posted August 24, 2019 12:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumuzi:
[B] no, i was saying i find giving the government power to protect either (opinion or identity) questionable because discrimination is a morality judgement and i find government interference problematic as such

my point was only comparing being lgbt to being racist is an unfair comparison because like i said it's more comparable to race

i just found your comparison to be poor so i commented on it

---

I'm considering that both identity and opinion are subject to discrimination but only the former to legal repurcussion. ie I can not be legally punished for my self proclaimed identity but I can be punished for a thought. I think that's interesting.

quote:

---

but i think government interference in who does or doesnt get hired is problematic at the same time, because i think discrimination is a morality issue which i think would be better left to individuals in most cases

my thoughts are if someone chooses to discriminate as a business then consumers can choose to not support those practices and the government doesn't need to interfere, however if people choose to continue then the service provided overrides people's moral judgements (or goes with them) and that's just life

i think most issues like that would be better left in the hands of consumers rather than government

in the case of most businesses

in the case of things like courts being discriminatory or hospitals etc then i see an issue and the government having say in it is acceptable but your average business? no

---

The "so start your own bank, bigot" argument.

posted August 24, 2019 01:10 AM            

identity cant be helped, when people dislike opinions they're under the impression that they can/should be changed to fit something more people find palatable through external pressure

i dislike that sort of thing though in the sense that i personally don't believe in punishing people for opinions or identities because i dont think either necessarily means much in regards to what a person can do in unrelated areas

so i personally find the idea of discrimination against someone for ideas or identity equally distasteful and immoral on a personal level

my issue is when the government steps in and tells people which thoughts are acceptable or who they can/cant hire/fire and gives them quotas and such to fit in minority groups it seems like a lot of power to give a government

whereas i think social pressure would ultimately work just as well if people paid more attention to where they put their money if they cared

if someone is turning out a product people like to a point where their morality doesnt come into play then that person's identity or ideas should be irrelevant to what they provide

however if they dont and people choose to put pressure on them for that identity or idea then they'll suffer for it and either change or hide to succeed rather than having a government enforce that kind of thing

because on some level i see what you mean about ideas being part of identity because on some level they are/can be, but not in the same way that something like race is

i'm curious though are you suggesting one should be protected and not the other? or just that you find it intriguing that it is?

posted August 24, 2019 03:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by juniperb:
Easy tiger . No no shura

---

I dont think Ive been rude.

posted August 24, 2019 05:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shura:
To what extent our thoughts comprise our identity is a good question, yes.

We live in a culture, if it can be called that, which prizes and consequently protects supposedly inalterable sexual identity over thought. The first is sacrosanct, the second is open to social, economic, even legal pressure. The first is chance and the second is choice. A choice made, as you point out, through experience, consideration etc. Rough or refined, it is a product of the individual spirit. And if we prevent the free expression of the individual spirit?

---

people can repress their sexual identity but it can't be altered just sort of is what it is so the word "supposedly" doesnt work here

also cant always be hidden, my entire life people have always just known i was bi without me saying **** ive just had people tell me about how they can tell and **** like that

literally walk over to me and announce it or say things like "oh well you're bi right?" asking in that way where theyre just seeking confirmation not really that theyre unsure of themselves

it's just sort of part of you

and that's the thing when something can't be altered pressure to change it becomes useless it's ineffectual so it's not quite a matter of it being prized in that sense

it's just like asking someone in a wheelchair to jump, you're not going to do that and expect results

it's a futile exercise

our ideas and thoughts are us to an extent, but those can be altered and suppressed and our peers and society will dictate which ways they should be

acceptable thought is just how group mindsets generally work and they form a foundation for societies and groups

mutual views provide people with a sense of belonging and conformity is generally pushed just through human nature

so it seems natural to me that one wouldn't be seen as something to protect to most people while the other would

people are used to being told what and how to think from the time they're children, how to behave etc learned behaviors from peers and society which carries on throughout our lives

differing from the group mindset whether youre wrong or right is generally subject to harsh treatment (so is differing from the group in general in the case of things that are inalterable, but society currently dictates that inalterable things should not be something to discriminate against in the past this wasnt true to the same extent) just a natural consequence of being human

which is why i think social pressure is sufficient, herd mentalities often win out to some extent unless chipped away at over time

so while it doesn't seem fair and isn't on some level, it makes sense because you can change a view or at least shut it down in many cases with pressure

the vast majority of people will give in when pressured on their views or at least keep them locked away except when in appropriate like minded company

also society generally works better with herd mentalities because it gives people common direction

thinking against the grain for better or worse is more problematic in that sense (for the group and the individual) and is more "disruptive"

the government shouldnt prevent free expression through law, but in order to maintain a structuted society other methods to mold popular opinion would be an intelligent option (media and such) because social pressure can do a lot generally speaking

but yeah i dont think it's a matter of one being more sacred than the other, it's just that one you can potentially change the other you cant