Scary Liberal Views and Policy Positions?

[Grigoris]

warsaw uprising.jpg (185.88 KiB) Viewed 2717 times

[Dan74]

And with that you win the

Non Sequitur Comment of the Day

[Grigoris]

PS I have no problem with people burning down the offices of populist and neo-Nazi parties, because for every office burnt an innocent life is saved.

[Grigoris]

But some progressives still think the blackshirts are marching in the streets.. Well maybe in Greece they are.

Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Turkey, etc...

In Austria, they are even the ruling party.

[Mantrik]

I have a new policy.
The first ad hom or non sequitur from Greg, and I simply leave the discussion.
If this was adopted widely it would soon leave him with no one to cuss out but himself.

Playing with straw men eventually leads to spontaneous combustion.
It has been interesting on this thread to note how often people who seem to have a liberal message, create straw men so that they can get angry about what was never written and then conclude the person who didn't write it must be guilty of hate speech.

That is precisely how free speech is eroded...by increasing legislation to deny the right to protest. It is very worrying that in the UK all that is required for a prosecution is that someone takes offence at your words or actions, however ridiculous that may be. The legal test of'reasonable' has been lost prior to prosecution.
Meanwhile, those with power seem free to abuse and distort with impunity........bit like here, then.

You don't really protect or support the rights of minorites by elevating them above the rest of the population. Nor does it help by dividing those minorities into even tinier minorities. It is a simple matter to ban the harming of others on the basis of their race, gender, religion etc. and that includes protecting the rights of business owners with religious convictions. Once we start to elevate the rights of one minority above the other, we are on the slippery slope where persecution of minorities continues but simply shifts from one group to another based on populist causes rather than fairness.

Since this comment will draw inevitable straw man non-sequitur accusatory trolling it will be my last.

[Grigoris]

Once we start to elevate the rights of one minority above the other, we are on the slippery slope where persecution of minorities continues but simply shifts from one group to another based on populist causes rather than fairness.

Except that nobody here proposed anything like that. If you are going to cry about others using straw man logical fallacies, then you should refrain from them yourself.

[Grigoris]

And with that you win the

Non Sequitur Comment of the Day

No, it is not a non-sequitur. The argument being used here is that if you do not allow a Christian to refuse making a cake with a gay message, then you should not allow a Jew/Muslim to refuse to sell pork. As if the two issues are related somehow, since they both involve selling.

People are ignoring the issue of power differences, in order to propose a false equivalence for the actions.

I used an extreme example of this notion by comparing the violence of an oppressed group with the violence of the oppressors, claiming that both used violence, thus both are the same (it is the same "logic" being used above). The example I used sounds more ludicrous, because the differences are more obvious. But for those who's discernment is a little more developed, the baker/butcher argument is just as ludicrous.

[Dan74]

And with that you win the

Non Sequitur Comment of the Day

No, it is not a non-sequitur. The argument being used here is that if you do not allow a Christian to refuse making a cake with a gay message, then you should not allow a Jew/Muslim to refuse to sell pork. As if the two issues are related somehow, since they both involve selling.

People are ignoring the issue of power differences, in order to propose a false equivalence for the actions.

I used an extreme example of this notion by comparing the violence of an oppressed group with the violence of the oppressors, claiming that both used violence, thus both are the same (it is the same "logic" being used above). The example I used sounds more ludicrous, because the differences are more obvious. But for those who's discernment is a little more developed, the baker/butcher argument is just as ludicrous.

I agree that power is an important factor as is history. But the reality on the ground doesn't always accord with ideological platitudes. Things need to be considered on a case by case basis, just like people you see. Rather than apply broad brush strokes.

[Grigoris]

I agree that power is an important factor as is history. But the reality on the ground doesn't always accord with ideological platitudes. Things need to be considered on a case by case basis, just like people you see. Rather than apply broad brush strokes.

How very post-modern (idealistic) of you!

Needless to say: I disagree completely because, as far as I am concerned, there are still things like classes and groups.

The people I see come for psychological support, but a vast proportion of their problems are political, social, economic, etc... While it is possible to deal with some of their psychological problems, as long as the political, social, economic, etc... problems remain, they will always be prone to relapse.

Racism, homophobia, etc... are social, political and class problems too, you cannot just apply psychological fixes.

[Malcolm]

The civil rights movement in this country was fought in part because whites refused to serve blacks at restaurants and hotels all over the US. Businesses do not have a right to discriminate.

Maybe I'm beyond redemption, but I feel It is not reasonable to specifically target a couple running a B&B known to hold deeply Christian beliefs against homosexuality, book a room and turn up at the door as a gay male couple, then have them prosecuted for politely turning you away. That is just malicious and unnecessary.

In the United States, this is a violation of civil rights. If you advertise hotelier services, and refuse to book gay people in your hotel/BB merely because they are gay, you are opening yourself up for a civil suit. The case law about this is extremely clear. Opinions don't matter.

I suspect a Moslem butcher would not be prosecuted for refusing to make a pork pie for a customer, and that is when we realise that we have lost sight of the very basis of the law - what is fair, consistent and reasonable.

Muslim Butchers don't sell pork. Irrelevant example. If they did sell pork however, and refused to sell it to someone who was gay because they were gay, or black, because they were black, they would have a very real lawsuit on their hands, they would lose, and rightly so.

[Dan74]

I agree that power is an important factor as is history. But the reality on the ground doesn't always accord with ideological platitudes. Things need to be considered on a case by case basis, just like people you see. Rather than apply broad brush strokes.

How very post-modern (idealistic) of you!

Needless to say: I disagree completely because, as far as I am concerned, there are still things like classes and groups.

The people I see come for psychological support, but a vast proportion of their problems are political, social, economic, etc... While it is possible to deal with some of their psychological problems, as long as the political, social, economic, etc... problems remain, they will always be prone to relapse.

Racism, homophobia, etc... are social, political and class problems too, you cannot just apply psychological fixes.

Mantrik's examples are a bit all over the place and there is much that can and has been picked apart. But to me, ie from what I've observed in the Anglosphere, the central point stands- there has been a loss in perspective on some of the progressive issues, particularly in regards to identity. This can only lead to backlash and a strengthening of the reactionaries in the long term.

As for my example, well, maybe have a look at the Birmingham mass sexual abuse scandal. Overzealous progressives have it on their hands, where even the police were afraid of doing their job properly. This is of of many disasters that are symptomatic of the loss of perspective and common sense in the Culture Wars.

[Grigoris]

As for my example, well, maybe have a look at the Birmingham mass sexual abuse scandal. Overzealous progressives have it on their hands, where even the police were afraid of doing their job properly. This is of of many disasters that are symptomatic of the loss of perspective and common sense in the Culture Wars.

When was the last time you heard a progressive argue in support of rape? Most progressives I know tend to be Feminists.

[Dan74]

As for my example, well, maybe have a look at the Birmingham mass sexual abuse scandal. Overzealous progressives have it on their hands, where even the police were afraid of doing their job properly. This is of of many disasters that are symptomatic of the loss of perspective and common sense in the Culture Wars.

When was the last time you heard a progressive argue in support of rape? Most progressives I know tend to be Feminists.

Umm.. that's a little superficial, no?

[kirtu]

But some progressives still think the blackshirts are marching in the streets.. Well maybe in Greece they are.

Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Turkey, etc...

In Austria, they are even the ruling party.

Correction: In Austria they have the sympathies of the Chancellor and are the co-rulling party.

Bulgaria? Oh no, I was going to eventually end up there for retirement. I missed this development.

Kirt

[kirtu]

The civil rights movement in this country was fought in part because whites refused to serve blacks at restaurants and hotels all over the US. Businesses do not have a right to discriminate.

Maybe I'm beyond redemption, but I feel It is not reasonable to specifically target a couple running a B&B known to hold deeply Christian beliefs against homosexuality, book a room and turn up at the door as a gay male couple, then have them prosecuted for politely turning you away. That is just malicious and unnecessary.

In the United States, this is a violation of civil rights.

Only in 33 states, the District of Columbia and three territories. In 17 states (the middle of the US north to south + West Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Idaho and Mississippi) there are no protections for LGBTQ individuals.

900px-LGBT_employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States.svg.png (84.7 KiB) Viewed 2537 times

Grey=Sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination not prohibited in public and private employment via statute, executive order, regulation, and/or case law.
Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Idaho and Mississippi also offer no protections for LGBTQ people although there are is some kind of gender discrimination protection.

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_empl ... ted_States

It is true that the map shows employment discrimination but after employment discrimination is dealt other forms of discrimination (based on services and the withholding thereof, but excluding a lot of family law) are usually taken care of.

Kirt

[kirtu]

It is true that the map shows employment discrimination but after employment discrimination is dealt other forms of discrimination (based on services and the withholding thereof, but excluding a lot of family law) are usually taken care of.

Kirt

As it turns out I'm wrong. The following map specifically addresses anti-discrimination law wrt goods and services for LBGTQ people ("Anti-discrimination laws covering goods and services by sexual orientation and/or gender identity by country or territory"). The language "gender identity" is misleading in this context. It does not refere to gender identity issues but merely addresses discrimination based on being female. Purple and blue indicates LBGTQ protections prohibiting discrimination wrt goods and services. The light mauve-ish color applies to gender discrimination only. Most of the US can legally refuse to provide goods and services to LBGTQ people.

Anti-LGBTQ-law-wrt-services.png (110.14 KiB) Viewed 2525 times

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_righ ... _territory

US law is a pastiche of literally thousands of different law making bodies at the level of cities/towns, counties, states, territories and the national level. These maps are summaries of a sometimes more complex legal situation.

Kirt

[Wayfarer]

Personally I think there isn't necessarily an automatic agreement between traditional Buddhism and Western liberal and libertarian philosophies. Identity politics itself, I would have thought, be hard to reconcile with Buddhist values. After all Buddhism originated as a renunciate philosophy, so the notion of a 'constructed social identity' would not naturally align with that, as it is presumably amongst the things that is to be renounced. It's just that in the context of modern Western culture, Buddhism often appears as an alternative or counter-cultural movement, so naturally finds itself aligned with liberal and libertarian politics in the West, but I think traditional Buddhism could easily be more inclined much more towards social conservatism - as it sometimes is, for instance, in Japanese politics.

[justsit]

the notion of a 'constructed social identity' would not naturally align with that, as it is presumably amongst the things that is to be renounced.

The problem there, as I see it, at least in the West, is that the default "normal" identity, as it were, is always "white, cis, het" and is not considered a "constructed social identity," while anything else is considered a construct.

Are white, cis het persons willing to let go of their construct as well? And engage all others on an even playing field, pure perception and all that, mere dependent arising?
My guess is no.

A previous poster recommended getting rid of all these trivial labels. That's great, as long as it isn't yours. Then it isn't so trivial.

[Quay]

... Most of the US can legally refuse to provide goods and services to LBGTQ people....

Yes it can an often does. I live in one of those states where it is perfectly legal to do so and have been the victim of such discrimination in more than one setting, including a medical one at a hospital. It's completely tragic how some lives are seen as worth less than others by some people.

[Quay]

The problem there, as I see it, at least in the West, is that the default "normal" identity, as it were, is always "white, cis, het" and is not considered a "constructed social identity," while anything else is considered a construct.

I completely agree and have noticed this myself. For some it's natural and for everyone else it's a construct. Convenient, that.

Are white, cis het persons willing to let go of their construct as well? And engage all others on an even playing field, pure perception and all that, mere dependent arising?
My guess is no.

A previous poster recommended getting rid of all these trivial labels. That's great, as long as it isn't yours. Then it isn't so trivial.

I'd say they are not in general and don't even understand the context of the idea or request to do so.

Another reason I support the ideas the future congressperson articulated in the OP.