Jump to content

Should commercial ventures and estates in SL be allowed to discriminate?


Hunter Stern
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1946 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

i wish youd stop calling them progressives and call them what they really are leftists socialists and communists

I think that, as is so often the case, the words "socialists" and "communists" must mean one thing in British English and something completely different in American English.   

In most European countries, including the UK, most US Democrats (or, at least, their congressional representatives) would be quite at home in one of the centre-right parties.   Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, for example, would be perfectly at home in Britain's Conservative Party.    Bernie Sanders would be on the soft-left of our Labour Party, but certainly well to the right of its current leadership.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

I think that, as is so often the case, the words "socialists" and "communists" must mean one thing in British English and something completely different in American English.   

In most European countries, including the UK, most US Democrats (or, at least, their congressional representatives) would be quite at home in one of the centre-right parties.   Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, for example, would be perfectly at home in Britain's Conservative Party.    Bernie Sanders would be on the soft-left of our Labour Party, but certainly well to the right of its current leadership.

Yep, there is a nasty tendency to use "socialist" and "communist" as a pejorative, if one is on the other side.

Just as, "the US is not really a Democracy but is a Republic". :ph34r:

Edited by Love Zhaoying
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find people who use words like socialists, communists, snowflakes, SJWs, bleeding hearts, etc weaken their argument significantly. If you can't defend your argument without denigrating the other side, then your argument is really flimsy. 

Just my two cents. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Nalytha said:

I find people who use words like socialists, communists, snowflakes, SJWs, bleeding hearts, etc weaken their argument significantly. If you can't defend your argument without denigrating the other side, then your argument is really flimsy. 

Just my two cents.

As it has been pointed out recently, if they are the easily triggered ones, then they are the snowflakes. Yet they use that term, another form of projecting.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two thoughts which may have been said already, but I am not reading every reply to this thread.

One, not allowing male, or female avatars does not ban actual RL males or females, and when you move on to human's or furry's then it is obvious these groups are not being singled out in RL.

Two, just why shouldn't a RL business owner be allowed to discriminate if they choose, it is a stupid choice from a business perspective, but why do we have to outlaw stupidity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

As the right goes further to the right and the left goes further to the left to counter that, there may be enough room to drive something up the middle. That interests me.

At this point it is beyond traditional Right and Left.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Talligurl said:

Two, just why shouldn't a RL business owner be allowed to discriminate if they choose, it is a stupid choice from a business perspective, but why do we have to outlaw stupidity?

Because businesses provide needed services to everyone in the community, some so necessary that they are a matter of life and death or can at the very least cause suffering to those denied access (the only hospital in town denying services to someone they hate, or a hospital denying partner visitation for a dying patient because the partner is 'gay' and so deemed as 'not family'). While it's perhaps not of much consequence if the 'unapproved of' person or object of discrimination has other choices, in many cases they do not, or at the very least the alternate choices are substandard (back of the bus).
There's no reason why we can't deem these 'unapproved of' persons a protected class and make provisions for them so they can live freely like every other person in society.

Sure, it would be better if we did not have to regulate stupidity, but the reality is that there's a lot of stupid people out there who lack empathy and think they have a right to label others as bad and make them suffer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

why don't you tell us about all the rights blacks had at the time in the enlightened northern states

It varied a great deal. You are exactly right (don't get used to it) about the fact that the main goal of the Union side in the war was to maintain the Union and not to end slavery. Many in the North opposed slavery not for humanitarian reasons but out of their emphasis on the superiority of free labor. Most of the North wouldn't have been for equality between blacks and whites. Even in the Republican party at the time there were a variety of factions - people like Ben Wade, Thaddeus Stephens and Charles Sumner were for ending slavery and equality between the races, while people like the Blair family were quite racist. Abraham Lincoln was a moderate and in the pre-war years was in favor of emancipation with compensation for the slaveholders and re-settling the former slaves out of the country.

Does it surprise you that I'm saying this? I've never said anything different, because those are the facts that can be found by studying history. My debates with you are about your belief that the South's secession was 1.) legal and 2.) not almost entirely about the protection of slavery, at least among those who organized it initially. If you read the original sources you'll see that your beliefs just don't correspond with what people were saying at the time. You sound like you've grown up listening to the "lost cause" narrative that sprouted in the South after the war - however, what they were saying after the war is demonstrably different that what they were saying before it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here I sit...still confused as hell as to why you people are mixing rl anti-discrimination and perceived anti-discrimination in sl...

This thread is seriously all over the map, not only in content, but, also apparently (thanks to the powers that be...or not so be..) as far as temporary residence is concerned.  I'd laugh, but, that probably wouldn't paint a very good picture of me since some of these topics are thuper therious...or super serial, depending on how you look at it. 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Talligurl said:

Two, just why shouldn't a RL business owner be allowed to discriminate if they choose, it is a stupid choice from a business perspective, but why do we have to outlaw stupidity?

It's only a stupid choice from a business perspective if more of the market than not would prefer that they don't discriminate. If a business owner decides not to serve 10% of the population in order to avoid losing the business of 20% of the population than it's a perfectly logical decision. Of course, that means that 10% of the population can go pound sand, doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

 Bernie Sanders would be on the soft-left of our Labour Party, but certainly well to the right of its current leadership.

 

I'd say Aussie Politics would rate him about the same, very moderate.

The American political system is ultra-zany-far-right normally.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Talligurl said:

it is a stupid choice from a business perspective

Actually, it's a wise choice (from a business perspective) to discriminate against women since they get cheaper labor by doing so. Women still earn less, in varying degrees by state.

Because of this far more elderly women are in poverty than men today, even when adjusting for women's longer lifespan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/1/2018 at 1:59 AM, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Today we live in a world where anyone that has an imagined slight against their person is now the victim of a grevious harm and can claim victimhood and demand massive compensation.

God help us all. 

 

The reality is people in the USA have restricted-access to legal restitution against malpractice on multiple fronts, and their rights are continuing to be eroded. Look up the impact of 'plausibility pleading' as just one example. The reality is people are increasing being damaged by Corporations at work and through buying unsafe products and pollution to the environment, Corporate accountability is being reduced on all levels leaving victims unprotected and reliant on the state for support.

 

 

 

Edited by Aethelwine
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/1/2018 at 2:29 AM, BilliJo Aldrin said:

 

The arguments blacks are better off without welfare. Is as profoundly absurd and offensive, as his other published views about slavery being better for them, just on the face of it without even needing to go into the details of the citations mixing up causes and effects.

It should come as no surprise David Horowitz's websites are now publishing the likes of Robert Spencer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1946 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...