4 ms·

I'd like to hear your answer to my white privilege example, since I think that make it very clear why you're against the actions against Disney, and why I am fo

by daenz 5y ago

I'd like to hear your answer to my white privilege example, since I think that make it very clear why you're against the actions against Disney, and why I am for them.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> I'd like to hear your answer to my white privilege example Your white privilege example includes no impermissible motivation, and assumes an initial state that would not merely be undesirable policy, but bright line prohibited by the 14th Amendment. While the Disney special district may be undesirable in some model of fairness, it is not unconstitutional, and the action to remove it does have an impermissible motivation. So the analogy fails on key points.
- daenz 5y ago
  The point I'm making is about harm, which has been the whole crux of my argument. In my example, are white people being harmed by having the 10% discount removed?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The point I'm making is about harm, which has been the whole crux of my argument. In my example, are white people being harmed by having the 10% discount removed? Obviously, yes, they are worse off after the change.
    - daenz 5y ago
      Ok, we disagree on the definition of harm is all. Our different philosophies flow from our different perspectives of that definition.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Ok, we disagree on the definition of harm is all. Yeah, I just don't get the “if I stab you, but you actually deserved it, you aren't actually harmed by it.” Whether or not that's how you view harm, that's not the understanding of harm that is operative in law. Justification is a separate consideration from harm there, even if you conflate them together.
        daenz 5y ago
        >if I stab you Puncturing someone's body with an edged weapon is clearly harm, but thanks for totally misrepresenting my position as a last minute jab to an otherwise civil conversation.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Puncturing someone's body with an edged weapon is clearly harm So, now your position is that the rule that whether or not there is justification for an act which causes someone to be worse off than previously determines whether that change constitutes harm is only applicable to certain kinds of changes which make the subject worse off, not generally? Your concept of “harm” becomes less clear the more you say about it. But it remains the case that it's not the usually definition of harm, or the one applicable to whether it is acceptable, under the Constitution, for government to act in a certain way in response to the exercises of Constitutionally-guaranteed free expression.
        daenz 5y ago
        >is only applicable to certain kinds of changes which make the subject worse off Yes. It's not a difficult concept. Children often get upset about rules that are enforced on them, and feel "worse off." Doesn't mean it's harm. Context matters. The world isn't binary. Also, it's ok to just disagree, since it's clear we disagree on the definition of harm. No need to start constructing strawmen of my position.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
colburnmh 4y ago
Despite the way it has been spun, Disney's special district status is not particularly unique. There are 1844 active special districts enshrined in Florida state and county law. Disney, Sea World, Universal, and other theme parks, all have special districts to allow them control over the development of their properties.

by daenz 5y ago

I'd like to hear your answer to my white privilege example, since I think that make it very clear why you're against the actions against Disney, and why I am for them.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> I'd like to hear your answer to my white privilege example Your white privilege example includes no impermissible motivation, and assumes an initial state that would not merely be undesirable policy, but bright line prohibited by the 14th Amendment. While the Disney special district may be undesirable in some model of fairness, it is not unconstitutional, and the action to remove it does have an impermissible motivation. So the analogy fails on key points.

daenz 5y ago
The point I'm making is about harm, which has been the whole crux of my argument. In my example, are white people being harmed by having the 10% discount removed?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The point I'm making is about harm, which has been the whole crux of my argument. In my example, are white people being harmed by having the 10% discount removed? Obviously, yes, they are worse off after the change.
  - daenz 5y ago
    Ok, we disagree on the definition of harm is all. Our different philosophies flow from our different perspectives of that definition.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Ok, we disagree on the definition of harm is all. Yeah, I just don't get the “if I stab you, but you actually deserved it, you aren't actually harmed by it.” Whether or not that's how you view harm, that's not the understanding of harm that is operative in law. Justification is a separate consideration from harm there, even if you conflate them together.
      - daenz 5y ago
        >if I stab you Puncturing someone's body with an edged weapon is clearly harm, but thanks for totally misrepresenting my position as a last minute jab to an otherwise civil conversation.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Puncturing someone's body with an edged weapon is clearly harm So, now your position is that the rule that whether or not there is justification for an act which causes someone to be worse off than previously determines whether that change constitutes harm is only applicable to certain kinds of changes which make the subject worse off, not generally? Your concept of “harm” becomes less clear the more you say about it. But it remains the case that it's not the usually definition of harm, or the one applicable to whether it is acceptable, under the Constitution, for government to act in a certain way in response to the exercises of Constitutionally-guaranteed free expression.
        daenz 5y ago
        >is only applicable to certain kinds of changes which make the subject worse off Yes. It's not a difficult concept. Children often get upset about rules that are enforced on them, and feel "worse off." Doesn't mean it's harm. Context matters. The world isn't binary. Also, it's ok to just disagree, since it's clear we disagree on the definition of harm. No need to start constructing strawmen of my position.
        dragonwriter 5y ago

colburnmh 4y ago

Despite the way it has been spun, Disney's special district status is not particularly unique. There are 1844 active special districts enshrined in Florida state and county law. Disney, Sea World, Universal, and other theme parks, all have special districts to allow them control over the development of their properties.