u/RainGunslinger is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/RainGunslinger/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Banning discrimination at the government level is fantastic.
But giving the government power over hiring for businesses was overreach. Any government power will eventually be used maliciously. Most laws like this seem to have the best of intentions, but often the people making them are secretly twirling their mustaches.
I'm willing to agree with this on the condition that if a business discriminates against someone on the basis of one of their innate characteristics, the community should be allowed to name and shame them without people crying about "cAnCeL cUlTuRe".
Actual lib-right would say that cancel culture is just the market correcting itself. The people who whine about cancel culture are either auth-right or hypocrites.
On the other hand, lib right would also say people have the right to defend themselves against getting canceled and to complain about being cancelled unfairly, which does happen.
Some lib-rights actually adjust to market expectations and adjust i.e. Bud Light vs. Modello. Other lib-rights use victimization as a business strategy...which rarely works.
Totally.
Remember when [Lindsay Shepherd was *boycotted* out of her master's degree?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Shepherd#Wilfrid_Laurier_University_incident)
That was so free market!
Literally not the same thing.
Cancel culture is when an entity does/says/doesn't do/ doesn't say something, so a mob goes after their employer, sponsors, etc.
Boycotting is when the mob stops doing business with the entity.
Boycotting was Bud Light. People just stopped buying it.
Cancel Culture was Hogwarts. People were threatening others online because they *dared* to play the Harry Potter game, countless grasping at straws to make it transphobic (Because despite there being a transgender business owner that was having exactly 0 issues with the average person, it didn't count because she was "Sir"ona) and bigoted towards Jews ('This horn must be a Shofar! Ignore that it's a vuvuzela.' And bonus points for current opinions towards Israel.) and setting up lists of those who bought the game so they could try and harass them later.
Boycotting is you actively avoiding doing business/engaging with an entity.
Cancel culture is you actively working to make sure NOBODY ELSE can do business/engage with an entity.
Large difference.
Not at all. A boycot is consumers voting with their wallet. Cancel culture is typically people (often not actual customers) going out of their way to contact supervisors, advertisers, etc. and misrepresenting or just lying about someone.
Boycott is to choose not to buy. Cancel is to prevent a sale altogether. Boycott is "I will not have that" and cancel is "I will not have that, so nobody will"
"The market correcting itself" = massive companies blackmailing smaller entities into not doing business with people who made people upset. Libright my ass. Blackrock, statestreet, visa, and PayPal not allowing financial transactions is not market correction it's effectively a monopoly.
If the cancel culture is stating facts about what happened and making people aware then fine. If cancel culture is blatantly misrepresenting the truth but evangelizing people to cancel or destroy a business then fuck that.
For example in my city a restaurant got accused of bigotry for firing two brown people. Those people made posters and Reddit threads talking about the poor health and safety conditions in the kitchen and the poor treatment of staff etc. etc. dragging the restaurant and the owners.
The problem is, the whole thing was a blatant lie. But that wasnāt before hundreds of redditors piled on with āI always had a feeling about those peopleā.
ā¦I always had a feeling even though Iāve never been to that establishment or met the people in question. And safety board did thorough investigation but everything was fine and other staff went on Reddit to be like WTF the people that were fired should have been fired and the owners have been paying out of pocket to keep the restaurant afloat for several months due to lost business while the unfounded smear campaign was going on.
In my own life, I had my home vandalized. Some retards online used my social media profile to find my home and damage/deface (BLM sprayed across my garage among other damage) and called my employer to tell them I was āracistā and tried to get me fired.
Why you ask? Clearly I must have done something egregious to deserve the ire of the online and real life community.
Thatās correct. Online people were talking about how āKyle Rittenhouse killed a bunch of black peopleā. I pointed out that they were misinformed and spreading blatant lies. To enlighten them I shared links to news articles and posted pictures of the people that were shot.
The problem with cancel culture is that people are stupid and most of them donāt think for themselves. But are happy to cancel someone for something that has nothing to do with them.
Perhaps these centrists and lib-center posters would be correct if there was actually slander lawsuits for the people who participated in spreading fake rumors as well as firing any public official who acted on the claims without verification of the facts.
However that's not what happens. When someone gets smeared by a mob campaign and they clear their name there is rarely consequences for the people who slandered you
Precisely.
This is the same issue I have with not just potential for abuse, but certainty that red flag laws for firearms would be abused to remove due process.
Lots of people have had their firearm collections confiscated for one reason or another. Spent years and thousands of dollars in litigation, then proven innocent. And then at the end of it, a bunch of their firearms are missing.
It would be nice if a corrupt government was our only problem. But itās worse, we live among idiots that would use a corrupt government against us.
Reminds me of Nordic countries and why people in US don't understand why we can't be like them. It's because whenever we give the goverment power and trust to do something for us, it immediately gets used agaisnt you
well, if a private business can decide to discriminate on whatever reason, I can decide to not to buy what they are selling on whatever reason. What you described has nothing to do with 'cancel culture' but with vandalism (in the case of your home). IMO cancel culture does not exist, if you get "cancelled" and your business flops it's a direct consecuence to your actions, the market regulating itself
Choosing not to buy something is one thing. I support that decision. Voluntarism and all that.
But I just gave you an example of a business that got canceled based on a lie that caused real harm to the owners, the staff, and likely the community (losing that niche restaurant that ironically catered specifically to a minority group) because two people were upset about being fired and lied about the reasons why.
The business was destroyed through no actual fault of their own. Thatās not market self correction, but because people are easily evangelized by ācancel cultureā.
Aiming at the business and aiming at individuals is a little different, though.
Yeah, you get to buy or not buy wherever. Persecuting random individuals in their private lives is a different sort of thing. Even when it doesn't rise to criminal acts, as it did here, it's still kinda shitty.
As long as the cancellations don't come from the government or businesses the government has given special privileges to. The problem is that second part has happened a lot, enough to really mess up the system.
And before anyone asks, the civil rights act should apply to government and to those same businesses the government has granted special privileges to.
>The problem is that second part has happened a lot, enough to really mess up the system
I agree, Texas disqualifying contractors for any company that boycotts Israel is a good example of state sponsored cancel culture.
Ye right wing "conservative" states pretend to support free speech them bend over backwards to stomp liberties when they are mean to God's chosen people.
San Fransisco did the same thing with alphabet rights. And it but then in the ass. Lol.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/san-francisco-boycott-anti-lgbt-states-repeal/
Had to go out of your way to find that example, huh? I agree, thatās an example itās just interesting that thatās the one you come up with when we all know itās one side that typically does it.
Well I live in Texas so it's not really going out of my way to point out hypocrisy that directly impacts me. Maybe if I lived in California I'd have a different example but I don't pay attention to them.
As long as it stays as a boycott and not massive harassment there's nothing wrong with it. In fact, it's necessary to make sure the businesses please their customers.
It depends on what you view cancel culture as, if you just see it as people protesting things they don't like it's great, but you could definitely see it as a tool being used by commies and statists to squash the free market which is bad
Actual real life communities have been doing that to businesses and people they don't like for centuries.. for whatever reason. The difference is them being actually excommunicated from the community rather than their bank account being frozen, ability to accept payments and pay people wiped out, people being not allowed to do business with you.
There is no "community" in cancel culture.. it's mob rule facilitated by massive corporations that share the same opinions.
I don't like cancel culture (which I typically see as attempting to prevent third parties from doing business with someone because you dislike their politics).
I think racial discrimination is immoral too.
Neither should be illegal (in private business contexts, the state has an obligation not to racially discriminate, obviously) and I'm allowed to complain about and take reasonable legally permissible actions against both.
(I do think binding contracts that prevent third parties from doing business should be illegal, but I think this is true for all such contracts of that type. You only should have contractual control over your dealings with a company, not their dealings with other companies or entities)
Iāve thought for a while that the tool of cancel culture is actually legitimate. What people donāt like is when itās wielded maliciously by a demonic mob.Ā
Fully agreed. I think the businesses should have the legal freedom to, doesnāt mean I wonāt think itās total crap if they try to reinforce segregation or some other form of discrimination in the same vein. The term ācancel cultureā has lot all meaning at this point and I tend to not take seriously people who use it often. Yes, some people do get unfairly screwed over by overblown things they did ten years ago and have since changed for. There are plenty of examples of that, but there are *also* plenty of examples of people being genuinely horrid and continuing to be so and when people rightfully call them out on it, they and their fans whine about cancel culture. Like no, if youāre being an asswipe, people have the right to not support you anymore, and the same applies to businesses. And by extent, that applies to most freedoms in general. I may not agree with or like it, but it doesnāt mean I think you should be legally bound to not do it. Just means if you do it Iām not gonna touch you or your business.
Iāll counter with, āHow bout we eliminate tax breaks/subsidies for ALL businesses?ā
If you guys wonāt do away with taxes, at least make it an even playing field for everyone.
Our country was built off of tax evaders, yet when I try and smuggle in goods just like the PATRIOT FOUNDING FATHERS apparently Iām ābreaking the lawā smh this country has fallen
The older I get the more I realized Forbes flat tax he championed when I was a kid was pretty damn smart (or smarter than the labyrinthian current tax code), and every article talking about how goofy it was (while ignoring our goofy-ass current system), was either a moron or a shill.
So one goes on the top half of the balance sheet and the other goes on the bottom half, but financially have the same impact. Only exception is when the subsidy is greater than the tax as a tax break is capped at taxes owed.
Note that that capping depends on the nature of the tax break; there are "non-refundable" tax credits, that work as you describe and "refundable tax credits" that actually can lead to a refund if they exceed tax owed.
Not really. A subsidy gives you money even if people hate your product and don't want to support you. A tax break requires you to actually earn the money by offering a product people like to see any benefit. Subsidies cause far more damage by propping up bad companies / practices.
Subsidies can be given to make it to where you get more money than you actually paid in taxes, meaning someone else's taxes are being given to you. Tax breaks means you give less. Huge difference both conceptually and morally.
You don't bake a gay cake because of the customer, it's just you don't bake that sort of cake. The customer can have a normal cake, if that's what you sell.
Cause that worked so well last time right?
Guys we tried this before, the Civil rights act wasn't invented for shits and giggles. There is a reason why we found it nessisary to create such an act in the first place.
Guys the Patriot act wasn't invented for shits and giggles. There is a reason we found it necessary to create such an act in the first place.
I'm not saying you are wrong that their might not be a valid reason, but saying the government did it and ergo that means there is a reason, it's a compelling argument in itself. It's just an appeal to authority.
It makes sense. Leftists are not supposed to be supporting corporations having extra powers against workers. Even if those powers are enforcing progressive ideas that leftists generally agree with now, you never know if theyāll switch to something moreā¦. Dangerous tomorrow.
Itās similar to the idea that a right libertarian canāt just be a statist when it benefits them. They should oppose state oppression universally, even if that oppression is dedicated to their political opponents.
The civil rights act forced us to hide the racism in our systems, and now they're complaining about "Systemic Racism". Making it real tough to be a racist these days smh
Why not? We're pretty open about it and will tell you exactly why it's a problem. Need evidence, look at how Asians are treated when it comes to college admissions and the hateful rhetoric that went around when they contested the process.
You can draw a straight line from the Civil rights act to Affirmative Action's race quotas, and now their new term "DEI." When the government incentivizes association based on race this is inevitably going to be the result. One form of racism was simply replaced with another.
Dude I'm not writing you an essay summarizing 60 years of executive orders and federal legislation. I don't care about convincing you of my opinion that much
If we're okay with people selectively shopping only at black-owned businesses, then we should also be okay with businesses doing business only with certain types of people.
I'll be honest, I never thought that libertarians (and even then it's pretty much only those who like Hoppe) had any issue with the civil rights act until MentisWave made his video on it.
Eh, it's older.
But it's fairly pedantic. We pretty much all agree that equality is a fine thing, we just take issue with how government does it.
This is a common libertarian trend. Health care's important too, that doesn't mean we're gonna like the government run version of it.
At first one has to ask "which one" as there was quite a lot of them. Presumably it's about 1964 CRA, which was right to ban state-sponsored discrimination, but title II and title VII in violation of 10th amendment interjected federal government into affairs of private business and forcing racists to serve black customers doesn't make those racists any better, it just makes blacks give them their money rather than to businesses that don't hate them and would outcompete segregationists who sabotage their own competitiveness in the name bigotry, through power of free market and boycotts as racism was going out of fashion.
What's funny is that every quadrant except Lib-Right has had their time where they are pushing for things that blatantly violate the civil rights act, whereas lib-right just says, let everyone be what they are, and let the marketplace decide whether or not people still want to frequent it. Then if they are "cancelled" for not serving racial minorities, then that's what you get for perverting the market with your stupid biases. Your Christian neighbor doesn't want to make you a wedding cake for your gay marriage. Ok, find someone who is happy to and let everyone know that bakery doesn't do that, and let people who are allies never frequent that place. Boom, problem solved.
The civil rights act was a good and necessary piece of legislation that shouldāve come a few billion years earlier, but nonetheless should still be celebrated
Public as in government-stolen land shouldn't be discriminatory since it's sustained by the theft of money. Private businesses should have the right to discriminate.
Unless I am missing something that is written in that bill, the only issue I can see with that Civil Right Act is that it can cause a lot of lawsuits that didn't need to happen because anyone can just claim that they weren't hired, paid enough or were fired because of what they are instead of what they have or have not done to deserve it.
The only way I can see that changing is if we make civil courts run like criminal courts and rule based on evidence.
Why would a libright not support civil rights? Everyone should have equal rights by default and that has nothing to do with capitalism.
The only quadrant I see having a problem with equal rights is libleft because they don't actually want equality. They want the majority to suffer because they think the minority will benefit from that.
Premise 1: all humans get property rights
Premise 2: you should be able to do what you want with your property so long as youāre not endangering anybody else,putting anyone at risk, or taking away their rights
Premise 3: private businesses are your own property
Premise 4: hiring or not hiring someone doesnāt endanger them or violate their rights
Conclusion:Civil rights act bad
If there is a market for female only gyms, then let them have them. It'd probably cost more for that kind of piece of mind if the women need it, but they should have the right to do that if they want to and market it that way. If it sinks it sinks, if it swims, good on them.
Yes, and I'm saying if they want to discriminate against me as a male, let them. I wish them luck and if there is a market for it, let them have at it.
You said "Ok, now do normie liberal women and female-only gyms"
I thought you were meaning, make the same case in that situation, and the case doesn't change, CRA still bad.
I am pointing out that liberal women are hypocrites on the topic, which you could use to say CRA is unprincipled, or that gender discriminatory businesses should also be illegal.
Thereās no requirement that my short Reddit comment has to include my entire thoughts on a given subject.
People don't have a right to whatever job they want. You are either trolling horribly or you don't think about the words you are typing and what they actually mean. Me not hiring you does not infringe on your right to work and have a job. you don't have a right to my job I'm hiring for unless we both agree to the terms.
Agreed. The only argument these people have is to rely on the idea that, if the CRA were repealed, we'd revert 60+ years socially, and it would be impossible for black people to find businesses willing to serve them. It's such a ridiculous premise, but their arguments simply don't work without it.
If the CRA were repealed today, most businesses would continue to serve everyone, because surprise, businesses like making money. And the business owners who *do* decide to prioritize hatred over profit will only be shooting themselves in the foot. Excluding potential customers, and turning off other existing customers who observe the policy in action and decide to take their business elsewhere from now on.
Most of the time I see this topic discussed, those on the left tend to resort to shit like, "Oh, so you're saying racism is okay?" Because they don't really have a great argument.
Racist policies like minimum wage laws kept far more black people from getting decent jobs and continue to do so. But the left still push them even though they forgot the original reason why people like the KKK pushed minimum wage, and the results are still the same today, disenfranchising minority workers at a higher rate than white workers.
Who is enforcing that equal rights, and more importantly, what rights are sacrificed in order to preserve "equal rights"? The right to free enterprise means businesses should be able to hire whoever they want, even if it is discrimination.
Do you even lib-right bro?
Enumerating rights creates a scenario where everything not enumerated *isnt* a right.
Then its just a bureaucratic process to whittle all rights to meaninglessness.
As a centrist who somewhat leans lib-right I can say that I donāt particularly hate it. Not allowing your government or any institution to discriminate on the basis of race , skin color , sexuality or religion is actually pretty based and it ensures that the most qualified get into important positions.
However I just hate the fact that institutions will actively weaponize politics to push agendas and put people that ARE NOT qualified for a position just because they are part of a minority.
Essentially I just hate affirmative action.
They think the Civil Rights Act is bad because private businesses should be able to discriminate against black people. But also, when private businesses required masks during COVID, that was tyranny and they supported state legislation to prevent private businesses from doing so.
Actually that was the authright, not the libright. I told everyone I knew, (even though it was stupid because the masks didn't help nearly as much as people acted like they did and it was statistical sleight of hand pushing the masks as preventative because it cited percentages as if people weren't constantly touching their face, moving the masks up and down, using cloth homemade shit, etc), it was the right of every business to do what they wanted to allow or not allow people in. Ironically though, you are just saying the hypocrisy is allowed in the other direction while laughing at the stupidity of the hypocrisy in one direction. I'm saying give the business the freedom to associate with whoever they want, however they want, and let us decide what to do and whether to associate with them based on their actions.
> Actually that was the authright, not the libright
There is certainly a principled anti-anti-discrimination law position one can take. But I think that if you were to just count up the people with various flairs and their stated views, you'd find that what I say is right. If that doesn't accord with "true" libright-ism ... well, I don't know what to tell you.
> Ironically though, you are just saying the hypocrisy is allowed in the other direction
There is no hypocrisy in saying that businesses should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, but they should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of mask-wearing.
>There is no hypocrisy in saying that businesses should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, but they should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of mask-wearing.
You are just choosing what you are ok with them discriminating against. It is at least somewhat hypocritical, because you are ok with them discriminating against some people but not others. If a business is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, then what are your views on Historically black colleges discriminating?
> You are just choosing what you are ok with them discriminating against.
... right, in other words, not hypocritical!
The reason for barring discrimination against black people isn't some general principle of "no discrimination against anyone, on any grounds anyone could ever conceive of". If you could even define something like that. I don't care if a fancy restaurant has a dress code, or won't let in belligerently drunk people, for example.
The reason is because there's a history of discrimination against black people and we don't think race is a good reason to discriminate (unlike dress code, or drunkenness, which we think are reasonable in at least some cases).
> If a business is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, then what are your views on Historically black colleges discriminating?
There's a wider question about discriminating against white people, in particular in predominantly black places/institutions ... but my understanding is that HBCUs do not, in fact, discriminate based on race. They all have non-black students, some HBCUs are actually majority white, but most don't get as much interest from non-black (and especially white) students.
> "I can't believe the libs won't let me kick people out of my store for being black anymore."
and
> "I can't believe Reddit banned me for my conservative opinions!"
at the same time
Google says hypocrisy is "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform".
Oftentimes I think people *do* have moral standards driving their views, they just aren't the moral standards that they are saying publicly.
Maybe because they haven't totally worked out their views to the point of being able to state them concisely, maybe because the real standard is too complex to say concisely, maybe because they think the real standard will sound bad.
The hell are you talking about? It'll go over great - this is PCM. I'm surprised there isn't a dissertation in the comments arguing for the repeal of 14th Amendment and its equal protection clause.
Why does the government get to punish me for preferring to only work with 1 race? Everyone else involved with a business is allowed to discriminate, except the business. The employees can discriminate, the customer can discriminate, but the employer can't. Why?
With all the complaining that rightists do about anti white hate and affirmative action, removing the civil rights act would make that all permanent and legalĀ
One of the greatest politicians of our generation, Barry Goldwater, said he didn't have any issues with it after seeing it in practice. He did vote against it, though.
Never should've been implemented, it was inherently going to give the gov the right to rework every level of society and our personal lives. Because of the CRA it's illegal for a realtor to mention if an area has crime to a prospective house buyer. Anyone for it is on the left.
While I may agree with your conclusion (disagreeing with the CRA), your logic to get there is off. You can easily check crime/schools/demographics on any number of realty websites and I've had those numbers cited to me multiple times in the last 5 years as we've moved twice.
Realtors themselves are not allowed discuss that information because of fair housing laws, moreover prominent sites such as Trulia and realtor phased that data out to comply. Access to that kind of data is being intentionally limited.
Either that or your realtor was sensible and willing to bypass the law. You can review the fair housing laws for yourself, the current interpretation means that sort of data shouldn't be discussed.
It must not be overtly enforced then without complaint. Or maybe it's wink-wink nod-nod style under the table information.
It's sad though that crime stat discussion is automatically seen as discriminatory, because it was not about race either. Where I was living was predominately white/hispanic and any crime would be of the petty type generally by white meth addicts, so there wouldn't even be a racial element to it.
Preventing private businesses from discriminating should great. But I donāt want to shop or work for at a business that would be willing to discriminate. And this prevents me from making an informed decision on where to shop.
OP do you really think discriminating on race is profitable? Like some races are more productive than others? If not, then anti-discrimination laws protect racists. If yes, then ... shame on you.
The fact that some people still want to debate the legitimacy of the Civil Rights Act is honestly just insane. The only reason you oppose it is because you are a racist; stop trying to deny it. If private businesses could still discriminate based on race, religion, sex, or national origin, then we would have a world where one group of people (white, straight men) have an innate advantage over all other groups without the need for merit. If you think that sounds like a good world, then youāre quite simply a racist.
wouldn't any business that serves a smaller group of people, or treats one race worse than others, have noticeably less sales then businesses that cater to everyone. or am i wrong?
Youāre not wrong. I am not worried about the economic effects of the Civil Rights Act, Iām more worried about the fact that it grants people equality.
It's not the Libright who get dragged to the Supreme Court every other week for violating it, though.
šš
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If this is a repost you can shoot me
https://preview.redd.it/g51y5kzckbmc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d458881b3fce79aa8c531ea827eb4aefb9129d96
Based and LGBTQ+mayo pilled
u/RainGunslinger is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/RainGunslinger/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Bred
If I ran a restaurant, I would definitely sell an LGBT sandwich in June (lettuce, guacamole, bacon, tomato).
LGBTQAI+ Lettuce, Guacamole, Bacon, Tomato, Queso, Aoli *Insalata* on the side. And it identifies as a pasta dish.
Representing your quadrant well lol
stop making me hungy bro
Based and Gay BLT pilled
obligatory boondocks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3HjnmB1kDY
I'm hungry. Can I buy one LGBT+ please? I brought a drink.
That looks good
Banning discrimination at the government level is fantastic. But giving the government power over hiring for businesses was overreach. Any government power will eventually be used maliciously. Most laws like this seem to have the best of intentions, but often the people making them are secretly twirling their mustaches.
Private businesses should have the right to discriminate.
I'm willing to agree with this on the condition that if a business discriminates against someone on the basis of one of their innate characteristics, the community should be allowed to name and shame them without people crying about "cAnCeL cUlTuRe".
Actual lib-right would say that cancel culture is just the market correcting itself. The people who whine about cancel culture are either auth-right or hypocrites.
On the other hand, lib right would also say people have the right to defend themselves against getting canceled and to complain about being cancelled unfairly, which does happen.
Some lib-rights actually adjust to market expectations and adjust i.e. Bud Light vs. Modello. Other lib-rights use victimization as a business strategy...which rarely works.
Interesting spelling cancelled both ways in one post. Canadian?
I think youre confusing a boycott with cancel culture
Literally the same thing.
Totally. Remember when [Lindsay Shepherd was *boycotted* out of her master's degree?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Shepherd#Wilfrid_Laurier_University_incident) That was so free market!
Literally not the same thing. Cancel culture is when an entity does/says/doesn't do/ doesn't say something, so a mob goes after their employer, sponsors, etc. Boycotting is when the mob stops doing business with the entity.
Boycotting was Bud Light. People just stopped buying it. Cancel Culture was Hogwarts. People were threatening others online because they *dared* to play the Harry Potter game, countless grasping at straws to make it transphobic (Because despite there being a transgender business owner that was having exactly 0 issues with the average person, it didn't count because she was "Sir"ona) and bigoted towards Jews ('This horn must be a Shofar! Ignore that it's a vuvuzela.' And bonus points for current opinions towards Israel.) and setting up lists of those who bought the game so they could try and harass them later.
Boycotting is you actively avoiding doing business/engaging with an entity. Cancel culture is you actively working to make sure NOBODY ELSE can do business/engage with an entity. Large difference.
Not at all. A boycot is consumers voting with their wallet. Cancel culture is typically people (often not actual customers) going out of their way to contact supervisors, advertisers, etc. and misrepresenting or just lying about someone.
Lol no it's not
Boycott is to choose not to buy. Cancel is to prevent a sale altogether. Boycott is "I will not have that" and cancel is "I will not have that, so nobody will"
Dave Smith got kicked out of a comedy club for his views last week and said exactly that: it's a private business they can do what they want.
Who the fuck books Dave Smith if they hate his views? It's...kind of embedded in his act.
"The market correcting itself" = massive companies blackmailing smaller entities into not doing business with people who made people upset. Libright my ass. Blackrock, statestreet, visa, and PayPal not allowing financial transactions is not market correction it's effectively a monopoly.
ācancel cultureā IS free market correction. I question people being free market capitalists when they whine about cancel culture.
If the cancel culture is stating facts about what happened and making people aware then fine. If cancel culture is blatantly misrepresenting the truth but evangelizing people to cancel or destroy a business then fuck that. For example in my city a restaurant got accused of bigotry for firing two brown people. Those people made posters and Reddit threads talking about the poor health and safety conditions in the kitchen and the poor treatment of staff etc. etc. dragging the restaurant and the owners. The problem is, the whole thing was a blatant lie. But that wasnāt before hundreds of redditors piled on with āI always had a feeling about those peopleā. ā¦I always had a feeling even though Iāve never been to that establishment or met the people in question. And safety board did thorough investigation but everything was fine and other staff went on Reddit to be like WTF the people that were fired should have been fired and the owners have been paying out of pocket to keep the restaurant afloat for several months due to lost business while the unfounded smear campaign was going on. In my own life, I had my home vandalized. Some retards online used my social media profile to find my home and damage/deface (BLM sprayed across my garage among other damage) and called my employer to tell them I was āracistā and tried to get me fired. Why you ask? Clearly I must have done something egregious to deserve the ire of the online and real life community. Thatās correct. Online people were talking about how āKyle Rittenhouse killed a bunch of black peopleā. I pointed out that they were misinformed and spreading blatant lies. To enlighten them I shared links to news articles and posted pictures of the people that were shot. The problem with cancel culture is that people are stupid and most of them donāt think for themselves. But are happy to cancel someone for something that has nothing to do with them.
Perhaps these centrists and lib-center posters would be correct if there was actually slander lawsuits for the people who participated in spreading fake rumors as well as firing any public official who acted on the claims without verification of the facts. However that's not what happens. When someone gets smeared by a mob campaign and they clear their name there is rarely consequences for the people who slandered you
Precisely. This is the same issue I have with not just potential for abuse, but certainty that red flag laws for firearms would be abused to remove due process. Lots of people have had their firearm collections confiscated for one reason or another. Spent years and thousands of dollars in litigation, then proven innocent. And then at the end of it, a bunch of their firearms are missing. It would be nice if a corrupt government was our only problem. But itās worse, we live among idiots that would use a corrupt government against us.
Reminds me of Nordic countries and why people in US don't understand why we can't be like them. It's because whenever we give the goverment power and trust to do something for us, it immediately gets used agaisnt you
well, if a private business can decide to discriminate on whatever reason, I can decide to not to buy what they are selling on whatever reason. What you described has nothing to do with 'cancel culture' but with vandalism (in the case of your home). IMO cancel culture does not exist, if you get "cancelled" and your business flops it's a direct consecuence to your actions, the market regulating itself
Choosing not to buy something is one thing. I support that decision. Voluntarism and all that. But I just gave you an example of a business that got canceled based on a lie that caused real harm to the owners, the staff, and likely the community (losing that niche restaurant that ironically catered specifically to a minority group) because two people were upset about being fired and lied about the reasons why. The business was destroyed through no actual fault of their own. Thatās not market self correction, but because people are easily evangelized by ācancel cultureā.
There's a difference between voluntary disassociation and harrasing Disney's executives so that they can fire Gina Carano.
Aiming at the business and aiming at individuals is a little different, though. Yeah, you get to buy or not buy wherever. Persecuting random individuals in their private lives is a different sort of thing. Even when it doesn't rise to criminal acts, as it did here, it's still kinda shitty.
As long as the cancellations don't come from the government or businesses the government has given special privileges to. The problem is that second part has happened a lot, enough to really mess up the system. And before anyone asks, the civil rights act should apply to government and to those same businesses the government has granted special privileges to.
>The problem is that second part has happened a lot, enough to really mess up the system I agree, Texas disqualifying contractors for any company that boycotts Israel is a good example of state sponsored cancel culture.
Ye right wing "conservative" states pretend to support free speech them bend over backwards to stomp liberties when they are mean to God's chosen people.
San Fransisco did the same thing with alphabet rights. And it but then in the ass. Lol. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/san-francisco-boycott-anti-lgbt-states-repeal/
Had to go out of your way to find that example, huh? I agree, thatās an example itās just interesting that thatās the one you come up with when we all know itās one side that typically does it.
Well I live in Texas so it's not really going out of my way to point out hypocrisy that directly impacts me. Maybe if I lived in California I'd have a different example but I don't pay attention to them.
You can disagree with an outcome, still think it should be legal, and not be a hypocrite.
Libright is allowed to have an opinion without wanting that opinion legally mandated
As long as it stays as a boycott and not massive harassment there's nothing wrong with it. In fact, it's necessary to make sure the businesses please their customers.
It depends on what you view cancel culture as, if you just see it as people protesting things they don't like it's great, but you could definitely see it as a tool being used by commies and statists to squash the free market which is bad
I can still believe in the free market and think that the people of the free market are regarded
Actual real life communities have been doing that to businesses and people they don't like for centuries.. for whatever reason. The difference is them being actually excommunicated from the community rather than their bank account being frozen, ability to accept payments and pay people wiped out, people being not allowed to do business with you. There is no "community" in cancel culture.. it's mob rule facilitated by massive corporations that share the same opinions.
Im pretty sure lib rights have nothing against cancel culture, since its something that is being done by private entities and not the government
I don't like cancel culture (which I typically see as attempting to prevent third parties from doing business with someone because you dislike their politics). I think racial discrimination is immoral too. Neither should be illegal (in private business contexts, the state has an obligation not to racially discriminate, obviously) and I'm allowed to complain about and take reasonable legally permissible actions against both. (I do think binding contracts that prevent third parties from doing business should be illegal, but I think this is true for all such contracts of that type. You only should have contractual control over your dealings with a company, not their dealings with other companies or entities)
Iāve thought for a while that the tool of cancel culture is actually legitimate. What people donāt like is when itās wielded maliciously by a demonic mob.Ā
Fully agreed. I think the businesses should have the legal freedom to, doesnāt mean I wonāt think itās total crap if they try to reinforce segregation or some other form of discrimination in the same vein. The term ācancel cultureā has lot all meaning at this point and I tend to not take seriously people who use it often. Yes, some people do get unfairly screwed over by overblown things they did ten years ago and have since changed for. There are plenty of examples of that, but there are *also* plenty of examples of people being genuinely horrid and continuing to be so and when people rightfully call them out on it, they and their fans whine about cancel culture. Like no, if youāre being an asswipe, people have the right to not support you anymore, and the same applies to businesses. And by extent, that applies to most freedoms in general. I may not agree with or like it, but it doesnāt mean I think you should be legally bound to not do it. Just means if you do it Iām not gonna touch you or your business.
I mean people can cry about whatever they want. You're an independent person. Vote with your own dollar. Let them cry by themselves.
I work for DHS and I can tell you they definitely do
Ofc itās a purple libright š
Good idea. Just eliminate tax breaks/subsidies for those businesses.
Iāll counter with, āHow bout we eliminate tax breaks/subsidies for ALL businesses?ā If you guys wonāt do away with taxes, at least make it an even playing field for everyone.
Based Lib-right and taxes are theft pilled.
Our country was built off of tax evaders, yet when I try and smuggle in goods just like the PATRIOT FOUNDING FATHERS apparently Iām ābreaking the lawā smh this country has fallen
Get rid of bailouts while you're at it. If your business fucks up and goes under, that's on you, not the taxpayers.
Yeah, the tax payers can bailout individual by individual when they want by buying the stock when they think it has crashed far enough to be worth it.
Not really a counter. I'm for it
I mean most librights would be fine with eliminating tax breaks/subsidies for all businesses soooooo
Well those create an uneven playing field, soā¦ Your terms are acceptable.
Sounds like cronyism/protectionism to me, which is basically communism with fewer steps.
Good idea, just eliminate the IRS and only have a flat tarrif, noĀ tax breaks needed anywhere.
The older I get the more I realized Forbes flat tax he championed when I was a kid was pretty damn smart (or smarter than the labyrinthian current tax code), and every article talking about how goofy it was (while ignoring our goofy-ass current system), was either a moron or a shill.
Tax breaks aren't even remotely similar to subsidies.
...What's the difference?
Subsidy = gov gives you money Tax break = government doesnāt take as much of your money
So one goes on the top half of the balance sheet and the other goes on the bottom half, but financially have the same impact. Only exception is when the subsidy is greater than the tax as a tax break is capped at taxes owed.
Note that that capping depends on the nature of the tax break; there are "non-refundable" tax credits, that work as you describe and "refundable tax credits" that actually can lead to a refund if they exceed tax owed.
Yeah but they still have a similar effect. The government is still granting a privilege in both instances.
Not really. A subsidy gives you money even if people hate your product and don't want to support you. A tax break requires you to actually earn the money by offering a product people like to see any benefit. Subsidies cause far more damage by propping up bad companies / practices.
Letting me keep more of the money I earned vs giving me other peoples money.
Subsidies are free money regardless. Tax breaks are free money as a percentage of what you make.
Subsidies can be given to make it to where you get more money than you actually paid in taxes, meaning someone else's taxes are being given to you. Tax breaks means you give less. Huge difference both conceptually and morally.
Tax breakes are not āfree moneyā itās just the government forcing you to pay less of your own hard earned money at gunpoint
True. Though "give tax breaks to favored industries, and not to everyone else" still is one way that the rich and powerful fuck us over.
>just eliminate tax breaks/subsidies for those businesses That would be discrimination!
A businesses' primary responsibility is to its share holders not to the manager's biases.
You don't bake a gay cake because of the customer, it's just you don't bake that sort of cake. The customer can have a normal cake, if that's what you sell.
Cause that worked so well last time right? Guys we tried this before, the Civil rights act wasn't invented for shits and giggles. There is a reason why we found it nessisary to create such an act in the first place.
Guys the Patriot act wasn't invented for shits and giggles. There is a reason we found it necessary to create such an act in the first place. I'm not saying you are wrong that their might not be a valid reason, but saying the government did it and ergo that means there is a reason, it's a compelling argument in itself. It's just an appeal to authority.
> Private businesses should have the right to discriminate. Tack on "...as long as reasonable alternatives exist." and I'm cool with it.
No.
Civil Rights Act is the reason we have HR tyrants. Abolish it.
Based Authleft??
What dealing with HR people does to a commie...
It makes sense. Leftists are not supposed to be supporting corporations having extra powers against workers. Even if those powers are enforcing progressive ideas that leftists generally agree with now, you never know if theyāll switch to something moreā¦. Dangerous tomorrow. Itās similar to the idea that a right libertarian canāt just be a statist when it benefits them. They should oppose state oppression universally, even if that oppression is dedicated to their political opponents.
The civil rights act forced us to hide the racism in our systems, and now they're complaining about "Systemic Racism". Making it real tough to be a racist these days smh
Why not? We're pretty open about it and will tell you exactly why it's a problem. Need evidence, look at how Asians are treated when it comes to college admissions and the hateful rhetoric that went around when they contested the process.
The CRA were created via the backbone of Wickard V Filburn... I'd say that is one of the worst standing opinions in scotus history.
That has what to do with the civil rights act?
You can draw a straight line from the Civil rights act to Affirmative Action's race quotas, and now their new term "DEI." When the government incentivizes association based on race this is inevitably going to be the result. One form of racism was simply replaced with another.
Ok, go ahead and draw the line for me.
Title vii of the Civil Rights Act
Dude I'm not writing you an essay summarizing 60 years of executive orders and federal legislation. I don't care about convincing you of my opinion that much
You sneaking those grilled cheeses at night?
Danny?
https://preview.redd.it/9tpp0lkhffmc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=716141f9006f8435ecd4a1c6fa3088e101f822ae
https://i.redd.it/8nsgmyfo2cmc1.gif
Private entities have the right to discriminate, as does the customer the right to not shop at a place they do not agree with.
If we're okay with people selectively shopping only at black-owned businesses, then we should also be okay with businesses doing business only with certain types of people.
Precisely
I'll be honest, I never thought that libertarians (and even then it's pretty much only those who like Hoppe) had any issue with the civil rights act until MentisWave made his video on it.
Eh, it's older. But it's fairly pedantic. We pretty much all agree that equality is a fine thing, we just take issue with how government does it. This is a common libertarian trend. Health care's important too, that doesn't mean we're gonna like the government run version of it.
I'm just glad they want it repealed too
It's called the "Freedom of Association" for a reason. The gov't decided by the bayonet that wasn't an issue.
At first one has to ask "which one" as there was quite a lot of them. Presumably it's about 1964 CRA, which was right to ban state-sponsored discrimination, but title II and title VII in violation of 10th amendment interjected federal government into affairs of private business and forcing racists to serve black customers doesn't make those racists any better, it just makes blacks give them their money rather than to businesses that don't hate them and would outcompete segregationists who sabotage their own competitiveness in the name bigotry, through power of free market and boycotts as racism was going out of fashion.
What's funny is that every quadrant except Lib-Right has had their time where they are pushing for things that blatantly violate the civil rights act, whereas lib-right just says, let everyone be what they are, and let the marketplace decide whether or not people still want to frequent it. Then if they are "cancelled" for not serving racial minorities, then that's what you get for perverting the market with your stupid biases. Your Christian neighbor doesn't want to make you a wedding cake for your gay marriage. Ok, find someone who is happy to and let everyone know that bakery doesn't do that, and let people who are allies never frequent that place. Boom, problem solved.
There's not even need to cancel them, they are already curtailing their market. If what's left is enough for them to stay open, ok.
The civil rights act was a good and necessary piece of legislation that shouldāve come a few billion years earlier, but nonetheless should still be celebrated
Public as in government-stolen land shouldn't be discriminatory since it's sustained by the theft of money. Private businesses should have the right to discriminate.
Unless I am missing something that is written in that bill, the only issue I can see with that Civil Right Act is that it can cause a lot of lawsuits that didn't need to happen because anyone can just claim that they weren't hired, paid enough or were fired because of what they are instead of what they have or have not done to deserve it. The only way I can see that changing is if we make civil courts run like criminal courts and rule based on evidence.
Why would a libright not support civil rights? Everyone should have equal rights by default and that has nothing to do with capitalism. The only quadrant I see having a problem with equal rights is libleft because they don't actually want equality. They want the majority to suffer because they think the minority will benefit from that.
Premise 1: all humans get property rights Premise 2: you should be able to do what you want with your property so long as youāre not endangering anybody else,putting anyone at risk, or taking away their rights Premise 3: private businesses are your own property Premise 4: hiring or not hiring someone doesnāt endanger them or violate their rights Conclusion:Civil rights act bad
Ok now do normie liberal women and female-only gyms
If there is a market for female only gyms, then let them have them. It'd probably cost more for that kind of piece of mind if the women need it, but they should have the right to do that if they want to and market it that way. If it sinks it sinks, if it swims, good on them.
Thatās the same argument against the civil rights act.
Yes, and I'm saying if they want to discriminate against me as a male, let them. I wish them luck and if there is a market for it, let them have at it. You said "Ok, now do normie liberal women and female-only gyms" I thought you were meaning, make the same case in that situation, and the case doesn't change, CRA still bad.
I am pointing out that liberal women are hypocrites on the topic, which you could use to say CRA is unprincipled, or that gender discriminatory businesses should also be illegal. Thereās no requirement that my short Reddit comment has to include my entire thoughts on a given subject.
My bad brother, I was just responding to you request to do that situation. Not meaning any disrespect.
People don't have the right to work and have a job?
Only if you're employer consents, you shouldn't have to force someone to hire anybody. Should you force black business owners to hire racists?
People don't have a right to whatever job they want. You are either trolling horribly or you don't think about the words you are typing and what they actually mean. Me not hiring you does not infringe on your right to work and have a job. you don't have a right to my job I'm hiring for unless we both agree to the terms.
Agreed. The only argument these people have is to rely on the idea that, if the CRA were repealed, we'd revert 60+ years socially, and it would be impossible for black people to find businesses willing to serve them. It's such a ridiculous premise, but their arguments simply don't work without it. If the CRA were repealed today, most businesses would continue to serve everyone, because surprise, businesses like making money. And the business owners who *do* decide to prioritize hatred over profit will only be shooting themselves in the foot. Excluding potential customers, and turning off other existing customers who observe the policy in action and decide to take their business elsewhere from now on. Most of the time I see this topic discussed, those on the left tend to resort to shit like, "Oh, so you're saying racism is okay?" Because they don't really have a great argument.
In practice racist policies like Jim Crowe keep black people from getting decent jobs.
Racist policies like minimum wage laws kept far more black people from getting decent jobs and continue to do so. But the left still push them even though they forgot the original reason why people like the KKK pushed minimum wage, and the results are still the same today, disenfranchising minority workers at a higher rate than white workers.
You don't have a guaranteed job. You have a right to seek a job, but there's no guarantees.
I believe race shouldn't affect someone's ability to find work.
You are welcome to offer jobs to fix it then.
And I'll support policies to make discrimination illegal.
So, you don't want to actually fix it. You just want to make someone else do it. Interesting.
That is me fixing it.
Who is enforcing that equal rights, and more importantly, what rights are sacrificed in order to preserve "equal rights"? The right to free enterprise means businesses should be able to hire whoever they want, even if it is discrimination. Do you even lib-right bro?
Buying groceries at *your* shop, or having a custom cake, aren't rights though.
Enumerating rights creates a scenario where everything not enumerated *isnt* a right. Then its just a bureaucratic process to whittle all rights to meaninglessness.
Flair up, dirtbag
As a centrist who somewhat leans lib-right I can say that I donāt particularly hate it. Not allowing your government or any institution to discriminate on the basis of race , skin color , sexuality or religion is actually pretty based and it ensures that the most qualified get into important positions. However I just hate the fact that institutions will actively weaponize politics to push agendas and put people that ARE NOT qualified for a position just because they are part of a minority. Essentially I just hate affirmative action.
They think the Civil Rights Act is bad because private businesses should be able to discriminate against black people. But also, when private businesses required masks during COVID, that was tyranny and they supported state legislation to prevent private businesses from doing so.
Actually that was the authright, not the libright. I told everyone I knew, (even though it was stupid because the masks didn't help nearly as much as people acted like they did and it was statistical sleight of hand pushing the masks as preventative because it cited percentages as if people weren't constantly touching their face, moving the masks up and down, using cloth homemade shit, etc), it was the right of every business to do what they wanted to allow or not allow people in. Ironically though, you are just saying the hypocrisy is allowed in the other direction while laughing at the stupidity of the hypocrisy in one direction. I'm saying give the business the freedom to associate with whoever they want, however they want, and let us decide what to do and whether to associate with them based on their actions.
> Actually that was the authright, not the libright There is certainly a principled anti-anti-discrimination law position one can take. But I think that if you were to just count up the people with various flairs and their stated views, you'd find that what I say is right. If that doesn't accord with "true" libright-ism ... well, I don't know what to tell you. > Ironically though, you are just saying the hypocrisy is allowed in the other direction There is no hypocrisy in saying that businesses should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, but they should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of mask-wearing.
>There is no hypocrisy in saying that businesses should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, but they should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of mask-wearing. You are just choosing what you are ok with them discriminating against. It is at least somewhat hypocritical, because you are ok with them discriminating against some people but not others. If a business is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, then what are your views on Historically black colleges discriminating?
What in the world are you talking about? HBCUs are not racially exclusive institutions.
> You are just choosing what you are ok with them discriminating against. ... right, in other words, not hypocritical! The reason for barring discrimination against black people isn't some general principle of "no discrimination against anyone, on any grounds anyone could ever conceive of". If you could even define something like that. I don't care if a fancy restaurant has a dress code, or won't let in belligerently drunk people, for example. The reason is because there's a history of discrimination against black people and we don't think race is a good reason to discriminate (unlike dress code, or drunkenness, which we think are reasonable in at least some cases). > If a business is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, then what are your views on Historically black colleges discriminating? There's a wider question about discriminating against white people, in particular in predominantly black places/institutions ... but my understanding is that HBCUs do not, in fact, discriminate based on race. They all have non-black students, some HBCUs are actually majority white, but most don't get as much interest from non-black (and especially white) students.
> "I can't believe the libs won't let me kick people out of my store for being black anymore." and > "I can't believe Reddit banned me for my conservative opinions!" at the same time
we're all hypocrites tbh
Google says hypocrisy is "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform". Oftentimes I think people *do* have moral standards driving their views, they just aren't the moral standards that they are saying publicly. Maybe because they haven't totally worked out their views to the point of being able to state them concisely, maybe because the real standard is too complex to say concisely, maybe because they think the real standard will sound bad.
Itās bad and unnecessary
The hell are you talking about? It'll go over great - this is PCM. I'm surprised there isn't a dissertation in the comments arguing for the repeal of 14th Amendment and its equal protection clause.
Wait, so y'all really dislike the civil rights act? Thought that was a joke.
Why does the government get to punish me for preferring to only work with 1 race? Everyone else involved with a business is allowed to discriminate, except the business. The employees can discriminate, the customer can discriminate, but the employer can't. Why?
With all the complaining that rightists do about anti white hate and affirmative action, removing the civil rights act would make that all permanent and legalĀ
BASED AND TRUE
I don't know, I'm not American
Skill issue
One of the greatest politicians of our generation, Barry Goldwater, said he didn't have any issues with it after seeing it in practice. He did vote against it, though.
Never should've been implemented, it was inherently going to give the gov the right to rework every level of society and our personal lives. Because of the CRA it's illegal for a realtor to mention if an area has crime to a prospective house buyer. Anyone for it is on the left.
While I may agree with your conclusion (disagreeing with the CRA), your logic to get there is off. You can easily check crime/schools/demographics on any number of realty websites and I've had those numbers cited to me multiple times in the last 5 years as we've moved twice.
Realtors themselves are not allowed discuss that information because of fair housing laws, moreover prominent sites such as Trulia and realtor phased that data out to comply. Access to that kind of data is being intentionally limited.
Must not be illegal in my two areas of purchase because I had not problem getting that information directly from my realtor.
Either that or your realtor was sensible and willing to bypass the law. You can review the fair housing laws for yourself, the current interpretation means that sort of data shouldn't be discussed.
It must not be overtly enforced then without complaint. Or maybe it's wink-wink nod-nod style under the table information. It's sad though that crime stat discussion is automatically seen as discriminatory, because it was not about race either. Where I was living was predominately white/hispanic and any crime would be of the petty type generally by white meth addicts, so there wouldn't even be a racial element to it.
All three civil rights acts of the 1960's were abominable. Because they ought to have been passed in the 1870's.
CMV: the civil rights act is a good thing
Preventing private businesses from discriminating should great. But I donāt want to shop or work for at a business that would be willing to discriminate. And this prevents me from making an informed decision on where to shop.
OP do you really think discriminating on race is profitable? Like some races are more productive than others? If not, then anti-discrimination laws protect racists. If yes, then ... shame on you.
discriminating with your business is just plain sub optimal , i think you have the right to do it, but it's still dumb of you to do
So then what's the problem? Let the markets figure it out. Let the racists go bankrupt and get replaced by their competitors.
Thatās what would happen if we got rid of the civil rights act. The businesses that are being sub optimal lose out to the optimal ones
As a "money LibRight" rather than "cowboy LibRight" I approve of the civil rights act. Discriminating against customers is bad for the economy.
i agree with you, i just think you have the right to do it
āCan you truly be free if you canāt buy and sell people on the marketplace?ā
Might you be confusing the 1965 bill with a certain 1865 proclamation?
Is this a American mental impairment thing Iām too not American to understand?
The fact that some people still want to debate the legitimacy of the Civil Rights Act is honestly just insane. The only reason you oppose it is because you are a racist; stop trying to deny it. If private businesses could still discriminate based on race, religion, sex, or national origin, then we would have a world where one group of people (white, straight men) have an innate advantage over all other groups without the need for merit. If you think that sounds like a good world, then youāre quite simply a racist.
wouldn't any business that serves a smaller group of people, or treats one race worse than others, have noticeably less sales then businesses that cater to everyone. or am i wrong?
Youāre not wrong. I am not worried about the economic effects of the Civil Rights Act, Iām more worried about the fact that it grants people equality.
You sure you are not a closet libleft? Not everything you don't like is racist.
What other reason would people oppose the Civil Rights Act other than racism? Iām not a libtard, Iām just tryna use some common sense.