6 ms·

> So you want the government to force private companies to continue doing business with someone they no longer wish to provide services to? I don't think OP a

> So you want the government to force private companies to continue doing business with someone they no longer wish to provide services to? I don't think OP actually said this. But yes, like most people, I want this to happen sometimes. For example, I want a hotel to have to lodge Indian people, whether they actually want to or not. In other cases, I don't want this to be legally required, but still will complain if I see something that indicates a lack of character. Not everything I think is shitty should be illegal.

smt88 6y ago
It's incredible stupid to say that protecting an ethnicity (something that can't be changed) is tantamount of protecting ideology (something you are not born with and something that sometimes includes advocating for violence). Also, no one is illegalizing anything by banning it from Twitch.
- concordDance 6y ago
  Is being alterable really the important distinction here though? If I invented a machine that could change physical features between the various ethnicities of the world, would banning Indians from your hotel suddenly be ok?
  - smt88 6y ago
    > Is being alterable really the important distinction here though? Yes. This is literally the entire argument against racism: judging someone for physical traits that have no bearing on their character. > If I invented a machine that could change physical features between the various ethnicities of the world, would banning Indians from your hotel suddenly be ok? No, for many obvious reasons. 1. Looking Indian (or not) still has no bearing on that person's behavior or character. 2. It would cost money and be an identity change, so not everyone could/would do it. I can't believe anyone is seriously asking questions like this in 2021. Read a book.
    - concordDance 6y ago
      > This is literally the entire argument against racism: judging someone for physical traits that have no bearing on their character Isn't it the "no bearing on character" thing that's the issue? Rather than the "physical" bit? > 2. It would cost money and be an identity change, so not everyone could/would do it. This would also hold for political ideas. > I can't believe anyone is seriously asking questions like this in 2021. Read a book. Please consider whether what you are saying is more than empty posturing. If you actually did want to educate people you wouldn't say "read a book", you'd mention a particular book.
- caturopath 6y ago
  Did anyone here say that? I didn't and I haven't seen anyone else do so.

smt88 6y ago

It's incredible stupid to say that protecting an ethnicity (something that can't be changed) is tantamount of protecting ideology (something you are not born with and something that sometimes includes advocating for violence). Also, no one is illegalizing anything by banning it from Twitch.

concordDance 6y ago
Is being alterable really the important distinction here though? If I invented a machine that could change physical features between the various ethnicities of the world, would banning Indians from your hotel suddenly be ok?
- smt88 6y ago
  > Is being alterable really the important distinction here though? Yes. This is literally the entire argument against racism: judging someone for physical traits that have no bearing on their character. > If I invented a machine that could change physical features between the various ethnicities of the world, would banning Indians from your hotel suddenly be ok? No, for many obvious reasons. 1. Looking Indian (or not) still has no bearing on that person's behavior or character. 2. It would cost money and be an identity change, so not everyone could/would do it. I can't believe anyone is seriously asking questions like this in 2021. Read a book.
  - concordDance 6y ago
    > This is literally the entire argument against racism: judging someone for physical traits that have no bearing on their character Isn't it the "no bearing on character" thing that's the issue? Rather than the "physical" bit? > 2. It would cost money and be an identity change, so not everyone could/would do it. This would also hold for political ideas. > I can't believe anyone is seriously asking questions like this in 2021. Read a book. Please consider whether what you are saying is more than empty posturing. If you actually did want to educate people you wouldn't say "read a book", you'd mention a particular book.
caturopath 6y ago
Did anyone here say that? I didn't and I haven't seen anyone else do so.