3 ms·

You believe that marginalized people in society making something political is illegitimate if you disagree, and legitimate if you agree. That is my criticism o

You believe that marginalized people in society making something political is illegitimate if you disagree, and legitimate if you agree. That is my criticism of your world view. I did not straw man, you are actively explain how a group of people in society are opressed, but you're OK because it was legal. I don't believe in using force to gain compliance of the citizenry. We fundamentally disagree on what type of society we live in. I believe in human rights, liberty, and freedom of association. You believe in an administrative state that punishes you for saying blasphemy.

eesmith 8y ago
Where did I ever say that? What oppression are you even talking about? I don't believe in using force to gain compliance of the citizenry We do not live in that ideologically pure world. You are the sort of person who let businesses discriminate based on race, because you shy away from having the force of law protect the politically weak?
- Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
  You're the one who forces the government to discriminate because you don't like the world. You just define "politically weak" as people you like and "politically strong" as people you don't. As I keep pointing out. It is incoherent to say the people who are not allowed to say words are the ones who are oppressing the ones who legislated their ideas as illegal. Sorry.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    I have no idea of what you are talking about. You are speaking in such generalizations that it can mean anything. Which cases of oppression are you referring to? Where did I define "politically weak" as people I like, etc?
    - Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
      The problem is you don't view it as oppression because your worldview is one where group rights exist. I don't believe in group rights, I believe in human rights. You don't, and that's fine. But fundamentally it is your lack of understanding of the past, while being super sure of your position, that I find most interesting. You think that in the past that the bad companies were discriminating based on race, and then the good government came in and fixed it. This is a completely incoherent reading of history. In fact it was the bad government forcing all companies, good and bad, to discriminate based on race. That's why they were Jim crow _laws_, not Jim Crow _suggestions_. The government was forcing people to discriminate based on race (like you probably do when you support things like affirmative action, etc). I see history as Plessy V Fergusson. Where the railway didn't want to have discrimination so they challenged the law. Unfortunately people like you, who want to use the force of government to discriminate won. Now you can object and say you want different discrimination so you're better than those people. Personally, as someone who believes in human rights i don't see a major difference between you and them. Just in who you want to discriminate against, but no ideological difference.
      - eesmith 8y ago
        You have such a straw man interpretation of me that I cannot respond. You truly think I have such a simplified and laughable understanding of the history of racism in the US? Please indicate where you drew your conclusion. I didn't even talk about Jim Crow laws. I said: > You are the sort of person who let businesses discriminate based on race, because you shy away from having the force of law protect the politically weak? This is the present tense. Not the past. Your view is that you want the Civil Rights Acts, the ADA, and the like to be abolished, yes?
        Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
        Thank you for the conversation.

eesmith 8y ago

Where did I ever say that? What oppression are you even talking about? I don't believe in using force to gain compliance of the citizenry We do not live in that ideologically pure world. You are the sort of person who let businesses discriminate based on race, because you shy away from having the force of law protect the politically weak?

Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
You're the one who forces the government to discriminate because you don't like the world. You just define "politically weak" as people you like and "politically strong" as people you don't. As I keep pointing out. It is incoherent to say the people who are not allowed to say words are the ones who are oppressing the ones who legislated their ideas as illegal. Sorry.
- eesmith 8y ago
  I have no idea of what you are talking about. You are speaking in such generalizations that it can mean anything. Which cases of oppression are you referring to? Where did I define "politically weak" as people I like, etc?
  - Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
    The problem is you don't view it as oppression because your worldview is one where group rights exist. I don't believe in group rights, I believe in human rights. You don't, and that's fine. But fundamentally it is your lack of understanding of the past, while being super sure of your position, that I find most interesting. You think that in the past that the bad companies were discriminating based on race, and then the good government came in and fixed it. This is a completely incoherent reading of history. In fact it was the bad government forcing all companies, good and bad, to discriminate based on race. That's why they were Jim crow _laws_, not Jim Crow _suggestions_. The government was forcing people to discriminate based on race (like you probably do when you support things like affirmative action, etc). I see history as Plessy V Fergusson. Where the railway didn't want to have discrimination so they challenged the law. Unfortunately people like you, who want to use the force of government to discriminate won. Now you can object and say you want different discrimination so you're better than those people. Personally, as someone who believes in human rights i don't see a major difference between you and them. Just in who you want to discriminate against, but no ideological difference.
    - eesmith 8y ago
      You have such a straw man interpretation of me that I cannot respond. You truly think I have such a simplified and laughable understanding of the history of racism in the US? Please indicate where you drew your conclusion. I didn't even talk about Jim Crow laws. I said: > You are the sort of person who let businesses discriminate based on race, because you shy away from having the force of law protect the politically weak? This is the present tense. Not the past. Your view is that you want the Civil Rights Acts, the ADA, and the like to be abolished, yes?
      - Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
        Thank you for the conversation.