|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
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.
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.
Your bigotry speaks for itself. The "inane" questions show the moral bankruptcy of your arguments.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
The Woolworths sit-ins started in North Carolina then spread to Tennessee, Virginia and Kentucky. Can you show that there were any laws in those states against serving blacks and whites together?
The laws you cite seem to be from Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. I have neither the time nor desire to research whether this was indeed true or in effect at this time, but it does not matter. 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. The fact that there was no law in NC does too. racial segregation | Restaurant-ing through historyFacts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
So today, in a society that is against racism, we don't need to have laws controlling the capitalists. Amazing how entitled white people claim there is no racism. As a hispanic and a person that has african americans in his family I see racism everyday. Just two weeks ago my father was almost denied a room in a nursing home in North Carolina. Everything was fine until we filled out the paperwork and they learned his name. He goes by Mike, but his legal name is Miguel. Onse they found that out mysteriously they had no beds available for the foreseeable future, when two days earlier we were told beds free up 2-3 times a week. Until we pulled some strings because I have sister in law there that knows prominent doctors in the area he was not going to get a bed. This area has a very large hispanic and african american population. In the nursing home there are no other hispanics and only about 10% african american. Don't you dare tell me racism is not a problem in this country. My father worked his way up from the mean streets of spanish harlem and was quite successful in his career. He and my mother saved enough money that he could probably have enough funds to live comfortably for another 20 years. Actually, much better than the average "white" retiree. But in the end of his days he was discriminated against solely for his name.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined:
|
New Cat's Eye responds to me:
quote: And who wrote that law? Socialists? Communists? Oh...that's right. Capitalists did.
quote: Oh, yes, it was. Are you about to invoke "No True Capitalist"?
quote: Yep. You are.
quote: And as the history of the US trivially shows, that's completely backwards. Capitalism actually made things worse. It was only when the state got involved that things got better.
quote: No, it was the publicity. The sit-ins weren't a one off. It started with just four people in a single lunch counter. They were refused. The next day, 20 people showed up. TV cameras and newspaper reports covered it. The third day, it was 60 people and corporate made a statement saying they would continue to segregate. The fourth day, 300 people took part. Within a week, the movement had spread to other towns. Now, here's a question for you, since I know you're going to say, "that was the law." What did those original four people do before they went to the lunch counter? That's right...they bought some toothpaste. From the desegregated counter. At the end, six months later, Woolworth's desegregated the lunch counter. How could they do that if the law required them to do so? And why was it that the Greensboro store desegregated but the ones in Nashville and Jackson stayed segregated for another five years?
quote: No True Capitalist.
quote: And yet, they aren't taking it from people whose money isn't apparently good enough for them. Wait...I forgot...No True Capitalist, right?
quote: (*chuckle*) It's cute how you think you're thoughts are being legislated.
quote: Except the history of the United States trivially shows that not to be the case. Even when there were no laws mandating segregation, there was still racism. Capitalists were routinely engaged in racist activity and the capitalism made it even worse. Wait...I forgot...No True Capitalist, right?
quote: Not as a direct consequence, no. I'm sorry, but you're so precious when you think your thoughts are being legislated. No, the law can't make you think anything. But by requiring you to engage with the public when you open up a public accommodation, you will learn, albeit slowly and only as a side effect, that the people you were insisting were the devil incarnate actually aren't which may lead to the possibility of considering that maybe, just maybe, you were wrong to think so in the first place.
quote: It never has before. In fact, the free market has always made it worse. What makes this time different?
quote: But that's what you're advocating: No laws to regulate the actions of a business. Just as a business should be allowed to refuse service to black people because the "free market will end racist practices," then a resataurant should be allowed to serve spoiled food because "the free market will end disease-spreading practices." If you get to be protected from a proprietor doling out salmonella, why don't you get to be protected from a proprietor doling out racism?
quote: (*chuckle*) It's cute how you think your thoughts are being legislated.
quote: That you think legal regulation to prevent discrimination is "totalitarian" shows your bigoted nature. We've been through this before: Stopping bullies is not bullying the bullies.Stopping intolerance is not intolerant of the intolerant. Stopping bigots is not bigotry against the bigoted. quote: Oh, looks like we need to add another: Stopping prejudice is not prejudicial against the prejudiced.
quote: Which is very telling. You know the flaw in your argument, so you'll avoid any questions that point it out.
quote: Turns out I nailed you. This whine of yours is precisely proof positive.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Yes, yes, yes typical racist behavior of discounting real life examples of real life racism. Of course I am not going to give you my father's name or the nursing home he is in so you can confirm.
Maybe you do not understand how your anecdote is different than my showing you a real life example of racism. Your evidence .
I'm going from memory here and I don't have a link, take it for what's it's worth and don't bother with bothering me: Mine is an example I just experienced and have experienced my whole life. There is a qualitative difference, but I don't expect an entitled white, racist to understand. I don't care either. The only cure for racists is to shame them by exposing them to the light of day. You are at least exposed on this board.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
but I don't expect an entitled white, racist to understand. There it is! You guys are hilarious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
New Cat's Eye responds to me:
quote:quote:I actually said the opposite of that. Did you or did you not write the following (Message 331)
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. Why bring up "bigoted thoughts"? I certainly didn't mention it. Anti-discrimination law certainly doesn't pretend to be able to tell people what to think let alone try. So where did this idea that we were talking about what the proprietor thinks come from? Where did this idea that those of us who advocate for anti-discrimination law are trying to use the law with regard to thought? Later in that same message:
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. Emphasis added. There's that claim about regulating thought again. And this time it's a direct claim that anti-discrimination law has some sort of goal, purpose, or effect of telling people what to think. But, let's go on:
Message 293:
I think looking to the feds to provide you with how to think about something is pretty totalitarian. 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...and using that word "totalitarian" again. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. 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.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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. I continue to find this argument fairly silly. The new ways of thinking would expand the application of the law. Removing government sanction of those ways of thinking certainly has a legal effect, particularly when that same government is responsible for appointing judges who would be interpreting the law for the rest of us, and is also responsible for prosecuting violations of Title IX. As an example, I'll note that the Trump' Justice department has withdrawn from fighting an injunction against Obama's guidelines and has indicated that the matter should be left to the states. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
New Cat's Eye writes: 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. This still misuses the word "totalitarian." By your definition, anything that is the law of the land is totalitarian. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024