670
671

It does feel great. (imgur.com)

AuDaHo が 投稿

全 184 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]CartoonTim 108ポイント109ポイント  (32子コメント)

I wish more people understood this sentiment...tried to have a conversation about this and as usual I was met with the usual brainwashed "racist" "homophobe" banter.

[–]ZombieAlpacaLips 83ポイント84ポイント  (5子コメント)

I'd rather have the racist homophobes make their feelings known so I can avoid associating and doing business with them.

[–]CartoonTim 46ポイント47ポイント  (0子コメント)

Free Market Economics philosophy at its core.

[–]JeffTS 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

I completely agree. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[–]Barefoot_Raphsode 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't understand how this isn't the beginning and the end of most of these arguments.

Let the bigoted store owners ban blacks, gays, Jews, Muslims, or whoever they want. Do you really believe they are going to be making tons of money? Hardly.

[–]parkoworkVote for Nobody 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly... good luck making money being an openly racist business in states like North Carolina. Almost 50% more black folks in North Carolina that most every other state in the Union.

[–]Mike-Oxenfire 10ポイント11ポイント  (7子コメント)

I understand his point, but don't you think the 'slippery slope' argument applies? Will this set precedent to make it legal to ban certain races from establishments?

[–]Iamsuperimposed 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

Does that matter? I believe the Libertarian view point is that businesses should be able to ban certain races from establishments.

[–]Mike-Oxenfire 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

I don't know much about Libertarianism besides what Ron Swanson taught me. Lol. Is that a common belief among Libertarians?

[–]kwantsu-dudes 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes. They believe ones "freedom of assocation" still exists if you choose to sell a product/service.

[–]Mike-Oxenfire 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Are you Libertarian? If you walked into a store and the cashier said something like the classic "we don't serve your kind around here" would you be ok with that? I guess I just can't grasp the idea. Lol

[–]trenescese 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Everybody should be able to refuse anyone whatever service he provides without giving a reason.

[–]Mike-Oxenfire 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Isn't it already legal to refuse service or are all those "We reserve the right to refuse service" signs BS? Would most Libertarians be ok with a sign that said "No Blacks" or or something similar?

[–]trenescese 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I dont know how it is in USA, but in Poland shop owner is obliged to sell products to anyone who wants to buy them. I wouldn't like the "no blacks" sign but I don't believe anyone should have right to enforce a ban on them.

[–]Irishguy317 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think the fear is that some form of quasi nationalism will catch on and it will erode the senses of others to the point where we will find ourselves with scary areas to drive through at night...as though it will become necessary to have sit in movements again..,

[–]cgeezy22 21ポイント22ポイント  (7子コメント)

Unintelligent people shut down conversations with cries of "racist" and "xenophobe".

Just move on.

[–]the2baddavid 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's too bad that it's so difficult to have an intelligent converstaion

[–]metatron207 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Intelligence has little to do with that; that's just self-congratulatory rhetoric. People can be intelligent but have spent their entire life being groomed to believe that the best way to protect the liberty of minorities is forcing businesses to serve them. Being intelligent doesn't make them right, but being wrong doesn't make them unintelligent.

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

The definition of intelligence is literally the opposite of what you just said. People who resort to ad hominem such as calling people racist and homophobes demonstrate that they cannot:

Medical Definition of intelligence. 1a: the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situationsb: the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) 2: mental acuteness.

Emphasis mine. The purpose of ad hominem is to shut down debate, and thus prevent exposure to situations in which they might have to learn or understand something that is ideologically disagreeable.

Sure, we could argue semantics that one could be intelligent, but occasionally engage in unintelligent behavior. However, there is no mistaking that the debate style of ad hominem and or kafka trapping is an example of unintelligent behavior.

[–]metatron207 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

However, there is no mistaking that the debate style of ad hominem and or kafka trapping is an example of unintelligent behavior.

I couldn't agree more, which exactly why I commented in the first place. Assuming that people are unintelligent and not worthy of having a discussion (and not, say, suffering from a philosophical blind spot) simply because they think you're a bigot for believing in freedom of association is itself an ad hominem that shuts down the potential for conversation. It may be justifiable from the point of view of conserving your energy--perhaps 95% of people who call you a bigot will never hear and absorb your message--but you're still shutting out that 5% chance that your point will reach willing ears and change someone's mind.

[–]Irishguy317 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Leftists*

[–]agustinona 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh would you please shut up you racist. I bet you are a xenophobe too...

[–]xenophobe51Capitalist Dog 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Xenophobe here. Can confirm.

[–]bertcox**showmeMORand** 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agree, have found the best answer is just blowing a raspberry. Works for kids.

[–]rommeltheg 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You started it.

[–]stone470 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah but this bill just pushes states into city issues. It just another example of big government taking power while bidding under the guise of religion. Shitty bill all around

[–]chewyflex 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

The way I worded it to my gf was that passing a law FORCING business to cater to trans people only allows bigots to continue to operate. I would imagine the free market would eventually see that those businesses shut their doors for good if they decide not to.

A law isn't going to change somebody's mind on issues like this.

[–]JaridT 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

As much as I'd like to agree with you I can't.

If a store is openly anti LGBT in Los Angeles or New York, then yes, they won't make enough money to stay in business.

But a store in North Carolina, or Alabama, or some other southern state, that is openly anti LGBT will likely not been too affected by their beliefs.

[–]parkoworkVote for Nobody 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can you source that, or are you just being prejudicial about people in the South?

[–]kwantsu-dudes 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

But a store in North Carolina, or Alabama, or some other southern state, that is openly anti LGBT will likely not been too affected by their beliefs.

Really? Because we are a pretty nationalistic economy now. Any "disturbence" will have more reaching effects than just locally. Look toward the national story pizza shop that would cater to gays, but wouldn't cater a gay wedding as an example.

[–]JaridT -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

But anti LGBT is homophobic.

[–]epsilon_swift 53ポイント54ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Freedom for me, not for thee"

[–]surfnsound 65ポイント66ポイント  (8子コメント)

I'm sure the dozens of people in North Carolina who would go to a theater to see a Michael Moore film are heartbroken.

[–]stemgang 9ポイント10ポイント  (5子コメント)

I got dragged by a friend to see one of his movies.

There were no explicit lies, because the film did not make any explicit statements. This is how he pretends to have no inaccuracies in his films.

Nevertheless, the whole film was an exercise in smearing, deception, and brainwashing.

I felt dirty and disgusted after watching it.

edit: There was the one explicit lie about Gore winning the recount. There were numerous recounts and even under the most extreme set of assumptions the NYT could not contort a mathematical scenario of Gore winning.

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

Which one? I just saw Who Should We Invade Next about 2 months ago

[–]stemgang 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It was Fahrenheit 9/11.

His most explicit lie was about Gore winning the recount.

There was another despicable segment in which he is interviewing the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq. He basically goads her, saying your son died for nothing and Bush robbed you of your son.

[–]enmunate28 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Roger and me is pretty decent. I think it's one of his first.

I mean the film, not the message.

[–]stemgang 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

He can string together scenes and hold audience attention, if that is what you mean by a good film-maker.

But I didn't want to see anti-gun propaganda, and I was unwise to go see anti-war propaganda.

There are plenty of legitimate arguments to be made against war without resorting to Moore's tactics.

[–]PlatinumGoat75 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I didn't mind bowling for Columbine. It didn't actually promote gun prohibition. It was more about how silly it is to scapegoat something like music or video games when a shooting occurs.

[–]Illuminator904 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

ALL TWO DOZEN OF THEM!

[–]Phu5ionWorkVote for Nobody 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Much like the nevernudes.

[–]1778 52ポイント53ポイント  (1子コメント)

He'll likely not understand the point being made.

[–]the2baddavid 23ポイント24ポイント  (0子コメント)

Considering he believes he's not the 1%, you're probably right

[–]xenspidey[🍰] 28ポイント29ポイント  (2子コメント)

Can we get this law passed everywhere so Mr. Moore will remove his films from all theaters?

[–]bertcox**showmeMORand** 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I snorted, that was funny.

[–]trytoinjurememoral truth doesn't exist 20ポイント21ポイント  (1子コメント)

So he's doing them a service for their bigoted laws? Not sure that sends the message he wants.

[–]dromni 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

The politically correct mind doesn't have to be rational.

In fact, it is better if it isn't.

[–]MysticGooseRepublitarian 19ポイント20ポイント  (6子コメント)

Roasted

[–]bannanaflame 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Good one, I think it'd have a better chance of landing with Hellen Keller, but good point all the same.

[–]ChaseDPat 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hmmmm. I'm all for gay rights, but Holy shit that's an excellent point. Anytime I see something about people opposing anything to do with gay people, I just assume the anti-gay people are wrong, because that's usually the case. It appears that's maybe not so in this case though? Anybody have an outoftheloop link or something so I can educate myself on what's going on here?

[–]piglizard 5ポイント6ポイント  (109子コメント)

What's interesting to me is this subs views on business freedom vs individual freedom. Imagine if every business in a small town decided they don't like a certain individual for their personal beliefs and refused service- how does that affect individual freedom?

[–]delirium2k 57ポイント58ポイント  (46子コメント)

You seem to think there is a distinction between business freedom and individual freedom. There is not. Individuals engage in business.

[–]LibertyTerpfriedmanite 14ポイント15ポイント  (33子コメント)

If an individual pisses off every business in a small town that's his problem. Everyone involved is free to live their life as they choose.

[–]anarchitektMarket Socialist 19ポイント20ポイント  (32子コメント)

sometimes you can piss off every business in town by simply being black, or gay.

[–]dem_banka 16ポイント17ポイント  (19子コメント)

If a business discriminates someone for being gay or black:

  1. They would lose all business from gays or blacks.
  2. They would lose business from every other people who disagree with this practice

Most likely, these businesses have competition and they will get new business.

Basically it's shooting yourself on the foot. If you want business, why would you deny service to anyone? Therefore why would I not do the same as I do when a business has bad products or services (go to the competition)? And this post is a great example of my point.

[–]lfasonar 3ポイント4ポイント  (8子コメント)

i have a great counter example for you: most business in many parts of the country in the 1950s.

i mean, hypothetically, its against your interests as a business to discriminate against gays / other races / whatever. but in the actual world, when businesses were free to do whatever they wanted, they actually did discriminate against gays / blacks / etc. and those business did just fine.

if your argument is that businesses should be able to discriminate, that's fine, but don't pretend that the free market means they won't discriminate.

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

The problem with this example is that Jim Crow laws enshrined segregation in law, and businesses were not "free to do whatever they wanted".

[–]dem_banka -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

I know they will discriminate, but the free market will make them lose business. What better punishment than that?

[–]lfasonar 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

i don't know, in the 50s, most business discriminated and they did just fine. i guess they could have done a bit better, but i'm sure no one lost any sleep over it.

[–]okthrowaway2088 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Actually they were required to.

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

Exactly where his example breaks down, people forget that Jim Crow laws were in fact laws.

[–]snark42 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

i don't know, in the 50s, most business discriminated and they did just fine. i guess they could have done a bit better, but i'm sure no one lost any sleep over it.

Except they wouldn't have done better, the people who didn't want to associate with people different than themselves wouldn't go some place only people they liked were allowed if it was a choice. This was likely a larger population than the minority they excluded.

[–]nenyim 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It goes the other way around if the majority feels strongly enough about the discrimination as the businesses not discriminating simply end up losing the patronage of the majority just because they want to provide services to everyone.

[–]AZL94 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're just assuming that these kinds of businesses don't succeed when historical and current events have shown that actually they do just fine. For sure, it's stupid to do so and it does lose them business but many consumers aren't that discerning and a lot of people just don't give a shit about minority issues like gay rights, meaning that most of the time the free market doesn't sort the issue out.

[–]Awfy 9ポイント10ポイント  (5子コメント)

They would lose all business from gays or blacks.

They would lose business from every other people who disagree with this practice

These only work if black people are a large enough part of the community and that the community as a whole supports them. What happens when black people represent only 5% of the community and say 80% of the community do not support the rights of black people? This is often why civil rights can not be put to the popular vote.

[–]dem_banka 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Good point. I guess the next step in that situation would be moving to a different city. But that's a different conversation.

[–]TheInternetShill 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

That would be the further segregation of cities. We have already seen a clear outcome of what happens when businesses are allowed to discriminate based on innate characteristics.

[–]LiveFree1773voluntaryist -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

If that was the case, a law would not change that.

[–]Awfy 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Laws do change that because it becomes illegal for individuals to discriminate against and they either have to shut up shop or follow the law. That opens space for people who are willing to both serve anyone and follow the law.

[–]fetamorphosis 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

A law already changed that.

[–]metalliskamutualist 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

If you want business, why would you deny service to anyone?

To keep the business owner and clientele "in line with tradition".

The clientele continues to patronize the business owner, keeping the establishment profitable, operating indefinitely. Nobody in the clientele cares to shop around, as they also value the "in line with tradition" mindset.

This is what happens repeatedly.

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

no it doesn't

[–]metatron207 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Of course it does, or at least has historically. I suspect it happens less in more Western, wealthy, and especially technologically-advanced regions, but wherever there's a small minority and a rural, traditionalist population, there's a possibility of a member of the minority not having the ability to shop around.

The abundance of communications and transportation infrastructure we have in many places from which redditors come makes it unlikely we'd see these things; even in a small town deep in the American South, a black person is liable to be able to scrounge up bus fare to get out of town and to a more welcoming locale. But in traditionalist societies, there's an ever-present danger to being part of the other, whether that's having a different skin color, being gay or trans, or holding unorthodox points of view. Granted, pressure from government helps stabilize these beliefs, as in some orthodox Muslim countries, but there can be tremendous social pressure even without government -- it just can't sustain itself indefinitely. So while I agree with you that markets are the way to go, and they eventually sort out these types of issues, I think it's foolish to suggest that they don't exist from moment to moment.

[–]3d6 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Mike Huckabee's counter-protest in support of Chick-Fil-A proves you wrong in a single news clipping. Bigoted old farts lined up around the block for their Hate Chicken, and the boom in business more than offset any and all boycott efforts.

[–]MysticGooseRepublitarian 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

If you live in a town like that, all the anti-discrimination laws in the world won't help you.

[–]anarchitektMarket Socialist 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

it worked in my home state. we no longer infringe on the freedom of black individuals by denying them service to every (90%) white business in town and public parks.

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

Jim crow laws forced discrimination. It's not the same thing as legally allowing it.

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

i very much understand the difference, but Jim Crow laws only effected public facilities. private discrimination was completely voluntary and equally wide spread.

[–]kogno 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

How could you get an anti-discrimination law passed if most people are racist?

[–]epsilon_swift 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Example?

[–]anarchitektMarket Socialist 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

my home town circa 1950.

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

Name of town?

Edit: I'll give you time to research a name.

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

umm, none of your fucking business, TN.

[–]JackBond1234 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The only guarantee we have is that nobody can stop us from making our own livelihood. That means starting a farm to feed and clothe yourself and whatever you need to do via your own agency. It's only an added convenience and privilege that we can work together and have other people do that for us. It's not a right though. Anyone who thinks otherwise is spoiled by modern conveniences.

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

Does everyone have a right to farmable land? If not, then your example is useless. If so, then I need to sue my city.

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

so?

[–]Vayate 7ポイント8ポイント  (7子コメント)

Trigger warning: Non-libertarian viewpoint.

I would look to the Hobby Lobby decision for guidance on that question. SCOTUS has made a distinction between publicly held companies and privately held companies where the owners are also employees. So on that basis, Jim's Christian Bakery would have a right to not participate in a gay wedding, while Giant Eagle or National Wedding Cake Emporium would not.

[–]the2baddavid 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Is a publicly owned company really different than a privately owned one? Should the decision not be up to the owners?

[–]Vayate 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

If the shareholders of a public business unanimously voted to make a decision based on that objection, then maybe one could argue that. However I think it's much more difficult to say an on objection is enforceable if there's a split among the shareholders on the matter.

[–]the2baddavid 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Well sure, it would probably be difficult and very expensive for walmart to put together a policy that said they'd no longer serve gays. Moreover it would be difficult to enforce without acceptance from the managers and rank and file employees. But in that case, why would you need to treat public companies different from private ones?

[–]Vayate 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

With the court precedent being what it is today, the difference is that employees of public companies can't object on the basis of personal beliefs while employees of private companies can do so. I agree that there's no need to protect special classes of people, but that's how the court precedent is today and I think it's an acceptable compromise.

[–]JackBond1234 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

That assumes the interpretation of the law is inherently right. Libertarians acknowledge that the government has made more harmful laws than not which are enforced and can't easily be avoided, but the reasoning and principle remain unchanged. Making business owners slaves by law is wrong no matter how legal it is.

[–]xterminatr 8ポイント9ポイント  (5子コメント)

Most in this sub don't understand the basic principles behind business discrimination laws, and they falsely compare those laws with 'personal freedom'. Denying business based on discrimination is not the same as refusing to do business in a state based on state law. Business move their headquarters or stop doing business in certain states all the time due to tax laws, zoning laws, etc., and legally this aligns with what is happening today. It is very different from denying business to gay people, black people, women, or whatever other discrimination.

Imagine if all the major food suppliers were bought up by Muslim companies. They decide that they only want to sell their food to other Muslim distributors. The distributors decide they only will sell their food to Muslim customers. All of a sudden the majority of available food is only available to Muslims, and every one else gets screwed. That is why we have discrimination laws. Sure you'll claim that it will create a market for other businesses to jump into, but that just isn't the case with many markets that are inelastic with huge cost of entry that are easily monopolized. What if the same thing happened in the airline/railroad/utilities markets?

If a state creates its own problems that lead to similar situations, there are pathways to have those laws modified by the people living there to solve the problem - consumers can't force a private business to change it's belief system, they can only utilize the legal system to ensure there is no discrimination. A state has the means and resources to create fair competition with large businesses, small subsets of consumers do not.

[–]phayd 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

well put, but the OP was referring to this sub's belief on the difference between perceived personal freedom vs business freedom.

The example you gave, in which muslim businesses decide to stop doing business with non-muslims, is identical to what is happening to North Carolina. What if all businesses in the US decide that they do not support North Carolina's position and stop doing business, remove it from the power grid, stop supplying groceries, etc. Should the government's anti-discrimination laws kick in and force people to continue to serve North Carolina even if they are bigoted?

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

This is why the government should not have things like anti-discrimination laws

[–]kharnel917 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The problem with your example in the second paragraph is that it is not fleshed out to it's conclusion. I'd like to extend it even further by saying that all food distributors, suppliers, and every known farmer on Earth will now only sell to those of the faith of Islam. What will happen? The other people of the world still have the same demand for food, but now their supply has decreased to zero. When supply decreases, all other things being equal, prices increase, and with a supply of zero, prices are going to increase exorbitantly. Now let's just assume that the current food distributors, suppliers, or farmers (I now realize that you probably meant farmer when you said "suppliers") are still unwilling to sell to the non-muslims even at the exorbitant prices offered to them by the starving populous. What will happen is that land currently being used for marginal projects (which will now represent an extremely large number of projects) will be repurposed for farming land and for processing and distributing food to non-muslims. More and more of this land will be bid away from marginal products, decreasing food prices, until the price of food is no longer high enough to warrant bidding away more land from other projects. By this mechanism, non-muslims will now have food.

Another problem with your example is that it doesn't take into account the argument that once muslim companies start trying to corner the market on food distribution and supply, those distributors and suppliers that still own their companies are going to increase the prices at which they are willing to sell their companies due to the fact that the demand for their property is increasing (and when demand increases, all other things being equal, prices will increase).

"many markets that are inelastic with huge cost of entry that are easily monopolized" The arguement against natural monopoly is long and I don't want to do it so here: https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

And would you please explain your first paragraph a little more? I didn't really understand it.

[–]xenspidey[🍰] 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

But that's not what's happening. Businesses aren't refusing to do business to those because they are gay, they are refusing to provide services to an event. I have yet to hear a story of a baker / photographer whom does not want to participate in a wedding also refuse them services other than the wedding. On the contrary, several of those that are being declined service have been customers of these organizations in the past.

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

It looks like you're the only level headed person in this thread. Everyone else is like "Muh liberty".

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

It doesn't affect their freedom at all, since their freedoms do not include the "freedom" to get stuff from other people.

More importantly is noting how it affects the accountability of an individual. Accountability is what makes the world go round. Without it, society dissolves into chaos. The reason people are libertarians is because they realize that voluntary negotiation in a market is what produces the maximum accountability over individuals, groups, and businesses. If you don't want to be shunned by every business in town, then you'll have to be a pleasant person in return.

[–]nenyim 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

If you don't want to be shunned by every business in town, then you'll have to be a pleasant person in return.

Or not be black before the civil rights movement. Or not be of the wrong religious denomination in many countries in many different time periods. Or not be abused by your father or raped by someone in the street in many places and times.

Pretending that discrimination against someone only happen because they are not a pleasant person is incredibly dishonest.

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

Pretending that discrimination against someone only happen because they are not a pleasant person is incredibly dishonest.

I've done no such thing. What I apparently failed to communicate, is that in order to stifle unjust discrimination, you have to simultaneously stifle just discrimination. Not only is the later far more important, but it isn't even desirable to stifle the former. If, as white person, I'm considering moving to a neighborhood with a lot of black people, is it not beneficial for me to find out as quickly as possible if this particular group of people is racist? If most of the local businesses refuse to service white people out of unjust hatred, then that's a fantastic signal that I shouldn't move there. What if because of anti-discriminatory laws I didn't discover the nature of the neighborhood until after I had purchased property and settled there?

The freedom to discriminate 1) provides us with information about bad people who have discriminatory hearts and 2) instills a tremendous amount of accountability on people and businesses in terms of righteous discrimination.

As is always the case, the government makes things worse when they meddle with voluntary negotiations.

[–]role_or_roll 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It doesn't. They're free to move. You're acting like it's an inalienable right to enter someone's store. It is not, it's private proprety

[–]epsilon_swift -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

Ah, yes, the ol' "what if?" argument!

[–]praxulus 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

Because America has never had towns full of bigots, right?

[–]epsilon_swift 13ポイント14ポイント  (2子コメント)

I am not aware of America ever having any small town where all businesses decided they didn't like someone for their personal beliefs and refused service. However, I am aware of governments creating Jim Crow laws that essentially mandated discrimination, guaranteeing discrimination would be widespread. I am further aware of people looking back at that time and inferring that the discrimination occurred primarily because the business owners were bigots despite the fact that laws compelled or restricted them from treating people fairly.

European immigrants faced discrimination. No laws mandated it. Europeans subsequently were accepted by society, and there is no more discrimination against them. Magic!

[–]Vayate 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

People have a right to be bigots. They can hold whatever opinion they want no matter how awful it may be, and they have a right to act on them as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Meanwhile no one is entitled to do business with a privately owned entity.

[–]epsilon_swift 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

And sometimes "bigots" aren't really bigots. Take Curves. Curves discriminates against men, but not out of hate. They simply want to market exclusively to a particular demographic, just like this gay and lesbian business.

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

It doesn't.

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

why would you live there. If I'm indian, and everyone in the town hates indians, you should probably try to not to live there

[–]metatron207 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Is there any specific thing Moore has advocated that this is referring to? I know he's generally a statist, but I've never watched one of his films and I'm unaware of anything he's done that specifically advocates against freedom of expression.

[–]okthrowaway2088 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm unaware of anything he's done that specifically advocates against freedom of expression

The very law he's objecting to in his tweet.

[–]metatron207 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ha! Wow. I need more coffee.

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

Here is a word cloud of every comment in this thread, as of this time: http://i.imgur.com/bYx1sAw.png

[source code] [contact developer] [request word cloud]

[–]vkob -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

NO. SJW are 100% correct and must impose their beliefs and values onto others to correct all the injustice in the world.

There is no room for consistent logic in the SJW doctrine.

[–]ChromeWeasel -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's fucking awesome.

[–]buddy58745 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sooo he's going to "punish" people who have no control of the rules

[–]SlappyJigglerI don't want to financially support you or your filthy kids. -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sick burn!

[–]ShannonGeis -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Funny! Great burn! 💗 MM