|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,779 Year: 4,036/9,624 Month: 907/974 Week: 234/286 Day: 41/109 Hour: 3/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The rule that you want, where people use the bathroom where they best "fit in", was pretty much the Obama set of guidelines. Trump issued an executive order rescinding those guidelines. You truly don't see a problem that the guidelines you think made the most sense are now gone? 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
All you have to do is take your business elsewhere, nobody's forcing you to use a Christian business or agree with them. "You can just take your business elsewhere, boy, nobody's forcing you to use a whites-only business." Yeah, that's what you sound like. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What really happened was that Trump issued an executive order rescinding the Obama guidelines that protected LGBT use of the restrooms of their gender identity. 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).
This means that that state legislation I just mentioned can go back into the pipeline. 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.
Like Faith, I think you need to look up totalitarianism. 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.
The question is whether LGBT's should have the right to use the bathroom of their gender identity, or whether other people's right to have their bathroom used only by people of their physical sex overrides. Whichever way current law sways, neither side is totalitarian. It's the approach: "this is kinda hard to figure out, big brother please help me!"
The guidelines still exist, and didn't add anything to the law anyways. Uh, yes they did. A number of states were considering legislation that would have restricted LGBT bathroom access. From the guidelines document, itself:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote: So when trans people are arrested for using the correct bathroom, they're hallucinating it? They weren't actually arrested? They simply hyperventilated the cops coming in? Strange how "take your business elsewhere" was declared unconstitutional. Are you saying we should do away with anti-discrimination law? You *do* have the right to deny people on the basis of race, sex, religion, marital status, veteran status, etc.? Woolworth's was justified in their refusal to serve black people at the lunch counter? Ha ha. No, I'm saying we don't need it. Capitalists and a free market would sort it out.
quote: Strange how all those capitalists seemed to think that the money of Jews and blacks wasn't any good. Where?
So we seem to have a problem: You think the world is populated with these automatons known as "capitalists," but that seems to conflict with the reality that the world is instead populated by things known as "humans" and they are known to be bigots. Even a bigoted capitalist will take your money, or if not, they'll go out of business.
So what do we as a society do with that fact? Yelp. We don't need federal laws to figure this out.
So what do we as a society do with that fact? Do we simply shrug our shoulders and say, "Tough"? Too bad if you're black or Jewish or gay or a woman. You need to find the mythical city of "Capitalism" that will stop discriminating against you. Of course, that doesn't address all the other places in life that are infected with bigotry such as the law, employment, housing, education, etc., but at least you can know that in "Capitalism," you're money will be good. Assuming you have any. The income inequality in "Capitalism" is quite disastrous, you know. You won't be one of the ones making any money there, after all. You go to a restaurant. They served you spoiled food. You certainly don't eat it. You don't pay for it. You leave and you go somewhere else. And you still call the health department. The restaurant is not allowed to serve spoiled food due to the regulations on food preparation and service. That's the contract that you signed by opening a restaurant. You don't get to claim, "They can go somewhere else," as a defense. So when you are denied service in violation of anti-discrimination laws, you go somewhere else. And you still call the business regulatory agency. The business is not allowed to discriminate due to the anti-discrimination laws. That's the contract that you signed by opening a business. You don't get to claim, "They can go somewhere else," as a defense. Yup, that's a totalitarian tactic. I'm just saying we don't need it.
Your bigotry is showing. So's yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And when most of your customers will take their business elsewhere if you allow black people or gays to patronize your establishment, then the invisible hand in Capitalism will in fact reinforce the problem, not fix it. Is that happening?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Ha ha. No, I'm saying we don't need it. Capitalists and a free market would sort it out. You mean the same way they sorted out racial segregation? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Which will work find in locations where the proportion of bigots is small. In other places, the public will jump all over a hint of non-bigotry. For example?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote:quote:Ha ha. No, I'm saying we don't need it. Capitalists and a free market would sort it out. Strange how that didn't happen. Woolworth's still refused to serve black people. 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.
So since we know that "capitalists and a free market" don't actually sort it out, what do we do then? 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.
Dream for this mythical city of "Capitalism" where people are never bigoted? People are going to be bigoted, capitalists are going to go for the money despite their bigotry.
quote:quote:Even a bigoted capitalist will take your money, or if not, they'll go out of business. And yet, a simple inspection of reality trivially shows your claim to be false. Bigoted capitalists make tons of money. 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.
quote: So why did we fight a Civil War and have to create a Constitutional amendment recognizing the rights of people regardless of race? We were a capitalist society. How could there possibly be any racism of any kind? Have a state that passes laws making the capitalists be racist.
I mean, it's been more than 200 years, for crying out loud. When is the wonderful invisible hand of the free market finally going to do its job and end racism? 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.
quote: So Woolworth's should be allowed to deny service to black people? A restaurant should be allowed to serve spoiled food? lol that's silly.
And considering that we're a democracy and these laws were enacted via the democratic process, exactly how is it "totalitarian"? 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.
Methinks you're about to spout some Libertarian claptrap where you demand all the rights and privileges of a democracy but refuse to accept any of the responsibilities. Rights for you, screw everybody else. You got yours and everybody else can go pound sand. That's because you're prejudiced.
quote:quote:So's yours. Nice try. I'm going to ask you nicely: Please, let us not play dumb. Fighting against racism is not racism against racists.Fighting against bullying is not bullying the bullies. Fighting against discrimination is not discrimination against those who discriminate. Fighting against bigotry is not bigotry against the bigoted. Woolworth's was justified in their refusal to serve black people at the lunch counter? You *do* have the right to deny people on the basis of race, sex, religion, marital status, veteran status, etc.? Those are yes-or-no questions, New. I noticed you seemed to be unable to actually answer them. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well yeah, that was the law. The state told them that they couldn't serve black people and white people together.
Really? Can you please point us to that law. Here's some examples of the kind of verbiage I'm talking about:
quote: quote: quote: .
The "inane" questions show the moral bankruptcy of your arguments. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If your argument is true why did some lunch counters remain segregated, even in states without laws demanding segregation, until after there was a federal law prohibiting it. That one point destroys the whole premise of your argument. 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It's cute how you think you're thoughts are being legislated. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
but I don't expect an entitled white, racist to understand. There it is! You guys are hilarious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Why bring up "bigoted thoughts"? I was saying that's what the law is *not* for.
Once again, you make a claim about regulating thought. Again, you are indicating that anti-discrimination law has some sort of goal, purpose, or effect of telling people what to think... 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.
So rather than me being "so wrong about what you think that it's too much," the reality of the situation is that I have you pegged. So, of course, you run away. You're too dishonest and prejudiced to even defend your own arguments. Those are lies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
This still misuses the word "totalitarian." By your definition, anything that is the law of the land is totalitarian. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024