Is it ok to discriminate against people in the workplace, supermarkets etc...
because of their politics?
Curious as to what people think on this one.
because of their politics?
Curious as to what people think on this one.
And if people say its NOT OK, OR say maybe it "is", would you automatically agree with them and not think twice about doing so?
shareI make my own mind up about things and don't care what others say, thanks.
shareCool, you've got a mind of your own apparently keybored, cheers.
shareAlways have had and always will. :)
I'm a kind of 'golden rule' type person (do unto others as you would have others do unto you) and 100% agree with MLK's " I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Also, a 'sticks and stones' type person too.
No.. I think that's ridiculous. I notice it's not ideological, just cheer-leading, or usually, "My guy only was accused of sexual assault 12 times!" - a race to the bottom.. Evil of two lessers. I'd like to see more nuance, and knowledge. I'm so tired of reading the word "Communist", which is attributed to both Biden (have no idea why, he's conservative), and Trump ("he's Putin's best friend") nonsense. Many times a Democrat can get away with doing the most right-winged shit, and vice-versa with Republicans, because the partisans never call out their side, unless its politically expedient (Liz Cheney)... Democrats suddenly love fucking George W. Bush is beyond me. I guess they believe in nothing, too.
In 2004, "I love Julian Assange for telling the truth"
In 2016, "I HATE Julian Assange for telling the truth".
The GOP used to say, "Don't like it (social media) -- start your own company", but because Trump slapped tariffs and talked about "fair" trade (as opposed to "free"), Democrats suddenly became against it, despite the two Democratic Senators in Ohio making one quiet statement in support (Kaptur, Brown).. And so the other party has to do the opposite. One good thing about Trump is that he got his fans to be anti-war, and to criticize the Democrats for starting more wars, since everything has to be a contest.
I'm actually interested in reading those who completely disagree with me, to see where they're coming from. When I hear someone being banned, I become instantly curious. I don't fit under any group anyway... I don't like to pre-judge, BUT, if I'm going to judge, it's going to be on personality, especially honesty.
And then to stretch, I think you can tell more about a person by their sense of humor, favorite movies.
I'm curious about the legal ramifications of the constant banning of people from places based on their (perceived) politics.
This is especially so when it comes to social media, where censorship of any dissenting opinion to the MSM one gets you banned, even with facts to back you up.
The banning seems to happen to one (perceived) political stance more than those with the left stance, so at what point does it legally become discrimination?
I don't think there's anything "left" about it, just like I don't think there's been a viable left-wing since the 1930s in the US.
Social issues, especially the calls for equality are all lies --- the politicians know you can't legislate kindness or understanding, and it's much easier to give lip service than to give the people something tangible (such as the promises of $15/hr min. wage... free 2 yrs of college).. When push comes to shove, they'll give one group some kind of special treatment, such as NYC giving black/brown first dibs on therapeutics, which is only going to cause rifts between white/black/brown working-class, while something like universal health care helps EVERYONE. No one worried about stimulus checks raising inflation, because everyone got one.
Divide and rule is the oldest trick in the book, and it's been going on since the beginning, but knowledge is seeing the same pattern over and over and not falling for it. I suspect those who know better will still go along to get along because they know which side of the bread is buttered. If Hitler said 2+2=4, you must disagree, right?
"Communism" is a regulated economic system in which the state owns the means of production, sets manufacturing quotas and fixes prices, as opposed to a free-market, supply-and-demand-based economy. Agricultural land is collectivized and ownership of private property is prohibited. Everything is property of, and controlled by, the state, including the media.
People who love to throw this term around as don't know its definition. I would like to see them name one candidate or incumbent who is proposing the system described above.
What's funny (and sad) is that people who talk politics all day on discussion forums and chat rooms throw that word around, as if the change of a President suddenly makes us "Communist" - presto!
I never heard modes of production, abolishing private property, revolution of the proletariat, nothing... Also, some things to me aren't political (building better bridges), but everything is turning political with a simple word association. "Commie" or simply saying "Biden" or "Trump".. I've never voted Republican, but I notice those who are staunch Democrats annoy me the most. I don't believe that they believe whatever they're saying - they just don't want to be socially ostracized by the group. Even when I had fakebook activated, I'd post something, and sometimes get private messages with, "I agree with ya, but others won't understand" -- which is condescending. "WE understand, but all those others don't".
Before Yahoo fucked up their comment section, I would do little experiments. I would argue in favor of something "liberal" by sounding nationalistic.. "Why spend that money in foreign countries when we can spend it here on AMERICANS!"... I would also load up the sample, using a few accounts for a desired result, and the trend would continue (up and down votes)... An hour later, I'd type up the same exact thing, copy/paste, but this time, I'd use my burner accounts to give the comment multiple thumbs down, and the trend continued. Or simply by pretending to be a Biden supporter, and then say how RACIST the 94 Crime Bill is..
Speaking of fakebook, the 4 years Trump was in office, I'd "attack" the incumbent, and one group of "friends" would like it.. Biden gets in, suddenly, all those "friends" whine, and can't discuss things beyond a sentence.
The US isn't really capitalist, either. Almost every country has a private sector and a public sector. People should ask what they get in exchange for their taxes. A free (and healthy) market doesn't need to spend TRILLIONS to bail these huge companies every few years, and wouldn't need to constantly subsidize oil companies, etc etc..
I had to edit this message, because of the low character count, which is very telling about the current climate of anti-intellectualism.
No, discriminating against someone because of their politics is not okay.
share
Well, it's the old Karl Popper thing, isn't it? The Paradox of Tolerance and all that.
In principle, it's perfectly legitimate to discriminate against someone for their political beliefs -- although it would only apply at the extremes. The only sensible debate is over where we draw the line and what that discrimination should consist of.
Ideally, we should tolerate as much as we can. But if we value a free society, there must be limits to that tolerance.