7 ms·

It would also be a bug to force people to associate closely with people they do not wish to, for whatever reason. A communal group differs from an open civic g

It would also be a bug to force people to associate closely with people they do not wish to, for whatever reason. A communal group differs from an open civic group in that people wish to live more intimately with each other than in other collectives. Its a privilege to be in the group not a right. It would also not be straightforward to determine whether particular rejections significantly involved conscious or unconscious prejudices. Not straightforward at all, yet the groups actions may be scrutinized, judged unlawful and prosecuted when appropriate by other authorities - but that is a different thing from confining it to remove the possibility of it acting unlawfully.

stale2002 5y ago
> for whatever reason No, it is not a good thing for people to be allowed to using illegal discriminatory practices. Such groups should be fined or shutdown by the government legal system. > Its a privilege to be in the group not a right Discriminatory practices are banned in many places, and you do not have the right to discriminate based on race, for things like housing, in many places. Such practices should have the government sent on you, who should hopefully arrest or fine you, for illegal discrimination based on race, and that is a good thing. > judged unlawful and prosecuted when appropriate by other authorities Ok and current anti-discrimination laws, that exist in many places, are a good thing, and if they got prosecuted for that illegal behavior, that would be good.
- strainer 5y ago
  I'm not debating any particular discrimination laws, just reminding that they need to be applied carefuly. Do you believe that companies should not be allowed to fire people, because they might do so unfairly ? That clubs should not be allowed to eject people because they might do so unfairly? Its all rather putting the cart before the horse.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > I'm not debating any particular discrimination laws Ok, so then you agree that are current discrimination laws are a good thing, and should be applied even to communes, such as if they discriminate illegally against certain races, even if it was done via "consensus".
    - strainer 5y ago
      I don't know about that - Im not familiar with your current discrimination laws.
      - stale2002 5y ago
        Current anti-discrimination laws, in many places, make it illegal to kick someone out of where they live, based on their race, even if it was done with "consensus". Thats what I am talking about, regarding anti-discrimination laws.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        strainer 5y ago
        oops I deleted my comment by accident, as I replied again to your reply - which has now also gone. Anyway I do wish you the best with your concerns. I do believe prejudging people as little as humanly possible dis/regarding race, class, everything and in carefully focused anti-discrimination laws. But I feel there is considerable danger to do more harm to human relations and attitudes than good, with laws which prosecute too bluntly or frequently between individuals relationships. I think people should resolve differences through the courts as a last resort, as legal justice is very expensive and prone to error. So that would be why I have not been answering your prompts in the affirmative, though they have been stimulating :) All the best' My previous reply > I expect it would often be very hard to tell in practice what the eviction is based on, as a community are unlikely to admit - sometimes even to themselves, that their conflict with the 'evictee is rooted in a particular banned prejudice. A common defense and rebuttal for a group accused of kicking someone out over their race - would be that they were aware of their race when they accepted them into the group (!) Perhaps that's why I'm not so alarmed at the possibility of people being uprooted by racists in these communities that you seem to be - where racism is a problem in them it will hardly result in evictions, it will result in barring entry. When you think cynically about what groups of others are capable of, there is no end to villainous possibilities, but others are capable of being better than we ourselves are, as well as worse.

stale2002 5y ago

> for whatever reason No, it is not a good thing for people to be allowed to using illegal discriminatory practices. Such groups should be fined or shutdown by the government legal system. > Its a privilege to be in the group not a right Discriminatory practices are banned in many places, and you do not have the right to discriminate based on race, for things like housing, in many places. Such practices should have the government sent on you, who should hopefully arrest or fine you, for illegal discrimination based on race, and that is a good thing. > judged unlawful and prosecuted when appropriate by other authorities Ok and current anti-discrimination laws, that exist in many places, are a good thing, and if they got prosecuted for that illegal behavior, that would be good.

strainer 5y ago
I'm not debating any particular discrimination laws, just reminding that they need to be applied carefuly. Do you believe that companies should not be allowed to fire people, because they might do so unfairly ? That clubs should not be allowed to eject people because they might do so unfairly? Its all rather putting the cart before the horse.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > I'm not debating any particular discrimination laws Ok, so then you agree that are current discrimination laws are a good thing, and should be applied even to communes, such as if they discriminate illegally against certain races, even if it was done via "consensus".
  - strainer 5y ago
    I don't know about that - Im not familiar with your current discrimination laws.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      Current anti-discrimination laws, in many places, make it illegal to kick someone out of where they live, based on their race, even if it was done with "consensus". Thats what I am talking about, regarding anti-discrimination laws.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - strainer 5y ago
        oops I deleted my comment by accident, as I replied again to your reply - which has now also gone. Anyway I do wish you the best with your concerns. I do believe prejudging people as little as humanly possible dis/regarding race, class, everything and in carefully focused anti-discrimination laws. But I feel there is considerable danger to do more harm to human relations and attitudes than good, with laws which prosecute too bluntly or frequently between individuals relationships. I think people should resolve differences through the courts as a last resort, as legal justice is very expensive and prone to error. So that would be why I have not been answering your prompts in the affirmative, though they have been stimulating :) All the best' My previous reply > I expect it would often be very hard to tell in practice what the eviction is based on, as a community are unlikely to admit - sometimes even to themselves, that their conflict with the 'evictee is rooted in a particular banned prejudice. A common defense and rebuttal for a group accused of kicking someone out over their race - would be that they were aware of their race when they accepted them into the group (!) Perhaps that's why I'm not so alarmed at the possibility of people being uprooted by racists in these communities that you seem to be - where racism is a problem in them it will hardly result in evictions, it will result in barring entry. When you think cynically about what groups of others are capable of, there is no end to villainous possibilities, but others are capable of being better than we ourselves are, as well as worse.