Facts on controversial topics

Chat about a topic supported by books, TED Talks, podcasts, personal experience, philosophies of mankind mingled with humor (shout out to IOT), and maybe we’ll even do a google hangout or conference call once a month.
User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Facts on controversial topics

Post by Jeffret » Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:56 pm

Mad Jax, thanks for clarifying your basic position. I think we're much closer in position than I feared we might be. The reason I like to ask those sorts of questions is to establish some sort of baseline. Sometimes I've found myself arguing over the details of anti-discrimination law only to later realize they reject the entire foundation. That results in a pretty pointless discussion.

I think where we differ most is on our perception of the basic, perhaps historical, need for and importance of anti-discrimination law. I find this to be highlighted in your comment, "Most discriminatory practices were imposed by the government itself; i.e. Jim Crow laws." This is, I believe, an overstatement of the importance and pervasiveness of the Jim Crow laws. It is true that Jim Crow laws were terrible discriminatory and horribly effective at "keeping the negro in his place", but they were only part of mechanisms used for that purpose. Other than anti-miscegenation laws, which were quite widespread, Jim Crow laws mostly existed in the South. But, that doesn't mean that the rest of the states lacked substantial and oppressive discrimination.

The Wikipedia article on Jim Crow laws states, "De jure segregation existed mainly in the Southern states, while Northern segregation was generally de facto—patterns of housing segregation enforced by private covenants, bank lending practices, and job discrimination, including discriminatory labor union practices." ("De jure" meaning "in law" and "de facto" meaning "in fact" or "in practice.) The de facto discrimination everywhere was nearly as oppressive as the de jure discrimination in the South. And that certainly doesn't mean that the South lacked de facto discrimination. Even without the Jim Crow laws, the combined weight of the individual discriminations would have been enormous. And was.

Certainly it was essential to eliminate the government-based discrimination. That was a big and difficult step. But only doing that was wholly insufficient. Our country also needed strong statements and laws to curtail discrimination in business and other fields so that African-Americans could have a chance of prospering and progressing from the situations into which they had been forced.

In this post, I wrote about the "Negro Motorist Green Book". This travel companion was essential for any African-American wishing to travel. It was published in New York City, which was not exactly a hotbed of Jim Crow laws. Moksha shared the page from the 1963 edition which lists places serving blacks in Utah -- or rather, the partial page. It takes up less than half a page and lists only 12 locations. That could make travel and vacations awfully difficult for any black family.

You state that, "Nobody should force someone to do something which is against their conscience and it should be something people accept at face value in most cases." Unfortunately, that would have eviscerated the attempts to create not only a level playing field but any sort of a playing field for African-Americans. This discrimination was generally based upon people doing what their conscience told them. Much of it was religious in nature, a matter of very strongly and sincerely held religious belief. Serving blacks was something that made them very uncomfortable. It seems weird now, but the opposition to racially based anti-discrimination laws was largely focused on religious terms. One of the areas in which you can still see that quite clearly is reading back over documents about interracial marriage (the fight over anti-miscegenation laws). The opposition to Loving v. Virginia (which overthrew anti-miscegenation laws nationwide) was framed almost entirely in religious terms and principles. Conscience or sincerely held belief or religious belief are clearly not a sufficient moral basis for allowing exceptions to anti-discrimination law.

Anti-discrimination laws do involve a substantial amount of complexity and grey areas. I wish there were a better solution. I'm convinced, though, that anti-discrimination laws have been necessary in the beneficial efforts to make our society more just and moral.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Facts on controversial topics

Post by moksha » Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:11 pm

Jeffret wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:56 pm
The opposition to Loving v. Virginia (which overthrew anti-miscegenation laws nationwide) was framed almost entirely in religious terms and principles.
Don't you just hate it when hatred wraps itself in religious terms? That would be akin to giving out black licorice covered in chocolate as a Halloween treat or Donald Trump calling something else fake.
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

User avatar
oliblish
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 11:09 pm

Re: Facts on controversial topics

Post by oliblish » Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:06 pm

Mad Jax wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 6:46 pm
Jeffret wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:08 am
dogbite wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:51 am
In the samples given above, the speech could be construed as incitement to violence or hate speech which can have other legal limits on it. Except the Mohammed one. I don't see how that one hits those limits as described.
I don't yet see how there is any anti-discrimination issue with the Muhammed scenario described above. Some of these fanciful scenarios are just that.
It is a Haram offense to depict an image of the prophet Muhammed in the Islamic faith. Suing a Muslim for refusing to do so is similar to suing a Christian for refusing to depict something he/she sees as sinful. Both see it as an offense to God.
From what I understand it is illegal to be willing to sell images of Muhammed to one group of people but to exclude another group from buying them. As long as they refuse to sell them to any customer, they are not discriminating.

You can't force a business to sell something they don't want to sell. But if they offer something for sale, they can't discriminate against certain groups
Stands next to Kolob, called by the Egyptians Oliblish, which is the next grand governing creation near to the celestial or the place where God resides; holding the key of power also, pertaining to other planets; as revealed from God to Abraham

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Facts on controversial topics

Post by Jeffret » Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:34 pm

oliblish wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:06 pm
From what I understand it is illegal to be willing to sell images of Muhammed to one group of people but to exclude another group from buying them. As long as they refuse to sell them to any customer, they are not discriminating.

You can't force a business to sell something they don't want to sell. But if they offer something for sale, they can't discriminate against certain groups
Yes, that is the case. As you said, there are only certain classes (protected classes) against which discrimination is prohibited. And depending upon the specific location. And possibly depending upon the type of activity. For example, Utah law prohibits discriminating against LGBT in employment and housing but allows free reign to discriminate in lots of other areas. Colorado prohibits discriminating on the basis of age in employment, but not other matters.

As a general rule, a business can discriminate in lots of ways. It just can't discriminate on the basis of the protected classes, actions, or areas. The signs that say, "No shirt, no shoes, no service" would be acceptable discrimination if applied to everyone. The signs that say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" aren't necessarily correct.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
Mad Jax
Posts: 502
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:55 pm

Re: Facts on controversial topics

Post by Mad Jax » Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:07 pm

oliblish wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:06 pm
Mad Jax wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 6:46 pm
Jeffret wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:08 am

I don't yet see how there is any anti-discrimination issue with the Muhammed scenario described above. Some of these fanciful scenarios are just that.
It is a Haram offense to depict an image of the prophet Muhammed in the Islamic faith. Suing a Muslim for refusing to do so is similar to suing a Christian for refusing to depict something he/she sees as sinful. Both see it as an offense to God.
From what I understand it is illegal to be willing to sell images of Muhammed to one group of people but to exclude another group from buying them. As long as they refuse to sell them to any customer, they are not discriminating.

You can't force a business to sell something they don't want to sell. But if they offer something for sale, they can't discriminate against certain groups
That's a position that I see as an attempt to be equitable to both parties in any case, and I think that explains the disconnect Jeffret and I were having. I think I didn't get what he didn't get, if that makes any sense.
Free will is a golden thread flowing through the matrix of fixed events.

User avatar
Mad Jax
Posts: 502
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:55 pm

Re: Facts on controversial topics

Post by Mad Jax » Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:09 pm

Jeffret wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:34 pm
As you said, there are only certain classes (protected classes) against which discrimination is prohibited. And depending upon the specific location. And possibly depending upon the type of activity. For example, Utah law prohibits discriminating against LGBT in employment and housing but allows free reign to discriminate in lots of other areas. Colorado prohibits discriminating on the basis of age in employment, but not other matters.

As a general rule, a business can discriminate in lots of ways. It just can't discriminate on the basis of the protected classes, actions, or areas.
Can you show me an example of a law that actually has protected classes? I always understood anti-discrimination laws to be universal; i.e. you can't discriminate against any person of any stripe. I find it difficult to believe a class system is legally recognized in any case, but I could be wrong.
Free will is a golden thread flowing through the matrix of fixed events.

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Facts on controversial topics

Post by Jeffret » Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:01 am

Mad Jax wrote:
Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:09 pm
Can you show me an example of a law that actually has protected classes? I always understood anti-discrimination laws to be universal; i.e. you can't discriminate against any person of any stripe. I find it difficult to believe a class system is legally recognized in any case, but I could be wrong.
Ah, that may explain much of our confusion and disconnect. In the U.S., the notion of a protected class is at the core of anti-discrimination law. Like a number of other things, the term "protected class" has kind of an arcane legal meaning. It can be kind of confusing to people who aren't familiar with its usage in legal matters. A better term might be "protected characteristic". Or "characteristic which may not be used to discriminate against someone in various specific activities". But that's kind of unwieldy.

Here's a pretty good overview, as it relates to employment law: http://www.attorneys.com/discrimination ... ed-classes. As it says,
Discrimination is not as easily defined as a person may believe at first glance. Even if a boss dislikes someone for his or her personality and treats the person in an unfair manner as a result, this may not be enough evidence for a discrimination claim. To file a valid discrimination claim, the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) requires that a person's discrimination fall within one of eleven categories.
This page, http://www.hr-guide.com/data/G714.htm, intended for HR professionals, lists more of the details around specific classes and the laws and cases involved.

This wikipedia page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class, lists the classes defined under Federal law and the laws that established them.

State and local laws differ and my include more protected classes (though not less). Here is the page describing Colorado public accommodations law: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dora/c ... rimination. Colorado prohibits discrimination on the basis of "Race, Color, Disability, Sex, Sexual Orientation (including transgender status), National Origin/Ancestry, Creed, Marital Status and Retaliation".

And this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Add_The_Words,_Idaho, describes the activist group in Idaho attempting to Add the Words to Idaho's laws to protect sexual orientation and gender identity.

It's a lot of links, I know, but there is a ton of information about protected classes (characteristics). Most people don't need to know all the details, but just the general idea that discrimination is prohibited if it is based on certain essential characteristics. These laws are created to protect various historically and currently disadvantaged and oppressed groups of people.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Facts on controversial topics

Post by Jeffret » Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:11 am

A lot of the anti-discrimination cases that make the news these days are not based on Federal law. They involve state or local law. There are a ton of other cases, but mostly what makes the news are the cases involving LGBT discrimination. A lot of the reason they get so much attention is because of two things. 1) The ADF has been trying to find a case to take to the Supreme Court that would be a vehicle to overturn anti-discrimination law. They finally got the Masterpiece Cakeshop to SCOTUS. Now, we'll see if they're successful in the second part of that mission. And 2), the ADF and some other right-wing groups use these cases to fund-raise from.

The Masterpiece Cakeshop and Azucar Bakery cases both involve Colorado law. The Flowers by Arlene case is about Washington law. The Sweet Cakes by Melissa case is about Oregon law, and mostly about doxing and harassing your victims. From an artistic basis, I think the Elane Photography case was the strongest. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled unanimously on that one, though, and SCOTUS declined to intervene.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Facts on controversial topics

Post by Jeffret » Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:06 am

Let me clarify a little bit:

While the legal term is "protected class" and the laws are created to protect oppressed or disadvantaged groups, the laws themselves are neutral, not protecting any one group over another. The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, not discrimination against blacks. It is entirely possible for someone in the majority group to file a discrimination claim. A white person could be subject to illegal discrimination on the basis of race and could indeed get legal support. This doesn't happen so often with regards to racial discrimination. It does happen a bit with sex discrimination. It's quite common with religious discrimination. The majority group, Christians, benefit more from bans on religious discrimination than any other group. The WBC are pros at that, literally.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Facts on controversial topics

Post by Jeffret » Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:02 pm

[This post is a bit of a deviation from recent discussion on this thread, but it harks back to some other comments that occasioned the creation of this thread. I thought it would be good enough to drop these comments here.]

In some comments a few weeks back, Mark Regnerus's "New Family Structures" study was referenced to demonstrate that gay marriage is bad for kids. The reality is that Regnerus's study was riddled with problems. It completely lacked sufficient data, enough kids to study, to make for meaningful results. Regnerus started with a sample size of 236 kids raised by gay parents, but on more careful analysis most of subjects don't really qualify for inclusion into his study group. Here's a brief overview of some of the problems: Study: Negative findings for children of gay parents don't hold up to scrutiny. In the end, there were really only two individuals that should have qualified for Regnerus's sample set and even those were problematic.

In contrast, another new study looking into the issue has just been published, "Parental Sexual Orientation and Children's Psychological Well-Being: 2013–2015 National Health Interview Survey". This one hasn't made near the splash in the news, primarily the conservative news outlets, because it demonstrates what pretty much all the serious studies have been saying -- kids of gay and lesbian parents do about as well as other kids under comparable situations. This one reviewed data for 21,000 children from the National Health Interview Survey. This study is far more comprehensive, thorough, and well-structured.

Here's a news article on the study: Children of Gay Parents are Still Turning Out Just Fine, According to a Massive Research Review
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Facts on controversial topics

Post by Jeffret » Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:16 pm

[This is another update on a different controversial topic, that originated on a now-locked thread and included a different thread. Moderators, if this is too off-topic let me know and I'll take it down, but I think there is value in knowing more about what some quoted, referenced public figures are like.]

On another thread or two, Jordan Peterson was mentioned and quoted. He's been in the news again recently. I don't know a lot about him, but in these latest issues and some others he's definitely pretty scary. That doesn't invalidate everything he says on all topics, but it does a lot to demonstrate where he is coming from, who likes him, and why some people like him. This leads me personally to be quite reluctant to take anything he says in a positive light. I realize that's somewhat of an ad hominem, but I've learned that when someone shows you what they are really like, it's a good idea to pay attention. I wonder if once upon a time he had some good, meaningful, positive contributions but he seems to have developed a cozy relationship with the white supremacists.

U of T profs alarmed by Jordan Peterson's plan to target classes he calls 'indoctrination cults'

He has since said his plans to create a website targeting specific classes and disciplines has been placed on hiatus: Toronto university professor says controversial website 'on hiatus'. I doubt he's really had a change of heart -- he's been pretty vocal and clear on what he thinks of people who think and behave differently from himself.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Facts on controversial topics

Post by Jeffret » Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:23 am

In some of the heated discussions on other threads that inspired this thread, there were some vile statements made regarding transgender people and how they should be inhumanely treated and disregarded. I won't repeat the ridiculous, mean statements here.

I just ran across an excellent article on the topic from Zach Ford at ThinkProgress, The pernicious junk science stalking trans kids: The "desistance" myth doesn't explain why transgender children are thriving.. This is a long, but thoroughly excellent article, on the experiences of trans kids (and adults). Ford details the fundamental problems with earlier research claiming trans kids later desist (not persist, i.e., change their minds) and are harmed by being treated considerately. The flaws are so significant that the only reason the studies were ever published was because of the blinders imposed by widespread prejudicial assumptions. Good studies are just getting going but initial data is clear that allowing transgender kids to transition and treating them kindly encourages them to be happy and thrive. By far the best approach is to listen to the kids (or adults). Therapists look too see if a child is insistent, persistent, and consistent about their transgender identity. Kids who demonstrate these characteristics rarely desist later in life.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
RubinHighlander
Posts: 1906
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:20 am
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: Facts on controversial topics

Post by RubinHighlander » Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:39 am

No offense intended to anyone here who still has strong religious beliefs, but I think this thread points out so many of the problems that religion causes in society. There are enough social problems with bigotry, religion seems to add to it and justify it. The other issue I have with religion is it's denial of scientific facts; which also relates to the gay issues. These messy social issues will rage on without resolution, as long as big groups of folks continue to have these strong emotional ties to BS ways of thinking. Especially those who think they are more super special than everyone else because their religious dogma (or political party) tells them so. I know religious freedom is an important tenant of republics and democracies but it seems so backward to me now and I'm happy to see it fading over time, but not fast enough IMO.
“Sir,' I said to the universe, 'I exist.' 'That,' said the universe, 'creates no sense of obligation in me whatsoever.”
--Douglas Adams

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzmYP3PbfXE

User avatar
alas
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Facts on controversial topics

Post by alas » Mon Jan 01, 2018 12:07 am

RubinHighlander wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:39 am
No offense intended to anyone here who still has strong religious beliefs, but I think this thread points out so many of the problems that religion causes in society. There are enough social problems with bigotry, religion seems to add to it and justify it. The other issue I have with religion is it's denial of scientific facts; which also relates to the gay issues. These messy social issues will rage on without resolution, as long as big groups of folks continue to have these strong emotional ties to BS ways of thinking. Especially those who think they are more super special than everyone else because their religious dogma (or political party) tells them so. I know religious freedom is an important tenant of republics and democracies but it seems so backward to me now and I'm happy to see it fading over time, but not fast enough IMO.
I kind of suspect that rather than religion causing bigotry, that it is more that bigots use religion to support their hatred. Often they even twist religion in order to justify it, like followers of Islam being suicide bombers. Really, it is a religion that promotes peace, but the haters twist it to justify killing. If Christianity wanted to drop homophobia, they would do so just as they have stopped stoning people who say the name of God or those who blend cotton with polyester. If Christianity wanted to treat women as equals, they could look at how Jesus treated women. But no, they twist their religion to do what they want. And to not do what they find inconvenient.

User avatar
Emower
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Carson City

Re: Facts on controversial topics

Post by Emower » Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:30 pm

alas wrote:
Mon Jan 01, 2018 12:07 am
RubinHighlander wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:39 am
No offense intended to anyone here who still has strong religious beliefs, but I think this thread points out so many of the problems that religion causes in society. There are enough social problems with bigotry, religion seems to add to it and justify it. The other issue I have with religion is it's denial of scientific facts; which also relates to the gay issues. These messy social issues will rage on without resolution, as long as big groups of folks continue to have these strong emotional ties to BS ways of thinking. Especially those who think they are more super special than everyone else because their religious dogma (or political party) tells them so. I know religious freedom is an important tenant of republics and democracies but it seems so backward to me now and I'm happy to see it fading over time, but not fast enough IMO.
I kind of suspect that rather than religion causing bigotry, that it is more that bigots use religion to support their hatred. Often they even twist religion in order to justify it, like followers of Islam being suicide bombers. Really, it is a religion that promotes peace, but the haters twist it to justify killing. If Christianity wanted to drop homophobia, they would do so just as they have stopped stoning people who say the name of God or those who blend cotton with polyester. If Christianity wanted to treat women as equals, they could look at how Jesus treated women. But no, they twist their religion to do what they want. And to not do what they find inconvenient.
I think the best way to view religion is as a catalyst. Mixing non-volatile ingredients doesn't really do much in the way of reactions. But throw in some mildly volatile stuff, lower the reaction energy and then you have some heat. Religion works in much the same way, imo.

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Facts on controversial topics

Post by moksha » Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:23 am

Mad Jax wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:03 am
"Strange Fruit For Sale"
That makes me think of the produce aisle of my local Asian market.
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests