3 ms·

Is 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 refusi

Is 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 ago
God, 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 ago
  It'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 ago
    And 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 ago
  I’d argue the danger of shutting down conversations you don’t agree with is much worse in the long run.
- heneryville 9y ago
  It 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...
  - mgkimsal 9y ago
    > Look at every genocide of the past century; they all start with classifying a group of people as sub-human and worthy of discrimination. Seems like those 'other' groups were generally defined by biological characteristics, not ideologies, no? I guess the 'anti-communist' movement would fall under ideology, not biology, but the majority of examples I can think of that you're alluding to have to do with biology, no?
    - yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
      > biological characteristics, not ideologies, no? No. "Jewish" isn't biological, although there is some correlation, and America's red scare was soundly ideological.
      - mgkimsal 9y ago
        "I guess the 'anti-communist' movement would fall under ideology" I would think that's your 'red scare' unless you're talking about something else. The "jewish" one - thinking specifically of ww2 - it definitely was more of a biological component, as "how much" you were jewish, and from what lineage, made a difference. "jewish" is both cultural and may have a racial/biological component (imu).
    - heneryville 9y ago
      The Cambodian genocide had a definite ideological side, as well as the repression of Kulaks [1]. I'm not sure why it's not traditionally listed as a genocide since it's effects would squarely place it somewhere in the top 5. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization
- prostoalex 9y ago
  How do you formalize such acknowledgements? Majority vote? Appointed thought leaders?
zolthrowaway 9y ago
Doctors, police officers, and teachers are individuals hired to do a particular job. They have responsibilities at those jobs. If they cannot or do not want to do them, they are free to quit, switch careers, or face the consequences of their actions. Outside of that job, they are free to associate or not associate with anyone they choose. A grocery store is a private entity. Outside of banning someone for being a protected class, they are free to refuse service to anyone. Even if someone is a protected class, they still can be banned for valid reasons (i:e; stealing, threats, etc). Being a racist is not a protected class. Nor should it be. The grocery store has the right not to do business with them. Facebook and Google are private entities. They can refuse service for any reason (with some restrictions). They have no ethical obligation to give service to everyone. No one has any obligation to use Facebook or Google's services either. TL;DR: Outside of a few legal requirements, no one has any obligations to associate with anyone.
- yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
  So how do you feel about Christian bakers?
zimpenfish 9y ago
> Is it OK for a doctor to refuse to operate on a racist > or a police officer to refuse to protect a racist? Sure, why not? Racists want to deny people their rights; why shouldn't people get the equal opportunity to deny racists their rights? > Racists are humans too. Racists see other humans as lesser. I think that automatically disqualifies them from being considered human.

te_chris 9y ago

God, 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 ago
It'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 ago
  And 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 ago
I’d argue the danger of shutting down conversations you don’t agree with is much worse in the long run.
heneryville 9y ago
It 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...
- mgkimsal 9y ago
  > Look at every genocide of the past century; they all start with classifying a group of people as sub-human and worthy of discrimination. Seems like those 'other' groups were generally defined by biological characteristics, not ideologies, no? I guess the 'anti-communist' movement would fall under ideology, not biology, but the majority of examples I can think of that you're alluding to have to do with biology, no?
  - yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
    > biological characteristics, not ideologies, no? No. "Jewish" isn't biological, although there is some correlation, and America's red scare was soundly ideological.
    - mgkimsal 9y ago
      "I guess the 'anti-communist' movement would fall under ideology" I would think that's your 'red scare' unless you're talking about something else. The "jewish" one - thinking specifically of ww2 - it definitely was more of a biological component, as "how much" you were jewish, and from what lineage, made a difference. "jewish" is both cultural and may have a racial/biological component (imu).
  - heneryville 9y ago
    The Cambodian genocide had a definite ideological side, as well as the repression of Kulaks [1]. I'm not sure why it's not traditionally listed as a genocide since it's effects would squarely place it somewhere in the top 5. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization
prostoalex 9y ago
How do you formalize such acknowledgements? Majority vote? Appointed thought leaders?

zolthrowaway 9y ago

Doctors, police officers, and teachers are individuals hired to do a particular job. They have responsibilities at those jobs. If they cannot or do not want to do them, they are free to quit, switch careers, or face the consequences of their actions. Outside of that job, they are free to associate or not associate with anyone they choose. A grocery store is a private entity. Outside of banning someone for being a protected class, they are free to refuse service to anyone. Even if someone is a protected class, they still can be banned for valid reasons (i:e; stealing, threats, etc). Being a racist is not a protected class. Nor should it be. The grocery store has the right not to do business with them. Facebook and Google are private entities. They can refuse service for any reason (with some restrictions). They have no ethical obligation to give service to everyone. No one has any obligation to use Facebook or Google's services either. TL;DR: Outside of a few legal requirements, no one has any obligations to associate with anyone.

yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
So how do you feel about Christian bakers?

zimpenfish 9y ago

> Is it OK for a doctor to refuse to operate on a racist > or a police officer to refuse to protect a racist? Sure, why not? Racists want to deny people their rights; why shouldn't people get the equal opportunity to deny racists their rights? > Racists are humans too. Racists see other humans as lesser. I think that automatically disqualifies them from being considered human.