4 ms·
Of course they'd be allowed to, where would we end up though? Just from a moral standpoint a huge company, like google and facebook are, should not discriminat
by iMerNibor 9y ago
Of course they'd be allowed to, where would we end up though?
Just from a moral standpoint a huge company, like google and facebook are, should not discriminate who they give advertising space to (in the context of political parties during an election)
- enraged_camel 9y ago>>Of course they'd be allowed to, where would we end up though? Sounds like a slippery slope fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
- empath75 9y agoFrom a moral standpoint, discriminating against racists is fine.
- rglover 9y agoHaving opposing political views does not a racist make.
- maxerickson 9y agoShould people never make any assumptions about what motivates political views, even when it is obvious?
- thriftwy 9y agoThey should not actually, it's a gross disregard for personal borders. Agree with me, disagree with me, don't try to poke in my head. Actually I can't think of a worse form of bigotry than attributing motivations for behavior of others.
- empath75 9y agoReally? Nothing worse than that? How about, I dunno Jim Crow laws.
- mattmanser 9y agoWithout derailing the discussion by saying why, I'm anti-mass immigration. Not an ounce of racism motivates it. I absolutely despise the BNP and the alt-right. You thinking it's obvious I'm a racist shows how close-minded people on both sides of the debate can be.
- maxerickson 9y agoI made an abstract statement, I didn't enumerate the views I think are obviously motivated by racism. Opposition to refugees (modest numbers, carefully vetted since decades, coming from real crisis situations) is at least motivated by dimwitted xenophobia. Opposition to mass immigration would be a different category.
- cyberattacknow 9y agoHow is it in our best interests to accept potentially hostile islamic immigrants with little education and a culture that is incompatible with ours? What do we gain from that?
- pjc50 9y agoWhat level constitutes "mass"? Does this include foreign spouses? Students?
- mhneu 9y agoIn the US, more immigration is a no-brainer. It's good for the US economically. https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2017/09/05/the-very-bad-economics-of-killing-daca https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2017/09/05/the-very... P.s. discussion isn't bad if conducted in good faith and not a vehicle for propaganda. It's the lies and hate-mongering in the ads that are bad.
- coupdetaco 9y agoBut then you have to define racists, and this prevents people who are not racist from speaking out of fear of being discriminated against. The cure is worse than the disease. Discrimination is bad.
- Marazan 9y agoThat is a rock solid gold final sentence. Like, I don't know if that was a carefully thought out zinger or an accidental numbnut of a line but bravo. Bravo.
- pas 9y agoSecret discrimination is bad. Clear arguments from your core principles for why not allow something is nigh and day different from the chilling effects that blanket labeling has. Yes, the problem is clearly very nasty, and yes it will inevitably have some marginal effects. But the disease is ignorance, the cure is exercising discrimination AND providing the information to help ignorance. AND of course allow the debate of that information. The debate can be as simple as the 60 piece twitter story about that Viking textile fragment with Allah that turns out to be not Allah. (Where the scholar pointed out that the dating is wrong, the person that claimed that the text is Allah is wrong because there was no space on the textile for that. End of story.) And in case of the Holocaust, yes, there's probably a 0.000000001% chance that we're being bamboozled by the New World Order, but that's almost the same as end of story (because we have more pressing matters).
- heneryville 9y agoIs that really true? Is it OK for a doctor to refuse to operate on a racist or a police officer to refuse to protect a racist? What about a grocery store refusing to let a non-actively demonstrating racist shop in their store or a school teacher to educate their children? Racists are humans too. However, you don't have a moral obligation to help a racist send their message. Otherwise, treat all people as people.
- te_chris 9y agoGod, the moral equivocations you have to go through to get to such a puritanical humanist outcome must be quite something. 'Treat all people as people' is exactly the culture that allows these assholes to become POTUS. By not acknowledging the danger of some views you allow it to fester and, ironically, become a great threat to the safety of other humans/people.
- mhneu 9y agoIt's actually even worse than you say... It's not just that failing to acknowledge hate allows racist threats to fester. Failing to acknowledge hate allows outside groups -- whether other countries or the very wealthy -- to inflame hate to achieve their quite different goals (weaken liberal democracy, tax cuts for themselves).
- Tyrek 9y agoAnd acknowledging hate apparently allows the haters to become POTUS, and subsequently "weaken liberal democracy, tax cuts for themselves". You have to admit, that skews the calculation somewhat.
- koolba 9y agoI’d argue the danger of shutting down conversations you don’t agree with is much worse in the long run.
- heneryville 9y agoIt doesn't take any moral equivocations at all. Immanuel Kant points it out as one of 3 moral principles that are always true, regardless of conditions. [1] Once you accept a moral system that justifies no longer treating human beings as people, you've allowed yourself a system that can justify anything. Look at every genocide of the past century; they all start with classifying a group of people as sub-human and worthy of discrimination. That is a view to be fought, not descended to. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#The_Second_Formulation:_The_Formula_of_Humanity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#The_Sec...
- hueving 9y agoDefine racism. If it's "discrimination based on skin color" then things like BLM are also racist. Is that what you want?
- cmrdporcupine 9y agoC'mon, you get to a position of equating anti-oppression movements with oppression only as a result of the most tone-deaf and pedantic mental gymnastics, by stripping out context completely.
- dragonwriter 9y agoBLM opposes discrimination based on skin color.
- KGIII 9y agoThere have been a number of instances where people who claim to be involved in the movement, that is activists and not necessarily leaders, who have posted comments equating to suggesting harm should come to white people, how white people are evil, etc... There have been a number of them who have had their Twitter account banned because they did those things. I have tried to pick my verbiage carefully. Members of a group, for better or worse, are representative of that group but not in totality. Thus, generic statements are often not easy to make and leads me to point this out in response to your statement. Also, I'm part black, if you're curious. I'm definitely not in the group most would expect to point this out. My white genes are a definite minority. ;-) At any rate, some people who claim to be involved in BLM have made very, very racist statements that absolutely are discriminatory. Some have even gone so far as to suggest acts of violence. A search of 'twitter bans BLM member' should turn up some results, if you want citations.
- jbmorgado 9y agoFrom your moral standpoint.
- snomad 9y agoOnly racists? What about other forms of bigotry? And who defines which bigotry is unaccepted and which is accepted?
- baby 9y agoI don't know why enraged_camel's comment is dead, but here is what he wrote. Which I think is relevant here: > Sounds like a slippery slope fallacy. > https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope