Is it okay to support racism under the guise of advocating buisness or State's rights

[Berzerker]

Whether I would or not is irrelevant to the fact that the business that was openly racist would not be boycotted by enough people to reduce their profits.

One person boycotting a business will reduce its profits, that kinda makes YOU relevant.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Pretty self explanatory, is it okay to support directly or indirectly such things, even if they do have racist intent or allow and increase discrimination?

I don't see how business is advantaged by racism.

 

[useless]

One person boycotting a business will reduce its profits, that kinda makes YOU relevant.

But in reality the buisness will still chug along, most likely making a profit regardless.

 

[Berzerker]

But in reality the buisness will still chug along, most likely making a profit regardless.

That aint what he said, again... So in reality you should probably let him make his own arguments, I aint interested in debating your interpretations of his words.

 

[Cutlass]

So in reality the market would be fine with it and wouldn't "deal with it"

It won't penalize it. More likely to reward it.

What about all the people being discriminated against? Where I live a third of the population is Black, so if a company is rasist against Blacks then they would lose at least (and probley more) than a third of their profits.

But what company serves the entire community? They could serve a greater number over all with discrimination.

no, he means people wont boycott racists

edit: and you were (probably) wrong

Some will. Many won't.

Is it okay to assume states' rights advocates are racist when there is no evidence?

Again, not all. But if a person is racist, odds are they are also for states rights.

 

[useless]

That aint what he said, again... So in reality you should probably let him make his own arguments, I aint interested in debating your interpretations of his words.

No i am making my own.

 

[Berzerker]

No i am making my own.

He (probably) means it's an excuse to justify discrimination and racism.

That was not your argument, that was what you thought he "probably" meant... And then he said racist businesses wouldn't lose any profits and you had to jump in to change that too. I aint interested in debating his arguments and your modifications to his arguments.

 

[Traitorfish]

What about all the people being discriminated against? Where I live a third of the population is Black, so if a company is rasist against Blacks then they would lose at least (and probley more) than a third of their profits.

Assuming that blacks have the same spending power as whites, which certainly wasn't true under Jim Crow...

 

[useless]

That was not your argument, that was what you thought he "probably" meant... And then he said racist businesses wouldn't lose any profits and you had to jump in to change that too. I aint interested in debating his arguments and your modifications to his arguments.

I wish you would abstain from such things and not put words in other's mouths. He put my views in his own words much better then i could

 

[Berzerker]

I wish you would abstain from such things and not put words in other's mouths. He put my views in his own words much better then i could

You're telling me what he probably meant and now I'm the one putting words in other people's mouths?

Btw, if he speaks for you better than you speak for yourself then why are you making corrections to his arguments? Nevermind, just go away.

 

[Souron]

Boy what a loaded question.

The answer is of course no, but who are you accusing of supporting racism under the guise of advocating business or State's rights?

 

[useless]

You're telling me what he probably meant and now I'm the one putting words in other people's mouths?

Btw, if he speaks for you better than you speak for yourself then why are you making corrections to his arguments? Nevermind, just go away.

In my own thread? Hardly! My argument is in my other posts anyway.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Boy what a loaded question.

The answer is of course no, but who are you accusing of supporting racism under the guise of advocating business or State's rights?

This thread is about me.

He is HEAVILY misinterpreting what I said. What I said wasn't "Businesses should be racist" or "States should be able to pass racist laws" but "People, if they start a business on their property, have the right to hire and do business with whoever the heck they want! Laws against that show disrespect for private property IMO. But, in any case, I think in modern America the market would rip any such people apart.

Is it okay to assume states' rights advocates are racist when there is no evidence?

No

 

[useless]

This thread is about me.

He is HEAVILY misinterpreting what I said. What I said wasn't "Businesses should be racist" or "States should be able to pass racist laws" but "People, if they start a business on their property, have the right to hire and do business with whoever the heck they want! Laws against that show disrespect for private property IMO. But, in any case, I think in modern America the market would rip any such people apart.



No

You are still essentially defending racism and making excuses about the market.

 

[Traitorfish]

You are still essentially defending racism and making excuses about the market.

I think it's rather disingenuous to describe it as such. Rather, I would suggest that he is defending an environment in which racist practices may be adopted and institutionalised, and opposing government support for anti-racism; in short, he is defending the opportunity to act in a racist, but not the racism itself.

 

[Miles Teg]

This thread is about me.

Get over yourself. Lots of racists use the states right excuse. Since you choose to take a political position popular with racists, you should expect to get some flack.

 

[Earthling]

First I'd say such people have the right to express their views.

Secondly, I'd have to actually argue it's as fair for businesses or the like in the US to discriminate racially (say, a club for only white people) as it is by other categories in which many many such institutions still do discriminate (age, sex/gender). I don't approve, but it's not been something that's really been made fully illegal and thus they could still do so, and if we were to come down with stricter legislation I'd support expanding it across many other categories.

Oh and there is plenty of evidence many states' rights advocates, and their actual views and proposed policies, are explicitly for racism and other bigotry and discrimination. I will give the OP that.

 

[useless]

I think it's rather disingenuous to describe it as such. Rather, I would suggest that he is defending an environment in which racist practices may be adopted and institutionalised, and opposing government support for anti-racism; in short, he is defending the opportunity to act in a racist, but not the racism itself.

It's still just as deplorable.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Get over yourself. Lots of racists use the states right excuse. Since you choose to take a political position popular with racists, you should expect to get some flack.

No, actually this thread is like me. In fact, I sent ainwood and Mathilda a message about it. Enough is enough.

Carefully look at Useless' posts, he is constantly calling people racist, usually about me. And in fact, earlier today, I was in a thread that went to this topic, and so he thinks he has the NERVE to debate my position which he is TOTALLY ignorant about.

I think it's rather disingenuous to describe it as such. Rather, I would suggest that he is defending an environment in which racist practices may be adopted and institutionalised, and opposing government support for anti-racism; in short, he is defending the opportunity to act in a racist, but not the racism itself.

THANK YOU. I think I should let you know that in a PM I had with someone I described you as one of the more sensible leftists on here

I don't mind when people want to disagree with me, but they should not make my position more extremist or bigoted then it is.

In fact, since I believe the same thing should be allowed to be done against whites, hispanics, Asians, Middle Easterners, or any other race I failed to list here, I must be racist against everyone! Congratulations Useless!

@Earthling- But you acknowledge- Supporting state's rights =/= being racist right?

 

[Traitorfish]

It's still just as deplorable.

Not quite. Domination isn't actually defending racism itself- although he is engaged in the indirect and not entirely witting defence of white privilege- he is simply opposing anti-racist government policies. The two are distinct- his ideology, if consistently applied, would also lead him to oppose racist government policies- and any intelligent or valuable critique of his position must recognise that, or devolve into nothing but petty slander.