Jump to content

U.S. Politics


maqroll

Recommended Posts

People being refused service in an establishment due their sexual persuasion --> bad

People being refused service in an establishment due their racial persuasion --> bad

People being refused service in an establishment due their political persuasion --> Good, woohooo..... nananananana, suck it losers, woohoo ?

Edited by villakram
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, villakram said:

People being refused service in an establishment due their political persuasion

I thought she was refused because she's a shameless, lying word removed?

Edited by snowychap
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made a point earlier in the thread that I wasn't comfortable with Nielsen being barracked in the Mexican Restaurant. Sure what she represents is heinous but where is the line between public and personal life? It will just escalate (as it is doing) on both sides and end up with some whack job going in with a gun.

As odious as 99% of the Trump administration are and as much as I despise them for their policies and hypocrisy etc. etc. you still have to accept that they are a symbiotic part of our society. I mean isn't that basic Plato? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, snowychap said:

No, not exactly, at all.

Oh, come on now. You do see my point. @TheAuthority has made it a tad more eloquently above.

Simplistically... "How dare you good Sir! We didn't kick them out because they are Gay/Black, but because they are disgusting liberals/democrats". That's a good prescription for a functioning society that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Chindie said:

A couple of points, not necessarily related.

The first two options there are discriminating people for who they are, something they don't have much choice about. The third is choice. There's a difference there.

Secondly, personally I'm quite happy for a business to refuse service for whatever the **** they like (including bakers with problems with making cakes for gay people, or refusing to serve black people, or turning away evil wastes of skin like Huckabee-Sanders). They can accept the backlash for being bigoted words removed in most cases, and a huge popularity boost when they bin moral black holes like that shabbily dressed lying wardrobe.

I take your point that it is their choices that they are being vilified for and not their race/sexual pref/gender etc. and there is a difference there that needs to be acknowledged.

However, if that is the new norm, at what point does someones political choice/view/policy decision make me so disagreeable that I can justify physical action? Where is that line? Who decides it? Surely if it gets to that point we are in some sort of anarchy?

For all of the popularity boost that the Red Hen is receiving for turning the odious Sanders away, they are also receiving equal abuse from the other side. In the US where guns are so freely available where does this path end?

Edited by TheAuthority
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chindie said:

A couple of points, not necessarily related.

The first two options there are discriminating people for who they are, something they don't have much choice about. The third is choice. There's a difference there.

Secondly, personally I'm quite happy for a business to refuse service for whatever the **** they like (including bakers with problems with making cakes for gay people, or refusing to serve black people, or turning away evil wastes of skin like Huckabee-Sanders). They can accept the backlash for being bigoted words removed in most cases, and a huge popularity boost when they bin moral black holes like that shabbily dressed lying wardrobe.

You are correct.

However, over here all such knowledge or "nuance" is absent and I only see this as leading somewhere bad. Retaliation and one-upmanship will occur, likely of a crude nature.

What about a restaurant kicking out a pro-Brexit types in London? or vice-versa in Sunderland? That would be a very unhealthy societal development I hope you would agree. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TheAuthority said:

I take your point that it is their choices that they are being vilified for and not their race/sexual pref/gender etc. and there is a difference there that needs to be acknowledged.

However, if that is the new norm, at what point does someones political choice/view/policy decision make me so disagreeable that I can justify physical action? Where is that line? Who decides it? Surely if it gets to that point we are in some sort of anarchy?

For all of the popularity boost that the Red Hen is receiving for turning the odious Sanders away, they are also receiving equal abuse from the other side. In the US where guns are so freely available where does this path end?

There's not a justification for physical action over anyone's opinion. There's not a through line from refusing to serve someone to punching them.

That the reaction in the US for the opposition is to reach for their Beretta is just a damning indictment of the US.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

There's not a justification for physical action over anyone's opinion. There's not a through line from refusing to serve someone to punching them.

I was thinking more of Nielsen in the restaurant. It was quite apparent that there were a lot of protestors and it's easy (for me at least) to see how that could escalate into a mob situation.

Quote

That the reaction in the US for the opposition is to reach for their Beretta is just a damning indictment of the US.

Absolutely agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, villakram said:

You are correct.

However, over here all such knowledge or "nuance" is absent and I only see this as leading somewhere bad. Retaliation and one-upmanship will occur, likely of a crude nature.

What about a restaurant kicking out a pro-Brexit types in London? or vice-versa in Sunderland? That would be a very unhealthy societal development I hope you would agree. 

The US is completely **** if a restaurant can't refuse to serve someone.

I'd be quite happy for a restaurant to chuck out Brexiteers if they wish. It's their business, if they want to turn away someone's money that's their choice. If it was my restaurant I probably wouldn't because I'd want the cash regardless. Maybe if they're being a real word removed about it I'd refuse to serve them. I'd bin Farage without a second thought, which is perhaps closer to this situation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TheAuthority said:

I was thinking more of Nielsen in the restaurant. It was quite apparent that there were a lot of protestors and it's easy (for me at least) to see how that could escalate into a mob situation.

Absolutely agree.

I don't have a problem with the Nielsen thing either. There are consequences for her position. People are perfectly at liberty to show their displeasure at that. If that extends to physical harm, that's wrong, but giving her some stick in a restaurant is something that comes with the territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â