6 ms·

Why is refusing service weird ? They are signalling their values with their checkbook, more than 99.9% than everyone else out there that just put up a few ig po

Why is refusing service weird ? They are signalling their values with their checkbook, more than 99.9% than everyone else out there that just put up a few ig posts in "solidarity"

xhkkffbf 6y ago
Refusing service is the basis for racism, sexism, classism and sometimes all of them mixed together. Oh sure, they may claim that they're doing it for some principle, but somehow the principles fall hardest on the wrong people. The Saudis, Latin America and Nigeria are some of the biggest oil producers. Are they really after oil execs? Or just Muslims, Latinos and West Africans? We'll never know. Denying service is discrimination.
- beart 6y ago
  Do you also disagree with musicians refusing their music be used in certain contexts? This seems like a form of 'refusing service'. For example: https://www.vulture.com/2018/11/the-history-of-musicians-rejecting-donald-trump.html https://www.vulture.com/2018/11/the-history-of-musicians-rej...
- na85 6y ago
  Corporations aren't people for the purposes of discrimination.
  - bronco21016 6y ago
    What does that even mean? So it’s ok for corporations to discriminate? Maybe I missed the /sarcasm?
    - mrkurt 6y ago
      I think they mean: discriminating against corporations is entirely different than discriminating against people.
      - xhkkffbf 6y ago
        Except many corporations aren't particularly diverse. Discriminating against the NBA is going end up being pretty racially focused.
        6AA4FD 6y ago
        https://careers.nba.com/employees/ https://careers.nba.com/employees/ this list might be cherry-picked, but this looks like a pretty (at least racially/phenotypically) diverse list of people. I assume you are actually thinking about NBA teams, but I wanted to bring this up to make the point that the NBA organization is not necessarily controlled by by a group of people representative of the players that you would rightly associate with it.
        bravoetch 6y ago
        > Discriminating against the NBA is going end up being pretty racially focused. To address your example, let's pretend that the NBA announces they no longer recycle. Then my business that sells cardboard boxes to the NBA announces in response that we will no longer sell boxes to the NBA. If you think that has anything to do with racism - I'm open to hearing it.
        bricklebush 6y ago
        I think a trouble is that, in this day and age it seems that the outcome is what determines racism, sexism, ageism, etc. We're obsessed with the statistics. If someone examined your company and found that you now only sold boxes to sports teams that are predominantly white - that would look quite racist would it not? I don't think the details or your intentions would matter much.
        mrkurt 6y ago
        "In this day and age" we can distinguish between someone being racist and systemic racism.
        bravoetch 6y ago
  - sukilot 6y ago
    Corporations don't wear jackets. People do.
    - PascLeRasc 6y ago
      The people aren't individually banned from Patagonia. Patagonia just won't sell to the corporation.
    - akiselev 6y ago
      People are free to buy a Patagonia jacket and sew their company logo to it. Patagonia, on the other hand, is free to protect their brand which - if the comments in this thread are any indication - is a big part of their competitive advantage.
- weego 6y ago
  Disagree, these companies try to buy credibility by association and not being party to that trade is a very correct and conscientious approach to take. They can just as easily buy North Face or some other tat.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- velp 6y ago
  Lets not pretend that the profits of Saudi oil et al are going to the people of that country though. If the wealth is consolidated so much, denial of service hurts the ruling class far more than the normal people
- 6AA4FD 6y ago
  Denying service obviously requires discrimination: you normally provide the service, but you intentionally don't provide the service to certain customers you pick out from the rest. But jim crow laws aren't bad because they are just discriminatory, they are bad because they discriminate based on race. Racism, sexism, and classism aren't bad because they are kinds of discrimination, but because they are inappropriate grounds to discriminate on. A good example of a basis to discriminate on is sexual misconduct: if any of my friends want to ostracize or refuse service to someone who has recently been convicted or accused of sexual misconduct, I won't mind at all. But if instead they want to ostracize or refuse service to someone who is black or latino, I will mind a lot. This is because I don't care whether they are being discriminatory, but what grounds they are discriminating on.
  - Fricken 6y ago
    If a company denies products and services to poor people because they can't afford them, and those people are poor as a result of generations of systemic racial oppression, then that company is guilty of racial discrimination. Racial discrimination is a cornerstone of the whole socioeconomic system.
- chillacy 6y ago
  Didn't the supreme court basically rule otherwise, that the 1st amendment rights of the merchant supersede the discrimination of the recipient? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... It does make sense somewhat, as to do otherwise would be compelled speech.

Why is refusing service weird ? They are signalling their values with their checkbook, more than 99.9% than everyone else out there that just put up a few ig posts in "solidarity"

xhkkffbf 6y ago

Refusing service is the basis for racism, sexism, classism and sometimes all of them mixed together. Oh sure, they may claim that they're doing it for some principle, but somehow the principles fall hardest on the wrong people. The Saudis, Latin America and Nigeria are some of the biggest oil producers. Are they really after oil execs? Or just Muslims, Latinos and West Africans? We'll never know. Denying service is discrimination.

beart 6y ago
Do you also disagree with musicians refusing their music be used in certain contexts? This seems like a form of 'refusing service'. For example: https://www.vulture.com/2018/11/the-history-of-musicians-rejecting-donald-trump.html https://www.vulture.com/2018/11/the-history-of-musicians-rej...
na85 6y ago
Corporations aren't people for the purposes of discrimination.
- bronco21016 6y ago
  What does that even mean? So it’s ok for corporations to discriminate? Maybe I missed the /sarcasm?
  - mrkurt 6y ago
    I think they mean: discriminating against corporations is entirely different than discriminating against people.
    - xhkkffbf 6y ago
      Except many corporations aren't particularly diverse. Discriminating against the NBA is going end up being pretty racially focused.
      - 6AA4FD 6y ago
        https://careers.nba.com/employees/ https://careers.nba.com/employees/ this list might be cherry-picked, but this looks like a pretty (at least racially/phenotypically) diverse list of people. I assume you are actually thinking about NBA teams, but I wanted to bring this up to make the point that the NBA organization is not necessarily controlled by by a group of people representative of the players that you would rightly associate with it.
      - bravoetch 6y ago
        > Discriminating against the NBA is going end up being pretty racially focused. To address your example, let's pretend that the NBA announces they no longer recycle. Then my business that sells cardboard boxes to the NBA announces in response that we will no longer sell boxes to the NBA. If you think that has anything to do with racism - I'm open to hearing it.
        bricklebush 6y ago
        I think a trouble is that, in this day and age it seems that the outcome is what determines racism, sexism, ageism, etc. We're obsessed with the statistics. If someone examined your company and found that you now only sold boxes to sports teams that are predominantly white - that would look quite racist would it not? I don't think the details or your intentions would matter much.
        mrkurt 6y ago
        "In this day and age" we can distinguish between someone being racist and systemic racism.
        bravoetch 6y ago
- sukilot 6y ago
  Corporations don't wear jackets. People do.
  - PascLeRasc 6y ago
    The people aren't individually banned from Patagonia. Patagonia just won't sell to the corporation.
  - akiselev 6y ago
    People are free to buy a Patagonia jacket and sew their company logo to it. Patagonia, on the other hand, is free to protect their brand which - if the comments in this thread are any indication - is a big part of their competitive advantage.
weego 6y ago
Disagree, these companies try to buy credibility by association and not being party to that trade is a very correct and conscientious approach to take. They can just as easily buy North Face or some other tat.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
velp 6y ago
Lets not pretend that the profits of Saudi oil et al are going to the people of that country though. If the wealth is consolidated so much, denial of service hurts the ruling class far more than the normal people
6AA4FD 6y ago
Denying service obviously requires discrimination: you normally provide the service, but you intentionally don't provide the service to certain customers you pick out from the rest. But jim crow laws aren't bad because they are just discriminatory, they are bad because they discriminate based on race. Racism, sexism, and classism aren't bad because they are kinds of discrimination, but because they are inappropriate grounds to discriminate on. A good example of a basis to discriminate on is sexual misconduct: if any of my friends want to ostracize or refuse service to someone who has recently been convicted or accused of sexual misconduct, I won't mind at all. But if instead they want to ostracize or refuse service to someone who is black or latino, I will mind a lot. This is because I don't care whether they are being discriminatory, but what grounds they are discriminating on.
- Fricken 6y ago
  If a company denies products and services to poor people because they can't afford them, and those people are poor as a result of generations of systemic racial oppression, then that company is guilty of racial discrimination. Racial discrimination is a cornerstone of the whole socioeconomic system.
chillacy 6y ago
Didn't the supreme court basically rule otherwise, that the 1st amendment rights of the merchant supersede the discrimination of the recipient? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... It does make sense somewhat, as to do otherwise would be compelled speech.