5 ms·
At the root of cancel culture is the freedom of association. Ultimately people either feel fraternity amongst each other or they don't. I might argue that the
by threatofrain 6y ago
At the root of cancel culture is the freedom of association. Ultimately people either feel fraternity amongst each other or they don't.
I might argue that the freedom to not bake cakes or employ gay people with regards to religious rights is also part of the freedom of association. People either feel the love or they don't.
- gabereiser 6y agoExcept for discrimination laws...
- threatofrain 6y agoMy latter example would be with regards to US Constitutional rights, and is possibly something that won't change in your lifetime. If anything, there was political energy to Constitutionally define heterosexual marriage as the only marriage, as it was a presidential get-out-to-vote issue for George Bush Jr. But it does motivate discussion on fraternity. A discussion of the disarmament of relations must begin with the movement of not only words.
- worik 6y agoWhy is a "freedom" to not employ gay people a freedom? And why freedom of association? Why another person chooses to do with their genitals is generally no not your business. It is not a "freedom". It is prejudice and bigotry
- gabereiser 6y agoI agree. Businesses shouldn’t be allowed bigoted freedoms.
- zepto 6y agoWho defines what counts as bigoted?
- gabereiser 6y agoNot refusing service based on sex/age/race/sexual orientation/religion is a good start. It’s also good for business. If a patron of a business comes to do business, that business should welcome the business and ignore the personal biases and their own bigoted beliefs.
- zepto 6y agoYou didn’t answer my question. I asked who gets to define what counts as bigoted, not what you count as bigoted.
- gabereiser 6y agoBigotry is already defined: Obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. Criteria in this case being the same equal opportunity laws for employment should be applied towards the front of house. Same folks who determine EOE law violations, same folks who determine discrimination violations.
- zepto 6y ago> “Obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction” This is a completely subjective criteria. So now you have an appointed group who gets to force people to do work, under penalty of law. That seems like a bad idea. I am against bigotry. I question the use of force as a way to alleviate it.
- throwmylifawy 6y agoWe do as a collective culture! Bigotry is subjective and changes with time. There is never going to be an ironclad list of protected classes that are going to remain fixed in time. That is because discrimination and what society feels counts as discrimination changes over time.
- 6y ago
- threatofrain 6y agoIt’s a freedom in the US because of the US Constitution and because of Supreme Court precedence. It’s reasonable to forecast that this will not change in your lifetime. In that way I would argue these moral results, which speaks more loudly than moral actions or moral speech combined, hangs in the air like a moral odor as we discuss the disarmament of relations.
- zepto 6y agoI agree that it’s bigotry. Do we think people should be free to be bigoted?
- gabereiser 6y agoPeople? sure. Businesses? Nope. People can discriminate all they want to so long as they don’t infringe of the freedoms of others. Businesses should be required to not discriminate because it would impede the other party’s freedoms. I don’t have a choice for some things, I have to buy from a certain business. Should they discriminate against me I have no other option. If a person discriminated against me I can just punch them in the face (figuratively) and go elsewhere. Businesses should be required by law to abide by EEO/EOE laws for their customers as well as for their employees.
- zepto 6y ago> “Businesses should be required to not discriminate because it would impede the other party’s freedoms.“ Being forced to do work they don’t want to do would impede the first party’s freedoms.
- gabereiser 6y agoNo one is forcing anyone to do work. If the business asks them to do something that goes against their personal freedoms they are free to leave.
- zepto 6y agoThis makes no sense in light of what you said earlier: If you claim this: “I don’t have a choice for some things, I have to buy from a certain business.” Then you claim that people can simply leave a job. What if they also have no choice and have to work at a certain business?