3 ms·

Well, I live in the bible belt, and I'm pretty certain it was discrimination in my case because one of their "board of directors" posted a homophobic tweet the

Well, I live in the bible belt, and I'm pretty certain it was discrimination in my case because one of their "board of directors" posted a homophobic tweet the same day I was banned. It's an example of how we shouldn't mandate hosting any "special interest" groups using tax dollars, which was the GP's point. I was not challenging the sole purpose of the group as in your example, they simply retaliated for personal reasons irrelevant to the group's purpose, which is unprofessional. The group is about software development, not my hometown. The only reason I was even talking to their admins in DM is because they were harassing me with confrontational dialogue over a tasteful joke that went over their heads. It's a toxic group, and our public university shouldn't be hosting their events.

arp242 2y ago
> I'm pretty certain it was discrimination in my case Well, maybe, and that sucks, but it also doesn't really matter. You're still burdening thousands if not tens of thousands of groups with a significant legislation and cumbersome procedure just because there's this one group in the bible belt that might be a bunch of jerks. You can't really legislate jerks away. And regardless, I don't think public resources should only be available to "nice people", or "non-toxic groups" (whatever subjective meaning you can give to that). It really doesn't cost a lot of money to provide and manage some venue for public use, and "funded by tax dollars" is more of a hang-up than anything else. Tons of public resources are funded by tax dollars, from pavements to social services to the fire brigade. Jerks and groups that are a bunch of jerks have just as much right to use these resources as anyone else. This line of reasoning becomes pretty absurd fairly quickly.
- bezier-curve 2y ago
  Well, I get the point you're trying to make but it seems a bit reductionist to compare discrimination against a legally protected status to whether or not "nice" people are using public resources. One instance is actually illegal, the other is not.

arp242 2y ago

> I'm pretty certain it was discrimination in my case Well, maybe, and that sucks, but it also doesn't really matter. You're still burdening thousands if not tens of thousands of groups with a significant legislation and cumbersome procedure just because there's this one group in the bible belt that might be a bunch of jerks. You can't really legislate jerks away. And regardless, I don't think public resources should only be available to "nice people", or "non-toxic groups" (whatever subjective meaning you can give to that). It really doesn't cost a lot of money to provide and manage some venue for public use, and "funded by tax dollars" is more of a hang-up than anything else. Tons of public resources are funded by tax dollars, from pavements to social services to the fire brigade. Jerks and groups that are a bunch of jerks have just as much right to use these resources as anyone else. This line of reasoning becomes pretty absurd fairly quickly.

bezier-curve 2y ago
Well, I get the point you're trying to make but it seems a bit reductionist to compare discrimination against a legally protected status to whether or not "nice" people are using public resources. One instance is actually illegal, the other is not.