Deranged Rhino Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) When you open up the door to any thought policing, you open up the door to all thought policing. It's one of those things that is either OK, or it's not. Quite frankly, it's one of the things that terrifies me most. Freedom can be ugly; but without the freedom to be "bad", there is no freedom to be "good". I hear you. And it's for that reason that I think "hate crimes" are an over-correction that do far more harm than good. However, when it comes to regulating landlords and tenants, there needs to be policies in place that protect minorities (or tenants in general). Without them, there's too much evidence and history of abuse without any recourse. Even with these laws Sterling was able to dance around them because of the size of his pocketbook. That's not justice or freedom, that's wealth buying someone the ability to do whatever he pleases despite the laws of the land. And that's always going to happen unless there are measures in place to offer protection to those who are defenseless. Edited April 28, 2014 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) The law you are citing is noting more than Legislative Thought Policing, which is far more offensive than anything Mr. Sterling has said or done, and is the antithesis of a free society. Discrimination may well be ugly, but forbiding discrimination by individuals denies them their basic rights. An individual has the right to think or say as he sees fit. An individual also has the right to freely associate, and use his own property as he sees fit. No individual has the right to use another person's property against their will, nor do they have the right to force them to associate against their will. You can still discriminate, its just socio-economic discrimination and free association. I can deny anybody who doesn't meet rent coverage ratios, or write up my rental process to target specifics groups. I don't see fari housing a thought policing. Thought policing would be the incremental slippery slope of defining things "hate speech"... those types of pushes, and you know they are coming, are what scares me. Free Speech rights protect unpopular speech- once you are able to define Hate Speech, when does it end? To me, that is thought policing. To ensure any qualified applicant can rent a property and enter into a legal contract, not as much. Edited April 28, 2014 by B-Large Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 The man's a fool. Donald Sterling's always been into Donald Sterling -- the fact he was willing to have the worst-run franchise in the NBA for 30 years while steadfastly refusing to take any outside advice on how to improve the team showed that well before this kerfuffle ever came up. Why Is the NAACP In Bed With Donald Sterling From HuffPo: Money! Money! You sold that award for money. Shame, shame, shame and shame. Perhaps some 'reporter should ask the 'girlfriend' the "why are you in bed" question also..................................lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 I gotta say, not be "allowed" to discriminate against fatties for jobs is downright wrong. Playing the odds, that morbidly obese guy isn't gonna be an active, and motivated employee. Might as well be "forced" to give a guy a job even if he doesn't bother to iron his shirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 I gotta say, not be "allowed" to discriminate against fatties for jobs is downright wrong. Playing the odds, that morbidly obese guy isn't gonna be an active, and motivated employee. Might as well be "forced" to give a guy a job even if he doesn't bother to iron his shirt. Oh, calm down Beavis. You can still discriminate against the mentally ill - crazy bastards are still fair game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 I gotta say, not be "allowed" to discriminate against fatties for jobs is downright wrong. Playing the odds, that morbidly obese guy isn't gonna be an active, and motivated employee. Might as well be "forced" to give a guy a job even if he doesn't bother to iron his shirt. Oh man, you hire and promote based on Merit. I know some fatties at this hospital who work circles around me daily, are here before I am and after I leave, and make patient care and satisfaction their mission- the are tubby, but lavushly accomplished in their fields. Always Merit, never on outward appearances (within reason) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 What I want to know is who is calling up Donny and teasing him- It's hilarious to think there is a network of rich !@#$s who sit around waiting for information so they can call and rip on other rich !@#$s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) You can still discriminate, its just socio-economic discrimination and free association. I can deny anybody who doesn't meet rent coverage ratios, or write up my rental process to target specifics groups. I don't see fari housing a thought policing. Thought policing would be the incremental slippery slope of defining things "hate speech"... those types of pushes, and you know they are coming, are what scares me. Free Speech rights protect unpopular speech- once you are able to define Hate Speech, when does it end? To me, that is thought policing. Thought policing is also anything that disallows someone from exercising their authority over their own willingness to enter into a contract, or to act with their own property, because it is "wrong". To ensure any qualified applicant can rent a property and enter into a legal contract, not as much. It takes two willing participants to enter into a contract. If one is being coerced into entering into that contract, that is a violation of his rights. If the reason he is being coerced into entering into a conrtact is because the government has deemed his reasons for not wanting to enter into that contract are "wrong", then that is thought policing. Edited April 28, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Security Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Hahahaha, The Wire says it is funny that Trump and ALex Jones come to the defense of Sterling..... http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/04/of-course-donald-trump-and-alex-jones-have-joined-the-defenders-of-donald-sterling/361319/ HOWEVER, their conclusion is that Sterling must have been Republican all along...............awesome........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Thought policing is also anything that disallows someone from exercising their authority over their own willingness to enter into a contract, or to act with their own property, because it is "wrong". It takes two willing participants to enter into a contract. If one is being coerced into entering into that contract, that is a violation of his rights. If the reason he is being coerced into entering into a conrtact is because the government has deemed his reasons for not wanting to enter into that contract are "wrong", then that is thought policing. Its a compromises we make to a decent society. If you don't want to rent units to Latinos and Blacks, of whom meet financial and criminal free critera, then don't get into the property ownership with the intention to rent business. You make a choice to abide by laws when you get into it. IF people decided the laws were that much afront to personal freedoms, the could repeal those laws- but they remain on the books because at the end of the day we're decent people and make an attempt at equalizing opportunity and making reasonable attempt to protect our under represented demographic groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Its a compromises we make to a decent society. If you don't want to rent units to Latinos and Blacks, of whom meet financial and criminal free critera, then don't get into the property ownership with the intention to rent business. You make a choice to abide by laws when you get into it. IF people decided the laws were that much afront to personal freedoms, the could repeal those laws- but they remain on the books because at the end of the day we're decent people and make an attempt at equalizing opportunity and making reasonable attempt to protect our under represented demographic groups. The constitutional basis for the ability to enforce these laws is pretty flimsy. The true need and value of such laws in this day and age are highly questionable as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) The constitutional basis for the ability to enforce these laws is pretty flimsy. The true need and value of such laws in this day and age are highly questionable as well. This story, and all it's history, is important for just this reason: to dispel the myth that in this day and age such laws are not needed. Again, not saying every story likes this deserves as much press as this one is getting, nor that very racist comment means that person is a racist and should somehow be punished by a governing body, but sometimes when people smell smoke there is a fire. Guys with histories like this who are also in positions of incredible influence and power need to have the light shined into their world views, if for no other reason than to educate the populace that there are still people who will use race to justify their wicked deeds as just. Edited April 28, 2014 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Its a compromises we make to a decent society. If you don't want to rent units to Latinos and Blacks, of whom meet financial and criminal free critera, then don't get into the property ownership with the intention to rent business. You make a choice to abide by laws when you get into it. IF people decided the laws were that much afront to personal freedoms, the could repeal those laws- but they remain on the books because at the end of the day we're decent people and make an attempt at equalizing opportunity and making reasonable attempt to protect our under represented demographic groups. So you're willing to strip individuals of their property rights and their right to freely associate? That's a terribly slippery slope you're sliding down. This story, and all it's history, is important for just this reason: to dispel the myth that in this day and age such laws are not needed. Again, not saying every story likes this deserves as much press as this one is getting, nor that very racist comment means that person is a racist and should somehow be punished by a governing body, but sometimes when people smell smoke there is a fire. Guys with histories like this who are also in positions of incredible influence and power need to have the light shined into their world views, if for no other reason than to educate the populace. This story has done nothing at all to demonstrate that laws depriving invididuals of their property rights and their rights to freely associate are necessary. Freedom always has been, and always will be ugly; but it's far more moral that the alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 This story has done nothing at all to demonstrate that laws depriving invididuals of their property rights and their rights to freely associate are necessary. Again, you have a very different perspective on property rights than I do in this matter. I understand your thinking and rational, I just do not agree with it. Doesn't mean you're wrong, just idealistic. Freedom always has been, and always will be ugly; but it's far more moral that the alternative. No one, certainly not me, is advocating limiting anyone's freedoms, certainly not Sterling's. He's free to say what he wants and run his business the way he wants -- so long as he's not in violation of the law. Which, in the past, he has been guilty of numerous times. You disagree that he's guilty of anything not out of a defense of Sterling (I understand that) but out of a principle you feel is threatened by the fallout from this. Sterling has the freedom to say what he wants. But we as a people, and his customers, are the ones who will ultimately pass judgement on his actions with our wallets. Shouldn't we be as free as Sterling to voice our thoughts and unrest? But that kind of social correction, one sprung from genuine will of the people without a governing body imposing its will (the nba/us govt -- anyone), is impossible without an accurate understanding of the mans world view. This tape exposes that. And that's a good thing. It's not cool how the tape came about, it's not legal, it's also not a full picture of Sterling himself -- but it leads to a bigger discussion. A bigger context if you will. That's freedom in action. We are seeing the cost of free speech. You have the right to say anything you want, believe anything you want, but when you say something evil or repugnant, then everyone else has the right to expose your idiocy to the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Thought policing is also anything that disallows someone from exercising their authority over their own willingness to enter into a contract, or to act with their own property, because it is "wrong". It takes two willing participants to enter into a contract. If one is being coerced into entering into that contract, that is a violation of his rights. If the reason he is being coerced into entering into a conrtact is because the government has deemed his reasons for not wanting to enter into that contract are "wrong", then that is thought policing. So in your world segregation would still be in place because it's a right to simply exclude 10% of the population from the better things in society simply because of the color of their skin? You dress up your prejudice really well, but it's still bigotry anyway you look at it. And stop blaming the government. It's not the government, it's people like me that vote and think that oppression like that is purly f'd up. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was one the the best things the Federal Government ever did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 So in your world segregation would still be in place because it's a right to simply exclude 10% of the population from the better things in society simply because of the color of their skin? You dress up your prejudice really well, but it's still bigotry anyway you look at it. And stop blaming the government. It's not the government, it's people like me that vote and think that oppression like that is purly f'd up. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was one the the best things the Federal Government ever did Tuesday is coming. Did you bring your coat? I am busy next week but if you lend me 10 pence to mend the shed I can repay you on the morrow. However, my cat's breath smells like cat food. In conclusion, orange peanut. Orange peanut for me? Well, I accept you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Tuesday is coming. Did you bring your coat? I am busy next week but if you lend me 10 pence to mend the shed I can repay you on the morrow. However, my cat's breath smells like cat food. In conclusion, orange peanut. Orange peanut for me? Well, I accept you. Yeah, pretty much this exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Oh man, you hire and promote based on Merit. I know some fatties at this hospital who work circles around me daily, are here before I am and after I leave, and make patient care and satisfaction their mission- the are tubby, but lavushly accomplished in their fields. Always Merit, never on outward appearances (within reason) When I hire college students, merit doesn't really change the game. Gun to my head, I'll hire a fit guy over a fatty every time. Oh, calm down Beavis. You can still discriminate against the mentally ill - crazy bastards are still fair game. I don't get it. Was this a joke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Again, you have a very different perspective on property rights than I do in this matter. I understand your thinking and rational, I just do not agree with it. Doesn't mean you're wrong, just idealistic. Rights are rights, and if you get to decide how I will or will not use my own property, then it is not my own property, but is rather communal property that you simply allow me to use, so long as I only use it in ways that you find desirable. What you describe aren't rights, they are privileges. With that stated, individual property rights are the singular concept upon which all rights are balanced. When you do away with property rights, you've done away with every ounce of the liberal progress of human kind since John Locke; and all because some fat billionaire doesn't like sp***s and n*****s. Seems like a lousy swap to me, on balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Tuesday is coming. Did you bring your coat? I am busy next week but if you lend me 10 pence to mend the shed I can repay you on the morrow. However, my cat's breath smells like cat food. In conclusion, orange peanut. Orange peanut for me? Well, I accept you. When you can't defend the indefensible what can you say? Gibberish. Perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts