So this is kind of a big deal to me..... [meta]

DavidByron · 2013-09-11T20:49:01+00:00

I'm not a libertarian and I wouldn't repeal the Civil Rights act. I consider it a human right not to be judged on the color of your skin, gender or sexuality. But from a libertarian point of view his reasoning is intellectually sound. Just because you can be a racist, doesn't mean it's okay to be a racist. He just wants the government out of his life.

I understand you perfectly, I think it's way too optimistic to repeal the law and hope that people are suddenly not going to be racists. I think he is wrong, but I don't think he is advocating for racism.

NeuroticIntrovert · 2013-09-11T19:34:20+00:00

Firstly, proper reddiquette is that upvotes are for comments that add to the conversation, and downvotes are for comments that do not add to the conversation. A comment that you disagree with, but that adds to the conversation, should be upvoted. A comment that you agree with, but adds nothing to the conversation, should be downvoted.

I think you're getting downvoted because you're misrepresenting your opponents' arguments and stooping to name-calling, neither of which add to the conversation.

a lot of the libertarians here support institutional racism

That's not the argument being made in the thread you're linking to. The argument they're making, at least what it looks like when I read it, is this:

Public institutions should not be allowed to discriminate because they then would treat some citizens differently from others, which is unfair. Discrimination by public institutions is something that we libertarians will fight against.

Any individual, however, should be allowed to do as they wish with their own property, within reasonable limits. For example, if they own a restaurant, they can decide to exclude anyone for any reason, including discriminatory ones. They can serve substandard or unhealthy food. Whatever reasoning a person has for making those decisions should not be policed by the state.

When private institutions discriminate, their businesses will fail, because most members of the public (including me, Mr. Libertarian) will boycott and condemn them. So, discrimination won't be a problem; the free market will get rid of it.

I think the place that that you and the libertarians disagree is on whether or not a business that discriminates can flourish - and I would agree that history is on your side in proving that they can.

Your first two responses were probing your opponent's argument - that's a good thing to do, and a fair way to start a conversation. I'm referring to these two posts:

So you think a whites only restaurant is OK?

No, it's illegal to do that. Are you saying you want it to be legal?

However, after you'd clarified what the other poster(s) were saying, this was your response:

Get used to people calling you racist then.

This adds nothing to the conversation.

I guess this is the shitty immoral libertarianism streak that runs through this site. The leaders of your movement are usually more sensible than to come out and say they oppose the Civil Rights movement though.

I don't see the part where anyone in the thread said they opposed the Civil Rights Movement. Instead of responding to your opponent's statements, you've attacked the MHRM as a whole, on the basis of a few people you're talking to on an obscure thread on this subreddit.

he's suggesting people treat people differently according to race. that is racism

No, he's not. Misrepresenting your opponent's argument doesn't add to the conversation.

I'm not going to through those comments line by line any further. In the thread you've linked, you're claiming your opponents are saying things they never said, while throwing around insults and profanity. It doesn't add anything to the conversation, and it looks like you're not listening to what those who disagree with you are actually saying, not addressing their actual argument.

I agree with you in principle, that racial discrimination by private businesses should not be legal, but I can see why the votes aren't supporting you.

And for the record, this is the first time I've seen this comment thread.

geengaween · 2013-09-11T22:09:41+00:00

I think discriminating on people based on race or sexuality should be illegal no matter if it's a private business. I wouldn't want a shop with a "no blacks" or "no gays" sign opening up in my neighborhood. I don't think people should be allowed to advertise their irrational hatred.

StuntPotato · 2013-09-11T19:03:36+00:00

I'm not a libertarian per se, heck I don't always line up with any particular political leaning, they all have their pros and cons. I think the point they're making is that it's not the government's job to tell people who they have to let into their private businesses. I'm not sure how I feel about it, on the one hand I think it's wrong to deny somebody access to a business because of their race or sex, and I would never do business with anyone who did. On the other hand, we already have businesses that do just that. See: Curves. So, if discrimination against one group is legal, why not another? Personally I'm in favour of shutting down companies like Curves and any other "women only" or "black people only" etc companies. But if we're going to allow one, we have to allow the other, or else we're not equal.

DavidByron · 2013-09-11T20:10:05+00:00

Based on my limited knowledge of libertarianism, I was under the impression that the philosophy was more along the lines of "as long as I'm not bothering anyone, the government needs to stay out of my business." Institutional racism is infringing on other people's basic rights. I don't really believe that too many people, libertarian or otherwise, would be down for that.

As far as this subreddit goes, the only person I've seen who supported institutional racism was Obvious_Atheist (I think), and he got downvoted into oblivion.

sillymod · 2013-09-11T19:02:01+00:00

So yeah... I was arguing about this and at least eight people lined up for racism and I didn't see anyone arguing against it but me.

I think you are placing too much emphasis on the discussions you are involved in. You might think others would jump in on a similar position as you, but you are forgetting that they may not be seeing the conversation at all!

It is possible that your discussion was cross linked elsewhere, which lead to others getting involved with a highly slanted point of view.

CosmicKeys · 2013-09-12T00:47:24+00:00

Have a look at the sub demographic.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1gp2u6/results_from_the_rmensrights_survey/

I think these types are simply attracted to the arguement, reddit is a libertarian hive and MR is even more so. The most important thing is to tell people trying to inject white rights into the MRM to piss off. I normally compare them to vegans, or feminists in Atheism+ trying to cause schisms that weaken the focus on men.

Captaincastle · 2013-09-11T19:11:03+00:00

I think you're up in the night here bro. I don't support racism in the slightest but I can see the merit in allowing a company to be run however it wants to be run, and let people support or not support as they choose.

As for disassociating with the sub because some people are libertarian, that's sort of an absurd overreaction, isn't it?

What if I told you I absolutely hate blacks unequivocally, and they're not people. Should the whole movement and sub be tarnished because I'm an asshole bigot? Fuck no.

Edit - I read that conversation you linked, and I've gotta say: don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out champ. You were completely unreasonable and out of line, and this sub will be a better place without you.

Jacksambuck · 2013-09-11T19:28:39+00:00

That would be too bad, as you know a lot about feminism. Plus your rants against feminists, Obama, libertarians and rich people are entertaining. That said, the conversation you linked to does not make you look good. If such a small point about private property is enough for you to label the entire MRM racists, then goodbye I guess.

unclefisty · 2013-09-11T20:38:40+00:00

Saying the goverment shouldn't have it's thumb in every businesses pie is not racism.

rightsbot · 2013-09-11T18:56:17+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

miroku000 · 2013-09-12T06:37:38+00:00

I think we can all agree racism is bad, just as we agree that sexism is bad. But, this sub-reddit, as a whole does not really have an opinion on this issue. There are individuals that may feel one way or another. Let's try to bring this back to an appropriate topic. Let's say a business wants to have a men-only restaurant. How do we feel about that? Or what if it is a women-only restaurant? Or, how about a women-only gym? I feel either both women-only and men-only restaurants/gyms etc. should be allowed, or both women-only and men-only businesses should be prohibited. Some other people might not think it is appropriate for the government to regulate it at all. Others, might feel that the government should prohibit sexist businesses. r/feminism would probably think women-only businesses were ok, but men-only ones were not ok. But, I believe that everyone who thinks that the government shouldn't require businesses to serve any race, also would be opposed to requiring businesses to be open to both sexes. Their principle has nothing to do with being racist.

Now, a government adopting such hands-off policies would indeed have negative consequences in terms of perpetuating racism. But, let's consider another policy decision. What if the government prohibited any racist and/or sexist speech? Would you support that? I am guessing most people would be opposed to such a thing. But, not having such a law also helps perpetuate racism/sexism in a similar way. Everyone has a different tolerance level for how far they are willing to let the government go in order to eliminate racism/sexism etc. Being opposed to speech codes is not the same thing as being pro-racist or pro-sexist.

Davidisontherun · 2013-09-12T08:29:19+00:00

ultra left-wing socialist Canadian here checking in

DavidByron · 2013-09-11T20:44:06+00:00

This post is an excercise in moral masturbation. Your completely misrepresenting, or misunderstanding, where many libertarians come from on these issues. This makes it easy for you to feel morally superior to the degenerates in your head. Sorry, I would be happy to explain where some libertarians come down on these issues, or discuss the issues themselves, but you weren't really asking for that, were you?

M4Strings · 2013-09-11T21:45:28+00:00

Oh hey, it's this guy again. What part of "you don't have the right to force people to do business with people they don't want to do business with" didn't you get? Is racism wrong? Yes. It's highly immoral and vile and one of the worst branches of social collectivism to exist. Should you be allowed to arbitrarily force your morality on others because of what "society" thinks is right? No, as long as what someone does doesn't physically harm someone else, it's fine for private citizens.

DavidByron · 2013-09-12T01:48:39+00:00

Government shouldn't try and dictate morality. Getting society to change it's views on race can't be dictated by the government. It has to come from open and honest conversations between people within that society.

Title	So this is kind of a big deal to me..... [meta]
Author	DavidByron
Upvotes	5
Comments	46
Date	September 11, 2013 6:56 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1m6z48/so_this_is_kind_of_a_big_deal_to_me_meta/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/so-this-is-kind-of-a-big-deal-to-me-meta.1164128 https://theredarchive.com/post/1164128

Comments