4 ms·

Is the entire range of action that ends in asserting one's own volitions over another's so reducible? What makes this "unilateral" besides there being opposing

by tedks 10y ago

Is the entire range of action that ends in asserting one's own volitions over another's so reducible? What makes this "unilateral" besides there being opposing interests? This isn't even always (maybe not even typically!) wrong -- if the Westboro Baptist Church moved next door to me it's not like I'd be wrong in acting unilaterally, my neighbors' concerns be damned, in say flying a pride flag.

rosser 10y ago
What makes it unilateral is that he's the one making an incursion here. A more apt parallel would be the WBC moving into your neighborhood and having people march up and down the block, 24/7, with "GOD HATES FAGS" placards. Do you legitimately think that's not thumbing their noses at their new neighbors? Do you actually believe that the neighbors – you know, the folks who were there first — have no choice but to suck it up? "Welp, they bought the house and moved in. Nothing to be done about it now."
- tedks 10y ago
  Okay, replace the WBC with a proud gay couple in an intolerant area. Should the people who were there first suck it up in that instance?
  - rosser 10y ago
    I guess that depends on how you define "suck[ing] it up". If you mean "not assault or harass their new neighbors, or vandalize their property" or anything like that, then absolutely yes. If, on the other hand, you mean suddenly dropping over for tea and scones of a weekend morning, or fruity pink drinks after work, then no, I don't think they're obligated to "suck it up". Their neighborhood, from their perspective, has just been "invaded", and they have a legitimate right to feel aggrieved by that, right or wrong, bigotry or not, assholery or otherwise. Just like the folks in Lincoln Heights have a right to feel aggrieved by Rhinehart's ugly, unmaintained container — except, of course, that the gay couple didn't break any laws. (Just a few years ago, they might have, depending on jurisdiction, but since Lawrence v. Texas, there isn't even that; it's just confrontational, and possibly even rude.)
    - tedks 10y ago
      I guess if you think a gay couple flying a pride flag is confrontational or rude, we have significantly different opinions to the extent that we can't come to any consensus on this or similar issues. I'm also doubtful that the gay couple truly hasn't broken any laws. I'm sure that with enough digging, the homophobic neighbors can find a fence on the wrong side of the property line, a deck that isn't zoned properly, or something similar; the neighbors could even pass a HOA regulation prohibiting pride flags. Does that make it morally justified, because it's "their" homophobic town? It seems like you think so.
      - rosser 10y ago
        Wow, nice try at painting me as bigoted, or whatever. Cheap rhetoric is cheap. Would you call it confrontational for a KKK member to move into a black neighborhood and fly Ol' Dixie? Because that's perfectly parallel to your proposed scenario, and that's what you're arguing for. Just because the people we're talking about are members of a protected class doesn't change the logic of the situation.

by tedks 10y ago

rosser 10y ago

What makes it unilateral is that he's the one making an incursion here. A more apt parallel would be the WBC moving into your neighborhood and having people march up and down the block, 24/7, with "GOD HATES FAGS" placards. Do you legitimately think that's not thumbing their noses at their new neighbors? Do you actually believe that the neighbors – you know, the folks who were there first — have no choice but to suck it up? "Welp, they bought the house and moved in. Nothing to be done about it now."

tedks 10y ago
Okay, replace the WBC with a proud gay couple in an intolerant area. Should the people who were there first suck it up in that instance?
- rosser 10y ago
  I guess that depends on how you define "suck[ing] it up". If you mean "not assault or harass their new neighbors, or vandalize their property" or anything like that, then absolutely yes. If, on the other hand, you mean suddenly dropping over for tea and scones of a weekend morning, or fruity pink drinks after work, then no, I don't think they're obligated to "suck it up". Their neighborhood, from their perspective, has just been "invaded", and they have a legitimate right to feel aggrieved by that, right or wrong, bigotry or not, assholery or otherwise. Just like the folks in Lincoln Heights have a right to feel aggrieved by Rhinehart's ugly, unmaintained container — except, of course, that the gay couple didn't break any laws. (Just a few years ago, they might have, depending on jurisdiction, but since Lawrence v. Texas, there isn't even that; it's just confrontational, and possibly even rude.)
  - tedks 10y ago
    I guess if you think a gay couple flying a pride flag is confrontational or rude, we have significantly different opinions to the extent that we can't come to any consensus on this or similar issues. I'm also doubtful that the gay couple truly hasn't broken any laws. I'm sure that with enough digging, the homophobic neighbors can find a fence on the wrong side of the property line, a deck that isn't zoned properly, or something similar; the neighbors could even pass a HOA regulation prohibiting pride flags. Does that make it morally justified, because it's "their" homophobic town? It seems like you think so.
    - rosser 10y ago
      Wow, nice try at painting me as bigoted, or whatever. Cheap rhetoric is cheap. Would you call it confrontational for a KKK member to move into a black neighborhood and fly Ol' Dixie? Because that's perfectly parallel to your proposed scenario, and that's what you're arguing for. Just because the people we're talking about are members of a protected class doesn't change the logic of the situation.