The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right

They're not gone. You can download them here from justice.gov.Title IX still exists as law and has not changed. The guidelines still exist, and didn't add anything to the law anyways.What happened was the feds backed off from over-reaching. Minus one point from totalitarianism. Where's the problem?Unless totalitarianism is a tactic of the Left?

That's not really a fair comparison. Jim Crow Laws were just that; laws. They were put on by the state, not the capitalists. Businesses had to comply with them."Take your business elsewhere" is the only response we need to this perceived discrimination. We do not need a state involved. Capitalism would sort it out.Capitalists don't care about your religion or skin color, they just want your money.And the people don't want to give their money to bigots, so businesses will naturally not discriminate or they will go out of business.

Obama's guidelines weren't what protected them. Title IX is what, still, protects them. The guidelines were just help on interpreting that law.The law says that schools can't discriminate based on sex, and now kids are saying that their gender is different from their sex, so the schools we're looking to the feds to tell them how to handle it (presumably so they don't loose federal funding). Not really. The guidelines didn't prevent legislation or add anything to the already existing law, it just helped the schools know what to do to keep their legal obligations.Rescinding the guidelines doesn't take away anything. The schools can still follow them if they need help figuring out how to keep their legal obligations. Well, strictly speaking, there's the form of government. But there's also political tactics that can be totalitarian in nature.I think looking to the feds to provide you with how to think about something is pretty totalitarian. It's the approach: "this is kinda hard to figure out, big brother please help me!" From the guidelines document, itself:

quote:

---

This guidance does not add requirements to applicable law, but provides information and examples to inform recipients about how the Departments evaluate whether covered entities are complying with their legal obligations.

---

Ha ha. No, I'm saying we don't need it. Capitalists and a free market would sort it out. Where? Even a bigoted capitalist will take your money, or if not, they'll go out of business. Yelp.We don't need federal laws to figure this out. Yup, that's a totalitarian tactic. I'm just saying we don't need it. So's yours.

Is that happening?

No, in a different way.Today, we have near instantaneous communication between practically all of the potential patrons of an establishment, and if there is even a hint of bigotry the public jumps all over the business and calls them out.We really don't need a state giving us laws in order to figure this out.Also, racial segregation was mandated by the state by law. It wasn't just a bunch of mean ol' capitalists trying to limit their business opportunities.Edited by New Cat's Eye, : No reason given.

For example?

Well yeah, that was the law. The state told them that they couldn't serve black people and white people together. It wasn't evil bigoted capitalist hating that black money.A capitalist will go to racism when their clientele demands it with their wallet, not because they're trying to not take money. We know that it won't sort it out when the state is involved and preventing them. Also, after the state couldn't do that anymore then the capitalists started serving people.Further, it wasn't a hit the their hearts that caused Woolworth's to start serving blacks, it was the hit to their wallet; sales dropped by a third when people started boycotting so they stopped refusing service. People are going to be bigoted, capitalists are going to go for the money despite their bigotry. Which requires them taking it, that is, they are providing the service. That's the issue, not whether or not people are secretly thinking bigoted thoughts while they're taking your food order. Have a state that passes laws making the capitalists be racist. You're never going to "end racism" in the sense of people not being "a racist"; certainly not by force of law. The free market can end racist practices though. lol that's silly. It's the tactic of looking to the feds to provide people's thoughts and behaviors through force of law.That your immediate response to 'we don't need this' is: "But how are we going to end racism?" shows your totalitarian nature. That's because you're prejudiced. Oh, I'm able. I'm just unwilling.You're just being passive-aggressive because your bigotry caused you to pre-judged me and think that inane questions were pertinent to the position that I must be taking. Turns out you were wrong about me.

Here's some examples of the kind of verbiage I'm talking about:

quote:

---

It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such white and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each compartment.

---

quote:

---

All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license.

---

quote:

---

No persons, firms, or corporations, who or which furnish meals to passengers at station restaurants or station eating houses, in times limited by common carriers of said passengers, shall furnish said meals to white and colored passengers in the same room, or at the same table, or at the same counter.

---

. Maybe in your mind, but that was already made up.In mine, they don't show that in the slightest. They tell me more about the one asking than anything.

Not really, as I said: A capitalist will go to racism if their clientele demands it with their wallet.If the society accepts racist behavior, capitalism itself will just go along.But if the society does not, then the capitalists will not go against society and refuse money because of their bigotry.So today, in a society that is against racism, we don't need to have laws controlling the capitalists.Even the link you provided down-plays the need for the laws a bit:

quote:

---

Although President Johnson said he expected it, many people were surprised that the Civil Rights Act met with such a high degree of acceptance. American society as a whole had become convinced that unequal treatment was in conflict with the principles of democracy and that integration was inevitable. One year after passage of the Civil Rights Act an official at the Justice Department said compliance had exceeded expectations and was a major national accomplishment. By the early 1970s desegregation of restaurants and hotels was so uncontroversial that the question was dropped from public polls.

---

I see they go on to talk about enforcement being required for fake private clubs, but again that's a response to the clientele rather than a capitalistic idea for a business plan to reduce the amount money they accept.

I actually said the opposite of that.But you're too dishonest and prejudiced for me to continue to waste my time on you. You're so wrong about what I think that it's too much.Have a nice day.

Ahem.

There it is!You guys are hilarious.

I was saying that's what the law is *not* for. Ah, you misunderstood. There I was talking about the Obama guidelines for Title IX. Those didn't add anything to the law, they basically had ways to think about gender.That people were freaking out when they were rescinded looks like they were upset that the feds weren't telling them how to think anymore. That, to me, seems totalitarian in nature. Those are lies.

Well, it is a bit hyperbolic, but I don't think that it's completely inapt. And its the approach, or the mentality, that I am calling totalitarian - not the laws.It's like if we were coworkers and every time we had a minor disagreement about something you ran to the boss to get them to implement a decision so you could force me to comply with your way.It's that approach of running to and using an authority to force your dissenters into compliance rather than working with them and coming to an agreement that I find distasteful.I don't think calling that totalitarian is too far off - if we're not talking specifically about the form of government, itself.