14 years and counting...

14748505253174

Comments

  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,135
    benjs said:
    HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!

    In my opinion, yes, that should be legal. If we hate these behaviours, however, we should exert socioeconomic pressure to correct the social direction of the country, rather than expecting it to govern itself. This means that complacent moderates (including myself) need to wake the fuck up, and involve ourselves more in showing our nation what we're willing to tolerate or not, to create the future we want - otherwise, we risk bearing witness to the one we don't. Stop eating at that restaurant. Put flyers around town to showcase the bigotry the restaurant-owners are responsible for. 

    All of this being said, I'm not 100% on this (nor am I on any topic). I just worry that we are refraining from being social warriors, claiming that the government will tell what is "right or wrong" - with full evidence that they can't discern between the two. Forcing our society to think for itself and showing the upside or downside potential of both might take that scapegoat away.
    I guess what confuses me a bit about this viewpoint, and I can see your point, in a society-governing-itself-on-its-own kinda way, is that on one hand, you often acknowledge the utter stupidity of the average human, yet you want groups of said average humans to govern themselves. 

    what happens if the "whites only" crowd outnumbers the "everyone's welcome" crowd? what then? I think that's where laws had to come in. not just in numbers, but in pure selfish laziness. how many people in the right actually rise up and stand up for what's right? more often than not, the bystander effect happens, and the wrong people run amok. 

    I think if you take away the legal consequence of an action, and only have in place a societal one, too often the societal one will not be enough of a detterent, or violence will erupt as a natural consequence of said action, or both. 
    "every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"




  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business... Posts: 10,739

    of course it is their land and can do so as they wish. I'm just countering your claim that "their properties are clean" and "they respect the environment". 
    When I said respect the environment ... I meant along the lines that they don't cut every last tree down... litter is everywhere.  but far worse in the cities.
    Give Peas A Chance…
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,388
    You are mis informed ... YOU and every European immigrant or descendent of an immigrant are stolen land ... and those politicians that descend from europeans will not make it right....so quit accusing people of SOMETHING they are not....
    You're not making too much sense anymore ... You day drunk? Maybe high?
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ON Posts: 9,316
    I guess what confuses me a bit about this viewpoint, and I can see your point, in a society-governing-itself-on-its-own kinda way, is that on one hand, you often acknowledge the utter stupidity of the average human, yet you want groups of said average humans to govern themselves. 

    what happens if the "whites only" crowd outnumbers the "everyone's welcome" crowd? what then? I think that's where laws had to come in. not just in numbers, but in pure selfish laziness. how many people in the right actually rise up and stand up for what's right? more often than not, the bystander effect happens, and the wrong people run amok. 

    I think if you take away the legal consequence of an action, and only have in place a societal one, too often the societal one will not be enough of a detterent, or violence will erupt as a natural consequence of said action, or both. 
    Very true! But what can we honestly rely on for guidance if not our society at large, or our government which are made up of the very same self-serving humans? I'm mentally brought right back to the "we're fucked either way you look at it" point of view.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    benjs said:
    HFD - you have such a great way of presenting examples that make people think about what they wrote (and I mean this sincerely)!

    In my opinion, yes, that should be legal. If we hate these behaviours, however, we should exert socioeconomic pressure to correct the social direction of the country, rather than expecting it to govern itself. This means that complacent moderates (including myself) need to wake the fuck up, and involve ourselves more in showing our nation what we're willing to tolerate or not, to create the future we want - otherwise, we risk bearing witness to the one we don't. Stop eating at that restaurant. Put flyers around town to showcase the bigotry the restaurant-owners are responsible for. 

    All of this being said, I'm not 100% on this (nor am I on any topic). I just worry that we are refraining from being social warriors, claiming that the government will tell what is "right or wrong" - with full evidence that they can't discern between the two. Forcing our society to think for itself and showing the upside or downside potential of both might take that scapegoat away.
    Agreed.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    mrussel1 said:
    Except in this country, we had a little thing called Jim Crow.  It's too bad people's racial beliefs aren't directly affiliated with laissez-faire capitalism, otherwise your suggestion might work.  But unfortunately, in the real world, laissez-faire capitalism fails because of the corruption of man.  This is the same reason why the Civil Rights Act was necessary, along with Brown v Board.  History is a better predictor of events than an economic philosophy.  
    Correct me if i am wrong but wasn't that dealing with schooling?
  • LongestRoadLongestRoad Posts: 477
    yeah, often is defending the corrupt. HAHA. that's exactly what he is doing. HAHAH
    I didn't mean it for oftenreading. That's why I wrote anyone. 
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    I guess what confuses me a bit about this viewpoint, and I can see your point, in a society-governing-itself-on-its-own kinda way, is that on one hand, you often acknowledge the utter stupidity of the average human, yet you want groups of said average humans to govern themselves. 

    what happens if the "whites only" crowd outnumbers the "everyone's welcome" crowd? what then? I think that's where laws had to come in. not just in numbers, but in pure selfish laziness. how many people in the right actually rise up and stand up for what's right? more often than not, the bystander effect happens, and the wrong people run amok. 

    I think if you take away the legal consequence of an action, and only have in place a societal one, too often the societal one will not be enough of a detterent, or violence will erupt as a natural consequence of said action, or both. 
    Then the everyone's welcome crowd can open their own business and take over an underserved market.
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Mar-A-Lago Posts: 21,643
    I guess what confuses me a bit about this viewpoint, and I can see your point, in a society-governing-itself-on-its-own kinda way, is that on one hand, you often acknowledge the utter stupidity of the average human, yet you want groups of said average humans to govern themselves. 

    what happens if the "whites only" crowd outnumbers the "everyone's welcome" crowd? what then? I think that's where laws had to come in. not just in numbers, but in pure selfish laziness. how many people in the right actually rise up and stand up for what's right? more often than not, the bystander effect happens, and the wrong people run amok. 

    I think if you take away the legal consequence of an action, and only have in place a societal one, too often the societal one will not be enough of a detterent, or violence will erupt as a natural consequence of said action, or both. 
    Exactly....Jesus Christ I can't believe someone on here is ok with whites only businesses.  

    The government's job is to prevent the spread of bigotry as much as possible.  Fuck no you can't have a whites only business.  
    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
    The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Then you don't believe in freedom.  

    Do we agree with that business plan?  No.  But in a free society a business like that should be allowed to exist...and fail.  The market would determine that.  Government should not.  That isn't why government exists.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,597
    unsung said:
    Correct me if i am wrong but wasn't that dealing with schooling?
    Not Jim Crow, that covered every aspect of life, in particular voting.  It prevented blacks from having a voice in the governed.  Brown did deal with schooling, but throwing out the Plessy v Ferguson "separate but equal" standard was probably the critical hurdle in being able to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent Voting Rights Act.  The "market" was not able to create an equal society so gov't had to step in.  
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ON Posts: 9,316
    Exactly....Jesus Christ I can't believe someone on here is ok with whites only businesses.  

    The government's job is to prevent the spread of bigotry as much as possible.  Fuck no you can't have a whites only business.  
    I agree you can't have a whites-only business: I believe that the people should be making that call. They should be publicly shaming the individuals in charge of the business. They should be boycotting the business. Distributing flyers with their faces on them. Reducing them to either declaring bankruptcy, or removing intolerance.

    Just because I believe in restricting the government's reach doesn't mean that I'm "ok with whites only businesses" - it means I'd like to hold society responsible and accountable for society's directions. 
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • dignindignin Posts: 9,478
    What’s the gay chromosome called?
    Can I nominate this for the most ignorant comment of the week? Is there a competition here on the AMT? If not there should be, maybe with prizes? 
  • LongestRoadLongestRoad Posts: 477
    unsung said:
    Then the everyone's welcome crowd can open their own business and take over an underserved market.
    When did it become political to make a purchase. You should be able to make a purchase, buy a cake, have a dinner without any issue. 
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,135
    unsung said:
    Then you don't believe in freedom.  

    Do we agree with that business plan?  No.  But in a free society a business like that should be allowed to exist...and fail.  The market would determine that.  Government should not.  That isn't why government exists.
    you put too much stock in the intelligence of humans. 
    "every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"




  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,135
    benjs said:
    Very true! But what can we honestly rely on for guidance if not our society at large, or our government which are made up of the very same self-serving humans? I'm mentally brought right back to the "we're fucked either way you look at it" point of view.
    the whole model is that we elect a representative, the best and brightest among us, to steer the ship where it needs to go. unfortunately, the best and brightest among us are no longer our representatives. and that's actually a direct reflection on the idiot public for worshipping actors and musicians for their popularity rather than substance or intellect. 

    we need to fix the model, not throw it away. 
    "every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"




  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    mrussel1 said:
    Not Jim Crow, that covered every aspect of life, in particular voting.  It prevented blacks from having a voice in the governed.  Brown did deal with schooling, but throwing out the Plessy v Ferguson "separate but equal" standard was probably the critical hurdle in being able to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent Voting Rights Act.  The "market" was not able to create an equal society so gov't had to step in.  
    Fair enough.  My position was based on the aspect of a private business.  Thanks.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    you put too much stock in the intelligence of humans. 
    You do understand that such a business likely does exist and if made public there would be outrage, right?
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    When did it become political to make a purchase. You should be able to make a purchase, buy a cake, have a dinner without any issue. 
    I support private property.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    benjs said:
    I agree you can't have a whites-only business: I believe that the people should be making that call. They should be publicly shaming the individuals in charge of the business. They should be boycotting the business. Distributing flyers with their faces on them. Reducing them to either declaring bankruptcy, or removing intolerance.

    Just because I believe in restricting the government's reach doesn't mean that I'm "ok with whites only businesses" - it means I'd like to hold society responsible and accountable for society's directions. 
    Exactly this.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,135
    unsung said:
    You do understand that such a business likely does exist and if made public there would be outrage, right?
    of course. 

    I prefer to extinguish a fire before I got to bed. 
    you prefer to let it burn itself out with the possibilty that it will spread and get out of control and you wake up with your hair on fire. 
    "every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"




  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,597
    unsung said:
    Fair enough.  My position was based on the aspect of a private business.  Thanks.
    Understood, but what we've learned is that the market needs guardrails.  Before the SEC existed, there was rampant speculation, wild swings and total market manipulation that caused panics, recessions, etc.  Before the prohibition of monopolies, you would have one company corner the market on a necessary product, and create unfair pricing that was not market driven.  You would also have "company towns" where a business forced the employees to live, eat and shop at establishments owned by the mill, factory, etc.  The point is that laissez-faire capitalism is a great idea, but it has never been successful because of man's penchant to corrupt.  Therefore guardrails need to be established.  The same goes for the anti-discrimination laws that were enacted in teh 20th century.  
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,388
    I can't believe that it's 2018 and I'm reading a serious conversation about whether or not it should be okay and legal for businesses to post "whites only" signs. Really, did I wake up in the Twilight Zone?


    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • dignindignin Posts: 9,478
    benjs said:
    I agree you can't have a whites-only business: I believe that the people should be making that call. They should be publicly shaming the individuals in charge of the business. They should be boycotting the business. Distributing flyers with their faces on them. Reducing them to either declaring bankruptcy, or removing intolerance.

    Just because I believe in restricting the government's reach doesn't mean that I'm "ok with whites only businesses" - it means I'd like to hold society responsible and accountable for society's directions. 
    In a democracy the people do make that call by electing governments. If the people don't like what the governments do they vote for another government to change those laws.

    It's what we do a civil society so we get along.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,135
    PJ_Soul said:
    I can't believe that it's 2018 and I'm reading a serious conversation about whether or not it should be okay and legal for businesses to post "whites only" signs. Really, did I wake up in the Twilight Zone?


    it's not specifically about that issue. that was just my example. I think it's a great hypothetical; would the world work better if society governed itself?
    "every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"




  • benjs said:
    I agree you can't have a whites-only business: I believe that the people should be making that call. They should be publicly shaming the individuals in charge of the business. They should be boycotting the business. Distributing flyers with their faces on them. Reducing them to either declaring bankruptcy, or removing intolerance.

    Just because I believe in restricting the government's reach doesn't mean that I'm "ok with whites only businesses" - it means I'd like to hold society responsible and accountable for society's directions. 
    The problem with this is when the damaging attitude becomes prevalent. Then what?
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • LongestRoadLongestRoad Posts: 477
    unsung said:
    I support private property.
    It's open to the public so unless someone is commiting a crime or doing something that could cause harm to others or themselves, anyone should be able to make a purchase. 
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    mrussel1 said:
    Understood, but what we've learned is that the market needs guardrails.  Before the SEC existed, there was rampant speculation, wild swings and total market manipulation that caused panics, recessions, etc.  Before the prohibition of monopolies, you would have one company corner the market on a necessary product, and create unfair pricing that was not market driven.  You would also have "company towns" where a business forced the employees to live, eat and shop at establishments owned by the mill, factory, etc.  The point is that laissez-faire capitalism is a great idea, but it has never been successful because of man's penchant to corrupt.  Therefore guardrails need to be established.  The same goes for the anti-discrimination laws that were enacted in teh 20th century.  
    We've never really had true capitalism though, at least not for a long time.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    It's open to the public so unless someone is commiting a crime or doing something that could cause harm to others or themselves, anyone should be able to make a purchase. 
    We are 180* out.  The business owner invested in the business.  The business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

    The market has the right to react and support or not support.
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    unsung said:
    Then the everyone's welcome crowd can open their own business and take over an underserved market.
    You need to read a history book.  
    More than one.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
Sign In or Register to comment.