(Opinion) Another conservative faces public shunning. Liberals grow bolder with their intolerance.

[Estro Felino]

.. have you even read what I wrote?

Yes. I was talking about doublestandardism. I pointed out what it means.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes. I was talking about doublestandardism. I pointed out what it means.

I give up. You have made up your mind and forgotten to consider the actual subject matter. Repeatedly.

 

[Estro Felino]

I give up. You have made up your mind and forgotten to consider the actual subject matter. Repeatedly.

Discriminating against minorities and blacks is punished.
But discriminating against conservatives is okay.

In my language this is called double standards.
Meaning you apply different standards according to the person.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Discriminating against minorities and blacks is punished.
But discriminating against conservatives is okay.

False equivalency.

 

[LuisDantas]

Discriminating against minorities and blacks is punished.
But discriminating against conservatives is okay.

In my language this is called double standards.
Meaning you apply different standards according to the person.

Yes. That is called discernment. A necessary building block not just for justice, but also for a constructive existence.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes. That is called discernment. A necessary building block not just for justice, but also for a constructive existence.

Lex eadem ombnibus?
The law is equal for all, doesn't apply?

 

[Ella S.]

See, the situation is reversed for me: I'm a progressive living in a highly conservative society, so I would be in that guy's place if restaurant staff heard me discuss my politics. I have to stay silent or face discrimination. While I can see this being necessary against, say, neo-Nazis, extending it to apply to all conservatives would be a can of worms.

I think this is a false equivalency. You're buying too much into conservative scaremongering, in my opinion.

Society has to tolerate that there will always be people who hold beliefs they may find hateful, and I say this as someone whose safety is threatened by hateful beliefs. Human nature will never be perfect; if we can't tolerate the flaws of human nature to an extent, we will just create an illusion for ourselves that we're being "perfectly loving" while not being so.

I'm not afraid of society not tolerating hate (and I support hate speech laws, which are something a lot of people find too restrictive); I'm afraid of the notion that we can be perfect or expect others to be.

I don't think that putting pressure on people to be less hateful is expecting them to be perfect. It's expecting them to try to be better. That's necessary if we want to grow as a society.

You're assuming too much about my position. I addressed the loud misogyny separately in post #5. My other point is about the broader issue of whether restaurants and other public outlets should deny service based on personal politics.

Yeah, no. No assumptions made. I'm just pointing out the position you took. If you don't like your own words staring you in the face, then reconsider what you're saying and choose your words more carefully. You're parroting right-wing talking points, knowingly or unknowingly, and all you're doing is defending people who advocate for discrimination.

I don't question the private business owner's legal right to refuse service to anyone. That's not really the issue, as I see it. But the question remains, is it an effective strategy? Is it a practical strategy?

If we're talking about blatant, unequivocal, outright hatred involving the use of epithets, advocating violence, and/or clearly unconstitutional policies, then I could see it. But in many cases, it's not quite so obvious, or it might appear to be more subtle or spoken in more moderate, less extreme terms. It might involve the use of what some people call "dog whistles" or "code words," but on its face, it may not appear to be obvious or blatant, and that's where it gets into a gray area. That's where it's more of a judgment call, and if there's any room for doubt, then many people might agree that it's better to err on the side of free speech.

The thing is, the hate speech is always going to get out anyway. There's no way to truly stop it, if there are people willing to listen to it. The key thing is not to stop it, but to reduce people's willingness to listen to it.

Part of being unwilling to listen to it is to challenge it when it crops up, which includes kicking disruptive people out of your private business. Letting them do and say whatever they want without repercussions is being willing to listen to it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think this is a false equivalency. You're buying too much into conservative scaremongering, in my opinion.

The perspective I've shared here is based on my own life experience. It doesn't matter to me what conservative sources think about this.

I don't think that putting pressure on people to be less hateful is expecting them to be perfect. It's expecting them to try to be better. That's necessary if we want to grow as a society.

I wasn't referring to just being less hateful, which is generally also not something I think can be achieved by kicking people out of restaurants and other services. I think beliefs form and change in much more complicated and multifaceted ways than that.

Yeah, no. No assumptions made. I'm just pointing out the position you took. If you don't like your own words staring you in the face, then reconsider what you're saying and choose your words more carefully. You're parroting right-wing talking points, knowingly or unknowingly, and all you're doing is defending people who advocate for discrimination.

I stand by my own words. Your representation thereof is a different story.

I'm constantly vigilant about my safety because of living in a highly conservative society while leaning left. The subject of discrimination—especially discrimination against leftists—is quite close to home for me. You might want to consider that not everyone forms their opinions based on American politics or the positions of the right and left wings there.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Another conservative faces public shunning. Liberals grow bolder with their intolerance. (msn.com)

This was an opinion piece from USA Today.













This was an interesting piece. I don't agree with all of it, although the point has been raised that there is a certain palpable degree of intolerance among liberals on certain issues.

There also seems to be a "boy who cried wolf" quality about this, where every little thing, every conceivable utterance which might be questionable, is attacked and derided as if it was the worst thing in the world. The problem with such a tactic is that, while it may work for a little while to keep people in line, sooner or later, the "worst thing in the world" will start to look "not quite so bad" in many people's eyes.

So shunning has moved outside religious circles at last!

 

[Stevicus]

Part of being unwilling to listen to it is to challenge it when it crops up, which includes kicking disruptive people out of your private business. Letting them do and say whatever they want without repercussions is being willing to listen to it.

Well, sure, if it crosses a certain threshold, I can see that. I didn't say they should "let them do and say whatever they want without repercussions."