular sub-type you identify with? What's your ideal socio-political setup? How do you feel about Ron and Rand Paul?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Thrakkerzog if the CRA is repealed do you think that every single racist is going to immediately stop the pretenses and rush to put up "No Niggers, Spics, or Faggots allowed" in their windows on day one, or do you think that they'll continue to use dogwhistles and less overt forms of racism like they do now? Of bigotry isn't profitable, why hasn't Chil-Fil-A closed down?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Thrakkerzog if the CRA is repealed do you think that every single racist is going to immediately stop the pretenses and rush to put up "No Niggers, Spics, or Faggots allowed" in their windows on day one, or do you think that they'll continue to use dogwhistles and less overt forms of racism like they do now? Of bigotry isn't profitable, why hasn't Chil-Fil-A closed down? Seriously, it's this. Even if the CRA was gone, you're not going to get full on Confederate Flags waving from roof-tops and signs about undesirables. Everything will stay hidden behind coded language and dog whistles, so as not to "offend sensibilities" and to give deniability when they are eventually called out. Overt racism might eventually arise in corners of backwoods areas of the USA, but for the most part it'll be hidden behind: "We Are a Christian Establishment" "English Service Only" "Well-Groomed Customers Only" "Dress Code Enforced" "We Serve Patriots" ...etc, etc, etc....
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
Except that making overt racism punishable was the reason those dogwhistles had to be invented in the first place. The CRA massively shaped American business culture in that "if we do this thing/hire this actual nazi/etc we will be up poo poo creek" was put at the forefront of every managers mind. If this legal protection was removed then yes, you absolutely would see standards slip, because there would be no reason to keep them up. There is a key difference between getting lovely service because you are black and "This is a whites only establishment, get out of here friend of the family before I shoot you for trespassing".
HorseLord fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Jun 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:So you only want to argue about a hypothetical certification which doesn't exist and as such you can decide how hard to get it must be, because when the argument is applied to real certifications and real regulations that actually exist, it doesn't work. That's fair. I acknowledge that was a bad analogy. But how about we go back to the bit you originally quoted from me? Curvature of Earth posted:It makes about as much sense as passing a law requiring literally every fast food worker to pass a rigorous and expensive certification for handling food: an ostensibly good idea that, once actually implemented, cuts a hell of a lot of people out of otherwise-accessible forms of employment and introduces a tremendous financial burden on people who don't typically have a lot of money, all for negligible public benefit. Because you skipped a sentence. At the very start. I wonder what the part you skipped said? I'm going to assume you're arguing in good faith, and your purpose was to note that I made a bad analogy to support my point—a point which is otherwise reasonable given that I cited a real-life example of regulation placing a truly undue burden on someone for zero public benefit. Regulation, in general, is good, and right now (at least in America; I can't speak for other countries) the federal regulatory apparatus is barely functional due to being under constant assault by Congress and the President (depending on who holds office at any given time). It needs more funding, more staff, and the ability to enforce much harsher consequences than the comically paltry punishments most businesses, NGOs, and lower-level governments usually end up receiving for violating the law. However, regulation is only good if it is just. Is the burden and expense of the regulation falling disproportionately on a group who've been historically marginalized? Then it is unjust. If said regulation genuinely improves the public's welfare, then it should be made more just by shifting where the burden falls. Because believe it or not, government has more than one purpose, and ensuring a fair and just society by preventing discrimination where appropriate—particularly discrimination enforced by its own laws—is one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
I have to confess that, up until just a few months ago, I didn't know that Jim Crow cut both ways. I knew that there were establishments that were "white trade only", but I honestly didn't know that you *had* to have segregated establishments - I assumed that it was a choice of the owner - or that there were places that were "black trade only" and white people couldn't go there if they wanted to. I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I didn't know how segregation laws worked, but in my defence this was before my time and I didn't grow up in the US, so it didn't come up in history class. I actually learned about this recently in an unusual way, and I'm going to share it with you because it's a rather happy story. When I was young, I was very into professional wrestling as it was the 80s and WWF and WCW were very popular. I no longer follow it, but one of my favourite personalities from that period was doing an interview and told a story about a white wrestler from the 50s/60s in Memphis, when segregation laws were in full force. He was a heel (bad guy) wrestler, and at one point his promotion was having a long period of bad business. They say that the promoter put him up to it, but that the wrestler took all the heat (he's a bad guy, after all), but that's as may be. He would get dressed up and go out drinking at the black-only bars and restaurants in the city and be arrested on some nonsense charge because he was drinking with black people. He would go to court and hire a black attorney, be found guilty and pay a fine. By doing so, the story would make the papers and, even though he was a heel, he became very popular with the black people in Memphis. The live wrestling shows were segregated as well, and he became so popular that the black-only seating would fill up and overflow even though there were plenty of seats in the white sections. Because they didn't want to lose business, they integrated the events and business boomed. Certain elements of the white crowd still hated this wrestler, as he was meant to be, only moreso because of the demographic shift and would come to hopefully see him get his rear end kicked*. The black fans adored him and would come to see what amounted to a local hero, and everyone won. It was also one of the first sporting events/athletic spectacles to integrate. I just wanted to share that. *Keep in mind that, at the time, almost everyone believed that pro wrestling was a legit martial contest
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:Don't put words in my mouth you motherfucker. Yeah you make those racists angry enough they lash out, huh. Just look at your post for example.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Seriously, it's this. Even if the CRA was gone, you're not going to get full on Confederate Flags waving from roof-tops and signs about undesirables. Everything will stay hidden behind coded language and dog whistles, so as not to "offend sensibilities" and to give deniability when they are eventually called out. Overt racism might eventually arise in corners of backwoods areas of the USA, but for the most part it'll be hidden behind: And it will still be possible to catch them: https://translate.google.com/transl...9%2F&edit-text=
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
I can see the logic in thinking the CRA can be repealed, thinking - whether correct or not - that it's accomplished its job. But the libertarian position is generally that it shouldn't have been passed in the first place. Which belies the neo-confederate base of the leading libertarian thinkers. Many libertarians aren't racists, but they learned the tenets of their philosophy from racists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Speaking of racism, Airbnb is sometimes Air(butnoblacks)
Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Jun 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Thrakkorzog how do you rectify your internal position with the fact that you are spouting identical positions and phrasing that was used by racist Southern politicians as the reasoning for their resistance to passage of the CRA?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
As I post this, I am attending a conference with undergraduate and (mostly) graduate students, hosted at George Mason University with a lot of talks given by George Mason professors the horror the racism
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:So do you think it's a good a idea to have people that hate you handling your food? Does everybody love you? Okay, so you're suggesting that racism in restaurants still exists? Because this post from you 5 minutes ago insists that it can't exist because that would be unprofitable: thrakkorzog posted:As for the CRA issue. Imagine starting up a restaurant after the CRA is repealed. Restaurants already have have razor thin margins. So imagine putting up a sign saying 'no black people allowed'. Do you think a restaurant would get more business from keeping black people out? That seems kind of self-defeating. So which is it? Is the CRA useless because racism is unprofitable, or does it actually still serve a purpose because racism still occurs in more subtle but still unprofitable ways? Would also love it if you could answer the Chik-Fil-A question, as that's an example of a restaurant donating to extremely homophobic groups and then benefiting from it as tons of homophobes rallied to support them. What would be your argument here? Should we repeal the CRA because homophobia is what the free market prefers? QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Jun 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:You think I have some some witty insight on why does racism exist? I have no loving clue. It just is. A1: Inertia. A2: Basically yes. You break inertia by pushing in the opposite direction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Looking at the amplitude distribution of racism in restaurants, shouldn't we expect a negative correlation with the unprofitability of such behavior? Yet the levels of discrimination seems to be highest in Southern states, which have the largest black populations from whom to lose business.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
I just noticed that all of Chik-Fil-A's food basically passes the paper bag test 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
It's almost as thought people aren't very rational at all, and the CRA represents the government taking an official stance against bad behaviors like racism... no that couldn't be it clearly repealing the CRA is the right move And I'm guessing that when Dr. Martin Luther King pushed for the CRA to be drafted and passed he wasn't actually thinking about minority rights but rather had some sort of statist anti-freedom agenda? Because clearly a "no blacks allowed" sign would have been unprofitable so it's not like he ever encountered anything like that. And let's not forget that the Civil Rights Act doesn't just outlaw discrmination in restaurants, but also in voter registration requirements and public services. But I'm sure pushing for the repeal of the CRA isn't a deliberate attempt by libertarian "philosophers" trying to erode black rights, it's just about personal freedom ya'll!
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:For people who claim to love capitalism so much, libertarians sure ignore the awesome stabilizing effect of "can you pay for this legal service? Then you're entitled to receive it without fuss". But apparently their ideal setting is Serbia just before the blood began to flow in the 90's; a community rigidly divided and always one bad scuffle away from a lynching. But think of all the Perfectly viable cottage industries that are no longer profitable because of the CRA 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:Don't put words in my mouth you motherfucker.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:
Even if I assume for the sake of argument that it's plausible that the CRA might be irrelevant because racism is so unacceptable that no business could racially discriminate and stay in business, there's nowhere to go from here. What I mean is that this does not all on its own suggest any course of action. Even if that's true, why repeal or oppose it? What is the benefit of going through the trouble of doing so if, as you imply, it doesn't actually do anything? It's a huge political effort made in order to maintain a status quo. Even if I accepted the fringe benefit that racists' freedom of association would no longer be legally abridged, that's only a theoretical benefit because in practice, according to your argument, none of them could afford to discriminate anyway. We're swapping law for market forces to change nothing. Now, when we return to the real world where we have no guarantee that things will work out as you claim, and many reasons to suspect that you're wrong, the case is flimsier still. If there's any possibility that repealing the CRA would allow racial discrimination in business to return, and the best case scenario is that nothing really changes, why take the risk? Who benefits? (Rhetorical question, we both know who.) eta: Just a note, when I say "racial discrimination" I mean the explicit, outright segregated society kind. I know it can still be done on the sly. GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Jun 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Laws to protect rights are of course superfluous and uneeded but GOD drat THEY MAKE ME SO ANNOYED I HATE THEM.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Golbez posted:I can see the logic in thinking the CRA can be repealed, thinking - whether correct or not - that it's accomplished its job. Actually, even this never made any sense to me. Many years ago, Rand Paul was on the Daily Show, and Jon Stewart pointed out to him examples of good regulation, such as the Clean Air Act, which helped reduce, among other things, acid rain. Rando, surprisingly enough, agreed with Stewart that it was good that we passed it, but (unsurprisingly) argued that we didn't need it anymore so that it should be repealed. The logic, from what I gather, is that businesses have been so conditioned at this point to not release poisonous and toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, that they no longer need the powerful hand of the government to force them to do so. But...if businesses are hypothetically going to act the same way they were while the law was in effect, then what the hell is the point of repealing the law to begin with?  Now take this moronic logic to any other issue: "Well, anti-murder laws have successfully helped reduce the number of murders committed over the years, so I guess we don't need them any more." "Well, anti-rape laws have successfully helped reduce the number of rapes committed over the years, so I guess we don't need them any more." "Well, anti-theft laws have successfully helped reduce the number of thefts committed over the years, so I guess we don't need them any more." And so forth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
If the CRA is unneeded and accomplishes nothing, then why do libertarians want to abolish it anyway? If it's really not doing anything then what's the harm in letting it exist?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 21:57 |
|
|
No one reads my posts. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 22:56
|
|