America - The Official Thread

[FuriousDemon]

Racism has to be legal? Huh? You mean illegal?

 

[NotThePrez]

Racism has to be legal? Huh? You mean illegal?

Nope. Racism sucks, but if you make it illegal, then you're directly attacking the 1st Amendment.

 

[TexRex]

Okay, good, I'll go with your statement of fact that racism has to be legal. For the sake of discussion, I will accept that and continue.

Accepting that racism is legal, and acknowledging that racism is at the heart of profound suffering for millions of people and is at the root of social unrest and conflict, what are we now to do? I say we should should do something TANGIBLE to improve the situation. We know the enduring and current legacy of racism, the discrimination, inequality and suffering of blacks in America dramatically escalated when the slaves were freed and the plan for them to succeed was aborted in the aftermath of Lincoln's assassination. If we cannot change our hearts, as you aver we cannot, we at least need a plan for blacks to succeed, in my humble opinion. However naive and unworkable, I have suggested a plan for tangible relief. If you or anyone else has a better plan, let's hear it.

I think we are capable of tailoring current systems, specifically systems of government so as to not violate the rights of private entities, so that they are protected against the racist views of those within the system, and so that those who go through the system don't have their rights violated by racist individuals in it. Racists' right to be racist is then not infringed upon but the rights of others, including criminals who are still guaranteed certain rights, are preserved. I think this begins with holding bad actors accountable for their actions. And the cherry on top is that none of this involves violating the rights of the public to benefit a specific population within the public.

If the preservation of rights involves violation of rights, there is no net gain.

 

[FuriousDemon]

Ok. We already had someone “exercise” their first amendment rights being a president, encouraging discrimination. What if he was spitting out “**** all black people” and “white power” directly instead of indirectly? Is that legal?

Also, people denying service, etc. based on someone’s race or not hiring someone for a job because of their race, that should be legal too?

 

[TexRex]

Ok. We already had someone “exercise” their first amendment rights being a president, encouraging discrimination. What if he was spitting out “**** all black people” and “white power” directly instead of indirectly? Is that legal?

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of speech, so yes it's protected from prosecution (unless it can be reasonably demonstrated to have led to rights abuses, including but not limited to physical harm and property damage) but not protected from everything.

Also, people denying service, etc. based on someone’s race or not hiring someone for a job because of their race, that should be legal too?

Should it not? Why?

Forcing private entities to do something that benefits private entities means infringing upon the rights of somebody. Laws are supposed to protect rights, not violate them.

 

[FuriousDemon]

Should it not? Why?

Forcing private entities to do something that benefits private entities means infringing upon the rights of somebody. Laws are supposed to protect rights, not violate them.

Well, then we have a problem. We either have a law that should protect people’s rights regardless of race or protects a business right to do as they please and discriminate as they wish. Someone’s right will be violated, no?

 

[TexRex]

Well, then we have a problem. We either have a law that should protect people’s rights regardless of race or protects a business right to do as they please and discriminate as they wish. Someone’s right will be violated, no?

You need to establish that rights are actually violated. You also have to consider the rights that people actually have.

 

[NotThePrez]

Ok. We already had someone “exercise” their first amendment rights being a president, encouraging discrimination. What if he was spitting out “**** all black people” and “white power” directly instead of indirectly? Is that legal?

If the (all-but-confirmed-former) president decided to directly just say such things, than that's his right as a US Citizen. If he started enacting bils, laws and Executive Orders based on racism or racist ideaology, then there would quite rightfully be a problem. It's at that point that the government is attempting to infringe on my rights as a citizen.

Also, people denying service, etc. based on someone’s race or not hiring someone for a job because of their race, that should be legal too?

Frankly, yeah. If someone owns their own buisiness and they don't want me there because I'm black, that is 100% their right, and I cannot force them to serve me. Conversely, it is also my right to put them on blast for that reason and make it known that the owners of said establishment are racist pieces of 🤬.

Freedom of speech does not also mean freedom of consequences. At the same time, the Bill of rights doesn't have an on/off button when it comes to individuals we may not care for.

 

[Northstar]

Well, then we have a problem. We either have a law that should protect people’s rights regardless of race or protects a business right to do as they please and discriminate as they wish. Someone’s right will be violated, no?

The problem is no matter what laws you pass people will be prejudiced (it's not always racial either, an "attractive" person will usually have an easier go at life than one that isn't), even laws like Affirmative Action that exist solely to combat racial bias are technically racist. Not to mention making something illegal doesn't remove the problem, the war on drugs is a very good example of that.

 

[FuriousDemon]

Ok, I don’t really agree that discrimination of businesses against individuals based on race (which is beyond a persons control, they were born that way, didn’t pick a specific race they wanted) should be allowed as that at a minimum could severely limit your options, and potentially completely make it impossible to live in a place in extreme cases. I’m sure someone’s gonna say people should move then, which is of course an option, but sometimes it’s not so easy to do. But ok, I guess we can agree to disagree.

I understand that making something illegal doesn’t solve the prejudice problem, but it at least allows an individual legal means to take action against someone if they were discriminated against. If murder was legal like you are suggesting should be with racism, would that make it better somehow? We’d see murder rates drop? I don’t think this argument can be applied everywhere.

 

[TexRex]

If murder was legal like you are suggesting should be with racism, would that make it better somehow?

Murder is an infringement upon right to life. This is the most basic of human rights. Laws that prohibit murder preserve that right.

 

[Joey D]

However naive and unworkable, I have suggested a plan for tangible relief. If you or anyone else has a better plan, let's hear it.

Reforming the police would certainly help, also decriminalize drugs so young blacks (who are disproportionately targeted) don't end up with a criminal record over a small bag of weed.

 

[FuriousDemon]

Murder is an infringement upon right to life. This is the most basic of human rights. Laws that prohibit murder preserve that right.

Sure, agree on that. I guess drawing a line of what should be a human right and what shouldn’t be is where I think we will probably disagree.

 

[TexRex]

Sure, agree on that. I guess drawing a line of what should be a human right and what shouldn’t be is where I think we will probably disagree.

Okay then let's get back to employment opportunity.

You have a business. It's a small business and you require five employees, but you can't afford to pay those five employees and earn a living wage yourself if anyone can't perform their duties. The law says that one of those employees needs to be...something. None of the applicants for your job openings meet the requirement as mandated by law, while several more who don't meet the requirement that's mandated by law are capable of performing the duties that you need them to perform. Your right to run your business as you see fit and in a manner that provides you with a living wage has been infringed upon in order to offer more opportunity to someone that's...something.

Edit: Something just popped into my head. I'm going to throw you one hell of a curveball.

The law requires that all applicants be legal US residents. You don't want to hire "illegals" (this isn't meaningful as they haven't violated any law unrelated to how they came to be in the country) in order to take advantage of them, in fact you're willing to pay all applicants the same rate regardless of citizenship status. This is a job that legal residents don't want to do, and residents who have violated a law that isn't reasonably justified by simply being in this country are willing to do it, even for less than you're offering to pay.

 

[FuriousDemon]

Okay then let's get back to employment opportunity.

You have a business. It's a small business and you require five employees, but you can't afford to pay those five employees and earn a living wage yourself if anyone can't perform their duties. The law says that one of those employees needs to be...something. None of the applicants for your job openings meet the requirement as mandated by law, while several more who don't meet the requirement that's mandated by law are capable of performing the duties that you need them to perform. Your right to run your business as you see fit and in a manner that provides you with a living wage has been infringed upon in order to offer more opportunity to someone that's...something.

This one I’m with you. All I’m saying is that if people have the same qualifications for a job, they should have the same (or similar) chance of getting that job regardless of race.

 

[TexRex]

This one I’m with you. All I’m saying is that if people have the same qualifications for a job, they should have the same (or similar) chance of getting that job regardless of race.

I agree that they should. I even think everyone should know if you as an employer aren't willing to hire anyone that's...something. But I don't think you should be required to hire anyone by law as that requirement is an infringement upon your rights.

I think it'd be awesome if you considered the edit to my post that you just quoted. I realize that you likely didn't see it as of composing your response that you provided. I don't place any blame on you for not responding to it above as it was a very recent thought that I had.

 

[FuriousDemon]

I agree that they should. I even think everyone should know if you as an employer aren't willing to hire anyone that's...something. But I don't think you should be required to hire anyone by law as that requirement is an infringement upon your rights.

I think it'd be awesome if you considered the edit to my post that you just quoted. I realize that you likely didn't see it as of composing your response that you provided. I don't place any blame on you for not responding to it above as it was a very recent thought that I had.

The question about legal residents is a tricky one. I would say if there is no one else willing to do the job and if proper taxes are paid, I would probably say anyone can do the job. Again, it would be technically illegal, but it would be my personal opinion.

 

[TexRex]

The question about legal residents is a tricky one. I would say if there is no one else willing to do the job and if proper taxes are paid, I would probably say anyone can do the job. Again, it would be technically illegal, but it would be my personal opinion.

It's not tricky at all. And this is for anyone that advocates for laws regulating entry into the country.

Laws that prohibit entry are an infringement upon the basic human right that is freedom of movement. These laws violate rights without protecting rights, because those who enter aren't ensured to seek to violate the rights of other residents, and those who exist here legally aren't ensured to not seek to violate the rights of other residents. Laws that prohibit employers from hiring those whose presence violates laws that aren't reasonably justified exist to remove incentive for people to gain entry by violating laws that aren't reasonably justified, and in doing so violate the rights of employers to hire who they wish.

Edit: This isn't to be confused with open border advocacy, in case anyone wishes to characterize it as such.

I'm hoping I've challenged some peoples' feelings on immigration policy.

 

[Biggles]

Whether racist speech should, or should not be legal might be open to discussion, but that the President of the United States shouldn't expound racist ideas isn't. Having a strong economy doesn't excuse behaviour like that from the President ... nor does it excuse the wide range of other highly inappropriate behaviours by Trump. Economic circumstances wax & wane, often having little to do with the actions of a particular President - fundamental principles of fairness & decency don't.

 

[Imari]

Ok. We already had someone “exercise” their first amendment rights being a president, encouraging discrimination. What if he was spitting out “**** all black people” and “white power” directly instead of indirectly? Is that legal?

When you're acting as the government, you are no longer acting as a private citizen. The President's speech can reasonably be inferred to be indicative of the position of at least a significant part of the government, and therefore he is not free to say whatever he likes. That's just part of the burden that comes with the job, I'm afraid.

Also, people denying service, etc. based on someone’s race or not hiring someone for a job because of their race, that should be legal too?

That's a cultural choice. One could make the argument that some choices lead to a more pleasant culture for everyone to live in, but ultimately people have to have at least some level of agreement on what constitutes a civil society. If that means freedom to discriminate against anyone you don't like the look of, then that's something that a group of people might choose to do.

Laws that prohibit entry are an infringement upon the basic human right that is freedom of movement.

Mmm, that feels iffy. If you consider the government of a country to own all land that isn't otherwise owned, then laws prohibiting entry are basically just clarifying that trespass is not allowed. We can get into the whole thing about land ownership, but being allowed to control access to your own property isn't that controversial. It's a compromise of the rights of others to free movement with your rights to control use of your property as you see fit.

Some countries do this sort of thing differently, see rambling laws in the UK. But I'm not sold that having border controls are a straight up violation of rights, it seems like a reasonable extension of the rights that traditionally come with ownership.

 

[Danoff]

@Dotini

We do this periodically, and it is always so unsatisfying. You say things like "ok you win" and throw up your hands and leave, and then weeks later we're back at the exact same discussion. You and I have been down this road. I feel like I'm wasting my time with this post, but for the sake of the broader discussion, here goes:

Accepting that racism is legal, and acknowledging that racism is at the heart of profound suffering for millions of people and is at the root of social unrest and conflict, what are we now to do?

Free choices can result in unhappiness. So, for example, suppose someone asks someone else to marry them and the answer is "no". This results in suffering. Suppose customers don't visit a business, this results in suffering. Suppose that someone's birthmark on their face results in people not wanting to date them. This results in suffering.

Having someone not like you because of the way you look, your height, your weight, your lack of beauty, your abundance of beauty, your sexual orientation, your choice of clothing, your hairstyle... or your skin color... is not something you can control. People will be people.

What we are to do is to make sure that racism is not accepted without violating rights to do so. So, for example, employers should fire racist employees. Customers should not frequent racist businesses. Police brutality is a problem for all people. Racist police should be fired for racism. Brutalizing police should be fired and prosecuted for their criminal acts. There is no reason that police brutality has to be a racism issue. And there is no particular reason why racist police has to be a brutality issue. I get that there is overlap, but both should be addressed.

I say we should should do something TANGIBLE to improve the situation.

Like rooting out and firing brutal and racist police? That might actually improve the situation. Unlike taking money from racist people and giving it to people they're racist against. That might make things a lot worse (and violate rights in the process, and is immoral to do).

If we cannot change our hearts, as you aver we cannot

What? When did I say we cannot change our hearts?

we at least need a plan for blacks to succeed, in my humble opinion. However naive and unworkable, I have suggested a plan for tangible relief. If you or anyone else has a better plan, let's hear it.

I have made suggestions. You refuse to hear them. But keep in mind your argument is "I have a terrible plan, if no one else comes up with anything, we have to use it". That's not a defense. Like I said, you barely even bother trying to defend your own position, so why do you keep coming back to it? Look inward, consider what you're saying, and if you can't defend it, adjust.

Ok. We already had someone “exercise” their first amendment rights being a president, encouraging discrimination. What if he was spitting out “**** all black people” and “white power” directly instead of indirectly? Is that legal?

I'm not sure to what extent the President actually has first amendment rights. The line between acting personally and acting officially is extremely blurred with the president.

 

[andrea]

Biden just gave a speech on Coronavirus task & what Americans should do now.

 

[Biggles]

Yeah - if Trump were a crazy neighbour you might just choose to ignore him & avoid him. When he's President of the United States, it's not what he has the theoretical right to do that's in question, it's for what possible reason would you want someone like that in a position of power & influence?

 

[TexRex]

Mmm, that feels iffy. If you consider the government of a country to own all land that isn't otherwise owned, then laws prohibiting entry are basically just clarifying that trespass is not allowed. We can get into the whole thing about land ownership, but being allowed to control access to your own property isn't that controversial. It's a compromise of the rights of others to free movement with your rights to control use of your property as you see fit.

Some countries do this sort of thing differently, see rambling laws in the UK. But I'm not sold that having border controls are a straight up violation of rights, it seems like a reasonable extension of the rights that traditionally come with ownership.

Fair points.

Needless to say, I'm super dissatisfied over immigration policy and I think much of it isn't reasonably justified. I need to let it marinate a bit more. Don't be surprised if I come back to you with this.

Yeah - if Trump were a crazy neighbour you might just choose to ignore him & avoid him. When he's President of the United States, it's not what he has the theoretical right to do that's in question, it's for what possible reason would you want someone like that in a position of power & influence?

Ignoring only works so much. Just ask Michael Forbes.

By the way, Trump alleged voter fraud back in 2012 as well, but not in the election you might think.

 

[Dotini]

When did I say we cannot change our hearts?

You said racism has biological underpinnings. IMO, our DNA can change, but only slowly or with great difficulty. Ergo, we cannot change our hearts, our innermost desires and fears. According to you. And you may be right. All that said, I don't accept your fiery claim and cranky premise that racism must be legal. I merely adopt it for the purposes of dealing in an alternative and tangible way with the massive problems of racial inequality; social, health and economic outcomes for the black people.

Now, I for one (and possibly the only one in this entire forum, but that doesn't matter) find your arguments entirely unpersuasive on this and many other issues. But I'm not here to win a popularity contest or argue ad infinitum on trivial or lost causes. After a polite exchange of views, I will always move on. As I will once again on this one.

But first, let's review the most basic of facts. America endured the trauma of a Civil War costing 750,000 lives with untold numbers mangled and maimed all for the great and noble cause of freeing the slaves. Once freed, the slaves would, more than ever, need to be fed, housed, clothed, and have a source of income generating employment. Got it? Lincoln recognized that freeing millions of people lacking all the basics would need a plan to succeed, and not fall back into servitude. Together, the harsh and realistic General Sherman and President Lincoln promulgated a plan for the success of the freed blacks after their liberation. But the plan was scuppered. Then there was no plan, no effort, no way for the purpose and great costs of the war to be realized, justified and vindicated. Is it possible for you or anyone else here to see that the worst war in US history was won but the victory was lost?

We all have values. Perhaps you get yours from Ayn Rand. Somewhere at the deepest level of my own personal values is the corny idea that when I make a promise or commitment, I should keep it, even if it is inconvenient or costly. I believe the nation stepped out on the limb of history to fight a costly war to free the slaves, did so, but then pulled the rug out from under the slaves when it came to seeing that their liberation would have purpose, meaning and a hope of success.
The nation made a promise, but broke it.

To think that firing some racist policemen or giving blacks free marijuana is keeping the promise that was made is just pitiable.

 

[Danoff]

You said racism has biological underpinnings. IMO, our DNA can change, but only slowly or with great difficulty.

I also said... right next to that... that lots of criminal activity has biological underpinnings. And yet we seem to manage not to commit crimes.

You read my posts like someone who wants to disagree instead of reading it for what it is.

To think that firing a some racist policemen or giving blacks free marijuana is keeping the promise that was made is just pitiable.

We cannot keep the promise dead people made to dead people.

Ergo, we cannot change our hearts, our innermost desires and fears. According to you.

Ergo... you did not read what I wrote, and the rest of this is moot.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

You said racism has biological underpinnings. IMO, our DNA can change, but only slowly or with great difficulty. Ergo, we cannot change our hearts, our innermost desires and fears.

I'm not sure I'm on the same page as you, but I really don't think racism is genetic. I'd say it's almost entirely based on ignorance. It's not about hearts, it's about heads. Racism is inherently dumb because it's just incorrect.

 

[Dotini]

I'm not sure I'm on the same page as you, but I really don't think racism is genetic. I'd say it's almost entirely based on ignorance. It's not about hearts, it's about heads. Racism is inherently dumb because it's just incorrect.

I agree. I was raised in a multi-racial household. Reread what I wrote. It's Danoff who says racism is genetic and must be legal.

 

[Danoff]

It's Danoff who says racism is genetic and must be legal.

You're intentionally misunderstanding me, again.

 

[Dotini]

We cannot keep the promise dead people made to dead people.

Aye. But we can keep the promise a living nation made to a living people.