12
13

Once again, lolbertarians supporting business discrimination (np.reddit.com)

Slothsrightsactivist が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]BluSkiz -35 ポイント-34 ポイント  (53子コメント)

OP here. Cry me a river and shop somewhere else.

If you feel discriminated against because one of the two hundred barber shops in your city only cuts men's hair (you know, a barber) then feel free to file a human rights complaint. You'll look ridiculous and give the shop some free media attention.

Edit: Downvotes are a currency of progressive tears, so keep them coming. :)

[–]AusNeet 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Edit: Downvotes are a currency of progressive tears, so keep them coming. :)

What is wrong with you assholes? Why would any real person want to vote for a bunch of petty autocrats whose rallying cry is "IT WILL HURT DEM LEFTIES DURRRRRRRR"? I really expect top-notch political solutions to come from such truly incandescent minds /s !

[–]holla_snackbar 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's kind of like all the Russians crawling all over world news now. "Yes our economy has been ground to dust and our lives are shit again, but it is the Russian way."

[–]SomeStrangeDude 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If only I could be so grossly incandescent!/s

[–]JDL114477 30 ポイント31 ポイント  (35子コメント)

You and other libertarians act like discrimination by businesses was never a problem. That is what we are pointing out.

[–][削除されました]  (34子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]DerpyGrooves 38 ポイント39 ポイント  (18子コメント)

    Sup. Japanese American here. I'm sure that to white Americans, the idea that a community can collude to systemically exclude you on the basis of your race without a trial is somewhat alien. That said, that's exactly what happened to my family. Without due process, they were essentially forced to leave their small town in California following the attack on Pearl Harbor, an act which they obviously had nothing to do with.

    I'm of the opinion this was a violation of the fourteenth amendment, something which a preponderance of precedent in the wake of the Civil Rights Act bears out. The libertarian ignorance of this somewhat recent history, to me, is evidence of the privilege-blindness that underlies the entirety of libertarianism and other conservative policies.

    [–]baddox 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    Libertarians are probably mostly ignorant of this (considering most people are ignorant of most things), but wouldn't the internment of Japanese Americans be something libertarians would vehemently oppose?

    [–]DerpyGrooves 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Honestly, there was a time in my life when I could have self-identified as a libertarian. I took a hard left turn when I saw this tasteless exploitation of the Japanese-American experience upvoted to the front page of /r/libertarian.

    As an AA, it's common to see Asian-Americans used as political props by conservatives. I've come to realize, ultimately, that the model minority myth is a cynical lie perpetuated to preserve institutional whiteness and oppression of people of color. This is something that libertarians will never recognize.

    [–]baddox -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Well, I think the image macro is silly, but I don't see that as supporting the internment.

    [–]_throawayplop_ 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It's not supporting its exploiting

    [–]DerpyGrooves 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Supporting? No. Victim blaming? Absolutely.

    [–]baddox -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I guess it's bordering on victim blaming, depending on how you interpret it. It's a stupid image macro, so it's designed to not have very well thought out ideas, which makes it difficult to know how to interpret it. It seems to me like a call for less gun control, rather than victim blaming, but I can see either interpretation.

    [–]LRonPaul2012 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The implication is that the Japanese could have prevented internment by taking up arms against the government, which I'm sure wouldn't have turned out badly for non-white people at all.

    [–]JDL114477 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I think that they just think that it won't happen again because somehow boycotting the businesses involved would stop it, but it isn't like people stopped buying iPhones or nomes when they learned about the conditions of workers in their factories or stopped eating at diners in the south in the 50s.

    [–]Klimmekkei 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The free market solves everything bro. Didn't you know?

    [–]JonWood007 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Happened to African Americans on an almost constant basis in this country for a good 100 years after slavery was abolished, and this is VERY well known by anyone with at least some education on this matter. I mean, they taught this stuff to me in like 4th grade even. No excuse.

    [–]I_want_hard_work 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Oh no, don't doubt yourself and say it's just your opinion. It was no doubt a violation of their rights.

    [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–]DerpyGrooves 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Thank you for minimizing the experience of my ancestors. You are a fine advocate of liberty.

      [–]LRonPaul2012 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      This is a barber shop that cuts men's hair.

      There are barber shops in my area that isn't open to the public. They have a sign saying "not accepting new customers." If they wanted to discriminate against certain people, they'd be fine.

      I'm guessing that the barber shop in your article is open to the public. Now, what they can do is say, "We only offer these certain styles that usually only men seem to like." But what they can't do is prevent a woman from going in and buying a men's style hair cut.

      Similarly, I can't force Victoria's Secret to sell men's underwear. But Victoria's Secret can't prevent men from buying underwear meant for ladies.

      [–]JDL114477 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (13子コメント)

      Again you aren't understanding. We are pointing out that you guys don't care about discrimination in businesses because in the past you guys have said it should be allowed and there aren't any actually problems with it, when in reality there are.

      Edit in response to your edit: I didn't say specifically you I mean libertarians in general.

      [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

      [deleted]

        [–]JDL114477 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Your title asks why people should feel that a business has to serve them, and the article deals with a woman being turned away from a men's barbershop. I am not saying if I think it was wrong or right, but observing that libertarians don't really care about business discrimination. I am explaining to you why it was posted here but can't seem to grasp that idea.

        [–]Douggem -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (10子コメント)

        No, you misunderstand. We think that a business owner owns his or her business, and if they want to discriminate, that's their loss. Whether there are problems with that or not isn't germane, if someone owns something its up to them what to do with it.

        I can't go to the women only fitness clubs and gyms in my area. Sucks for me, but I don't own the gym and I'm not entitled to its use, the owners get to choose who they serve and don't serve.

        [–]LRonPaul2012 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (7子コメント)

        We think that a business owner owns his or her business, and if they want to discriminate, that's their loss.

        And... what if they're not losing and actually prosper as a result?

        Whether there are problems with that or not isn't germane, if someone owns something its up to them what to do with it.

        If that's the case, then why is fraud illegal? How does fraud violate the NAP?

        I can't go to the women only fitness clubs and gyms in my area.

        Because those aren't businesses of public accommodation. You also can't sign up for a fraternity that won't admit you.

        [–]KarlRadeksNeckbeard 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        We think that a business owner owns his or her business

        Fuck that shit, though. Capitalist ownership is an act of aggression, and incompatible with a free society. What the capitalist owner wants does not matter.

        [–]JDL114477 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Yes that is the libertarian view, which the people of this sub generally disagree with, at least in the majority of cases. Like you, I don't think not allowing men to go to women only gyms is a big deal, but when the example turns to race or sexuality is when we start to split apart.

        [–]Ianx001 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        You're what makes this sub great son. Continue portraying that douchey caricature of a libertarian with a snap in your step. Those internet points were sacrificed in the name of libhurrrtay.

        [–]totes_meta_bot 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

        If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me here.

        [–]JonWood007 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Read a history book of before the civil rights act of 1964...separate but equal was separate, but not equal at all!

        [–]organic 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        There's no practical reason for not cutting the woman's hair here; it's not as if she were asking for a type of cut he does not already specialize in.

        It's pure spite, not something I'd hold out as something to emulate or be proud of.