4 ms·

A majority of the US population was tolerant of refusing service to N——--—— when it became illegal. Put another way, it’s rare that the rights of minorities ar

A majority of the US population was tolerant of refusing service to N——--—— when it became illegal. Put another way, it’s rare that the rights of minorities are established by majority vote, even if these rights are owed by the Constitution.

sterkekoffie 7y ago
I'm sorry. Refusing service to whom?
- scarejunba 7y ago
  To black people who they referred to via a racial slur.
- greglindahl 7y ago
  It seems amazing that you might not know, but in your case, may I recommend the film Blazing Saddles? These days, it’s usually called the “N-word”.
  - mkl 7y ago
    The strange pattern of dashes you used suggested something else. Why not just say something clear like "African Americans" or similar?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - sterkekoffie 7y ago
    I did know. That was an "um, come again?" not a "can you repeat that?" Your comment literally reads as "they used to tolerate refusing service to (slur)s." Not only was it totally inexplicable to use the slur in the first place, you didn't qualify it in any way. No quotes, no "people they called," nothing. You just used it. Absolutely insane.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      You don't have to use quotation marks for something to be a quote. It's not insane at all.
      - sterkekoffie 7y ago
        Yes, you do, that's how English works. If I insult you I don't get to say "well, it was a quote" after, I already insulted you.
pritambaral 7y ago
> A majority of the US population was tolerant of refusing service to ... But the refusal of service to certain specific races itself is intolerance. That is precisely what Popper's view is: tolerance (by the majority of Americans) of intolerance (towards non-whites) is bad.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  What about certain sports teams who deny half of the population a chance from playing? They justify it with notions of biological differences, but in what other setting is that an acceptable justification? There is also the difference in refusal to serve and refusal to provide a specific service. If you are willing to serve a group but not provide them with a service that you also refuse to provide others, even when the service has a strong corollary with a service you do provide, it is seen as a different matter than refusing to serve a group. This is seen in both the bakery case and the waxing case.
  - pritambaral 7y ago
    I do not see how any of the examples you cite are comparable. Biological differences in performance have scientific basis. Racism does not. I do not know which specific bakery or waxing cases you are referring to, there seem to be more than one such case. But I will try to clarify my position with a corollary: Say I'm at a bar with a friend who is an observant Muslim. They are offered a complimentary drink by the bartender, who happens to be non-muslim. If my friend declines the drink because they think it is alcoholic, I will think no less of them. But if they decline the drink because of the bartender being non-muslim, I will certainly think less of my friend. In either case, it does not matter if the drink does or does not contain alcohol; only what my friend thinks.
    - SkyBelow 7y ago
      >Biological differences in performance have scientific basis. Yet I still can't actually use these to discriminate in most cases. >Racism does not. Not sure how this is comparable to the previous statement. The use of 'differences in performance' in one side and a -ism on the other indicate we aren't comparing apples to apples. >Say I'm at a bar with a friend who is an observant Muslim. They are offered a complimentary drink by the bartender, who happens to be non-muslim. If my friend declines the drink because they think it is alcoholic, I will think no less of them. But if they decline the drink because of the bartender being non-muslim, I will certainly think less of my friend. In either case, it does not matter if the drink does or does not contain alcohol; only what my friend thinks. So it seems the judgment is based off of the material and not the person. In that case, it seems similar to the case of the bakery as the customer was free to order any existing product. The waxing case isn't as simple, because the item relevant to the drink in that case was part of the person's body, and thus innately linked to the concept of who the individual is in a way the drink is not.
wesammikhail 7y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUvdXxhLPa8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUvdXxhLPa8
- WaxProlix 7y ago
  Deeply disingenuous, please stop this intentional misunderstanding of other peoples' posts; you're basically spamming at this point.
  - wesammikhail 7y ago
    huh? what are you talking about?
alfromspace 7y ago
That's the crux of the whole problem. The government passed unpopular policies and tried to morally "correct" its people from the top down. It seems most people gradually caught on and normalized those changes, but it isn't surprising to me at all that some/many didn't. I'm wholly on the side of civil rights, but lately I wonder about whether the experiment of using the federal government to try to bring together a big landmass full of people who too often really despise each other along ideological and/or ethnic lines is failing. Here we are talking about curtailing free speech because the majority can sometimes be wrong and evil, which sounds fair, but that raises the question for me of whether constantly doing things that most people don't want in the name of social progress will create a stable society. I wish I was wrong, but I think not.
- greglindahl 7y ago
  Civil rights is just one example, there are many others were the unpopular policy became popular. BTW note that the Constitution is popular.
  - alfromspace 7y ago
    The Constitution as a whole is, but interpreting the 14th amendment is still a hot topic.

sterkekoffie 7y ago

I'm sorry. Refusing service to whom?

scarejunba 7y ago
To black people who they referred to via a racial slur.
greglindahl 7y ago
It seems amazing that you might not know, but in your case, may I recommend the film Blazing Saddles? These days, it’s usually called the “N-word”.
- mkl 7y ago
  The strange pattern of dashes you used suggested something else. Why not just say something clear like "African Americans" or similar?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- sterkekoffie 7y ago
  I did know. That was an "um, come again?" not a "can you repeat that?" Your comment literally reads as "they used to tolerate refusing service to (slur)s." Not only was it totally inexplicable to use the slur in the first place, you didn't qualify it in any way. No quotes, no "people they called," nothing. You just used it. Absolutely insane.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    You don't have to use quotation marks for something to be a quote. It's not insane at all.
    - sterkekoffie 7y ago
      Yes, you do, that's how English works. If I insult you I don't get to say "well, it was a quote" after, I already insulted you.

pritambaral 7y ago

> A majority of the US population was tolerant of refusing service to ... But the refusal of service to certain specific races itself is intolerance. That is precisely what Popper's view is: tolerance (by the majority of Americans) of intolerance (towards non-whites) is bad.

SkyBelow 7y ago
What about certain sports teams who deny half of the population a chance from playing? They justify it with notions of biological differences, but in what other setting is that an acceptable justification? There is also the difference in refusal to serve and refusal to provide a specific service. If you are willing to serve a group but not provide them with a service that you also refuse to provide others, even when the service has a strong corollary with a service you do provide, it is seen as a different matter than refusing to serve a group. This is seen in both the bakery case and the waxing case.
- pritambaral 7y ago
  I do not see how any of the examples you cite are comparable. Biological differences in performance have scientific basis. Racism does not. I do not know which specific bakery or waxing cases you are referring to, there seem to be more than one such case. But I will try to clarify my position with a corollary: Say I'm at a bar with a friend who is an observant Muslim. They are offered a complimentary drink by the bartender, who happens to be non-muslim. If my friend declines the drink because they think it is alcoholic, I will think no less of them. But if they decline the drink because of the bartender being non-muslim, I will certainly think less of my friend. In either case, it does not matter if the drink does or does not contain alcohol; only what my friend thinks.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    >Biological differences in performance have scientific basis. Yet I still can't actually use these to discriminate in most cases. >Racism does not. Not sure how this is comparable to the previous statement. The use of 'differences in performance' in one side and a -ism on the other indicate we aren't comparing apples to apples. >Say I'm at a bar with a friend who is an observant Muslim. They are offered a complimentary drink by the bartender, who happens to be non-muslim. If my friend declines the drink because they think it is alcoholic, I will think no less of them. But if they decline the drink because of the bartender being non-muslim, I will certainly think less of my friend. In either case, it does not matter if the drink does or does not contain alcohol; only what my friend thinks. So it seems the judgment is based off of the material and not the person. In that case, it seems similar to the case of the bakery as the customer was free to order any existing product. The waxing case isn't as simple, because the item relevant to the drink in that case was part of the person's body, and thus innately linked to the concept of who the individual is in a way the drink is not.

wesammikhail 7y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUvdXxhLPa8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUvdXxhLPa8

WaxProlix 7y ago
Deeply disingenuous, please stop this intentional misunderstanding of other peoples' posts; you're basically spamming at this point.
- wesammikhail 7y ago
  huh? what are you talking about?

alfromspace 7y ago

That's the crux of the whole problem. The government passed unpopular policies and tried to morally "correct" its people from the top down. It seems most people gradually caught on and normalized those changes, but it isn't surprising to me at all that some/many didn't. I'm wholly on the side of civil rights, but lately I wonder about whether the experiment of using the federal government to try to bring together a big landmass full of people who too often really despise each other along ideological and/or ethnic lines is failing. Here we are talking about curtailing free speech because the majority can sometimes be wrong and evil, which sounds fair, but that raises the question for me of whether constantly doing things that most people don't want in the name of social progress will create a stable society. I wish I was wrong, but I think not.

greglindahl 7y ago
Civil rights is just one example, there are many others were the unpopular policy became popular. BTW note that the Constitution is popular.
- alfromspace 7y ago
  The Constitution as a whole is, but interpreting the 14th amendment is still a hot topic.