[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / ef ] [ rp / fan ]

/ef/ - Everfree

A general discussion board with a laxer atmosphere and fewer rules. Keep adult content or controversial issues here.
Name?

This field is optional. You can choose any name you want, or you can post anonymously by leaving this field empty.

Tripcodes are a way to identify yourself between posts without having to register with the site. To use a tripcode, enter your name as ‹name›#‹key›.You can choose anything you want as the key—it is private and will never be shown to other posters or stored on the server. For example:

Rarity#bestpony → Rarity!.4PK7yxdII

If you want a tripcode containing specific words, you can download a program designed to search for tripcodes, such as Tripcode Explorer.

Email?

Entering an e-mail is optional.

There are also code words you can enter here which perform certain actions when you submit your post.

  • sage — lets you post without bumping a thread.
  • nonoko — uses the original post behavior to redirect to the board index.

These can be used at the same time as an e-mail address by typing ‹email›#‹action›.

You can also use Skype names in place of an e-mail. The notation is the same as a link to a username on skype itself, which is skype:‹username›

Subject
Comment?
Giving emphasis
[b] Bold [/b] Ctrl + B
[i] Italic [/i] Ctrl + I
[u] Underlined [/u] Ctrl + U
[s] Strikethrough [/s] Ctrl + R
Hiding text
[?] Spoiler text [/?] Ctrl + S
[h] Hide block of text [/h] Ctrl + H
Special
[rcv] Royal Canterlot voice [/rcv] Ctrl + K
[shy] Fluttershy voice [/shy]
[cs] Comic Sans [/cs]
[tt] Monospaced [/tt]
[d20], [4d6] — Dice rolls
URLs and linking
Link to a post on the current board
>>1234
Link to another board
>>>/pony/
Link to a post on another board
>>>/pony/1234
Hypertext links
[url=https://www.ponychan.net/] Ponychan [/url]
File
Flag
Options
Password?

This field is for editing and deletions.


File: 1545323250368.jpg (625.4 KB, 1077x1438, 1545291513720.jpg)

PC (ID: f09672)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid:   212143[View All]

You guys see the new trailer for Bake the Cake 2?
215 posts and 157 image replies omitted. Click View to see all.

Mikie(phone)!GlimDubEqI (ID: ef5274)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213334

>>213333
I try to answer everything to you in all fairness

I do respect you

Hell, it's partially why I asked to be a mod

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: 484b77)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  213339

File: 1545546505370.jpg (117.2 KB, 1024x577, IMG_20181216_205715.jpg)

>>213334
Fair enough. I'm not upset with you or anything currently anyway.

Mikie(phone)!GlimDubEqI (ID: ef5274)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213341

>>213339
We've been friends since the beginning

I would hope not.

a lost pony !piNKiEPie. (ID: ea891f)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213367

File: 1545553597235.png (1.11 MB, 1920x804, Pinkie_Pie_%5C_but_they're_alw…)

>>213003
>>213305
>>213305

Oky doky here we are again. That you both have reached some of the same conclusions gives me a clearer view of where i went wrong and i'll try to make this focused and to the point, to avoid going too far afield and making myself even further misunderstood.

I see two points. One is that i've argued that the children are the most important thing, and the other is morality. Both are not my intended points so i'd like to clarify each if them. They are kinda the same point really so this might end up jumbled up, and this is freewriting on my fone not a dissertation and i have a goal of eating my pig meat when it reaches cooked temperature then go to sleep.

The children are in spite of how i seem to have misrepresented my intented point, NOT the most important thing. ikr, but no. I feel equally vehement about the adults but as i mentioned before, other people's positions in regards to the adults are more...contestable. No, the treatment of children (dammit the pork is sticking) is supposed to be a "common ground" issue.

In a disagreement, i apply the basic methodology of seeking common ground. What is done to children who through no will of their own (or even ability to form informed consent) is an issue i somehow expected to be common ground. When it wasn't, i guess i lost focus and any sense that i was addressing people who were even capable of reason as i understood it.

Later, i think some people recanted their fuck-the-children position, so i guess i did a shitty job of inviting them onto common ground. More like i stood on it and was perceived as striving to beat them down from that perceived "moral high ground" which shows how poor a job i did of inviting them to join me on my imagined common ground.

That said, treatment of children is not a morality issue. Ikr. Its a logical conclusion based on study of history, that mistreatment of others leads to a fall, most assuredly so in regards to children. The exception being genocide, hence the examples in the old testament of being commanded to eradicate all men women and children. Because if you don't, you have created an enemy who will dedicate its every waking moment and all of its energy and resources to exacting revenge on your children. Without getting pedantic, examples include the fall of the Roman Empire, the abuses and the victimizations of the Isrealites, the Third Reich, etc etc etc. I will stop myself from in-depth analysis of these examples for 3 reasons: 1. i think we can accept them at face value without debating them, 2. im too ignorant to actually discuss them properly without research, and 3. my pork is done and i have to wrap this up.

Tldr, children are not a morality issue but a practical one. The world is watching. Those who will do the next terrorist act against us will multiply in number as our crimes escalate and in particular the child in the John Oliver video demonstrates my point as a case study: crying and carrying on that he's bad, that he wants to be put back in jail because he's bad, refusing the comfort of his parents. That one child is now so psychologically disturbed because of this trauma that was done to him during the formation of his cognitive template and he will statistically be highly unlikely to not be a very violent and incontrollable adolescent and adult. There are many just like him from this one event alone, and in 5 or 15 years some of them will most likely do something to exact revenge on our children. This is the legacy we are creating. This is not morality but practicality and anyone who disagrees with me is not someone i have either the capacity to influence nor the fortitude to be amongst.

Further i already know the position of those who say "well they shouldn't have brought their children" or any other of those hardline dismissals of my concern for chikdren as bleeding heart liberalism or morality or anything else. I know they only wish to protect what they have. They are not evil, they dont want to go hurting kids for fun, they dont want to shit on refugees for sport. They have a genuine belief that we can save ourselves by not sharing. If i have food for two days, and give it to two people, then i starve and one day later so do both of them. I undestand this. But they are wrong, if they think they can save us and our children by acting in a way that creates mentally damaged enemies whose lifespan is just beginning. It dooms our future.

That the approach of those who want to shut me up is not to listen, or even tell me their position, but is to strawman bt accusing me of advocating open borders (or any other number of whataboutisms like obama did it etc) or to say harming children helps us, or simply deny that children are harmed (proven false) demonstrates that it is they who have an absolutist moral self-righteousness which justifies any act no matter how unconscionable, because it's to save US from THEM.

Which is not only fatally flawed, but the foundation of almost every wide-scale unconscionable act i can think of, from gassing jews to exterminating Tsarists to now expecting to harm children of families who are fleeing violence and expect no external consequences to befall us.

This turned out a lot more provacative and unflammatory than i expected. Maybe i am self righteous. Ok forget the maybe, i am. a lost pony is a rotten motivational speaker and will never be a consensus leader. a lost pony is suitable only for legal argument against opponents who commit acts abhorrent to the trier of fact, direct physical combat, and arguably imaginative sex. a lost pony is not a persuader nor is he very good at applying simple principles like finding common ground with people who disagree but would otherwise be his friend. a lost pony is neither of good morality or of good character and is pretty much good only for adversariality and perhaps also for fucking.

Damn wtf did i just write. My pig is getting cold. Hope nobody shows up with pitchforks and torches for this. Well actually if they show up physically in person, that might be fun. Finally it seems a lost pony is a complete loser at discussion on the internet.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: 484b77)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  213368

File: 1545554477125.jpg (209.94 KB, 1000x1373, DofoXbOWwAETU6z.jpg)

>>213367
Well, don't tell me that. I already agree with you. I was just trying to explain how you could get your points across in a way that the ones who don't will be more likely to listen to.

And for me, it is a morality issue, just as much as it is a practical one. You don't have to deny your moral stake. Own it, but explain it.
This post was edited by its author on .

a lost pony !piNKiEPie. (ID: ea891f)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213370

>>213368
Oh. Yes better to have said it's not just a moral issue.

Still, it seems in spite of your guidance i'm no closer to persuading anyone. I do appreciate your effort anyway.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: 484b77)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  213376

File: 1545556915049.png (476.16 KB, 700x700, __nishida_satono_and_yakumo_ra…)

>>213370
Well, who are you hoping to convince right now, anyway?

a lost pony !piNKiEPie. (ID: ea891f)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213379

>>213376
Thatd probably a question i should ask myself more often before i post stuff.

Mk17 (ID: 40b62c)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213417

File: 1545580469259.png (267.74 KB, 453x507, 54454554.PNG)

>>212963
Sorry for the delay, sleep, then 12 hr shift, then sleep... you know how it goes haha
>I wasn't working under the assumption that all are to begin with
Yeah I know, but when the argument is "having access to subpar care is better than having access to no care" it comes across like people are saying that there would be no option if a law were not passed. I know we both agree that its kind of a moot point in this case, but that kind of argument, even with employment and housing, works on the principal that most people are already inclined to deny service to a transexual. This might be the case in some isolated parts of the bible belt, but then maybe they need local laws to address the issue.
>It might be harder to do, but a good lawyer probably could.
A "good" lawyer can prove anything, whether its real or not, which is why im not so sure giving them a new set of laws to manipulate is the best thing. I mean, this cake guy won his case, and there are still lawyers foaming at the mouth to drag him back in and ruin his life further it seems. This is why things like this are ripe for abuse. Its like malpractice, I just had a talk about this with my friend I went to see, she is a radiation therapist and I was an EMT and we were laughing about all the times we got sued for saving someones life. My example was having to intibate someone after a car wreck because they couldnt breath on their own, i got sued for a 250k because they had a soar throat after. Lawyers prey on people who are in rough emotional and financial situations, like that lady had a huge medical bill (mostly do to lawsuits but the price of medical care in this country is another topic) had to go through a long recovery, and someone is telling them they can get 250k that they deserve by suing me, of course they will jump on that.
BUT
>people who do have legitimate reasons to use it rarely do so if it's not worth it.
The best argument I can use to defend laws like this is the same argument that is used with firearms "its better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it" and just because people can use it as a weapon, and will use it to ruin lives (because lets face it, it WILL be abused, every law is abused) doesn't mean the risk outweighs the benefit. Its a tool that the people who need it would be better off having, and the people who abuse it will find another way if they didn't, as with the cake man.
I would fall into the "anti-gun" camp in this analogy because im more worried about the potential for abuse.
Which is why, as I've stated, im not opposed to things like the civil rights act, or transexuals being covered by it, im just questioning weather or not its necessary in the first place.
>Liiit
Its only 28hrs..
>So yeah, that's my review of Super Smash Bros Ultimate, hope you enjoyed it. Don't forget to like, share, comment, subscribe, and mash that bell.
LMAO!
I did enjoy it. It looks good... It looks really good. With out having played it, i think i would enjoy it. I like ledge guarding, and i like taunts (which apparently you cant do online) but the controls look tight, the roster is amzing, they gave in on stuff like wave dashing TO A POINT! which is fair. Honestly, i only ever used wave dashing as a spacing tactic anway, it always seemed more advantageous to me to dash into a move or just keep a combo going, but im a weird player... i mean... i main roy.
I would love for it to turn out to be the best one, because I WANT a game that is better than melee, they just haven't made it yet... or maybe they have...
I always liked break the targets though... so thats kind of a downer haha.
>Removing anyone for any reason, even if they're a well-behaved customer, I dunno.
So, I think both are arguments are being based on assuming the worst haha. The thing is, when you own a business or, even if you are just a keyed manager, you place for sure feels like your second home, so not being able to ask someone to leave by law is a scary thought.
I've kicked people out of my shop for smelling too bad, and offending everyone (i mean, really, this guy smelled BAD, like fish and BO and it was overwhelming, people couldnt take tests and fill out paperwork...fuck haha) but the thing is, if that guy were black and came off as a person who would not understand, there is no WAY i would have asked them to leave and change their clothes. Because its already hard enough to keep people employed and make enough money to keep the lights on, that the risk of a lawsuit on top of that would be way to high.
My other concern is law tend to build on one another, in 20, 30, 60 years, it really could come down to legislating what goes on inside your home and you not being able to refuse services you have to any stranger like the bathroom or food. It sounds extremest i know, but it is how things tend to snowball reguarding laws. All it would take is a media push and people saying "well, if we could do A, there is no reason not to do B, its the moral thing to do" then they will parade a kid who wet his pants around on the news because someone wouldnt let them use the bathroom and BAM more rights lost haha.
>unfortunately loud minority of activists who do actually push that narrative, and especially the profit-hungry media that puts them in the spotlight for clicks.
This is my issue. If you were in charge, or leading the way to making these laws, i would be less skeptical of them. But its people who are power hungry and borderline crazy leading the charge, and its media figures and politicians who are outside the situation completely dictating the policy.
More than just individual on individual abuse im worried about, im worried about the government using these laws back handedly. Like when they write a bill called the "save all the children act" that lets their friends company pour toxic waste into a river...
I see laws like this ensuring tyranny rather than preventing it, to an extent.
This is why i argue the long haul method of people gaining acceptance by just being good people in their community, rather than making a big media issue over it, and getting government involved. Again, it worked for the Irish and the Italians, and where are the blacks? BET use to be a news station...
>Or, well, if HHS manages to get that legal definition of sex implemented as policy, intersex people won't have a sex, which should tell you most of what you need to know about why it's bullshit.
Right, so here is an example of government using their own law to discriminate FOREVER against people they dont like. Again, segregation and jim crow... that wasn't the natural order of things, that was government forcing it on people. Who knows what would have happened if they didnt get involved.
You are right, about it applying unilateral to things like sex and race, but it also covers veterans and the elderly, which are a specific sub group.
>it's a bit hard to define civil rights as a right with legal power, without prescribing some sort of consequence for infringing on those rights, isn't it?
Idk, i would call the bill of rights civil rights, and i dont see anything in the 1st amendment that says how much the fine will be for denying it to someone.

Chaptor!Ep8pui8Vw2 (ID: ed3f98)Country code: cascadia.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  213467

File: 1545587774350.gif (2.24 MB, 375x300, 1539797369011.gif)

>not just poisoning the cake then moving to vietnam.

(ID: fb05f6)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213472

File: 1545588170591.webm (1.54 MB, 841x458, Danny Dogvito.webm)

>>213467
>not telling them you're gonna say the n word

Mk17 (ID: 40b62c)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213474

File: 1545588489818.png (233.47 KB, 362x472, 6565974445.PNG)

>>213472
It looks like the creature from "Limbo".

(ID: fb05f6)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213476

File: 1545588764760.webm (993.4 KB, 480x480, midget boxing.webm)

>>213474
heheheheheh

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: 484b77)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  213564

File: 1545608560542.jpg (135.51 KB, 1200x1126, 1544755879020.jpg)

>>213417
No worries, 12 hour shifts sound brutal.

>I know we both agree that its kind of a moot point in this case, but that kind of argument, even with employment and housing, works on the principal that most people are already inclined to deny service to a transexual

Well, it doesn't necessarily. In the case of employment and housing, I don't think it has to happen in all or even most cases to be an issue worth addressing in some fashion. 27% nationwide isn't a majority, but it's not a small number like 3%. I'm not sure where exactly I would draw that line, though I think it varies depending on the severity of the issue, and how effective the law would be in resolving the issue. 33% of respondents had been verbally harassed in public by strangers for being trans, but depending on the nature of most of that harassment (threats of physical violence vs. someone just being an asshole), that's something I wouldn't address with laws even if it were way higher. Everyone, trans or otherwise, deals with assholes sometimes, but almost no one thinks someone should be punished by the law for being an asshole, because the harm caused by someone being an asshole to you is way less severe than the harm caused by being unable to find work, a place to live, put food on your table, etc.

The other thing to consider is, employment and housing discrimination tends to stack with other problems faced by the trans community. 30% of trans people in that survey were homeless at least once in their lives, with 12% having been in the previous year. Only 6% were denied entry at homeless shelters, but of the ones who weren't, 9% got in "stealth" and were later kicked out when they were discovered to be transgender, 14% were told they had to basically "stop being (outwardly) trans" (which is somewhere between telling someone with autism to "stop being autistic or we'll kick you out", and someone with severe depression "stop taking your Prozac or we'll kick you out"), more than half (52%) were physically, verbally, or sexually abused in the shelters.

20% had to participate in the "underground economy" at some point to make ends meet, 9% in the previous year. That number is 12% when only looking at sex work rather than underground work as a whole, but that creates a bunch of other problems for those 20% and 12%, of course. If you have a hard time finding work as a trans person already, you're more likely to have to prostitute yourself or resort to other criminalized work to make ends meet; but then you're going to have an even harder time finding legal work if anyone knows you've had to prostitute yourself, you're more likely to be a victim of violent crime, more likely to be shunned by friends and family, more likely to get arrested...you start out simply not being protected by the system and living in a shitty area where that matters, but end up getting fucked over by the system after doing what you had to do to deal with problems you wouldn't be having if you were protected.

All of these figures would shrink if we could shrink the 27% number for employment. Some of those 27% can live with family and friends and have their basic needs met, but a super unlucky 6% of the overall sample wouldn't have even had that option, because the people who are supposed to care the most about them hate the idea that their son/daughter is trans so much that they apparently don't even give a damn if they starve to death in an alleyway.

>This might be the case in some isolated parts of the bible belt, but then maybe they need local laws to address the issue.

The problem with that is it's a catch-22. The places most in need of laws like these are the least likely to pass them on their own, and the places least in need of them are the most likely to pass them simply because most everyone's on the same page that discriminating against someone for [reason] is wrong. And if you're in one of these mega shitty places, you also can't get out, because the same problems that make the places shitty for you also deny you the means to escape to a more accepting place.

>This is why things like this are ripe for abuse. Its like malpractice, I just had a talk about this with my friend I went to see, she is a radiation therapist and I was an EMT and we were laughing about all the times we got sued for saving someones life. My example was having to intibate someone after a car wreck because they couldnt breath on their own, i got sued for a 250k because they had a soar throat after.

Yikes. Maybe there's just no winning in some of these situations. Was that 250k lawsuit successful?

>I would fall into the "anti-gun" camp in this analogy because im more worried about the potential for abuse.

Well, I'm afraid I don't quite follow your logic there. The statistics I've shown indicated that even in cases where people do "need" it, most people end up not using it, which suggests that the likelihood of people using them maliciously is even more minute. And if they do try to, they oftentimes fail, as evidenced by the gay cake lawsuit (which I think is kind of a gray area as far as the law is concerned, because it deals with defining the exact boundary between 1A protections and antidiscrimination law; the gay couple was unambiguously denied their wedding cake because the owner doesn't support gay couples having weddings, and therefore doesn't want to symbolically support it by baking a wedding cake for them -- but it's also his right to not want to symbolically support that, and there's even disagreement on whether baking a wedding cake in and of itself as symbolic support, or if it shouldn't be because wedding cakes are standard enough they should be dispensed regardless of consumer identity. In the case of employment, there's far less gray: you either got fired because you were gay/trans, or you got fired for an unrelated reason).

It also seems a bit illogical to me that you're more concerned about the potential abuse of legal antidiscrimination protections than about the potential abuse of guns. A lawsuit in the wrong hands can cost a business lots of money, but isn't guaranteed to succeed. A gun in the wrong hands can kill someone, and probably will if they know how to use the gun and no one puts a stop to them. I'm not saying people shouldn't have guns, of course; I just don't follow your reasoning for why the abuse potential for antidiscrimination law is worse than the abuse potential for guns, and why the logic that justifies guns despite the abuse potential shouldn't extend to antidiscrimination protections.

>im just questioning weather or not its necessary in the first place.

Well, perhaps it's not. To me, it seems there are some legitimate problems worth solving, which is what the laws would aim to mitigate, but perhaps they aren't the best solution. But how would you address the problems these laws seek to resolve, while also minimizing the number of casualties of the long-haul battle, which we'll still keep fighting, whether or not we get help from the government in the form of civil rights protections. Nobody seriously thinks passing antidiscrimination laws will just solve all the underlying social problems overnight and we can rest on our laurels afterward. It's just because people are getting hurt by discrimination in the present, and we want to help those people too, not just the ones in the future.

>I like ledge guarding, and i like taunts (which apparently you cant do online)

Yeah, I like both of those things too. But I can understand why they got rid of the former. Getting rid of the latter is dumb, if the custom taunt messages were the issue they could have just gotten rid of that without removing them altogether. Yet another Luigi nerf! But I don't think these negatives outweigh the positives.

>Honestly, i only ever used wave dashing as a spacing tactic anway, it always seemed more advantageous to me to dash into a move or just keep a combo going, but im a weird player... i mean... i main roy.

As a Luigi player in Melee, I used it as my primary mode of transportation, which isn't really viable anymore. But Luigi sucks now anyway, and it's still perfectly usable for spacing/positioning, which is its main benefit for most characters.

>I always liked break the targets though... so thats kind of a downer haha.

Yeah, same here. Although tbh, Break the Targets was kind of lame in the games after Melee anyway...as the roster got bigger, you couldn't really make individual Break the Targets stages that tailor to each and every character, so instead you got the generic difficulties, which get boring hella fast. I wonder if that's something people will mod in, the Switch modding scene is already fairly prosperous thanks to an unpatchable hardware exploit.

>So, I think both are arguments are being based on assuming the worst haha. The thing is, when you own a business or, even if you are just a keyed manager, you place for sure feels like your second home, so not being able to ask someone to leave by law is a scary thought.

Not necessarily assuming, just preventing. But it's a fair concern, and I can understand why you'd be worried about it without that worry coming from a place of wanting to be able to refuse someone specifically for being black, trans, gay, etc. It's a worry of being unable to refuse someone, and them assuming it's because of who they are, or trying to paint it that way in court. That kind of thing, coupled with the issue being far less severe/life-threatening than refusing employment, and with the fact that businesses do, indeed, lose money when they refuse someone service for bullshit reasons, makes it not really the battle I want to fight.

That said, if the only option for a law to help the employment and housing issues also contains refusal of service, then I'd advocate for amending it rather than blocking it altogether. And if there's no backing down on that issue, I would still hope the law passes, because to me, the important issues that it addresses outweigh the potential problems, which will likely be resolved by later case law as the Masterpiece Cakeshop cases seem to already be doing. Time will tell how the dust settles on that one, but if the dust doesn't settle, at some point down the line there will probably be proposed amendments to settle it once and for all. And if a lawsuit is found to be frivolous, there are already measures in place that allow a business to have financial damages covered for it, or even come out on top with a countersuit...which is a headache of course, but it's there to keep the power in balance if you need it.

>Like when they write a bill called the "save all the children act" that lets their friends company pour toxic waste into a river...

Or when they write a bill called the "First Amendment Defense Act", which only defends the specific right to act on a conviction that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is between a man and a woman (even if it just means turning them away in a clothing store, without any symbolic speech coming into play), while leaving the Christian baker forced to bake a Satanic cake, the Jewish baker forced to bake a Nazi cake, even the transphobic baker forced to bake a trans pride cake...even the ones who claim they want to protect the rights you fear are in jeopardy aren't always doing it in good faith, and sometimes they're even more transparent about it.

At the very least, things like the Civil Rights Act and Equality Act are't saying "we want to protect people of color in particular from discrimination, we don't care about the white folks" or "we want to make it illegal to discriminate against gays and trans people, we don't care about the straights", In practice, the people who benefit the most from civil rights protections are the people of color and the LGBT people, but that's only because they're the ones at the greatest risk without these laws; the protections they propose apply to everyone. The Equality Act would even keep in check and prevent the most-feared affirmative action policy -- diversity quotas -- because if you can demonstrate that the reason you weren't hired is because the company preferred a less-qualified trans man over you as a cis man, you can prove they were in violation the newly amended Civil Rights Act and discriminated against on the basis of your gender identity. Currently, if a company were to have an affirmative action quota for trans people and gay people and turn away straight and cis people, they wouldn't be in violation of the Civil Rights Act, and you wouldn't have a tool against that policy. Because it''s not your sex, race, religion, or national origin being discriminated against -- it's your gender identity, something with no federal protection.

And somehow, that doesn't even get talked about by anybody, whether for or against antidiscrimination law. People against antidiscrimination law tend to also be against diversity quotas, perhaps even viewing the latter as a greater evil -- but the former is their single greatest weapon against the latter! And one would think that people for diversity quotas should be against antidiscrimination law for that same reason. But I think way fewer people are for diversity quotas than are for antidiscrimination law, because the former is clearly unsustainable and unfair, favoring one group over the other, while the latter, despite having its own abuse potential, applies far more evenly and provides protections against both individual and institutional abuses.

>This is why i argue the long haul method of people gaining acceptance by just being good people in their community, rather than making a big media issue over it, and getting government involved. Again, it worked for the Irish and the Italians, and where are the blacks? BET use to be a news station...

Well, as I said before, we're not gonna stop fighting the long haul method regardless of whether or not we get antidiscrimination law. I think the Civil Rights Act has definitely helped the black community in some ways, but nobody, even those who fought for it, claimed that it would fix everything overnight. Whether the things that have gotten worse were exacerbated by the Civil Rights Act, is something I really can't answer, because the socioeconomic problems faced by the black community are enormously complex. Politicians both left and right have surely made things worse, not all activism is a good thing, but I don't think it's as cut and dry as "the Civil Rights Act hasn't solved everything and in some ways the situation has worsened over the years" being an argument that the Civil Rights Act was a net harm or even wasn't a net benefit. The black community has also been actively sabotaged by the government since then, with things like the CIA crack scandal. BLM activists (or rather, black activists in general who aren't even necessarily affiliated with BLM) even now have been targets of FBI COINTELPRO activities and surveillance, and even arrested for speaking out against this; regardless of how you might feel about the BLM movement as a whole, or the existence of a discrepancy between their stated goals and the actions of some activists, doesn't this raise some serious red flags and lend some credence to the idea that institutional oppression is alive and well, even if it's not as blatant as it was in the Jim Crow era? Tyranny shouldn't be fought with more tyranny, and I don't pretend to have all the answers on how it's most effectively and ethically fought, but it must be fought somehow, and that's undermined just as much by fearmongers convincing us that those who fight against tyranny are fighting with their own tyranny, as it is by people who do actually try to fight tyranny with tyranny. Deception and distortion are so prevalent that it's almost impossible to know who the "good guys" are at times, but we have to try and untangle the mess if we can ever hope to make our society better and prevent it from getting worse.

>but it also covers veterans and the elderly, which are a specific sub group

This is true. I wonder, though, how many people against gender identity (a category, not a subgroup) have no problem with these specific subgroups being protected, and would even be pissed if that were changed.

>Idk, i would call the bill of rights civil rights, and i dont see anything in the 1st amendment that says how much the fine will be for denying it to someone.

Should governments face some sort of consequence for violating the First Amendment? Who watches the watchmen?
Abolishing slavery was a constitutional amendment too. I don't know what the penalty is for owning a slave, but surely if someone tried to, someone would put a stop to it, no?

Mk17 (ID: 40b62c)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213636

File: 1545615217018.png (253.46 KB, 470x483, 23452567.PNG)

>>213564
>All of these figures would shrink if we could shrink the 27% number for employment.
I would like to see how those statistics stack up against the general population. For instance, 6% of transsexuals were denied at a homeless shelter, if you surveyed people who tried to get in one, taking transexuality out of the equation, i wonder how the numbers would change. I would be curious about that with any of these statistics.
>The problem with that is it's a catch-22. The places most in need of laws like these are the least likely to pass them on their own, and the places least in need of them are the most likely to pass them simply because most everyone's on the same page that discriminating against someone for [reason] is wrong.
This is true, and it backs up my idea that only people who already have mainstream acceptance normally get a law written to cover them. Its always lagging behind, and the problem is for the most part solved naturally before legislation gets around to it, because they wouldnt want to risk the votes.
>Was that 250k lawsuit successful?
No. I was a student at the time, and immune. But it did teach me a pretty big life lesson.
>Well, I'm afraid I don't quite follow your logic there.
I'm saying, im acting as an anti-gun person would act, over exaggerating the problems that the laws would cause, and overestimating the risk of passing them. In a sense, viewing the laws as an anti-gunner views guns, that they will be overly abused and anyone who is covered by it will only use it to hurt someone.
It was more of a dig at myself, and a perspective check.
>But how would you address the problems these laws seek to resolve, while also minimizing the number of casualties of the long-haul battle
See
>which we'll still keep fighting, whether or not we get help from the government in the form of civil rights protections.
I would do just that. I wouldnt try to minimize the casualties, because they will exist ether way. Its like fighting for gun "rights" we already have the rights, it just about keeping them.
Honestly, im really not opposed to the civil rights act, and im not at all apposed to it covering transsexuals, I just think you have for the most part, already won your case in society at large, and getting government involved will only hurt you more than it helps in that regard.
>Yet another Luigi nerf!
Seriously! Taunts ARE moves. Even more than just taunts that do damage like Luigi, mindgames are a HUGE part of smash. To not be able to toss in a "show me your moves" in the middle of a combo, before kneeing someone to oblivion, so they are all disoriented for their next stock, really takes something away imo haha.
>Break the Targets was kind of lame in the games after Melee anyway
I havent owned a nintendo system, or a smash game since gamecube and melee haha. I've played them all, and none of them seemed worth the money to me, i just would go buy another gamecube and another copy of melee, i have like 6.... just in case.
>It's a worry of being unable to refuse someone, and them assuming it's because of who they are, or trying to paint it that way in court.
Really its a worry of how "private property" is viewed by law, and an erosion of those definitions and rights. The idea of private property is essential to a liberal society, and the more is becomes "private property except" the closer to our homes it comes.
"Not necessarily assuming, just preventing."
>Or when they write a bill called the "First Amendment Defense Act", which only defends the specific right to act on a conviction that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is between a man and a woman
Aye, or when the "defense of marriage act" is passed by a democratic party majority and signed by Clinton federally prohibiting gay marriage recognition... But hey, they thought it would get them votes... it didnt, so now there for gay rights.
>even the ones who claim they want to protect the rights you fear are in jeopardy aren't always doing it in good faith, and sometimes they're even more transparent about it.
This is why i favor the long haul, and keeping government out of it, and letting society work through it on its own.
> The Equality Act would even keep in check and prevent the most-feared affirmative action policy -- diversity quotas -- because if you can demonstrate that the reason you weren't hired is because the company preferred a less-qualified trans man over you as a cis man, you can prove they were in violation the newly amended Civil Rights Act and discriminated against on the basis of your gender identity.
I wasn't aware we were talking about a specific piece of legislation to be honest. Ill need to look into that. I've just been speaking generally this whole time. If there is already a bill written, i would like to read it before i comment about it specifically.
>diversity quotas
I have to agree, I think a lot of people this diversity quotas do more harm than good, but hey, thats what you get when you have government involved, more harm than good. Equal but separate i think the policy was for a while.. when really, blacks could have probably drank from the same fountains in most cases with out an issue anyway. Again, segregation was man made, and it was the REPEAL of that that law that caused the issue, because it changed the "norm" when if there had been no law in the first place, life would have probably just gotten on imo.
Again, to the bill your speaking to, i havent read it, or even really knew of its existence, so i cant say one thing or the other about it. If it gets rid of diversity quotas, and makes EVERYONE on the same footing, then I would probably be more inclined to back it.
>Well, as I said before, we're not gonna stop fighting the long haul method regardless of whether or not we get antidiscrimination law.
Good!
>"the Civil Rights Act hasn't solved everything and in some ways the situation has worsened over the years" being an argument that the Civil Rights Act was a net harm or even wasn't a net benefit. The black community has also been actively sabotaged by the government since then, with things like the CIA crack scandal.
I agree, you cant really say one way or the other the actually effect it has had. If anything, i would say it was probably a net positive. But to your CIA scandal, LBJ, the person who signed the civil rights act, had said that it was more of a carrot on a stick, rather than something of true equality. So im just kind of filling in the blanks, and figuring if the government is trying to sabotage the people they are also trying to protect, those people would have been better off without any interference from them in the first place. I mean, making a big deal out of it, in of itself, is kind of sabotaging, generating fear from the others, putting in stuff like diversity quotas to wedge the gap further when you don't get a job because your not the right colour.
Again, i think any social laws like this should only apply to the government itself, so when something like a crack sabotage is discovered, government can be punished.
> regardless of how you might feel about the BLM movement as a whole
I think they are a part of that culture sabotage you mentioned tbh.
>doesn't this raise some serious red flags and lend some credence to the idea that institutional oppression is alive and well, even if it's not as blatant as it was in the Jim Crow era?
It raises some serious flags that manufactured racism and cultural divide are on the agenda for the people it would benefit, namely, politicians.
(1/2)

Mk17 (ID: 40b62c)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213639

File: 1545615309924.png (244.92 KB, 364x485, makmak.PNG)

>>213564
(2/2)
Why do our convos always end up requiring more than one post? haha
__________________________
>Tyranny shouldn't be fought with more tyranny
Is exactly why i dont think more laws are the answer. If individuals are racist, or trans-phobic, even if its the majority, its still not tyranny, but if a law is written that makes it so they have to act one way or the other, that is.
Im not saying its right, im not saying i back racism and transphobia, im saying, that the government shouldn't be involved with the goings on of social issues.
Gays wouldnt have had to work for the "right" to get married, if it was never outlawed in the first place. They didnt ADD laws to do that, they took them away.
Trans folks already have every right that I have. You have the right to housing and employment, its just harder to get atm because the minds of the few people who are biggots havent been changed. Forcing them to do something against their will, artificially, has a strong possibility of having the opposite effect, and actually strengthening their convictions that you are out to "change" society, and corrupt their children or whatever nonsense they believe. When they are FORCED to do something, it will only deepen that resolve and make something like trans-phobia last longer imo.
>but it must be fought somehow
Long haul. I know thats probably getting annoying, but, if laws are not actively being made against you, I do honestly believe that the way to fight is to live your life, be a good person, interact with the community and naturally change peoples minds.
You know that these people who are scared of trans folks view this kind of thing as laws being made against them right? Why give them something to point to, and validate their shitty views?
>This is true. I wonder, though, how many people against gender identity (a category, not a subgroup) have no problem with these specific subgroups being protected, and would even be pissed if that were changed.
Probably a fair amount tbh. They are mostly the types who weep when "proud to be an american" is played at a monster truck rally and want to "support the troops" by sending them off to die haha. People who get their info from memes.
>Should governments face some sort of consequence for violating the First Amendment? Who watches the watchmen?
>Abolishing slavery was a constitutional amendment too. I don't know what the penalty is for owning a slave, but surely if someone tried to, someone would put a stop to it, no?
Yes they would, and thats the punishment. When there is a violation of the first amendment, the court rules you cant violate it like that anymore. Thats it, no one is fined, no one goes to jail, its just, if your town was stopping you from speaking in the public square, and you bring them to court, and its ruled that is a violation of your right, the law preventing you is null, and you can now speak in the square.
Thats the difference. Rights protect you from laws.
So a right that says trans people can be employed, would make it so that no law would say you cant. The rest is up to you.

Edit:
Not to mention, the abolition of slavery wasn't a part of the bill of rights. Prohibition was an amendment too... and it was the opposite of a right.
This post was edited by its author on .

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: 484b77)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  213670

File: 1545627202047.jpg (372.09 KB, 2048x1434, DoQmDiSV4AAesbv.jpg)

>>213636
(1/2)
>I would like to see how those statistics stack up against the general population.
That's a good question. Homeless people also likely don't have the best means to pursue legal action against shelters, even if they're violating the law, so the homeless issue in particular is a challenging one to address.

>This is true, and it backs up my idea that only people who already have mainstream acceptance normally get a law written to cover them. Its always lagging behind, and the problem is for the most part solved naturally before legislation gets around to it, because they wouldnt want to risk the votes.

Yeah, I tend to agree with that. Although I would argue that while currently, mainstream acceptance of trans people is higher than it probably ever has been in the US, it's kind of still "in the oven" in many parts of the country. But sometimes, changes in law or interpretation of the law can help tip the scales. Mainstream gay acceptance had been making leaps and bounds before Obergefell v. Hodges, but many politicians still opposed gay marriage. Following that ruling, many of those same politicians have since changed their tune, stating that they are "comfortable" with it now that it's the law of the land.

>No. I was a student at the time, and immune. But it did teach me a pretty big life lesson.

That's good. Hopefully that wouldn't have gotten through, because that sounds pretty damn frivolous.

>I'm saying, im acting as an anti-gun person would act, over exaggerating the problems that the laws would cause, and overestimating the risk of passing them. In a sense, viewing the laws as an anti-gunner views guns, that they will be overly abused and anyone who is covered by it will only use it to hurt someone.

Ahh, that makes sense. I guess I read it as unironic.

>I would do just that. I wouldnt try to minimize the casualties, because they will exist ether way. Its like fighting for gun "rights" we already have the rights, it just about keeping them.

>I just think you have for the most part, already won your case in society at large, and getting government involved will only hurt you more than it helps in that regard.
Fair enough. I question whether it would hurt more than it helps, though. But that's something that's kind of hard to prove, since things like resentment aren't easy to get accurate data on. I think for society at large it depends greatly on region, as I said, and is therefore still "in the oven" somewhat.

>Seriously! Taunts ARE moves. Even more than just taunts that do damage like Luigi, mindgames are a HUGE part of smash. To not be able to toss in a "show me your moves" in the middle of a combo, before kneeing someone to oblivion, so they are all disoriented for their next stock, really takes something away imo haha.

I agree! I hope it's only for the general online, and not for online with friends. The general online is still something they're actively working on and patching, particularly the matchmaking system.

>I've played them all, and none of them seemed worth the money to me, i just would go buy another gamecube and another copy of melee, i have like 6.... just in case.

6 copies of Melee, now that's dedication.

>Really its a worry of how "private property" is viewed by law, and an erosion of those definitions and rights. The idea of private property is essential to a liberal society, and the more is becomes "private property except" the closer to our homes it comes.

>private instead of privet
Heresy! Anyway, looking over the existing and proposed laws themselves, it seems the actual text doesn't address it as private property, but as public accommodations, something that is defined in different ways in different contexts. So that's probably something that warrants further research for either of us.

>Aye, or when the "defense of marriage act" is passed by a democratic party majority and signed by Clinton federally prohibiting gay marriage recognition... But hey, they thought it would get them votes... it didnt, so now there for gay rights.

Or when """"liberal darling"""" (lol) Hillary Clinton herself said that marriage "is as it has always been...between a man and a woman". I have no delusions about the Democratic Party being "the good guys", don't worry. Both major parties have a lot of dirty deeds against them, unquestioningly supporting either is a fool's game.

>This is why i favor the long haul, and keeping government out of it, and letting society work through it on its own.

That's fair. At the same time, I don't think any government action on this is bound to be tyranny replaced with other tyranny. But it depends how it's approached.

>I wasn't aware we were talking about a specific piece of legislation to be honest. Ill need to look into that. I've just been speaking generally this whole time. If there is already a bill written, i would like to read it before i comment about it specifically.

Text of the most recent version:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr2282/text

>If it gets rid of diversity quotas, and makes EVERYONE on the same footing, then I would probably be more inclined to back it.

I really think that it should. Diversity quotas seem to me to directly contradict the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause. For universities, SCOTUS ruled in 1978's Regents of UC v. Bakke that specific numerical quotas are impermissible and unconstitutional, but maintained that race was allowed to be a factor in admissions policy, a half-measure resulting from a plurality opinion, which later became a narrow majority opinion in 2003's Grutter v. Bollinger. I understand why some people think there is a need to give priority to historically marginalized groups, but I think such policies are shortsighted, unsustainable, and in many ways perpetuate the discrimination they hope to mitigate. I hope that in the long run, the "need" for them diminishes to a point where they are phased out and recognized as unconstitutional and illegal.

Unfortunately, that hope is essentially a hope that the government can have integrity, which...well, I suppose it's not impossible, but it's a big ol' yikes a lot of the time. I do believe there are some politicians and justices, be they republican, democrat, or independent, who genuinely have all of our best interests in mind, But it's really hard to tell which are which sometimes. To exist and function under a government means you have to trust it at least to a degree, but you've always got to be vigilant rather than doing so blindly.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: 484b77)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  213671

File: 1545627229114.png (350.67 KB, 1028x494, 1537646394850.png)

>>213639
(2/2)
>I think they are a part of that culture sabotage you mentioned tbh.
I don't completely agree, but I do think there are some bad-faith actors involved, and people who have unfortunately been duped by these bad-faith actors. Police brutality, and its underlying causes -- unchecked power that the police have, and the lack of clear consequence for unnecessary use of deadly force -- are real problems. While it's not a problem of race in a vacuum, it does seem to disproportionately affect black people, even in the absence of circumstances people may cite to excuse it, such as resisting arrest or "suspicious behavior". There are also many studies which show that black convicts are subjected to significantly longer prison sentences for the same crimes compared to white or even lighter-skinned black convicts, and are more likely to be tried as adults. These are the chief issues that the BLM movement arose to address. If we perceive BLM as an organization that has become corrupted and lost sight of these issues, we can distance ourselves from it, but we must be careful, in doing so, not to demonize those whose fight is to address these issues with guilt by association. Police brutality and inequities in the criminal justice system were also a significant issue during the civil rights movement, and a major criticism of the Civil Rights Act by the civil rights leaders of the day was its failure to address them.

>Why do our convos always end up requiring more than one post? haha

Probably because we both have intricate and nuanced views on these very intricate and nuanced issues!

>If individuals are racist, or trans-phobic, even if its the majority, its still not tyranny, but if a law is written that makes it so they have to act one way or the other, that is.

On that, I neither entirely agree nor disagree. Racism and transphobia are not tyranny in and of themselves, but if a person in power (whether government, corporate, or otherwise) is racist or transphobic, and uses their power in accordance with these views, they can certainly lead to tyranny. And I do think tyranny of the majority can exist, it's not limited to governments or even institutions.

>Trans folks already have every right that I have. You have the right to housing and employment, its just harder to get atm because the minds of the few people who are biggots havent been changed

I would argue that trans folks do have every natural right that everyone else has, as natural rights cannot be taken away, even by a government. But as far as legal rights are concerned, I do think there's an imbalance in them. But it depends on how you define rights. And even natural rights must be backed by some form of power. By definition, they cannot be taken away, but they can be violated if we don't have the power to prevent or oppose it. Granting that power is the very purpose of any and all law.

There's perhaps also a bit of a pragmatism versus idealism issue at play here. I think that could very well be the core of any disagreement between people who share the same ideals and values, on what is the role of government and law. I think I've said this before, but my ideal future is a world where the need for government and laws become obsolete entirely, not because lawlessness takes over, nor because we end up in a technofascist dystopia, but because the "goodness" of humanity wins out and resolves the root causes of "evil". But I don't know if that future will ever be possible, because history has shown that wherever imbalances of power exist, whether those are due to government interference or the lack thereof, tyranny will form. And I certainly know that it isn't possible now, because tyranny in many forms is alive and well, and will continue to be with or without a government. So I can't base my political policy preferences for current society on this ideal. I have to instead base them on limiting and undermining tyranny. For this, the government can be both an ally and an obstacle, sometimes simultaneously.

>You know that these people who are scared of trans folks view this kind of thing as laws being made against them right? Why give them something to point to, and validate their shitty views?

Well...in a sense, I guess they've kind of got a point. Is anyone truly "scared" of trans people, though? I kind of think we're more scared of transphobes than they are of us, and the term is a bit of a misnomer.

And do laws being "against" some people necessarily make those laws bad? Laws are themselves a balancing game of rights. While the Bill of Rights exists to protect us from infringements against our rights by the government, law exists to protect us from infringements against our rights by each other. Life is a natural right, and murder is a violation of that right, so we have laws to deter it. Laws against murder are, of course, against murderers, and indeed, prescribe punishments which infringe on the rights of said murderers -- but deterring murder is something that we need to do if we are to have a functioning society, and if we wish to protect the natural right to life. I'm very much in favor of rehabilitative justice rather than punitive or deterrent justice, and I would love a solution both pragmatic and idealistic that eliminates or seriously reduces the underlying factors which cause people to murder, such that penalties which infringe on rights become obsolete. But to my knowledge, we don't have such a solution yet, at least not one that doesn't infringe on a shitload of other rights -- so we're stuck with the immediate one that infringes on the fewest possible rights, while we search for the long haul one.

>Not to mention, the abolition of slavery wasn't a part of the bill of rights. Prohibition was an amendment too... and it was the opposite of a right.

Good point. Abolishing slavery was a law, not a right. But it was a law to protect a right, and it was protecting that right not only against infringement by the government, but against infringement by other people, who can be just as capable or sometimes even more capable of infringing on rights. What is a government, if not a collective of people who have great power? What is a politician, if not an individual with great power? Tyrants are merely people with power who use that power to violate or undermine the rights of others.
This post was edited by its author on .

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: 484b77)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  213673

File: 1545627621052.jpg (60.07 KB, 341x567, 1544773331482.jpg)

>>213671
Kinda regretting my picture choice here because it makes my post look angry. Ah well.

We're getting into some pretty abstract stuff now. I almost think a lot of the concepts in my second reply could warrant a separate thread.
This post was edited by its author on .

Mk17 (ID: 5a423f)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213674

File: 1545630374110.png (120.82 KB, 305x278, drt67.PNG)

>>213673
>We're getting into some pretty abstract stuff now. I almost think a lot of the concepts in my second reply could warrant a separate thread.

Yeah we are going a little crazy haha.

But i like it.

A reply will have to wait till morning though, because i really need to get to bed. I haven't done ANY Christmas shopping, and i have to have it all done by 5pm tomorrow haha.

Gonna be a loooooong day.

But ill start it off with a reply.

...i know iv said that before and didnt make good, but this time, i mean it!

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: 484b77)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  213675

File: 1545630698089.jpg (608.06 KB, 713x1000, __yakumo_yukari_touhou_drawn_b…)

>>213674
Good night, and good luck!

And don't worry, I've been guilty of the same, even in this thread; delaying my response to lostpony even ended up severely undermining the quality of the response. It happens.

a lost pony !piNKiEPie. (ID: ea891f)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213690

File: 1545638342702.png (77.2 KB, 376x267, happy20.png)

>>213675
lost pony's own responses are of low quality regardless of sleep.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: 484b77)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  213697

File: 1545643200405.jpg (85.21 KB, 620x805, __seki_hiromi_idolmaster_cinde…)

>>213690
I actually feel bad tbh. When I went to sleep (which was also delayed due to a private conversation about TERFs, in defense of them funnily enough), I really had a thoughtful and in-depth analysis planned out. And then naturally, I ignored my alarm, because literally fuck my alarm. And, also naturally, when I woke up, I fucked around doing other bullshit for a good couple hours, because who can resume what they were doing before sleeping immediately upon arousal, or even immediately after breakfast? It'd certainly take superhuman self discipline, or perhaps ordinary human self discipline, but I often fall short of both.

None of what happened after I woke up even mattered though, because let's face it, the seeds of my train of thought's destruction were planted the moment I went to bed. I didn't have points to respond to; it was only my own ideas that I had to express, and the specific ideas, as well as the means by which I wanted to express them, largely evaporated as I slumbered.

a lost pony !piNKiEPie. (ID: ea891f)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213707

File: 1545644341192.png (131.07 KB, 278x327, 1545052286930-1.png)

>>213697
Well don't feel bad on account of me. Theres not much point in me consuming anyone's sleep time, or me being serious around here anyway. My better function is to make low quality sex jokes.

>immediately upon arousal

Ah yes, huh huh. Exactly.

Edit: i know what you mean tho about losing an idea. Thoughts can be fleeting.
This post was edited by its author on .

Mk17 (ID: 5a423f)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213733

File: 1545669193754.png (266.17 KB, 470x507, 778899955.PNG)

>>213670
I'm doing it! I'm actually doing it! haha
(1/2)
>Although I would argue that while currently, mainstream acceptance of trans people is higher than it probably ever has been in the US, it's kind of still "in the oven" in many parts of the country.
I would say the same, and its getting better as I see it, and honestly, pretty fast compared to the fight that others had had to endure. A lot of people conflate being trans with being gay, so even if they arnt correct, it still has a coat tail to ride on with the current acceptance of gays, which took a lot of the heavy lifting out.
>But sometimes, changes in law or interpretation of the law can help tip the scales.
Right, but which way is the part I'm concerned about.
>Mainstream gay acceptance had been making leaps and bounds before Obergefell v. Hodges, but many politicians still opposed gay marriage.
Right, but its a different situation, there were laws that made it illegal for gays to be married, specifically. Thats why they had to fight legislative battles, just to not be put in a cage for doing what they were doing. To my knowledge, there are no specific laws that say trans folks specifically cant get married or hold employment, or see their loved ones in the hospital. Which is why your "long haul" has pretty much already been done, the heavy lifting was done by the gay community, and your pretty much on the final stretch, which is why getting gov't involved now seems risky to me.
>I question whether it would hurt more than it helps, though. But that's something that's kind of hard to prove, since things like resentment aren't easy to get accurate data on.
You will always be resented for something by someone. I dont wear all my personal things on my sleeve, and i try to be polite and stuff, but people still find a way haha. So dreaming of a world where no one is resented, esp of a minority, is a fools errand and just leads to unnecessary angst imo. The only way to battle people who resent people specifically for being trans, is not feeding the trolls.
>I hope it's only for the general online, and not for online with friends.
I dont know what the case it, i hope you are right. If i spend money on this, we better be playing haha.
>6 copies of Melee, now that's dedication.
I have dreams of our retirement homes being off the hook, with weed and smash and good music. Then i laugh when i think the kids of the day will look at us like we are playing bridge and listening to Nat King Cole haha.
>Anyway, looking over the existing and proposed laws themselves, it seems the actual text doesn't address it as private property, but as public accommodations, something that is defined in different ways in different contexts.
If they mean public accommodations as in the rest area maintained by the state on I95, then I agree. If redefining someones privet (I CANT SPELL IT OKAY!?) business as a public accommodation is what is happening, it validates my concern. Even if that place is as big as a mall, its still prayvieyt property and redefining it is still a march toward a place i dont want society to be, personally.
>So that's probably something that warrants further research for either of us.
This is also true, im using a lot of assumptions and "what ifs" in my arguments, but I've been talking more pragmatically as the convo get more philosophic haha.
>Or when """"liberal darling"""" (lol) Hillary Clinton herself said that marriage "is as it has always been...between a man and a woman".
As did Obama...
>I have no delusions about the Democratic Party being "the good guys", don't worry. Both major parties have a lot of dirty deeds against them, unquestioningly supporting either is a fool's game.
I agree, and you never come off as being on a "team" which is why we can hold a good convo haha.
>I don't think any government action on this is bound to be tyranny replaced with other tyranny. But it depends how it's approached.
I agree, government action is absolutely necessary regarding many things. But i see it being used to try to solve problems like its a magic wand sometimes, which isnt the case. Its more like alchemy where you have to give up something of value to get what you want haha.
>Text of the most recent version
I'll try to check it out when i have time. Today is not the day haha.
>but maintained that race was allowed to be a factor in admissions policy
Literally the opposite of equality.
>which later became a narrow majority opinion in 2003's Grutter v. Bollinger.
Admittedly, you have a much higher knowledge of civil rights cases and legislation. You have more of a vested interest in it, such as me with firearms litigation. So i take your words on faith.
You're my teacher in these matters haha. Oh captain, my captain!
>but I think such policies are shortsighted, unsustainable, and in many ways perpetuate the discrimination they hope to mitigate. I hope that in the long run, the "need" for them diminishes to a point where they are phased out and recognized as unconstitutional and illegal.
I get the good faith argument that allowed these laws to be passed, but part of living in a free society is taking the good with the bad. If they are unconstitutional, they should be deemed such from the get go, not when its convenient. It for sure helped a lot of minorities get into schools and stuff, but is it worth the imbalance in tangible equality? The best way to go about it imo would be to make it so you cant even know what the race is, like on a job application. That puts people on an even footing, to be judged by their deeds, rather than how they were born.
>Unfortunately, that hope is essentially a hope that the government can have integrity, which...well, I suppose it's not impossible, but it's a big ol' yikes a lot of the time. I do believe there are some politicians and justices, be they republican, democrat, or independent, who genuinely have all of our best interests in mind, But it's really hard to tell which are which sometimes.
I like your idea of an obsolete government, and I think humanity is really moving in that direction. Poverty, crime, and violence are as low as they have ever been in human history atm despite what the news says. Honestly, i think the government trying to push it, is a road block to seeing even more improvement, as their only tactic is violence.
>To exist and function under a government means you have to trust it at least to a degree, but you've always got to be vigilant rather than doing so blindly.
Thats freedom! haha.

Mk17 (ID: 5a423f)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213739

File: 1545671140215.png (214.87 KB, 402x432, 12121214545.PNG)

>>213671
(2/2)
>I don't completely agree, but I do think there are some bad-faith actors involved, and people who have unfortunately been duped by these bad-faith actors.
This is kind of what i meant. I think the movement was hijacked almost immediately. This is not uncommon, but once it happens, when people double down on it, it makes things worse. BLM went from a peaceful thing, to a crazy thing saying all cops are killers and shootings, and riots and shit. That was a tactical move imo, because keeping the races split into voter blocks, is advantageous for the people who depend on it.
I think the same thing of antifa and "the gay boys" or whatever too.
>Probably because we both have intricate and nuanced views on these very intricate and nuanced issues!
Hmmmm.... nahhhhhh! haha.
>Racism and transphobia are not tyranny in and of themselves, but if a person in power (whether government, corporate, or otherwise) is racist or transphobic, and uses their power in accordance with these views, they can certainly lead to tyranny.
Oh of course! Which is why im deeply in favor of laws that apply to the government itself, to prevent that from happening.
>And I do think tyranny of the majority can exist, it's not limited to governments or even institutions.
I think it exists as a feeling... but I think its just nature. I mean, to use your example, would most people being against murder be tyranny or just human nature? I know it can feel that way, but if you can change it just by talking to someone, and someone cant legally kidnap you and force you into a cage because of it, I dont see it as tyranny, just something that needs to be changed.
>But as far as legal rights are concerned, I do think there's an imbalance in them.
Can you give me an example, because as far as i know, there are no laws barring a trans person from something based on the fact that they are trans.
>And even natural rights must be backed by some form of power.
Thats why we have the right to defense. Thats literally why we are allowed firearms haha. The only thing that can defend your natural rights, is you.
>There's perhaps also a bit of a pragmatism versus idealism issue at play here.
I was just saying! haha
>I think I've said this before, but my ideal future is a world where the need for government and laws become obsolete entirely, not because lawlessness takes over, nor because we end up in a technofascist dystopia, but because the "goodness" of humanity wins out and resolves the root causes of "evil".
I really like this idea, and i think its kind of what this nation was idealistically built on. Its why i argue that if you want that to be, you cant rely on the thing you want to be obsolete to get you there. Its the long haul method! haha. Learning how to deal with these problems, with out government, is the only way to deal with these problems without the need for government.
> For this, the government can be both an ally and an obstacle, sometimes simultaneously.
Atm, yes. But we need to start weening at some point imo.
>Well...in a sense, I guess they've kind of got a point. Is anyone truly "scared" of trans people, though?
Like they see you and run away? No. But that they are concerned that it will influence their children to make a "choice" or that people will make that choice for their children? Yes. Its against the norm, and against how people see the "natural order" and the unknown is scary.
>And do laws being "against" some people necessarily make those laws bad?
No, but they can make the same argument about banning gay marriage. Who is good and bad and what laws are good and bad, these are matters of perspective.
As for the murder example, there is a huge difference between a violent crime, and someone feeling like a law is against them for having a thought. Making a law against someone for thinking its wrong to be trans but being an otherwise good person is far away from making a law against someone who kills people.
I'm not saying that person is right, and im not saying its right to think that way, but is IS their RIGHT to do so, and even though the law wont specifically say "you cant think that way" its how it comes across. I've talked to a lot of people who are trans and homophobic, and this is what they express most often.
Honestly, the tactic that I've been using most often to try to get them to "get" it, is explaining Toys perspective of "isnt it bad enough i have to live with this, without a bunch of SJWs and politicians hijacking it for personal gain?" You would be surprised how relived people who hold a bias against transsexualism are to hear something like that. It humanizes it, and it takes away the fear that you are out to change society, rather than just get along in it. Esp because, you have to understand, a lot of these people think you are making a "choice" to be trans, and no one has explained otherwise, so they feel like your choice is being pushed on them.
Even if they aren't "technically" correct, or flat out wrong, about what the laws do, its how they feel, and that sets you back a step in actual, natural acceptance, esp at a time where its so on the fence.


Also, Merry Christmas! ^_^
This post was edited by its author on .

!Slavshit.Y (ID: 1c57de)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213795

File: 1545688678194.png (678.17 KB, 600x871, star_guardian_ahri_by_felichan…)

Ah, giant text walls. How I missed you.

(ID: fe96d0)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213796

File: 1545689058513.png (600.13 KB, 780x768, 0976575675.png)

>>213795
they never do!

!Slavshit.Y (ID: 1c57de)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213797

File: 1545689463669.jpg (140.25 KB, 878x911, popstar_ruby_ver__by_midorinem…)

>>213796

Dude should just bake the damn cake.

It's such a stupid thing to fight over. Who gives a fuck what it's for if you're getting paid?

Moreover, what's with these people who can't find another baker than this guy? Or better yet, just bake their own cake? Sounds like they're just trying to give him a hard time at this point.

(ID: fe96d0)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213798

File: 1545689941727.png (322.69 KB, 752x768, 978897979.png)

>>213797
because people are hard headed thats why

its much easier to make something a bigger deal than it needs to be

the baker is hard headed and the people know that

so they do their best to make it a public outrage

Mk17 (p-hone) (ID: 87d588)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213816

File: 1545709310304.png (218.69 KB, 477x479, 77774147.PNG)

>>213795
Glad to see someone appreciates the hard work that goes into a finely crafted textwall.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: 484b77)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  213825

File: 1545722071686.png (557.15 KB, 800x579, 57168711_p1(1).png)

>>213733
>A lot of people conflate being trans with being gay, so even if they arnt correct, it still has a coat tail to ride on with the current acceptance of gays, which took a lot of the heavy lifting out.
Based gays helping us out, even though some of them don't actually want to.

>Right, but which way is the part I'm concerned about.

>To my knowledge, there are no specific laws that say trans folks specifically cant get married or hold employment, or see their loved ones in the hospital
True, but there also weren't laws that said gay people can't hold employment. And the government is already getting involved, trying to get laws made against us, which say we can't be legally seen as women/men, and essentially render intersex people a legal nonentity. Which most seem to agree is explicitly for the purpose of shutting us out of the Civil Rights Act, which...seems kinda unconstitutional considering the Equal Protection Clause.

>So dreaming of a world where no one is resented, esp of a minority, is a fools errand and just leads to unnecessary angst imo. The only way to battle people who resent people specifically for being trans, is not feeding the trolls.

Right, what I mean is, measuring the resentment that may or may not have arisen as a side effect of the currently existing antidiscrimination laws.

>If i spend money on this, we better be playing haha.

Don't worry, we will. I used to play hella Smash, you better believe I'm expanding my group of Smash friends now that geography's no barrier.

>Then i laugh when i think the kids of the day will look at us like we are playing bridge and listening to Nat King Cole haha.

They already do, damn zoomers with their Tick Tock Hit or Miss and their Fort Nights Royal Battle.

>If they mean public accommodations as in the rest area maintained by the state on I95, then I agree. If redefining someones privet (I CANT SPELL IT OKAY!?) business as a public accommodation is what is happening, it validates my concern. Even if that place is as big as a mall, its still prayvieyt property and redefining it is still a march toward a place i dont want society to be, personally.

Looking into it, it seems they're generally defined as anything that is used by the public, regardless of public or private ownership. Which...I dunno, I can understand the "right to refuse service" perspective, but that definition makes sense to me. If it's open to the general public, it's not really the same kind of private property as your house. You don't go to work in your underwear, for instance. I don't really understand how anyone could feel so comfortable at their job that it's like a "second home" tbh, regardless of being able to refuse service...but I'm never comfortable in public.

The fact that we even describe being in like, Walmart as being "in public" kind of legitimizes that definition of public accommodations, doesn't it? Maybe Marxists have the right idea when it comes to distinguishing between private and personal property.

>I agree, and you never come off as being on a "team" which is why we can hold a good convo haha.

Oh, I'm on plenty of teams. Just not the two big ones, and none that I'm "on" have authority over what I think. Maybe "on" is the wrong way to put it, more "with".

>Its more like alchemy where you have to give up something of value to get what you want haha.

That's true. One should always be wary of surrendering rights.

>Literally the opposite of equality.

Yep. I hope the race meme dies someday. In a vacuum, it's basically worthless on a societal level, and the only reason it isn't in practice is because of damage that was caused by artificially inflating its value.

>I get the good faith argument that allowed these laws to be passed, but part of living in a free society is taking the good with the bad. If they are unconstitutional, they should be deemed such from the get go, not when its convenient.

I agree. I'm not saying the good faith argument is either valid or invalid in itself, because that's really something I don't believe I'm qualified to feel fully comfortable opining on. However, given existing laws and standards that we have in place, regardless of the good faith arguments, it does represent a legal contradiction. What I'm saying is, as the problems that fuel the good faith arguments matter less and are resolved, the weight the good faith arguments have that are used to justify them against the legal contradiction will decrease as well, and defending them will become a lot harder. Eventually, even the "race does matter in practice unfortunately" progressives will have to make a definitive choice between that and "race shouldn't matter". And if they are truly acting in good faith, they will choose the latter.

>I like your idea of an obsolete government, and I think humanity is really moving in that direction. Poverty, crime, and violence are as low as they have ever been in human history atm despite what the news says. Honestly, i think the government trying to push it, is a road block to seeing even more improvement, as their only tactic is violence.

I agree -- somewhat. But you also acknowledge that for some things, government action is necessary. I think to some degree, when it comes to which actions are or aren't necessary, we're both speaking from an inherent bias in the way we perceive these laws might affect us, or those we relate to. You worry more about the business owner whom you might sympathize with, potentially being negatively impacted by a fraudulent discrimination lawsuit, and growing resentful toward the trans community as a side effect of that, while I worry more that a fellow trans person will be hindered in their social mobility by discrimination that they have no protection against.

But, I think that even behind a veil of ignorance, knowing only the state of society as it is, and nothing about myself, I would still give more weight to the discriminated than the discriminator when determining the morality of antidiscrimination law. Even with these laws, I think the discriminator has the de facto position of more power in most cases -- at least in the cases of employment and housing.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: 484b77)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  213828

File: 1545724257008.jpg (117.86 KB, 1011x1200, 69791906_p0.jpg)

>>213739
>That was a tactical move imo, because keeping the races split into voter blocks, is advantageous for the people who depend on it.
It is. But do you think the black community are the only ones being manipulated? Doesn't this affect the white folks as well, who see BLM as a domestic terrorist organization, and are likewise more liable to downplay even the legitimate issues that created the movement in the first place?

>Which is why im deeply in favor of laws that apply to the government itself, to prevent that from happening.

Yes. And I agree wholeheartedly that laws should keep the government in check. But I don't think the government is the only thing that can have disproportionate, unjust power, and needs to be kept in check to prevent tyranny.

>I know it can feel that way, but if you can change it just by talking to someone, and someone cant legally kidnap you and force you into a cage because of it, I dont see it as tyranny, just something that needs to be changed.

Can you always change it just by talking to someone, though? Some people are distrustful regardless of anecdotal positive experiences with people they are bigoted against, or facts and research backing up their legitimacy. And I think that lack of social mobility is a cage, and barring people access to the things that grant social mobility is a form of tyranny, which can keep them in that cage.

>Can you give me an example, because as far as i know, there are no laws barring a trans person from something based on the fact that they are trans.

Everyone has, on a federal level, the legal right to not be discriminated against on the basis of being a certain race or sex. Nobody has, on a federal level, the legal right to not be discriminated against on the basis of being a certain gender identity. Since nobody really gets discriminated against for being of a "normal" gender identity, and discrimination thereof is probably covered by protections for sex anyway (or at least would surely be ruled as such in court), this gives them a de facto legal right that trans, GNC, and nonbinary people lack.

>Thats why we have the right to defense. Thats literally why we are allowed firearms haha. The only thing that can defend your natural rights, is you.

Exactly! But the means to defend a right to employment and housing (which is not a natural right per se, but we both seem to agree is a right in some capacity) isn't as straightforward as the power that defends rights to life or liberty. It's a power that not everyone has the same access to, even if they might have comparable financial resources.

>Learning how to deal with these problems, with out government, is the only way to deal with these problems without the need for government.

Well, I, for one, will never murder anyone. That violates extremely fundamental core principles I hold. But I wouldn't repeal the laws that prohibit murder, even though murderers are surely a minority of the population, because that's not a problem that's fully solved, and some would-be murderers, perhaps, are even only deterred from it by the laws, rather than their own personal values. Those laws aren't obsolete until things would not change, or would change for the better, in the absence thereof.

>But we need to start weening at some point imo.

On some things, I think we already do. Drug policies are a major one, those I think were a mistake to begin with. But I also think there are things we needed the "training wheels" for that we never really got. Environmental issues and carbon output are the most obvious example there, I think.

>But that they are concerned that it will influence their children to make a "choice" or that people will make that choice for their children? Yes. Its against the norm, and against how people see the "natural order" and the unknown is scary.

Well, in that sense, they do their children a disservice in more than one way. If their children are actually transgender, being taught that what they are is "wrong" is extremely damaging to their psychological well-being. if their children aren't, but are taught that it's a choice and the "wrong" one, sooner or later they will learn information contrary to the latter, and might "decide" to make that "choice", partly out of spite and partly because they want to "see for themselves". If their children are shielded from the reality that transgender people do exist, I think that's objectively harmful, not because I want their children to be trans, but because lack of education on a subject leads to poor decisions if faced with that subject.

>As for the murder example, there is a huge difference between a violent crime, and someone feeling like a law is against them for having a thought. Making a law against someone for thinking its wrong to be trans but being an otherwise good person is far away from making a law against someone who kills people.

True. But murder and discrimination on basis of gender identity are both harmful, aren't they? Murder is certainly far more harmful, that's an extreme example, and I'm not arguing they should be approached with anywhere near the same level of severity. But both murder and discrimination begin with a thought, or at the very least an impulse. In both cases, it's not the thought we want to prevent, but the action.

You can be transphobic, you can be homophobic, you can be racist or sexist. But you can't engage in certain actions that are harmful toward the people you have these feelings toward. It's already illegal to murder a trans person, even though some people certainly think trans people would be better off dead, and that they themselves would be better off if trans people didn't exist/were all dead. This is why the custom cake example is where I draw the line, because it crosses the action-thought line, forcing an action that expresses a thought they don't agree with, in a way more harmful to the actor than the acted upon. Having to give a trans person equal consideration for a job, despite not particularly caring for the idea of people being trans, isn't the same thing as having to make a trans pride cake despite not particularly caring for the idea of trans pride. The principles at play, and the consequences at stake, are fundamentally different.

>and it takes away the fear that you are out to change society, rather than just get along in it

In a certain sense, we are, though. If there is a problem in society that hinders our ability to get along in it, and we want to resolve that problem, then by definition we are out to change society. But people seem to think we want more than what we say we do, like that we're trying to turn their kids trans...we don't, although we do want their kids to get the care they need if they are. That's an important distinction, which unfortunately is probably not helped by confused moms who were barred from proper education on what it means to be trans, and think their son playing with dolls has to mean "off comes the penis". But it's not our fault those moms think that way, and things like that are actually one of the problems we want to solve with the changes we hope to effect in society -- the root cause is the the lack of education, caused by people being shielded from or shielding themselves from reality, leading to poor decisions like those.

And Merry Christmas to you too!

>>213795
Average Starshine and Mk17 thread. These are far removed from the typical angry screeds we used to get around here, though.

>>213797
>Dude should just bake the damn cake.
I agree, but should he be legally required to? That's the bigger debate at hand here. Or well, not really, we're pretty much on the same page that he shouldn't be, the debate is more about whether discrimination as a whole should be a legal issue. Also a bit of is-ought at play, and more abstractly, the role of law in relation to rights as a whole.
This post was edited by its author on .

Hauptmann (ID: b7a2ad)Country code: jp, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213842

File: 1545727558618.png (379.56 KB, 588x656, __revy_black_lagoon_drawn_by_m…)

sounds like this dude just wants support from all the red hats.

!Slavshit.Y (ID: 1c57de)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  213980

File: 1545756377390.jpg (189.43 KB, 1024x1325, ahri_fan_art_by_jbpain24-d9huc…)

>>213828

Of course he shouldn't be forced, but as a businessman his priority should be doing as much (ethical) business as possible. Even as a "Christian", he would not be violating a single tenet of his faith by baking someone a cake. If he really cared, he could take the money from that exchange and donate it to the church or to a worthy cause.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: 484b77)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  214117

>>213980
Yeah, refusing to bake the cakes has proven to be a pretty bad business decision for him. His store lost like 40% of its business in the wake of the wedding cake controversy.

Mk17 (p-hone) (ID: a16ab1)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  214120

File: 1545799657176.png (105.57 KB, 259x251, 161616.PNG)

>>213828
I do plan to reply, but the past 48 hrs has been a roller coaster haha.

Im spent, just want to turn off my brain for a bit. Ill catch up with it tomorrow.

Hope your Christmas was good!

(ID: 3308b2)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  214223

File: 1545852109656.png (131.31 KB, 228x455, 76756867987978.png)

>>213825
> it's not really the same kind of private property as your house
it absolutely is though. the owner built the business with his/her own funds, his/her own time. it isnt publicly ran by government or any tax dollars. it's ran by the owner his/herself

>>214117
>His store lost like 40% of its business in the wake of the wedding cake controversy.
see how this works, now? refusing business to people has its consequences in itself

again, im sorry if this doesnt fit to your standard of good discussion or textwalls

but this is some shit i gotta point out
This post was edited by its author on .

Ika (ID: 68e102)Country code: mx, country type: geoip, valid: 1  214225

File: 1545853527476.png (988.59 KB, 1060x907, 66d0fd782891df0a2c000a2f85a725…)

>>214117
In this case I'd say society has taken care of the issue without any sort of intervention. The baker doesn't need to be forced to make gay cakes as his business will be the one that suffers from the bad rep he will get from being a bigoted idiot.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: 484b77)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  214235

File: 1545862449885.jpg (114.5 KB, 1000x1000, IMG_20181225_180025.jpg)

>>214120
Take your time, can't be going hard all the time.

>>214223
>it absolutely is though. the owner built the business with his/her own funds, his/her own time. it isnt publicly ran by government or any tax dollars. it's ran by the owner his/herself
In that regard, yes, it is. And you can argue that, because of this, it ought to be treated the same way in the eyes of the law. But it's not treated the same way in the eyes of the law, in more ways than just antidiscrimination law, and I think there are some crucial differences that explain this.

As a private homeowner, you don't want the public in and out of your house on a daily basis. Your private residence is where you go to be away from the public. You're not (in a majority of cases) selling goods and services out of your home. You don't have employees who potentially spend more time in your home than you yourself do. You're not subject to the same fire codes and safety regulations. Your home's only purpose is to accommodate you.

Your business, depending on what kind of business it is, has the core purpose of accommodating the public. So it's...a public accommodation. That's my layman's explanation of why I think the law defines public accommodation the way it does. The distinction, I think, is a valid one, and I think its existence is justified.

But does this mean that antidiscrimination law ought to trump the right to refuse service? I think there are strong moral and pragmatic arguments for both cases, and they lie not in that distinction between business and residence, but in the rights being protected, and in how discrimination affects the mechanics of the market.

The moral arguments tie into what I was saying in >>213671, about the role of law being to protect us from infringements on our rights by each other. The case for antidiscrimination law in public accommodations is that, regardless of identity, people have a right to equal participation in the consumer end of the market -- and that being refused service on the basis of identity is an infringement on that right, and does not outweigh the right to refuse service (which is reserved, but only for "valid" reasons). The case against is that business owners, due to their business being their property, have a right to do as they wish with that property -- even if it is property they open to the public -- and, as such, have a right to include or exclude whomever they wish from entering an exchange with them, for any reason, which would be infringed on by not only customers who want to force what, in their eyes, should be a voluntary exchange, but also by the government who facilitates turning that voluntary exchange into a forced one. Which argument you are likely to find stronger is based in part on which right you believe is more essential, in part on where you think one right ends and the other begins, and in part on whether you believe involving government in that exchange is itself a worse violation of rights than anything a business owner could do.

For some, perhaps, it could even go farther than that -- you could believe that that there is no moral right to refuse service, or on the other end, that there is no moral right to equal participation/nondiscrimination, and that all transactions in a market are inherently voluntary exchanges, and therefore equally dictated (in theory) by producer and consumer.

Critics of the former positions argue that this harms the enterprise and market, disincentivizing the producer and entrepreneur by limiting their power to make use of resources that they've worked for and rightfully own. Critics of the latter positions say that since the producer has the product which the consumer wants or needs, they are in the de facto position of power to dictate the terms of the exchange; a common response to this criticism is that in many cases the consumer has more power, as the producers, too, depend on the financial resources they receive from the consumer, and will not be able to close the transaction if the consumer finds the terms disagreeable.

There is also a perception that, as you go further in either direction, you get closer to pure communism, where private property is not considered a right at all, and is replaced by personal property, i.e. your house and your toothbrush, or to pure laissez-faire capitalism, where there is no right to equal participation or to not be discriminated against, and exchanges are said to be equally dictated by both the producer and consumer.

Consequently, ideologues of both flavors may clutch their pearls at arguments closer to the opposite end of the spectrum, not necessarily out of regard for empirical and pragmatic factors backing up those particular arguments and positions, but out of what they believe ought to be, influenced by adherence to the core tenets of, and even empirical or pragmatic factors backing up, the ideologies as a whole.

Personally, I think these ideologues blind themselves and others to the bigger picture of reality as a whole, in substituting the "bigger picture" of their own ideologies. Decisions of policy should be based not on what is "more communist" or "more capitalist", but on the merits and consequences of the policies themselves. Neither communism nor capitalism, nor any other individual ideology or philosophy, adequately account for the complexities of human nature and modern society, and favoring ideological purity over real-world consequences manufactures and maintains flaws inherent to said ideologies.

Empirically, when businesses and corporations have unlimited power, they have proven throughout history their ability to grow and undercut competitors to a degree where they are less dependent on the consumer's money than the consumer is on their product, and the consumer's need for what they sell outweighs their need for a fair transaction, effectively evaporating their bargaining power. This is what antitrust laws sought to counteract.

But empirically, we are seeing that discriminatory business practices can be disincentivized simply by the exclusion of paying consumers, and by loss of support from sympathetic consumers, both in the case of the cake shop and in other cases like Abercrombie "we don't make clothes for ugly people" and Fitch. You and I both acknowledge this:
>see how this works, now? refusing business to people has its consequences in itself

In the context of antidiscrimination laws, they should theoretically have only a positive effect on a business's profitability, as limiting the consumer base through identity-based discrimination means a business has fewer people to make a profit from, even without the possibility of moral outrage leading to even non-discriminated groups taking their business elsewhere. This pragmatic argument can, ironically, be made both in favor of and against such laws ("it wouldn't harm anything" from one end, "it wouldn't help anything" from the other), but it does also hinge on the particulars of whether discriminator or discriminated has more influence over the market. There is also the confounding factor of how the existence or lack of these laws influence the public perception of discriminatory business practices, something which is difficult for us to quantify, as we view the world through the zeitgeist of our time, and cultural attitudes and knowledge change over time.

>>214225
That does seem to be the case, yeah. Though one does also wonder if his discrimination would be widely known, had it not generated the legal controversy that made it national news.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: 484b77)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  214237

File: 1545862984559.png (358.52 KB, 550x755, 1459874515937.png)

>>214223
You don't have to reply to all of that, mind. I'm not really taking or backing up a hardline stance here, because to me, it's really a logical and moral gray area.

(ID: 184696)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  214239

File: 1545863402121.png (651.95 KB, 949x755, 4324235654.png)

>>214235
i know what youre saying when it comes to moral aspect and the law

i fully understand why there is anti-discrimination laws

im saying it really isn't as necessary as i believe many people think it is

sometimes social pressure is just as powerful as government rule

>Empirically, when businesses and corporations have unlimited power, they have proven throughout history their ability to grow and undercut competitors to a degree where they are less dependent on the consumer's money than the consumer is on their product, and the consumer's need for what they sell outweighs their need for a fair transaction, effectively evaporating their bargaining power. This is what antitrust laws sought to counteract.

actually not quite

businesses and corporations get their power from protectionism which is the number one cause to the whole monopoly problem

granted im not saying those issues you pointed out dont occur

>In the context of antidiscrimination laws, they should theoretically have only a positive effect on a business's profitability, as limiting the consumer base through identity-based discrimination means a business has fewer people to make a profit from,

fair point, but i am just saying sometimes social pressure can be just as effective than the law

>>214237
most of the times when im not agreeing to certain points of yours is mainly because i agree with your position

i get this is important to you

but me, i would rather be dealing with honest assholes who refuse to serve me than one who is forced to serve me under law

but i have a question for you

i saw a video just like last where nail salon refused to serve a group of flamboyant black men. they were actually being pretty rude

the nail salon called the police and the police escorted them out and trespassed them

the black dudes claimed its because they're black to the police

do you think that nail salon should be punished?

Ika (ID: 68e102)Country code: mx, country type: geoip, valid: 1  214241

File: 1545864136570.jpg (318.58 KB, 996x896, 6407f524e5e0a4e16c9ae381ddbc08…)

>>214235
Most businesses are rated online nowadays and well, you know how people pile on others in the current political climate. All one person needs to do is to make their situation known and the internet will do the rest.

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: 484b77)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  214242

File: 1545864328615.png (1.13 MB, 1200x848, 1459909087247.png)

>>214239
>im saying it really isn't as necessary as i believe many people think it is
I don't disagree with that.

>businesses and corporations get their power from protectionism which is the number one cause to the whole monopoly problem

Was it protectionism that gave Standard Oil Company and Trust its power?

>do you think that nail salon should be punished?

Based only on what you've told me, no.

(ID: 184696)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  214243

File: 1545864609123.png (196.63 KB, 334x456, 657687687987908.png)

>>214242
>Was it protectionism that gave Standard Oil Company and Trust its power?
sure is, these guys get loads of subsidies from government

>Based only on what you've told me, no.

well, why not? their service is being refused

they werent being rude at first

they just wanted their nails done

is that not discrimination?

Starshine!Laura/wmXM (ID: 484b77)Country code: lunachan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  214317

>>214243
>they werent being rude at first
>they just wanted their nails done
What prompted them to start being rude? What prompted the salon to turn them away in the first place?

!ScyphTlOY6 (ID: ad9c21)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  214320

>>214243
>sure is, these guys get loads of subsidies from government
Even 110 years ago?

(ID: 184696)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  214321

File: 1545879988642.png (677.24 KB, 940x787, 5453454353475.png)

>>214317
they just wanted them to leave

i dont know the reason, really

>>214320
government subsidies isnt anything new

although during the industrial revolution it was more of a competitive thing between the private and public sector

for example government used to subsidize rail road companies

hell, they did same with ships while the vanderbelt in the private sector did it better and cheaper

back then you had to actually ask congress for help while today if youre too big to fail you get help without much effort
This post was edited by its author on .

Mk17 (ID: 47ea57)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  214576

File: 1545966155923.png (484.38 KB, 526x660, 13254654.PNG)

>>213825
(1/2)
>Based gays helping us out, even though some of them don't actually want to.
Ha, still though, it paved the way for "alternative lifestyles" to gain mainstream success. I find it crazy that people who are gay can say stuff like "oh thats just crazy, they have a mental problem" regarding transsexuals. I have friends that are gay, and married, and they said this to me once, i was like... are you kidding? thats what they said about YOU haha. But people will be people i suppose.
>And the government is already getting involved, trying to get laws made against us, which say we can't be legally seen as women/men, and essentially render intersex people a legal nonentity. Which most seem to agree is explicitly for the purpose of shutting us out of the Civil Rights Act, which...seems kinda unconstitutional considering the Equal Protection Clause.
This is worth fighting, and where the focus should be imo.
>Right, what I mean is, measuring the resentment that may or may not have arisen as a side effect of the currently existing antidiscrimination laws.
That would be an interesting thing to know, but unfortunately i think its kind of a tall order, and not possible.
Some of my argument is based on the assumption that it may had a negative effect, so i do wish to know know definitively, even if it proves me wrong.
The only thing i can base it off of now, is talking to individuals and getting their perspective, and its what i see.
>Don't worry, we will. I used to play hella Smash, you better believe I'm expanding my group of Smash friends now that geography's no barrier.
Nice! It may not be right away, but maybe soon-ish-ly. Ill keep it in mind!
>They already do, damn zoomers with their Tick Tock Hit or Miss and their Fort Nights Royal Battle.
LMFAO! Get off my lawn with your pokey man goes!
>Looking into it, it seems they're generally defined as anything that is used by the public, regardless of public or private ownership.
So how many people have to start walking through your yard before it becomes a public facility? Thats my concern.
>If it's open to the general public, it's not really the same kind of private property as your house.
Idk, should a privet club be able to say "no blacks allowed"?
And before you say about the KKK, there were black klansmen haha.
http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/how-did-a-black-man-become-leader-of-the-kkk/
>You don't go to work in your underwear, for instance.
Commando or Nommando... that my motto.
>I don't really understand how anyone could feel so comfortable at their job that it's like a "second home" tbh, regardless of being able to refuse service
You spend 80 hours a week there, your there when no one else is, you have keys to the place, you get food delivered there, and in my case, you sleep there for 3 weeks when your house closing gets pushed back but your landlord already rented your appt to someone else because you gave them notice haha.
>The fact that we even describe being in like, Walmart as being "in public" kind of legitimizes that definition of public accommodations, doesn't it?
No, not to me. I wouldnt let a colloquialism dictate the law. If thats the case, people can fallow you around Walmart taking pictures of you because you are "in public" and the constitution would apply.
If free speech dosnt have to apply in a place, it shouldnt be considered public.
And we talked about this before, using a theater as the example and saying the owner could kick you out for saying "niggers suck". How is public in one case, but privet in another? Are websites public? We say posting here is posting "in public". And if thats the case, how can FB and Youtube ban "hate speak"? Yes, im taking it there haha.
>Oh, I'm on plenty of teams.
What i mean is you dont just parrot memes at me, or take marching orders blindly.
>Yep. I hope the race meme dies someday. In a vacuum, it's basically worthless on a societal level, and the only reason it isn't in practice is because of damage that was caused by artificially inflating its value.
Modern life is a relatively insignificant amount of time. The fact that we all have to deal with each other now, which is a pretty recent development, means we will work it out or die. With or without government intervention.
>Eventually, even the "race does matter in practice unfortunately" progressives will have to make a definitive choice between that and "race shouldn't matter". And if they are truly acting in good faith, they will choose the latter.
It really depends on which option they feel will keep them in power that will dictate what they choose.
>But you also acknowledge that for some things, government action is necessary.
Atm, for sure. But i think we need to be more picky where we seek it out.
>we're both speaking from an inherent bias in the way we perceive these laws might affect us, or those we relate to.
Yeah, this is hard to escape.
>You worry more about the business owner whom you might sympathize with, potentially being negatively impacted by a fraudulent discrimination lawsuit
I think somewhere along the line we started talking about a few separate things. That is a concern, but my over aching concern is what the perception of "privet" is becoming, and how far that will snowball in 40, 50, 60 years.
>and growing resentful toward the trans community as a side effect of that
This is a concern of mine. I'm not trans (to the best of my knowledge) but it affects a lot of my friends, so i have an interest in it, but i want it to be balanced with the philosophy of a liberal free society too, and even though i might want something, if it dosnt fit into that model, or i cant stretch the model to fit the situation, i cant advocate for it.
>But, I think that even behind a veil of ignorance, knowing only the state of society as it is, and nothing about myself, I would still give more weight to the discriminated than the discriminator when determining the morality of antidiscrimination law.
That statement seem contradictory to me, if you are assuming the discriminator is 50% as likely to be discriminated against, giving the discriminated an edge put more power in their hands, but i think i see what you are saying, in your next sentence, that because the the discriminator already has an edge, its more like a 40/60 split so you have to legislate the 20%
But..
>Even with these laws, I think the discriminator has the de facto position of more power in most cases -- at least in the cases of employment and housing.
Of course they do, the person who has the thing you want will always hold the power. That is supply and demand.

I knew at some point i would come back! haha.

Mk17 (ID: 47ea57)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  214599

File: 1545968899909.png (267.12 KB, 404x594, 476h47.PNG)

Here comes 2!

>It is. But do you think the black community are the only ones being manipulated? Doesn't this affect the white folks as well, who see BLM as a domestic terrorist organization, and are likewise more liable to downplay even the legitimate issues that created the movement in the first place?

Yeah, i think the manipulation is almost wholly intended for the white community tbh.
>But I don't think the government is the only thing that can have disproportionate, unjust power, and needs to be kept in check to prevent tyranny.
I see what you are saying, but i still wouldnt use the word tyranny. Though, i guess by one definition Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly you are correct. But i think if they dont have the ability to physically harm you, and you have other choices, its not tyranny. And i wouldn't call today's society any where close to even that definition of tyranny regarding this issue.
But i get the concern that it might not be a static situation we are in. Look at the middle east for example.
>Can you always change it just by talking to someone, though?
No, esp if someone is bad at making their case, but you also cant always change it by legislating it. I'm not saying it will work 100% of the time, but the opportunity is there.
>And I think that lack of social mobility is a cage, and barring people access to the things that grant social mobility is a form of tyranny, which can keep them in that cage.
That a legitimate way to feel, but it think its dependent on many things. I have pretty good social mobility, simply because i dont wear stuff like my sexual preferences on my sleeve.
I will how ever concede that for many trans folks, esp for folks who elect to change their bodies, its not as simple as that, and its something I might not always have right on my head while thinking about these things, thats my flaw, i admit.
>Everyone has, on a federal level, the legal right to not be discriminated against on the basis of being a certain race or sex. Nobody has, on a federal level, the legal right to not be discriminated against on the basis of being a certain gender identity.
But that not a law against you, its the result of laws created for other people, before trans folks were considered. I would argue that if those laws didnt exist, you might be in a better position. This is why i dont like the idea of legislating for a particular group, because someone will end up in the situation you are currently in. Lets say, just as an example, furries and "species identity" becomes an issue, they will be in the exact same boat you are in right now.
>this gives them a de facto legal right that trans, GNC, and nonbinary people lack.
This is still a result of laws, being created without hindsight.
>But the means to defend a right to employment and housing (which is not a natural right per se, but we both seem to agree is a right in some capacity) isn't as straightforward as the power that defends rights to life or liberty. It's a power that not everyone has the same access to, even if they might have comparable financial resources.
I see it as you have the right to work for it, not you have an entitlement to it. Like me and the job situation i was in where i was told to pound sand because of my working in the firearms industry. I dont feel as though i had a right to the job per-se but i had the right to keep looking, and i had the right to, if i wanted to, keep trying for that specific job, hoping they would hear me out.
I think its a right in the sense that the government cant make a law that says "no one can rent to a trans person" but not a right in the way that you are entitled to the housing, like you are entitled to speak your mind.
>Those laws aren't obsolete until things would not change, or would change for the better, in the absence thereof.
Then this kind of puts a damper on your dream society, because where would involuntary manslaughter fit in? There cant be a world without mistakes, and there cant be a law without government.
> Drug policies are a major one, those I think were a mistake to begin with.
Well, kind of too my point, this is an example of legislating a social issue. I know you can look at anti-discrimination laws as objectively "good" and anti-drug laws as objectively "bad" but they both seek to "correct" a problem that it was thought society couldn't do on its own. Even though they are separate issues, and have separate results, they come from the same mindset and that mindset allows both to exist.
>But I also think there are things we needed the "training wheels" for that we never really got. Environmental issues and carbon output are the most obvious example there, I think.
You might need to elaborate a little.
> If their children are shielded from the reality that transgender people do exist, I think that's objectively harmful, not because I want their children to be trans, but because lack of education on a subject leads to poor decisions if faced with that subject.
Im not saying they have a correct opinion, im just saying, that is what they express as a concern, that trans folks are trying to make their kids trans. Which is absurd, and a fear born from ignorance, but they are still real people, and that is their fear.
Like anti-gun people who think a pistol grip makes a gun more deadly. That fear is one created in ignorance, but its still a real fear to them.
> Having to give a trans person equal consideration for a job, despite not particularly caring for the idea of people being trans, isn't the same thing as having to make a trans pride cake despite not particularly caring for the idea of trans pride. The principles at play, and the consequences at stake, are fundamentally different.
I agree. I get what you are saying the only change i would make is take out the word "trans" and just leave the word "people". That way the furries get theirs too haha.
>If there is a problem in society that hinders our ability to get along in it, and we want to resolve that problem, then by definition we are out to change society.
But everyone has something that hinders them. They might just be ugly. Ugly people have to work harder, be nicer, present themselves better, but there are not anti discrimination laws regarding them. Would you say there should be?
>confused moms who were barred from proper education on what it means to be trans
What barred them from that?
>"off comes the penis".
Sorry, this made me laugh haha.
>But it's not our fault those moms think that way, and things like that are actually one of the problems we want to solve with the changes we hope to effect in society
I know this, im just reminding you that there are people who dont, and that those people are the ones you need to change the minds of, and not being careful when asking for government to get involved, could entrench them more.


Delete Post [ ]
Edit Post
Posts on this board may be edited for 2 hours after being made.
[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / ef ] [ rp / fan ]