Sure, but society need not compromise with counterfactual morons. You don’t say the flat earthers and round earthers should compromise and start teaching the world is half a sphere. No, your reject the premise and move on.
Correct, because the opposite ideology would be that harm to people, life, and all is acceptable. So no I would not like it because that position is toxic and cannot be tolerated. Read up on Popper’s paradox to understand why intolerance cannot be tolerated less society devolve in to intolerance.
I didn’t read every post, but just to be truthful the headline here is not exactly accurate. The patron was kicked out because he was asked to remove the hat. Any establishment can enforce dress code rules. It doesn’t infringe on any civil liberties to refuse service to those in hats or wearing something deemed offensive.
It is not about Trump supporters, so let’s not change the narrative and give them any excuse to feel marginalized or discriminated against.
And you rid society of toxic ideologies by…telling them to go away or shut up? No, you rid society of toxic ideologies with reasoned argument. Not shouting down. Not shutting them up or making them lose their job or making them social outcasts. This just forces that ideology into hiding. It doesn’t go away. It becomes ingrained, taught and whispered behind closed doors. It becomes organized underground away from the public eye only to resurface in unexpected places of power. Why do you think everyone was so caught off-guard by Trump and resurgence of racism? It never went away. It’s been here all along, too afraid to show itself but just waiting for a chance to rear its ugly head again. We need to stop being lazy and putting a band aid over the problem by just trying to make go it back underground with all the shouting down and “de-platforming”. We need actually put in the work and show people the reason WHY these ideologies are toxic.
Exactly when has that worked? When has a pacifist society survived intoleranct insurgency?
Did we talk the Nazi’s down? Did we not have to send in national guard to protect black children when they went to school? Was Mussolini allowed a peaceful retirement? Was the KKK not almost destroyed by publicly mocking and derriding them on broadcast radio?
Are you trying to tell me that the way to deal with unreasonable points of view is to reason with them? Do you not see the problem with that idea?
Being tolerant of intolerance is what got us here in the first place. It’s long past time that exactly this kind of public shaming for dickwads became the norm.
What is a “public business”? A business is owned by a private person, and is not subject to the First Amendment. The 1st does not restrict private citizens; it says the GOVERNMENT cannot restrict your speech. There are, of course, certain classes of people that a business cannot refuse to serve, but “Trump Supporter” is not a protected class. The bar can refuse to serve this person.
But I don’t think that flat earthers should be kicked out of a public establishment because of their erroneous beliefs. I don’t think anyone should be kicked out of an establishment because of their beliefs.
My point is simple: both sides of any argument believe that their opinion is the right one and the other opinion is wrong. It is easy to say “Good! Kick 'em out and stop tolerating them!” when your opinion is the popular one. But I can imagine a reverse scenario where the opposite opinion is en vogue where you would be the one being harmed.
As a moderate, I think it is very dangerous for either side to be so convinced that their views are morally superior that they are willing to dismiss the other side. I can’t stand the idea of a bar putting up a sign that says “No Jews allowed.” And I also can’t stand the idea of the same establishment putting up a sign that says “No conservatives allowed” or “No Mormons allowed” or “No convicted criminals allowed.” The whole idea is odious.
I understand why a bar wouldn’t want that person in it, considering Trump is racist, misogynist, and a million other horrible things, as are a huge number of his supporters, and maybe just maybe the bar doesn’t support those awful things, nor do the majority of their clientele.
We’re discussing a very specific topic here. Very few people - almost zero - would argue that stabbing people is okay. But roughly half of our country voted to put Trump in office. If you truly believe that every one of those voters was deranged and dangerous so that as a whole, we should be able to kick them out of businesses, there is a problem. I know very many people who voted for Trump for various reasons and none of them had to do with hatred or racism.
(And yes, I understand that wearing that specific hat was intentional and part of the problem. But this court wasn’t ruling on the hat specifically. It was ruling that discrimination against a specific ideology is okay.)
Let’s just make this very clear – legally, IT IS OK. Did you know that employers are allowed to ask about politics during interviews, and can use it as a means of denying someone a job? It’s simply not a protected class. This might not make you feel all warm and fuzzy but it is the law, and that’s what judges tend to rule on.
And they are wrong. They can’t prove that in a court of law, so it’s a bullshit argument. However, discriminating against people who are transgendered DOES do them harm that you can prove and it breaks anti-discrimination laws. If they don’t wish to be transgendered or hangout with transgendered people, they don’t have to do so. However, if they provide a service to the public, they can’t disriminate. We’ve litigated the shit out of the notion and it’s on solid footing legally.
People have been making reasoned arguments against racism for centuries, now, and it’s still a constituent part of the American fabric. Not everyone has the same basis in logic and facts.
