Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 24, 2015 20:57:43 GMT -5
OK. Good. Very specific, and I agree with you.Let's pin down this last point. What about institutions that do accept public monies in running them, such as the UOK? Do they have the right to ban individuals or refuse membership under any of the three circumstances? I'm not sure why you would be surprised. Didn't I say ten pages ago that I pretty much agreed with your take on the matter?
As an aside, and in the interest of clarity, can we agree on an abbreviation for the school? This was at the University of Oklahoma. They actually go by OU when abbreviated. If I see something non-standard like UOK I'm thinking something like University of Kentucky (even though they actually go by UK.) It would be clearer. Thanks.
OU is fine by me. As for answering the question...?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 24, 2015 21:01:36 GMT -5
They do have the right of association, so would be perfectly within their rights to ban the fraternity since it is basically allied with and part of the university. As far as the individual students, I said earlier that if the University could make the case (and make it stick) that the expulsions were for threats and not the mere fact of racist speech then the students may not be allowed back. It will likely be difficult to make that case though.
In general, I think the courts have held that free speech rights do exist on a college campus and I generally support that, absent any real disruption of the university's mission. Non-violent protest has been allowed for decades, at least. And given that the highest ideal of a university should be the free exchange of ideas, I believe that free speech rights and the right to protest (peacefully) SHOULD exist on campus. But again, speech is not equivalent to behaviour. Actions are not necessarily protected.
(I added the "u" in "behaviour" just for you. I hope you appreciate the effort.)
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 24, 2015 21:02:43 GMT -5
Impatient, are we?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 24, 2015 21:23:19 GMT -5
They do have the right of association, so would be perfectly within their rights to ban the fraternity since it is basically allied with and part of the university. As far as the individual students, I said earlier that if the University could make the case (and make it stick) that the expulsions were for threats and not the mere fact of racist speech then the students may not be allowed back. It will likely be difficult to make that case though.
In general, I think the courts have held that free speech rights do exist on a college campus and I generally support that, absent any real disruption of the university's mission. Non-violent protest has been allowed for decades, at least. And given that the highest ideal of a university should be the free exchange of ideas, I believe that free speech rights and the right to protest (peacefully) SHOULD exist on campus. But again, speech is not equivalent to behaviour. Actions are not necessarily protected.
(I added the "u" in "behaviour" just for you. I hope you appreciate the effort.)
I'm all choked up about the 'u'. How does a university not being able to boot the students for the "mere fact of racist speech" sync up with "freedom of speech, not freedom of consequences"? It seems to me that if a student group decided to start peacefully handing out white supremacist literature on campus, and the university's reputation was tarnished as a result, the students escaping any kind of reprisal would constitute "freedom from consequences", no? Another (unrelated) hypothetical comes to mind: Suppose a major bulk retailer requiring a membership (e.g. Costco) decides to take up social activism and reserves the right to revoke membership from any customer caught "promulgating immoral attitudes towards gun crime in America" by attending 2nd Amendment rallies, etc. Do you believe the courts would strike down this policy if it was challenged, and should the courts strike down the policy?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 24, 2015 22:08:28 GMT -5
Why would the university's reputation be tarnished in that instance? They can denounce it even while allowing it, whether required to allow by law or not. They could also limit the time and place it was allowed. And it would be a stretch in that limited example of "peacefully handing out white supremacist literature" of finding anything that would warrant a strong reaction such as removal. If it were to progress beyond that point, there would be another discussion since actions are not protected in the same way. And while it is true that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences, it is not a given that there have to be consequences.
My guess is that your membership club could create such a barrier to membership if they wished. It would likely take the form of non-renewal rather than revocation of membership, but I wouldn't think the courts would strike it down. Nor do I think they should. Political activism is not a protected class.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 24, 2015 22:42:58 GMT -5
Why would the university's reputation be tarnished in that instance? They can denounce it even while allowing it, whether required to allow by law or not. They could also limit the time and place it was allowed. And it would be a stretch in that limited example of "peacefully handing out white supremacist literature" of finding anything that would warrant a strong reaction such as removal. If it were to progress beyond that point, there would be another discussion since actions are not protected in the same way. And while it is true that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences, it is not a given that there have to be consequences.
My guess is that your membership club could create such a barrier to membership if they wished. It would likely take the form of non-renewal rather than revocation of membership, but I wouldn't think the courts would strike it down. Nor do I think they should. Political activism is not a protected class. Whether or not something is a protected class matters to the courts. Does it matter to you? Does the courts' saying, "You may bar membership to 2nd Amendment supporters but you may not bar membership to LGBT supporters." bother you at all? Does it seem right to you that powerful interest groups can lobby the government for "protected" status?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 24, 2015 23:30:31 GMT -5
Ideally, in my perfect world, there would be no such thing as a protected class. The difference, though, in me saying that as opposed to likely most other people who would say that is that my perfect world would have no need for protections. There would be no such thing as bigotry, racism, or intolerance. Everyone would be treated equally because it would be unthinkable to even entertain the possibility of not doing so. The reason we have (and need) the courts to protect certain classes of people is not only that we as a race are imperfect, but that we often seem to revel in our baser instincts. We put and keep others down because we have no other way to lift ourselves up.
All of that is a roundabout way of saying that I don't really have a problem with the concept of a protected class. The bigot would say that it protects the worst of us. I would say that it protects those persons FROM the worst of us. I would not, however, say that protected status is dependent on lobbying by powerful interest groups. That is too cynical even for me.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 25, 2015 0:18:24 GMT -5
This would be the root of our difference of opinion, since I consider protected classes wholly antithetical to a free society, especially when they're decided on a whim by the judiciary. Please... don't get into the "your freedom ends where somebody else's begins" platitudes, because if I hear them one more time I'm going to put an axe through my computer monitor, and it's a really nice monitor. It suffices that we've identified the root of our differences. I was hoping to pin down your views more. However, if you openly subscribe to the notion of protected classes, I can't reasonably expect consistency when debating future issues. Specifically, you'll support government interference in any case where private institutions discriminate based on protected factors (you approve of), you'll oppose government interference in any case where private institutions discriminate based on non-protected factors, and the factors you approve of are simply a function of your personal moral code. I will say that there's a very good reason that none of these protected classes existed in any of the world's foundational democracies, and that Voltaire would roll over in his grave at the very notion. I'll also say that the snake will eventually wind up eating it's own tail. Some US statesmen of old might say that an overreaching state is worse than the worst of us.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 25, 2015 0:25:45 GMT -5
... Some US statesmen of old might say that an overreaching state is worse than the worst of us. Does sound like something Tommy would have said. Of course, he was a member of one of the groups that government protected quite well back in the day.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 25, 2015 0:32:01 GMT -5
A truly free society is free to all, and for all, in all cases. A tyranny of the majority is antithetical to true freedom as much as anything else you can imagine. Discrimination in any form is antithetical to a free society. By definition it is a denial of freedom. And a state would have no need to overreach if we truly had freedom and equality.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 25, 2015 0:36:26 GMT -5
Because those were all founded by the privileged rather than the "protected?"
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 25, 2015 1:42:30 GMT -5
I was going to let this go, but....
First, "I don't really have a problem with..." is a much weaker standard than "openly subscribe to the notion." Still, a protected class is the RESULT of long-standing discrimination and abuse. It is not the CAUSE of anything of the sort.
Second, my personal approval or moral code has effectively zero to do with it. It is a matter of law. I do not argue against free speech rights for those I disagree with, nor do I argue in favor of discriminating against them. There are some circumstances where those laws apply. There are others where they don't. And I don't have a problem with that either.
Finally, you have correctly stated that we have identified the root of our disagreement. You are imprecise, however, on what it is. You believe that it is acceptable to not treat people equally in the same situation. I do not. Being part of a protected class does not grant special rights. It prevents the denial of equal rights.
This is also at least partly a major difference between the typical "liberal" and the typical "conservative." Given that we as a society are going to try to help some people, liberals find it far better to help those who need it rather than those who don't.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 25, 2015 1:57:22 GMT -5
Do you even see the silliness of this particular statement? If protected status really was the result of lobbying by powerful interest groups do you not believe that the NRA among others would have assured that gun carriers were first on the list? (Particularly galling because the Second Amendment in truth does not really stand for an individual right to own guns, despite the Supreme Court screwing up recent rulings.)
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 25, 2015 2:09:53 GMT -5
Do you even see the silliness of this particular statement? If protected status really was the result of lobbying by powerful interest groups do you not believe that the NRA among others would have assured that gun carriers were first on the list? (Particularly galling because the Second Amendment in truth does not really stand for an individual right to own guns, despite the Supreme Court screwing up recent rulings.) First on that list would probably be lobbyists.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 25, 2015 2:13:54 GMT -5
Probably so. I stand corrected.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2015 11:15:28 GMT -5
getting back to the actual discussion, i don't think tall and i disagree on this at all. I didn't think we were very far apart either, and was actually wondering what Virgil saw that I didn't.
As a general rule, though, it is true that you and I don't really debate much. The first (and most obvious) reason is that we are usually at at least a fairly high level of agreement. The other (and this is more for Virgil's benefit) is that I don't get the same enjoyment from the discussion process as DJ does. If I get heavily involved in a discussion, it is generally more to combat what I see as wrong-headed thinking. And there is ALWAYS someone FAR more wrong (than DJ would ever be) to focus on.
To borrow a phrase, 'All that is necessary for idiocy to triumph is for smart men to say nothing.' There will always be those who agree with you, and those who disagree with you. My concern is that those in the middle not be persuaded the other way because the nonsense and bullsh** is louder or more pervasive.
if i can elaborate a bit on this, you don't care WHY people think what they do, and i do. at least that is how i see it. so, you can let go of stuff you see as nonsensical way more quickly than i do. i am driven to understand it, and sometimes that proves pretty much impossible.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2015 11:16:42 GMT -5
i have already stated my position at least once. private institutions have no free speech rights whatsoever. public institutions do. how is that not completely clear? I have no idea what you're trying to say. Are you saying that only public institutions have limitations on what speech they can restrict? no, i am saying that public institutions are REQUIRED to respect free speech, and that private ones are NOT.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2015 11:20:31 GMT -5
They do have the right of association, so would be perfectly within their rights to ban the fraternity since it is basically allied with and part of the university. As far as the individual students, I said earlier that if the University could make the case (and make it stick) that the expulsions were for threats and not the mere fact of racist speech then the students may not be allowed back. It will likely be difficult to make that case though.
In general, I think the courts have held that free speech rights do exist on a college campus and I generally support that, absent any real disruption of the university's mission. Non-violent protest has been allowed for decades, at least. And given that the highest ideal of a university should be the free exchange of ideas, I believe that free speech rights and the right to protest (peacefully) SHOULD exist on campus. But again, speech is not equivalent to behaviour. Actions are not necessarily protected.
(I added the "u" in "behaviour" just for you. I hope you appreciate the effort.)
this is the "right of survivorship" argument. it is logically valid: a tolerant person need not tolerate intolerance, because it threatens the very idea of tolerance.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2015 11:26:20 GMT -5
Ideally, in my perfect world, there would be no such thing as a protected class. The difference, though, in me saying that as opposed to likely most other people who would say that is that my perfect world would have no need for protections. There would be no such thing as bigotry, racism, or intolerance. Everyone would be treated equally because it would be unthinkable to even entertain the possibility of not doing so. The reason we have (and need) the courts to protect certain classes of people is not only that we as a race are imperfect, but that we often seem to revel in our baser instincts. We put and keep others down because we have no other way to lift ourselves up.
All of that is a roundabout way of saying that I don't really have a problem with the concept of a protected class. The bigot would say that it protects the worst of us. I would say that it protects those persons FROM the worst of us. I would not, however, say that protected status is dependent on lobbying by powerful interest groups. That is too cynical even for me. i would add that it is generally (i think i could say always here) true that the protected class is the one with the least resources to defend against the injustice of the unprotected class.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2015 11:28:01 GMT -5
This would be the root of our difference of opinion, since I consider protected classes wholly antithetical to a free society, especially when they're decided on a whim by the judiciary. Please... don't get into the "your freedom ends where somebody else's begins" platitudes, because if I hear them one more time I'm going to put an axe through my computer monitor, and it's a really nice monitor. It suffices that we've identified the root of our differences. I was hoping to pin down your views more. However, if you openly subscribe to the notion of protected classes, I can't reasonably expect consistency when debating future issues. Specifically, you'll support government interference in any case where private institutions discriminate based on protected factors (you approve of), you'll oppose government interference in any case where private institutions discriminate based on non-protected factors, and the factors you approve of are simply a function of your personal moral code. I will say that there's a very good reason that none of these protected classes existed in any of the world's foundational democracies, and that Voltaire would roll over in his grave at the very notion. I'll also say that the snake will eventually wind up eating it's own tail. Some US statesmen of old might say that an overreaching state is worse than the worst of us. i fervently disagree. black bodies swinging in a Southern breeze is far worse than anything government has ever promulgated.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 25, 2015 13:10:18 GMT -5
Our government specifically, or any government? Our government decimated plenty of native tribes back in the day, and the German government of the 30s and 40s made the KKK look like amateurs. Our government specifically. There is a part of me that thinks civil rights denial, including at its extreme the killing of people, is at least as bad, if not worse, than either the war against the native tribes or even slavery. We belated accepted that African-Americans had a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by ending slavery. Then we did not follow through with granting our fellow citizens equal rights. One could argue that the native tribes were a "they" Even slaves you could argue the same. What we did to "us" feels worse on a gut level.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 25, 2015 14:21:08 GMT -5
Our government specifically. There is a part of me that thinks civil rights denial, including at its extreme the killing of people, is at least as bad, if not worse, than either the war against the native tribes or even slavery. We belated accepted that African-Americans had a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by ending slavery. Then we did not follow through with granting our fellow citizens equal rights. One could argue that the native tribes were a "they" Even slaves you could argue the same. What we did to "us" feels worse on a gut level. Guess it depends on where you grew up. I spent a good chunk of my life living right next to reservations. Went to school with them, am related to them, and am part indian on my dad's side. They are us, and they're still treated like second class citizens. My indian relatives have been living here since your definition of us was some subset of Europe, and none of you knew that the Americas existed. I think it is one of the more difficult parts of our past to reconcile. My reference to them as a "they" was back when the wars were ongoing, not today. They are "us" now but in another sense, not really. Reservations and Tribal Governments do create a level of separation. I have no answers to the question of to what degree are we segregating/neglecting and to what degree we are honoring self determination.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 25, 2015 14:57:55 GMT -5
They do have the right of association, so would be perfectly within their rights to ban the fraternity since it is basically allied with and part of the university. As far as the individual students, I said earlier that if the University could make the case (and make it stick) that the expulsions were for threats and not the mere fact of racist speech then the students may not be allowed back. It will likely be difficult to make that case though.
In general, I think the courts have held that free speech rights do exist on a college campus and I generally support that, absent any real disruption of the university's mission. Non-violent protest has been allowed for decades, at least. And given that the highest ideal of a university should be the free exchange of ideas, I believe that free speech rights and the right to protest (peacefully) SHOULD exist on campus. But again, speech is not equivalent to behaviour. Actions are not necessarily protected.
(I added the "u" in "behaviour" just for you. I hope you appreciate the effort.)
this is the "right of survivorship" argument. it is logically valid: a tolerant person need not tolerate intolerance, because it threatens the very idea of tolerance. A person who doesn't tolerate intolerance isn't, by any conceivable definition, a tolerant individual. "Right of survivorship" semantic BS notwithstanding, an individual intolerant of intolerance is a bigot. Or more specifically, such an individual is no more and no less bigoted than any other individual who summarily rejects any worldview that controverts his self-sacred doctrine (in this case, the universal requirement for tolerance). This was a beautiful attempt at turning the self-contradictory nature of the viewpoint into a "logically valid" loophole, though. I'll have to remember to "right of survivorship" the next time I need to exempt my argument from its own postulates.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 25, 2015 15:40:36 GMT -5
A truly free society is free to all, and for all, in all cases. A tyranny of the majority is antithetical to true freedom as much as anything else you can imagine. Discrimination in any form is antithetical to a free society. By definition it is a denial of freedom. And a state would have no need to overreach if we truly had freedom and equality. A "tyranny of the majority" argument here is an anachronism. In the most discriminating states, you'd nowhere near a majority of businesses discriminating against protected groups. "Discrimination in any form is antithetical to a free society. By definition it is a denial of freedom." is just a paraphrasing of the "your freedom ends where mine begins" pap I begged you not to regurgitate, and you now owe me a new monitor. I was going to let this go, but....
First, "I don't really have a problem with..." is a much weaker standard than "openly subscribe to the notion." Still, a protected class is the RESULT of long-standing discrimination and abuse. It is not the CAUSE of anything of the sort. Certainly it's the CAUSE of discrimination and abuse. It doesn't change people's hearts and minds. It breeds enmity and resentment towards government. It's at the very root of initiatives like racial quotas, affirmative action, and other "racism of low expectation" programs that declare to the whole world that Joe Minority can't make it on his own and needs a leg up from government. Joe is such a rotten student, rotten employee, rotten customer, etc. that he needs the government to force him into schools, jobs, stores that otherwise want nothing to do with him. That's the message you're sending. Jake's protected status forces Joe Bigot into direct contact with Jake and demands that Joe serve Jake, forcing Joe to mount a facade. But he still hates that lazy black man patronizing his store, and Jake knows it. I've said it to Tenn and I'll say it to you: the idea that the civil rights movement came about as a result of (or was assisted by) changing laws is a myth. Society's hearts and minds changed first, and it was only at the very end of that process that the judiciary codified the change as law. You correctly assert that the protected status is the RESULT of long-standing discrimination, but the status itself is (at best) useless in changing people's hearts and minds. Do you even see the silliness of this particular statement? If protected status really was the result of lobbying by powerful interest groups do you not believe that the NRA among others would have assured that gun carriers were first on the list? (Particularly galling because the Second Amendment in truth does not really stand for an individual right to own guns, despite the Supreme Court screwing up recent rulings.) Firstly, the fact that Americans can go out and buy a rocket launcher on any street corner is indeed the result of constant NRA lobbying. Secondly, few (if any) businesses have ever been bold enough to discriminate based on NRA membership, and I guarantee you that if the practice ever grew in popularity, the NRA would seek (and quite possibly obtain) protected status for its members. Thirdly, the black lobby--buoyed by changing public attitudes--brought about protected status for racial minorities. The LGBT lobby--buoyed by changing public attitudes--brought about protected status for homosexual minorities. Of course I could be wrong, and the truth is that the courts decided to reverse hundreds of years of precedent on a whim, coincidentally at the same time that various rights movements were storming the courthouse doors. I have no idea what you're trying to say. Are you saying that only public institutions have limitations on what speech they can restrict? no, i am saying that public institutions are REQUIRED to respect free speech, and that private ones are NOT. And now you've said it in English. Thank you.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 25, 2015 20:18:16 GMT -5
What? Now I should have to pay for your lack of self-control? Better watch yourself. This refusal to take personal responsibility for your actions is going to get you drummed out of The Conservatives Guild.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 25, 2015 20:35:48 GMT -5
I didn't think we were very far apart either, and was actually wondering what Virgil saw that I didn't.
As a general rule, though, it is true that you and I don't really debate much. The first (and most obvious) reason is that we are usually at at least a fairly high level of agreement. The other (and this is more for Virgil's benefit) is that I don't get the same enjoyment from the discussion process as DJ does. If I get heavily involved in a discussion, it is generally more to combat what I see as wrong-headed thinking. And there is ALWAYS someone FAR more wrong (than DJ would ever be) to focus on.
To borrow a phrase, 'All that is necessary for idiocy to triumph is for smart men to say nothing.' There will always be those who agree with you, and those who disagree with you. My concern is that those in the middle not be persuaded the other way because the nonsense and bullsh** is louder or more pervasive.
if i can elaborate a bit on this, you don't care WHY people think what they do, and i do. at least that is how i see it. so, you can let go of stuff you see as nonsensical way more quickly than i do. i am driven to understand it, and sometimes that proves pretty much impossible. Yeah, and I have NEVER understood that about you. Definitely masochistic. Hopelessly naïve.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 25, 2015 21:13:52 GMT -5
...a protected class is the RESULT of long-standing discrimination and abuse. It is not the CAUSE of anything of the sort. Certainly it's the CAUSE of discrimination and abuse. It doesn't change people's hearts and minds. It breeds enmity and resentment towards government. It's at the very root of initiatives like racial quotas, affirmative action, and other "racism of low expectation" programs that declare to the whole world that Joe Minority can't make it on his own and needs a leg up from government. Joe is such a rotten student, rotten employee, rotten customer, etc. that he needs the government to force him into schools, jobs, stores that otherwise want nothing to do with him. That's the message you're sending. Jake's protected status forces Joe Bigot into direct contact with Jake and demands that Joe serve Jake, forcing Joe to mount a facade. But he still hates that lazy black man patronizing his store, and Jake knows it. I've said it to Tenn and I'll say it to you: the idea that the civil rights movement came about as a result of (or was assisted by) changing laws is a myth. Society's hearts and minds changed first, and it was only at the very end of that process that the judiciary codified the change as law. You correctly assert that the protected status is the RESULT of long-standing discrimination, but the status itself is (at best) useless in changing people's hearts and minds. Of course it doesn't change hearts and minds. That is not the intent, and would result in miserable failure if that were the intent. The intent is to change actions, and it does. I know I would find it far easier to deal with someone hating me if they were not allowed to abuse me and discriminate against me as well. I can dismiss their thoughts. Tougher to dismiss not being allowed to buy food, not to mention being beaten or hanged.
With regard to affirmative action and racial quotas, I can only say that I disagree with them. I in fact wrote a paper in college arguing against them after the Bakke decision. "If discrimination was wrong in the past, isn't reverse discrimination just as wrong now?" (I would think this by itself would help convince you that my equality and anti-discrimination belief is genuine and of long standing.)
And with regard to the idea that the civil rights movement was not at least assisted by changing laws, I would disagree. Certainly public opinion had changed, in the North. It had not, to the best of my knowledge, in the South. (I am not from there, and have never been there, so I will defer to anyone who was actually around and in the South at the time.) I can easily imagine that there were a lot of people who were in fact uncomfortable with and embarrassed by the deep-seated racism in the South, yet were afraid to speak out against it. The passage of those laws may certainly have emboldened them to then act more on their principles rather than to NOT act out of fear. You may be somewhat insulated from it, but those laws changed fifty years ago. We are still working on society's hearts and minds. We were hardly at the very end of the process in 1965.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 25, 2015 21:54:05 GMT -5
This discussion isn't about being able to buy food, being beaten, or being hanged. Let's be reasonable here.
As for the last paragraph: I get your point... to an extent. I'm not going to stand here and argue that the laws have no effect whatsoever, since they no doubt have some marginal benefit. We disagree on the degree of that benefit, and the penalty paid in terms of unintended consequences and businesses' loss of freedom in choosing their associations.
I well understand that 1965 wasn't the end of the civil rights war, and I daresay race relations in the US have actually degraded since their peak in the late 20th century. A large part of that is because the laws didn't--and don't--have the effects the courts intended them to.
We agree on the rest.
All in all, I think we've collectively beaten this dead horse enough.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,196
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 25, 2015 22:48:49 GMT -5
Oh, I doubt it. But tell me, is that codespeak meaning that you are tired of being beaten?
Just one thing to finish up:
You did bring up the civil rights period, and those were all-too-common before and during that time. Even white kids were being killed down there if they worked for civil rights. So yes, those things are germane. You made them so.
Are we finished now?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 25, 2015 22:55:09 GMT -5
Our government specifically, or any government? Our government decimated plenty of native tribes back in the day, and the German government of the 30s and 40s made the KKK look like amateurs. point conceded, but i was talking about "citizens".
|
|