5 ms·

This goes way too far in limiting freedom IMO. It makes sense to not let people discriminate on things that are immutable (like skin color), but it's crazy to n

This goes way too far in limiting freedom IMO. It makes sense to not let people discriminate on things that are immutable (like skin color), but it's crazy to not let discrimination happen on things that are a choice. Just like I can decide not to let people not wearing shoes or shirts into my business, why shouldn't I be able to deny entry to a neo-Nazi? What if I'm losing black customers because I have racists regularly visiting my store?

philwelch 6y ago
So do you think religious discrimination is acceptable?
- chipotle_coyote 6y ago
  Religion is a protected class, so the question is moot under US law. In any case, I confess I'm always a little suspicious of this method of argument. Bob says, "I will ban neo-Nazis from my forum," and people chime in with, "Well, what about banning Catholics? Vegetarians? People who admit to liking Nickelback?". Is the principle really that if we find one single case where Bob would admit "I don't think banning that group makes any sense," then Bob needs to just give up and let neo-Nazis on his forum? Personally, I don't think that's a very good principle. An argument about where we (and Bob) should draw the line is reasonable, but I'm not convinced an argument about whether lines are intrinsically evil is.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    I find this form of argument extremely exhausting as well. I don't think many people would argue that we need a forum where people can advocate for pedophilia and child porn. We've clearly decided that sort of thing is bad. But saying we're going to ban child porn is not the same thing as saying we're going to ban vegetarians. Certainly reasonable people can disagree on what types ideas deserve platforms. I imagine some (misguided but well-intentioned) people might think that providing neo-Nazis a platform to advocate for their position is a good and fair thing to do, even if they disagree with the neo-Nazi message. But it doesn't mean that people who don't think that's ok are somehow anti-free-speech fascist dictators who want to have control over every kind of speech. I also get exhausted when people trot out the slippery-slope argument at every opportunity in order to shut down discussion. Not everything has to be a slippery slope! People are actually capable of making decisions in a nuanced, fine-grained way!
  - sukilot 6y ago
    Not drawing a line is a simple solution to the problem of where to draw the line. Catholicism is an organization that as one of its main tenets is homophobic. How is that better (or is it worse) than being an Confederate flag-waver or a neo-Nazi or a Black racial separatist or ? I'm sure the answer is obvious to you, but only because of your personal idiosyncratic preferences. Evil is not an objective spectrum. It's a subjective high dimensional manifold.
    - Miner49er 6y ago
      So by no line you mean we should eliminate the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
  - philwelch 6y ago
    I was directly addressing the notion that "It makes sense to not let people discriminate on things that are immutable (like skin color), but it's crazy to not let discrimination happen on things that are a choice." Religion is not an immutable characteristic. It's not a slippery slope argument, but rather a direct counterexample of the principle given.
    - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
      This is where in Slack, I would add a thumbs-up emoji reaction as an "okay, gotcha," but I'll just have to say: okay, gotcha. :)
adwn 6y ago
> [...] but it's crazy to not let discrimination happen on things that are a choice. Religion is a choice. Does that mean that you're fine with discrimination based on one's religion?
- Miner49er 6y ago
  yes
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jlokier 6y ago
  Is religion a choice? I'm sure many people who believe in $DEITY, and the duties which follow from this, do not see "belief" as a choice they are making.
  - afiori 6y ago
    I'm sure many people who believe in $IDEOLOGY, and the duties which follow from this, do not see "belief" as a choice they are making.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    You've gotten downvoted for some reason, but I think you're right. The religious people I know could no more choose not to believe than I can choose to believe. Religious belief or non-belief comes as a response to life's experiences, heavily influenced by the level of indoctrination inflicted by parents when we're young. When I was 11 or 12, I realized I didn't believe in god (I didn't know the term "atheist" at the time). My parents were Catholic, and I was forced to attend CCD weekly during the school year (the Catholic version of "Sunday School") in addition to weekly Mass. I tried so hard to believe in a god because I didn't want to disappoint or anger my parents, and I wanted to fit in with my peer group. I was trying to make a choice to believe, but that's just not a choice you can make. You either believe, or you don't. In hindsight I'm glad I failed to choose to believe, but at the time I agonized over my non-belief daily, thinking there was something wrong with me.
sukilot 6y ago
You are missing an obvious dimension: discriminate within reason based on harmful behaviors, not characteristics nor beliefs. Which is pretty much what US law says, because it's reasonable on avwrgt.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  That seems harder to define, IMO. Casting a vote can be a harmful action, depending on who you vote for, for example.

philwelch 6y ago

So do you think religious discrimination is acceptable?

chipotle_coyote 6y ago
Religion is a protected class, so the question is moot under US law. In any case, I confess I'm always a little suspicious of this method of argument. Bob says, "I will ban neo-Nazis from my forum," and people chime in with, "Well, what about banning Catholics? Vegetarians? People who admit to liking Nickelback?". Is the principle really that if we find one single case where Bob would admit "I don't think banning that group makes any sense," then Bob needs to just give up and let neo-Nazis on his forum? Personally, I don't think that's a very good principle. An argument about where we (and Bob) should draw the line is reasonable, but I'm not convinced an argument about whether lines are intrinsically evil is.
- kelnos 6y ago
  I find this form of argument extremely exhausting as well. I don't think many people would argue that we need a forum where people can advocate for pedophilia and child porn. We've clearly decided that sort of thing is bad. But saying we're going to ban child porn is not the same thing as saying we're going to ban vegetarians. Certainly reasonable people can disagree on what types ideas deserve platforms. I imagine some (misguided but well-intentioned) people might think that providing neo-Nazis a platform to advocate for their position is a good and fair thing to do, even if they disagree with the neo-Nazi message. But it doesn't mean that people who don't think that's ok are somehow anti-free-speech fascist dictators who want to have control over every kind of speech. I also get exhausted when people trot out the slippery-slope argument at every opportunity in order to shut down discussion. Not everything has to be a slippery slope! People are actually capable of making decisions in a nuanced, fine-grained way!
- sukilot 6y ago
  Not drawing a line is a simple solution to the problem of where to draw the line. Catholicism is an organization that as one of its main tenets is homophobic. How is that better (or is it worse) than being an Confederate flag-waver or a neo-Nazi or a Black racial separatist or ? I'm sure the answer is obvious to you, but only because of your personal idiosyncratic preferences. Evil is not an objective spectrum. It's a subjective high dimensional manifold.
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    So by no line you mean we should eliminate the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
- philwelch 6y ago
  I was directly addressing the notion that "It makes sense to not let people discriminate on things that are immutable (like skin color), but it's crazy to not let discrimination happen on things that are a choice." Religion is not an immutable characteristic. It's not a slippery slope argument, but rather a direct counterexample of the principle given.
  - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
    This is where in Slack, I would add a thumbs-up emoji reaction as an "okay, gotcha," but I'll just have to say: okay, gotcha. :)

adwn 6y ago

> [...] but it's crazy to not let discrimination happen on things that are a choice. Religion is a choice. Does that mean that you're fine with discrimination based on one's religion?

Miner49er 6y ago
yes
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jlokier 6y ago
Is religion a choice? I'm sure many people who believe in $DEITY, and the duties which follow from this, do not see "belief" as a choice they are making.
- afiori 6y ago
  I'm sure many people who believe in $IDEOLOGY, and the duties which follow from this, do not see "belief" as a choice they are making.
- kelnos 6y ago
  You've gotten downvoted for some reason, but I think you're right. The religious people I know could no more choose not to believe than I can choose to believe. Religious belief or non-belief comes as a response to life's experiences, heavily influenced by the level of indoctrination inflicted by parents when we're young. When I was 11 or 12, I realized I didn't believe in god (I didn't know the term "atheist" at the time). My parents were Catholic, and I was forced to attend CCD weekly during the school year (the Catholic version of "Sunday School") in addition to weekly Mass. I tried so hard to believe in a god because I didn't want to disappoint or anger my parents, and I wanted to fit in with my peer group. I was trying to make a choice to believe, but that's just not a choice you can make. You either believe, or you don't. In hindsight I'm glad I failed to choose to believe, but at the time I agonized over my non-belief daily, thinking there was something wrong with me.

sukilot 6y ago

You are missing an obvious dimension: discriminate within reason based on harmful behaviors, not characteristics nor beliefs. Which is pretty much what US law says, because it's reasonable on avwrgt.

Miner49er 6y ago
That seems harder to define, IMO. Casting a vote can be a harmful action, depending on who you vote for, for example.