Board 8 > Alt-righter banned from gym for being alt-right

(+) Yeah! (+)

Inviso posted...

Again, Wang, the argument is bad because you're inherently saying that the act of being gay (which is NOT a choice) and being a white supremacist (which IS a choice and is LEARNED, not biological) are the same.

no, you're doing the same mistake and are zeroing on exactly the same thing, only going further with it due to personal reasons.

the entire POINT of making of making a claim like that is because you will react strongly against it. you don't like/support A, you do like/support B, but what if both A and B are put into extremely similar scenarios? that's all that was done. it does not mean that A is the same as B. it means that the setting of the two is the same and the results are the same.

what you get from that is what you know is a consistent value of yours. of course the two need to be different - if it was something else you disliked then how the hell would that be a useful point?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Interesting distinction

What would you say to a baker refusing to bake a cake for an openly gay person's birthday?

I would say there's a big difference between refusing to bake a cake for a gay person and refusing to take wedding photos for a gay couple. As is, sexual orientation is a protected class so that would be illegal if your only objection to serving him is that he's gay, and I think that law is good because while I think private business should be allowed to refuse service for most reasons, there are exceptions where you need to protect minorities because people suck

If your reason is political/religious, you shouldn't be forced to support gay marriage by taking their wedding photos. I know some people are accepting of being gay but care about the sanctity of marriage and all that crap, so whatever. So I would say that situation is comparable, but the baker one is not
---

membership-only clubs where the membership is not truly selective and the club basically admits everyone who pays, or those where the public is allowed access at certain times or for fees, generally don't get "private club" legal status wrt the civil rights act. it's likely that this gym would be considered a place of public accommodation despite operating on memberships.

but this guy's case is not covered by the civil rights act anyway
---

MZero11 posted...

As is, sexual orientation is a protected class

Is it? I am not sure if it is across America yet.

If it is then I just missed that announcement whenever it happened.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

MZero11 posted...

As is, sexual orientation is a protected class

Is it? I am not sure if it is across America yet.

If it is then I just missed that announcement whenever it happened.

July 2014.
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

History is, as they say, written, Jakyl. By the victors, probably a little inaccurate at times, but written nonetheless.

I have noticed several times that there can be a bit of a sharp reaction to when I think about things in a different way. Maybe an incorrect way, even, but just pondering stuff or taking a different spin and I find it a bit troubling. If nothing else perhaps it is I who will learn something from a discussion on stuff like this. And much of history is written about great, violent disagreements of philosophy that shaped our world, hopefully often for the better.

That isn't what this is of course, just a quaint discussion and all.

How can you make a post like this and act confused when people think you're pretentious?
---

Wang, whether you intend it or not, merely offering up that particular hypothetical is putting those two vastly different things on equal footing, as though the circumstances are exactly the same. You can say "oh it's a psychological experiment" but the fact is that there are people, real people, who use that argument without a hint of irony. These are people who have been emboldened recently (whether by Trump's success, or by the rise of anonymity on the internet), but the fact is that by pushing those "hypotheticals", it IS legitimizing the opposite viewpoint and makes it so that white supremacists like Richard Spencer can actively claim to be victims in a society that really doesn't treat them that poorly, outside of rejecting their racism views.
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

MZero11 posted...

As is, sexual orientation is a protected class

Is it? I am not sure if it is across America yet.

If it is then I just missed that announcement whenever it happened.

July 2014.

Thank you
---

I still don't see how taking photos at someone's gay wedding is 'supporting gay marriage'. If you really don't want to do gay weddings, just don't do weddings period. I wonder how many good christians would refuse to photograph a gay wedding, and then ALSO refuse to photograph someone's second wedding. Seeing as Divorce is a pretty big no-no in the Bible too.
---

I'd like to note 100 years ago that people like Richard Spencer were very popular. They didn't need the victim card, they were running things.

All theories aside nothing is legitimizing this sort of thing, men like Spencer are on more and more borrowed time.
---

SupremeZero posted...

If I say "Bar a pixie from eating at a cookie store", that's a fair comparison? This is the opposite side of the spectrum from a neo-nazi being banned from a gym?

Like, this isn't a generic comparison here. This is specifically mentioned to be the opposite side of the spectrum. There is no way it's the opposite side of the spectrum if it's generic crap.

er... by spectrum he's talking, broadly speaking, the political spectrum. if spencer's a right wing guy getting rejected services due to what he's doing, here's a left wing guy getting rejected services to what he's doing.

if your complaint is that he oversimplified the right and left then... yes? but how does that matter to the actual argument? like why is it this hard to simply say yes, you do believe certain views should be policed more?
---

Sounds like the bank in the movie In Time should stop lending him more hours.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Sounds like the bank in the movie In Time should stop lending him more hours.

I liked that movie. It wasn't particularly well executed but what an idea.
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

All theories aside nothing is legitimizing this sort of thing, men like Spencer are on more and more borrowed time.

I disagree

I think the Internet has allowed these people to regroup and start to organize and grow again.

Sure they aren't "in power," but they're getting closer to getting back there.
---

I hear your 'organize' point but I think their ideas are dying out, the problem quickly becomes that the internet can make lots of things sound very loud.
---

Chris, you are arguing in favor of debating nazis on the merits of their arguments. If nazis were open to having their minds changed based on rational discourse and debate they wouldn't be nazis.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Chris, you are arguing in favor of debating nazis on the merits of their arguments. If nazis were open to having their minds changed based on rational discourse and debate they wouldn't be nazis.

It's like a final three in mafia my friend. You aren't trying to convince the scum he is scum, you're trying to convince the other guy that you're one of the good ones.
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I hear your 'organize' point but I think their ideas are dying out, the problem quickly becomes that the internet can make lots of things sound very loud.

Counterargument: Steve Bannon has real power
---

Jakyl25 posted...

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I hear your 'organize' point but I think their ideas are dying out, the problem quickly becomes that the internet can make lots of things sound very loud.

Counterargument: Steve Bannon has real power

Define real.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I hear your 'organize' point but I think their ideas are dying out, the problem quickly becomes that the internet can make lots of things sound very loud.

Counterargument: Steve Bannon has real power

Counterargument: And looked at what he did with it.
---

Define Steve Bannon.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

DoomTheGyarados posted...

All theories aside nothing is legitimizing this sort of thing, men like Spencer are on more and more borrowed time.

I disagree

I think the Internet has allowed these people to regroup and start to organize and grow again.

Sure they aren't "in power," but they're getting closer to getting back there.

This is the major issue. It's people who are saying they should be allowed to speak their mind and not be punished for it who are empowering them to make these plays. It's not much different from the people who let Trump take over because "I mean it just can't happen in this day and age, right?"

Which is why it's so surprising that Chris of all people, loather of that very modern Democratic party mindset, is falling into the same trap.
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I hear your 'organize' point but I think their ideas are dying out, the problem quickly becomes that the internet can make lots of things sound very loud.

Counterargument: Steve Bannon has real power

Counterargument: And looked at what he did with it.

Got Donald Trump (and maybe Mike Pence at this rate) the presidency?
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I hear your 'organize' point but I think their ideas are dying out, the problem quickly becomes that the internet can make lots of things sound very loud.

Counterargument: Steve Bannon has real power

Counterargument: And looked at what he did with it.

I am confused

You use past tense?
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I hear your 'organize' point but I think their ideas are dying out, the problem quickly becomes that the internet can make lots of things sound very loud.

Bannon is in the white house.
---

Inviso posted...

Wang, whether you intend it or not, merely offering up that particular hypothetical is putting those two vastly different things on equal footing,

no, it's really, really not. i mean you may take personal offense to it, but that argument does not do that. as already said, you can run the same argument without any example. therefore the example is used as a choice to deliver a specific counter, it's using something you like and support in the same situation and with the same results as the one you hate. that's all it's doing and all you've been able to do is attack it because you don't like that. look, all you're really said here is that you aren't internally consistent here and that's fine. you're agreeing with the next question posed but you aren't actually addressing it for some reason. it's like you're simply refusing to believe that you can have two completely different positions that contradict each other.
---

Inviso posted...

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I hear your 'organize' point but I think their ideas are dying out, the problem quickly becomes that the internet can make lots of things sound very loud.

Counterargument: Steve Bannon has real power

Counterargument: And looked at what he did with it.

Got Donald Trump (and maybe Mike Pence at this rate) the presidency?

Well, that's definitely not it, he didn't have any power any reporter doesn't have at that point.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

DoomTheGyarados posted...

All theories aside nothing is legitimizing this sort of thing, men like Spencer are on more and more borrowed time.

I disagree

I think the Internet has allowed these people to regroup and start to organize and grow again.

Sure they aren't "in power," but they're getting closer to getting back there.

This is the major issue. It's people who are saying they should be allowed to speak their mind and not be punished for it who are empowering them to make these plays. It's not much different from the people who let Trump take over because "I mean it just can't happen in this day and age, right?"

Which is why it's so surprising that Chris of all people, loather of that very modern Democratic party mindset, is falling into the same trap.

It isn't so much a 'can't' as 'clearly is not.'

It's looking evident by the time the summer hits full swing that the Republican party is going to pounce upon Trump's corpse.

Also keep in mind I've said a lot that this presidency doesn't worry me much. Can't even get a travel ban passed. WEAK.
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Also keep in mind I've said a lot that this presidency doesn't worry me much. Can't even get a travel ban passed. WEAK.

Trump doesn't really worry me much, but you know who does? Sessions.
---

Yeah AG and SC nods are the scary things, we can agree on that.
---

I feel like this is a self fulfilling prophecy. You're railing on Democrats for massive complacency while displaying massive complacency yourself in the exact same way. It seems very hypocritical. The idea that these people aren't growing their base is simply wrong. How can you honestly say that movement hasn't gained power in the last 8 years? How can you honestly say Trump will cause no lasting damage? Even if he does NOTHING, the mindset he has instilled in millions of Americans is going to have lasting damage for decades.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Chris, you are arguing in favor of debating nazis on the merits of their arguments. If nazis were open to having their minds changed based on rational discourse and debate they wouldn't be nazis.

the "nazi" groups of today includes gay furries who jack it to cartoons meant for 8 year old girls.

like i'm pretty sure they've been losing this battle for a good long while considering that's a far cry from dominating europe as they commit genocide. nazis - actual nazis - are all but extinct and the bulk of what you see today are fragments so far away from it that they wouldn't have even been worth the gas. don't water down that word, don't assume "white supremacy" must always mean "nazi."
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Yeah AG and SC nods are the scary things, we can agree on that.

And Trump is RESPONSIBLE for these. These are examples of lasting damage caused by HIM.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Yeah AG and SC nods are the scary things, we can agree on that.

And Trump is RESPONSIBLE for these. These are examples of lasting damage caused by HIM.

Not really any more than any other Republican in the white house would be, most likely.
---

I've always been the first to say that the Supreme Court nomination is pretty much the huge, glaring exception to anything I say with regards to Trump. The Supreme Court matters.

Anyway I am not arguing for lack of action, just merely noting that these groups getting more recognition the past 8 years with the rise of the popularity of social media isn't a coincidence. It's not like the states that flipped from Obama to Trump in the last election suddenly got super racist in that 4 year period.

You hear about them more because social media promotes more interaction with your fellow humans. This gets even better for the left if Trump actually did the things he said he did and it gets proven.

My only point is I want 'my party' to stop getting its ass kicked repeatedly.
---

SupremeZero posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Yeah AG and SC nods are the scary things, we can agree on that.

And Trump is RESPONSIBLE for these. These are examples of lasting damage caused by HIM.

Not really any more than any other Republican in the white house would be, most likely.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend I don't think having ANY Republican in the white house isn't going to cause lasting damage, but hypotheticals are worthless. the fact is, Trump is the one in there, Trump is the one who did it.
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Sure his views are abhorrent, but I would not ban him if he were keeping to himself and not breaking any rules of the gym.

I've only seen a few things of this guy, which struck me as controversial points of view at best.
I don't know the full story it seems.
Which of his views are actually so abhorrent?
---

Chielz0r posted...

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Sure his views are abhorrent, but I would not ban him if he were keeping to himself and not breaking any rules of the gym.

I've only seen a few things of this guy, which struck me as controversial points of view at best.
I don't know the full story it seems.
Which of his views are actually so abhorrent?

Do you want the laundry list, or do you prefer the summarization of "Is a Nazi"?
---

we must take up arms against literal nazi neil gorsuch

Chielz0r posted...

Which of his views are actually so abhorrent?

white supremacist who pretty much lives to troll in real life. it's like a twisted form of the WBC, just with more trolling and fewer lawsuits.
---

Wanglicious posted...

SupremeZero posted...

If I say "Bar a pixie from eating at a cookie store", that's a fair comparison? This is the opposite side of the spectrum from a neo-nazi being banned from a gym?

Like, this isn't a generic comparison here. This is specifically mentioned to be the opposite side of the spectrum. There is no way it's the opposite side of the spectrum if it's generic crap.

er... by spectrum he's talking, broadly speaking, the political spectrum. if spencer's a right wing guy getting rejected services due to what he's doing, here's a left wing guy getting rejected services to what he's doing.

if your complaint is that he oversimplified the right and left then... yes? but how does that matter to the actual argument? like why is it this hard to simply say yes, you do believe certain views should be policed more?

Do you legitimately believe that all beliefs should be policed equally?
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Anyway I am not arguing for lack of action, just merely noting that these groups getting more recognition the past 8 years with the rise of the popularity of social media isn't a coincidence. It's not like the states that flipped from Obama to Trump in the last election suddenly got super racist in that 4 year period.

You hear about them more because social media promotes more interaction with your fellow humans. This gets even better for the left if Trump actually did the things he said he did and it gets proven.

This is all a direct result of the Casual Revolution of 2007.
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Anyway I am not arguing for lack of action, just merely noting that these groups getting more recognition the past 8 years with the rise of the popularity of social media isn't a coincidence. It's not like the states that flipped from Obama to Trump in the last election suddenly got super racist in that 4 year period.

I don't think they got "more racist", but obviously 8 years of "Obama is a Muslim socialist who wants to destroy white America" has had some sort of effect.
---

Wanglicious posted...

Inviso posted...

Wang, whether you intend it or not, merely offering up that particular hypothetical is putting those two vastly different things on equal footing,

no, it's really, really not. i mean you may take personal offense to it, but that argument does not do that. as already said, you can run the same argument without any example. therefore the example is used as a choice to deliver a specific counter, it's using something you like and support in the same situation and with the same results as the one you hate. that's all it's doing and all you've been able to do is attack it because you don't like that. look, all you're really said here is that you aren't internally consistent here and that's fine. you're agreeing with the next question posed but you aren't actually addressing it for some reason. it's like you're simply refusing to believe that you can have two completely different positions that contradict each other.

Why don't you explain what you are attempting to explain to me instead of to Inviso, seeing as how you have in multiple instances been hung up on this "personal reasons" thing and can't seem to reconcile that. The "personal offense" does not apply to me although I agree with Inviso completely on this argument.

I mean or just argue from the perspective you would argue from if addressing a person or persons with no personal stake in the matter but still hold the same perspective as Inviso.
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Do you legitimately believe that all beliefs should be policed equally?

well... this depends a bit on how you want to define "police," if we're talking the state then yes, absolutely. if we're talking about personal moral judgments, or even my personal moral judgments, no. i'm sure there are hypotheticals and examples that make me go "no, fuck that." like if it's your belief to murder someone over something where they didn't commit some drastic crime (e.g., ritual sacrifices), no i'm not defending or supporting that. generally my limit hits when belief hits action and my concerns will lie not just in the person taking the action but in the beliefs that led them to do it. better beliefs should be pushed forward to limit the bad ones, generation by generation, until they become shells of what they once were.

as for how to get there, "policing" may be involved depending on how you'd want to define that. like i don't think the gym is in the wrong, i do think the screaming lady is.
---

Wanglicious posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Chris, you are arguing in favor of debating nazis on the merits of their arguments. If nazis were open to having their minds changed based on rational discourse and debate they wouldn't be nazis.

the "nazi" groups of today includes gay furries who jack it to cartoons meant for 8 year old girls.

like i'm pretty sure they've been losing this battle for a good long while considering that's a far cry from dominating europe as they commit genocide. nazis - actual nazis - are all but extinct and the bulk of what you see today are fragments so far away from it that they wouldn't have even been worth the gas. don't water down that word, don't assume "white supremacy" must always mean "nazi."

What about when we're making a 1:1 comparison of Nazi ideology and white supremacist ideology?
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Why don't you explain what you are attempting to explain to me instead of to Inviso, seeing as how you have in multiple instances been hung up on this "personal reasons" thing

what?
just take out the first sentence, done. same with the only other time i mentioned that. how is that "hung up?"
---

Wanglicious posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Why don't you explain what you are attempting to explain to me instead of to Inviso, seeing as how you have in multiple instances been hung up on this "personal reasons" thing

what?
just take out the first sentence, done. same with the only other time i mentioned that. how is that "hung up?"

You keep mentioning it in your responses. It jumps out at me.
---

i mentioned it one time in two responses. the second to say that i get that inviso takes personal offense to it, which is pretty damn clear with the post made, the first to point out exactly what inviso's doing, which... was proven right in the follow up.

you said it more times than i did in this entire topic. i don't know why it jumps out at you or how it's something that i "keep mentioning" when i did it twice, but this is just plain tunnel vision on your part. the arguments stand perfectly fine without it.
---

Wanglicious posted...

i mentioned it one time in two responses. the second to say that i get that inviso takes personal offense to it, which is pretty damn clear with the post made, the first to point out exactly what inviso's doing, which... was proven right in the follow up.

you said it more times than i did in this entire topic. i don't know why it jumps out at you or how it's something that i "keep mentioning" when i did it twice, but this is just plain tunnel vision on your part. the arguments stand perfectly fine without it.

Okay so explain how your arguments stand perfectly fine
---