Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Liberals Want Racist Bigots to Be Richer

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 7:31:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Progressives believe that government should use the threat of aggressive force upon private business owners to serve everybody.

This means that progressives want government to mandate that racist, homophobic bigots hide their bigotry and force them to accept money from those whom they would otherwise deny, thus they will profit because they will get money from discriminated people and sensible people who would be repulsed and take their money elsewhere.

In the free market, bigots will be out in the open and will drive away a large share of the market and people will take their money elsewhere and give it to sensible and friendlier-run businesses with better service.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 7:33:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 7:31:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Progressives believe that government should use the threat of aggressive force upon private business owners to serve everybody.

This means that progressives want government to mandate that racist, homophobic bigots hide their bigotry and force them to accept money from those whom they would otherwise deny, thus they will profit because they will get money from discriminated people and sensible people who would be repulsed and take their money elsewhere.

In the free market, bigots will be out in the open and will drive away a large share of the market and people will take their money elsewhere and give it to sensible and friendlier-run businesses with better service.



WTF?! None of this is true. Sick of your opinionated posts.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Kanti
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 7:39:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 7:31:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Progressives believe that government should use the threat of aggressive force upon private business owners to serve everybody.

This means that progressives want government to mandate that racist, homophobic bigots hide their bigotry and force them to accept money from those whom they would otherwise deny, thus they will profit because they will get money from discriminated people and sensible people who would be repulsed and take their money elsewhere.

In the free market, bigots will be out in the open and will drive away a large share of the market and people will take their money elsewhere and give it to sensible and friendlier-run businesses with better service.



I know you spend a lot of time constructing these thread topics but you're essentially double posting. There's an entire thread for this subject with 6 pages of posts. For that reason I'm not going to reply because everyone already debated on this.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 8:12:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 8:07:59 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
This is actually true. Like it or not progressives, but your policies are helping racists.

Evidence, please.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 8:23:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 8:12:19 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/24/2014 8:07:59 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
This is actually true. Like it or not progressives, but your policies are helping racists.

Evidence, please.

Just think about it. Racism is inefficient from the POV of a business owner. So, by not allowing racism to play a role in his business decisions, the state is forcing him to make more efficient decisions. Which are better for him in the long run.

In other words, they are shielding him from the negative consequences of his own racism.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 8:33:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 8:23:32 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/24/2014 8:12:19 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/24/2014 8:07:59 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
This is actually true. Like it or not progressives, but your policies are helping racists.

Evidence, please.


Just think about it. Racism is inefficient from the POV of a business owner. So, by not allowing racism to play a role in his business decisions, the state is forcing him to make more efficient decisions. Which are better for him in the long run.

In other words, they are shielding him from the negative consequences of his own racism.

Mhmm.

So, why was racism in business and services not even CLOSE to dying when the civil rights movement began? Because if it was so "inefficient", and business owners apparently make rational decisions free from personal bias, as you so ideally espouse, then why was this the case? I would think 80 years between freeing the slaves and the civil rights movement would be long enough for business owners to act based on this racism-killing free market principle.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 8:37:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 8:23:32 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/24/2014 8:12:19 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/24/2014 8:07:59 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
This is actually true. Like it or not progressives, but your policies are helping racists.

Evidence, please.


Just think about it. Racism is inefficient from the POV of a business owner. So, by not allowing racism to play a role in his business decisions, the state is forcing him to make more efficient decisions. Which are better for him in the long run.

In other words, they are shielding him from the negative consequences of his own racism.

I asked you for evidence and instead you gave me an anecdote. Do you have any actual evidence that progressive policies are "helping racists," as you say?

And, I just want to get you on the record: you are suggesting that, in a free market economy, racism is punished. Does this mean that you would support a full repeal of Title VII? Should business owners be able to hire, not hire, and fire whomever they like irrespective of race, religion, politics, sex, disability, etc.? I'm only asking for a yes or no answer.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 9:00:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 8:37:53 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Does this mean that you would support a full repeal of Title VII? Should business owners be able to hire, not hire, and fire whomever they like irrespective of race, religion, politics, sex, disability, etc.? I'm only asking for a yes or no answer.

Yes.

For the record, it currently allows for it.
Also, did you know that Communists can be targeted?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 9:12:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, Title VII, theoretically and likely, does NOT apply to 89.3% of businesses.
But, affects some 82.2% of employees.

Who knew?

http://www.eeoc.gov...
https://www.census.gov...
My work here is, finally, done.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 9:20:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 9:00:13 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/24/2014 8:37:53 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Does this mean that you would support a full repeal of Title VII? Should business owners be able to hire, not hire, and fire whomever they like irrespective of race, religion, politics, sex, disability, etc.? I'm only asking for a yes or no answer.

Yes.

For the record, it currently allows for it.
Also, did you know that Communists can be targeted?

Allows which? I know that Title VII doesn't cover sexual orientation, and disability is covered elsewhere, but I think the rest are there. I could be mistaken.

Can they? By whom?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 9:25:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 9:20:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/24/2014 9:00:13 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/24/2014 8:37:53 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Does this mean that you would support a full repeal of Title VII? Should business owners be able to hire, not hire, and fire whomever they like irrespective of race, religion, politics, sex, disability, etc.? I'm only asking for a yes or no answer.

Yes.

For the record, it currently allows for it.
Also, did you know that Communists can be targeted?


Allows which? I know that Title VII doesn't cover sexual orientation, and disability is covered elsewhere, but I think the rest are there. I could be mistaken.

Can they? By whom?

Read my last post for the source. (13?)
Employers are defined as, to my interpretation, those that have 15 workers each day for any 20 week span.
That means, if you only have 5 employees, you are exempt from Title VII, and my be as racist as your hearts content in business practices.
Also, there has to be an element of interstate commerce, too.

Title VII specifically states that you can discriminate (or rather they are not protected) members of the Communist Party.
My work here is, finally, done.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 10:15:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 7:31:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Progressives believe that government should use the threat of aggressive force upon private business owners to serve everybody.

This means that progressives want government to mandate that racist, homophobic bigots hide their bigotry and force them to accept money from those whom they would otherwise deny,

No they don't have to "hide" their bigotry. Free speech stills applies. What some people are arguing is that people should not be denied service on the basis of x,y,z. and this should a legally enforced right.

thus they will profit because they will get money from discriminated people and sensible people who would be repulsed and take their money elsewhere.

Not necessarily. Maybe the bigot is the only game in town, or choosing to use some one else may not be practical. Eg, distance.


In the free market, bigots will be out in the open and will drive away a large share of the market and people will take their money elsewhere and give it to sensible and friendlier-run businesses with better service.

No not always. There are other factors at play.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 11:45:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 7:31:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

In the free market, bigots will be out in the open and will drive away a large share of the market and people will take their money elsewhere and give it to sensible and friendlier-run businesses with better service.


Is that true? I look at companies like Abercrombie & Fitch, who are only on the decline now because of body image controversies, but was a top brand for a long time despite clearly being racist. The fact that their clothing is a status symbol also means that teenagers and kids who want to fit with a certain type of people can no longer do that if everything they wear and purchase has to be politicized.

People just don't care enough to stop doing exactly what they're doing.

I know Chick-fil-A is homophobic, but I had it for the first time last year and it's just so damn good. Do I want to support a homophobic enterprise? No. But can I get it anywhere else? The problem with boycotting is it assumes the people being discriminated against have the power. The people who are targeted by racism don't have the power, hence the racism.

Barney's has racial profiling practices but do you think black people refusing to shop there will put them out of business? Clothes from Barney's are also seen as status symbols, so the only people who would be negatively affected by their business being turned away are those whose business is being turned away.

Your proposal forces every kind of minority to suddenly have politicized purchases and be reminded at any time of their "otherness". I don't think it accomplishes anything else.
yang.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 12:08:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 11:45:49 PM, tulle wrote:
At 4/24/2014 7:31:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

In the free market, bigots will be out in the open and will drive away a large share of the market and people will take their money elsewhere and give it to sensible and friendlier-run businesses with better service.


Is that true? I look at companies like Abercrombie & Fitch, who are only on the decline now because of body image controversies, but was a top brand for a long time despite clearly being racist.

It's true that people spend money on the basis of shared values. It's one of the reasons that Chipotle is so successful. Same with Whole Foods, but I think that the more immediate reason why Abercrombie and Fitch is on the brink of bankruptcy is because of what impact the recession has had on their consumer's disposable income.

Abercrombie is a store for middle class middle and high school students. Their clothes are priced comparably with mid range designer brands, but Abercrombie's clothes are cheaply made and don't last. Idk, though... I've always been sort of skeptical of all those 'teenage' brand stores, all together. The clothes just look cheaply made.

The store is really "white," too, but I think that's to be expected. Most retail stores are. Although, to Geo's point, look at what happened to Chic Filet after Dan Cathy just spoke about "traditional" marriage. In Boston, our then mayor even said something like "Chic Filet doesn't share Boston's values, and we don't want you here."

The fact that their clothing is a status symbol also means that teenagers and kids who want to fit with a certain type of people can no longer do that if everything they wear and purchase has to be politicized.

Yeah, wearing an A&F shirt (the one with the moose) is kind of a status symbol, but it's an absurd one because all it says is "I spend money on cheaply made clothes." But meh... young kids don't have good taste in fashion.

People just don't care enough to stop doing exactly what they're doing.

I know Chick-fil-A is homophobic, but I had it for the first time last year and it's just so damn good. Do I want to support a homophobic enterprise? No. But can I get it anywhere else? The problem with boycotting is it assumes the people being discriminated against have the power. The people who are targeted by racism don't have the power, hence the racism.

I think that if any store in the United States did something like deny service on the basis of race, it would make national news and the store would probably go out of business for two reasons: most people would stop shopping there and most others would, even if they weren't in disagreement with the company's policy, be ashamed to be seen there. But, how racism manifests in stores is a bit more insidious... like hawkish retail floor people watching non-white people with extra attention, or even suspicion of people who are neither white nor asian who go into, like, Barney's New York.

Barney's has racial profiling practices but do you think black people refusing to shop there will put them out of business? Clothes from Barney's are also seen as status symbols, so the only people who would be negatively affected by their business being turned away are those whose business is being turned away.

I think we're thinking along the same lines. Yeah, Barney's doesn't actually turn people away but they do treat shoppers who are neither white nor asian differently than they treat whites and asians.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 12:53:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 7:31:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Progressives believe that government should use the threat of aggressive force upon private business owners to serve everybody.

This means that progressives want government to mandate that racist, homophobic bigots hide their bigotry and force them to accept money from those whom they would otherwise deny, thus they will profit because they will get money from discriminated people and sensible people who would be repulsed and take their money elsewhere.

In the free market, bigots will be out in the open and will drive away a large share of the market and people will take their money elsewhere and give it to sensible and friendlier-run businesses with better service.

Or, you could say that many racists and bigots of all stripes would stay in business in a purely free market, because the racist and bigoted people would frequent and patronize those individuals, thus further entrenching inequality.

Moreover, I'd rather make bigots rich by serving those they hate, then let bigots inculcate new generations of Americans into their perverse cult of intolerance.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 1:06:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think in a truly free market. An openly racist company would suffer a great deal. It's hard enough to find talent as it is, but now you eliminate all non white talent from your hiring pool.

The racist companies would have no way of keeping up with the non-racist more talent heavy companies.

Look at what happened when sports teams started to segregate. The first ones to segregate had a bigger talent pool to choose from and did better. I think the same thing would happen to large businesses.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 1:10:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 12:53:34 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/24/2014 7:31:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Progressives believe that government should use the threat of aggressive force upon private business owners to serve everybody.

This means that progressives want government to mandate that racist, homophobic bigots hide their bigotry and force them to accept money from those whom they would otherwise deny, thus they will profit because they will get money from discriminated people and sensible people who would be repulsed and take their money elsewhere.

In the free market, bigots will be out in the open and will drive away a large share of the market and people will take their money elsewhere and give it to sensible and friendlier-run businesses with better service.

Or, you could say that many racists and bigots of all stripes would stay in business in a purely free market, because the racist and bigoted people would frequent and patronize those individuals, thus further entrenching inequality.

And 40 years ago that might have happened. But now, I don't think so. To make that argument is to assume that more people are willing to openly display racially animus, and that's a major cultural and social faux pas now.

Moreover, I'd rather make bigots rich by serving those they hate, then let bigots inculcate new generations of Americans into their perverse cult of intolerance.

And I would too, which is why I'm ultimately in favor of non-discrimination laws. I don't care if they get rich or not, though.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 1:13:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 1:10:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/25/2014 12:53:34 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/24/2014 7:31:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Progressives believe that government should use the threat of aggressive force upon private business owners to serve everybody.

This means that progressives want government to mandate that racist, homophobic bigots hide their bigotry and force them to accept money from those whom they would otherwise deny, thus they will profit because they will get money from discriminated people and sensible people who would be repulsed and take their money elsewhere.

In the free market, bigots will be out in the open and will drive away a large share of the market and people will take their money elsewhere and give it to sensible and friendlier-run businesses with better service.

Or, you could say that many racists and bigots of all stripes would stay in business in a purely free market, because the racist and bigoted people would frequent and patronize those individuals, thus further entrenching inequality.

And 40 years ago that might have happened. But now, I don't think so. To make that argument is to assume that more people are willing to openly display racially animus, and that's a major cultural and social faux pas now.

I am not so sure this is true. We can look, for example, to Walmart, which has displayed racist and sexist sentiments and business practices in the past. Yet, this is a major, major corporation.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 1:20:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 1:13:04 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 1:10:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/25/2014 12:53:34 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/24/2014 7:31:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Progressives believe that government should use the threat of aggressive force upon private business owners to serve everybody.

This means that progressives want government to mandate that racist, homophobic bigots hide their bigotry and force them to accept money from those whom they would otherwise deny, thus they will profit because they will get money from discriminated people and sensible people who would be repulsed and take their money elsewhere.

In the free market, bigots will be out in the open and will drive away a large share of the market and people will take their money elsewhere and give it to sensible and friendlier-run businesses with better service.

Or, you could say that many racists and bigots of all stripes would stay in business in a purely free market, because the racist and bigoted people would frequent and patronize those individuals, thus further entrenching inequality.

And 40 years ago that might have happened. But now, I don't think so. To make that argument is to assume that more people are willing to openly display racially animus, and that's a major cultural and social faux pas now.

I am not so sure this is true. We can look, for example, to Walmart, which has displayed racist and sexist sentiments and business practices in the past. Yet, this is a major, major corporation.

Right, and in that case, I'm going to have to scrutinize the individual policy that's being called racist -because not all racially biased policies are created equally. For example, a policy that Walmart would no longer hire black people or allow them to shop in their stores would have a profoundly different impact than, for example, an ostensibly racially benign policy that resulted in a de facto hiring gap among black job seekers at Walmart.

The point is that the more overt the policy, the more acute the public outrage to it will be -but that there isn't public outrage for a policy that is only casually discriminatory might make the news and generate a few judgmental comments, but it's not going to get people to change their shopping behavior.

A similar trend exists within retail department stores. The scope and magnitude of the impact are also contingent factors that govern public outrage. For example, Barney's New York's asinine tendency to harass black shoppers isn't going to enrage people to the same degree that a hypothetical policy that Khol's might have that required Latino shoppers to provide proof of citizenship upon entering the store because fewer people shop at Barney's than at Khol's.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 1:23:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 1:20:32 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/25/2014 1:13:04 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 1:10:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/25/2014 12:53:34 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/24/2014 7:31:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Progressives believe that government should use the threat of aggressive force upon private business owners to serve everybody.

This means that progressives want government to mandate that racist, homophobic bigots hide their bigotry and force them to accept money from those whom they would otherwise deny, thus they will profit because they will get money from discriminated people and sensible people who would be repulsed and take their money elsewhere.

In the free market, bigots will be out in the open and will drive away a large share of the market and people will take their money elsewhere and give it to sensible and friendlier-run businesses with better service.

Or, you could say that many racists and bigots of all stripes would stay in business in a purely free market, because the racist and bigoted people would frequent and patronize those individuals, thus further entrenching inequality.

And 40 years ago that might have happened. But now, I don't think so. To make that argument is to assume that more people are willing to openly display racially animus, and that's a major cultural and social faux pas now.

I am not so sure this is true. We can look, for example, to Walmart, which has displayed racist and sexist sentiments and business practices in the past. Yet, this is a major, major corporation.

Right, and in that case, I'm going to have to scrutinize the individual policy that's being called racist -because not all racially biased policies are created equally. For example, a policy that Walmart would no longer hire black people or allow them to shop in their stores would have a profoundly different impact than, for example, an ostensibly racially benign policy that resulted in a de facto hiring gap among black job seekers at Walmart.

The point is that the more overt the policy, the more acute the public outrage to it will be -but that there isn't public outrage for a policy that is only casually discriminatory might make the news and generate a few judgmental comments, but it's not going to get people to change their shopping behavior.

A similar trend exists within retail department stores. The scope and magnitude of the impact are also contingent factors that govern public outrage. For example, Barney's New York's asinine tendency to harass black shoppers isn't going to enrage people to the same degree that a hypothetical policy that Khol's might have that required Latino shoppers to provide proof of citizenship upon entering the store because fewer people shop at Barney's than at Khol's.

I agree with that, but I do think that it underscores a point. That American consumers are willing to tolerate racism--at least in small doses. This itself seems wrong. Racism, however subtle, should be intolerable by contrast. Yet, even after racist comments or actions are made, we continue to provide those outlet with out custom. To me, that seems wrong.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 1:30:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 1:23:15 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 1:20:32 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/25/2014 1:13:04 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 1:10:02 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/25/2014 12:53:34 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/24/2014 7:31:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Progressives believe that government should use the threat of aggressive force upon private business owners to serve everybody.

This means that progressives want government to mandate that racist, homophobic bigots hide their bigotry and force them to accept money from those whom they would otherwise deny, thus they will profit because they will get money from discriminated people and sensible people who would be repulsed and take their money elsewhere.

In the free market, bigots will be out in the open and will drive away a large share of the market and people will take their money elsewhere and give it to sensible and friendlier-run businesses with better service.

Or, you could say that many racists and bigots of all stripes would stay in business in a purely free market, because the racist and bigoted people would frequent and patronize those individuals, thus further entrenching inequality.

And 40 years ago that might have happened. But now, I don't think so. To make that argument is to assume that more people are willing to openly display racially animus, and that's a major cultural and social faux pas now.

I am not so sure this is true. We can look, for example, to Walmart, which has displayed racist and sexist sentiments and business practices in the past. Yet, this is a major, major corporation.

Right, and in that case, I'm going to have to scrutinize the individual policy that's being called racist -because not all racially biased policies are created equally. For example, a policy that Walmart would no longer hire black people or allow them to shop in their stores would have a profoundly different impact than, for example, an ostensibly racially benign policy that resulted in a de facto hiring gap among black job seekers at Walmart.

The point is that the more overt the policy, the more acute the public outrage to it will be -but that there isn't public outrage for a policy that is only casually discriminatory might make the news and generate a few judgmental comments, but it's not going to get people to change their shopping behavior.

A similar trend exists within retail department stores. The scope and magnitude of the impact are also contingent factors that govern public outrage. For example, Barney's New York's asinine tendency to harass black shoppers isn't going to enrage people to the same degree that a hypothetical policy that Khol's might have that required Latino shoppers to provide proof of citizenship upon entering the store because fewer people shop at Barney's than at Khol's.

I agree with that, but I do think that it underscores a point. That American consumers are willing to tolerate racism--at least in small doses.

I think that the average american would question whether the hiring gap policy was actually even racist, but the point's really a wash. Overt displays of bigotry are frowned upon, but more subtle ones that are harder to prove often get swept away in the court of public opinion.

This itself seems wrong. Racism, however subtle, should be intolerable by contrast. Yet, even after racist comments or actions are made, we continue to provide those outlet with out custom. To me, that seems wrong.

So, we're balancing individuals interests in having freedom of conscience with collective interests in maintaining the flow of commerce. Especially given that the utilitarian interest in maintaining the flow of commerce has the added benefit of encouraging social pluralism, laws which maintain commerce's flow are going to win every time and discrimination against people on the basis of race, gender and (to a lesser, but ever increasing degree) sexual orientation are going to be unlawful. They're also more expedient for individual businesses themselves... but at least for now there are going to be dipstick photographers who refuse services to gay couples because they don't support gay marriage. Those people are on the losing side, though... fortunately.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 1:33:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 1:30:35 AM, YYW wrote:

So, we're balancing individuals interests in having freedom of conscience with collective interests in maintaining the flow of commerce. Especially given that the utilitarian interest in maintaining the flow of commerce has the added benefit of encouraging social pluralism, laws which maintain commerce's flow are going to win every time and discrimination against people on the basis of race, gender and (to a lesser, but ever increasing degree) sexual orientation are going to be unlawful. They're also more expedient for individual businesses themselves... but at least for now there are going to be dipstick photographers who refuse services to gay couples because they don't support gay marriage. Those people are on the losing side, though... fortunately.

Fortunately. That would be awful...having a photographer booked, and then having him refuse to take pictures on the day b/c of his beliefs. That would be awful...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 1:35:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/25/2014 1:33:22 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/25/2014 1:30:35 AM, YYW wrote:

So, we're balancing individuals interests in having freedom of conscience with collective interests in maintaining the flow of commerce. Especially given that the utilitarian interest in maintaining the flow of commerce has the added benefit of encouraging social pluralism, laws which maintain commerce's flow are going to win every time and discrimination against people on the basis of race, gender and (to a lesser, but ever increasing degree) sexual orientation are going to be unlawful. They're also more expedient for individual businesses themselves... but at least for now there are going to be dipstick photographers who refuse services to gay couples because they don't support gay marriage. Those people are on the losing side, though... fortunately.

Fortunately. That would be awful...having a photographer booked, and then having him refuse to take pictures on the day b/c of his beliefs. That would be awful...

Yup.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Tsar of DDO
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2014 9:51:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 11:45:49 PM, tulle wrote:
At 4/24/2014 7:31:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

In the free market, bigots will be out in the open and will drive away a large share of the market and people will take their money elsewhere and give it to sensible and friendlier-run businesses with better service.


Is that true? I look at companies like Abercrombie & Fitch, who are only on the decline now because of body image controversies, but was a top brand for a long time despite clearly being racist. The fact that their clothing is a status symbol also means that teenagers and kids who want to fit with a certain type of people can no longer do that if everything they wear and purchase has to be politicized.

People just don't care enough to stop doing exactly what they're doing.

I know Chick-fil-A is homophobic, but I had it for the first time last year and it's just so damn good. Do I want to support a homophobic enterprise? No. But can I get it anywhere else? The problem with boycotting is it assumes the people being discriminated against have the power. The people who are targeted by racism don't have the power, hence the racism.

Barney's has racial profiling practices but do you think black people refusing to shop there will put them out of business? Clothes from Barney's are also seen as status symbols, so the only people who would be negatively affected by their business being turned away are those whose business is being turned away.

Your proposal forces every kind of minority to suddenly have politicized purchases and be reminded at any time of their "otherness". I don't think it accomplishes anything else.

Yes, people are too selfish to care about sacrifice in the name of justice.
But, isn't it then believable that people are too selfish/greedy to refuse business, too?
And, if not for money, then for headaches of bad PR.
My work here is, finally, done.