Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (76487)	10/5/2003 10:29:11 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Solon and I think that the specific harm to individuals, though, is unlikely and minimal." Synthesizing for others is a hard and sometimes ungrateful task! I think the harm is real enough, Karen. And I indicated that such was a concern for the court people for those who take it that route. Simply though, being treated like cow dung on an individual level is something which happens in all sorts of ways which have nothing to do with systemic discrimination. Thus, it does not rise to the level of DAMAGING an entire block of people. Being insulted and reviled on an individual level is a harm which may be risen above and which does not tear at the basic fabric of social attitudes and treatment of others. However, when such mistreatment occurs openly--and effectively glorifies bigotry and unequal treatment (rather consciously or unconsciously)--then the harm takes on a more sinister pervasiveness: The harm against ONE is then simultaneously translated into a harm against MILLIONS...who share the same "justification" for "special" treatment--which is to say, being born with a certain skin colour, gender, racial type, or whatever. So you may have been awfully close to my position, and I commend you for such accuracy! You are not just tossing around dung like someone I know. Now if you "clip-board" this post for the future you will be able to state my position just as well as I can!

To: Lane3 who wrote (76487)	10/5/2003 8:13:03 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Well, I'm reluctant to get too dragged back in, but I'll have to answer from my experience in the civil rights movement of the 60s. First, I don't know what you mean by operating under the radar. If he is servicing clients, and doing a good (or even a reasonably good) job, eventually he will get talked about and either a woman or an openly homosexual man will want to get a massage from this masseur. You say he will operate only by "word of mouth," but eventually that word will get to some interested woman or homosexual man. They will ask for an appointment, he will say no, and whether or not he says why, there is actual harm. So I don't see that it is possible for any significant length of time to operate under the radar to the extent that no targeted person will ever face actual exclusion. So I don't think the scenario of no actual harm exists. Even if it did, I think there is a societal harm in any business, no matter how small, discriminating as he intends to. In fact, I think there is a societal harm in such discrimination even in private life, but also I think the right of personal privacy prevails there, so we allow the one harm because it is a lesser harm that trying to run peoples' private lives. But once a life becomes public, and any life which engages in business is public, I think that right of tolerance of private discrimination ends. Any talk of "too small to matter" reminds me of the story often told of the man (it has probably been told with half the ministers/grandfathers/authority figures in the world as the alleged protagonist) asking a woman "would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" "Why, yes," says the woman. "Well then, would you sleep with me for twenty dollars?" Indignantly, "what kind of woman do you think I am?" "We've already established what kind of woman you are. Now we're just trying to establish how much." Discrimination by a business is discrimination by a business, whether it is GM or Mojo. Finally, while some may find this parternalistic to say, I think that society does harm to Mojo when it allows him to persist in running a discriminatory business. Yes, he is fully entitled in his personal life to be as discriminatory as he wants to on whatever grounds he wants to. But I submit that it is better for him not to be allowed to do so in his public life. I know this belief will be controverial, and no, I don't intend to spend dozens of posts defending it. There it is, take it or leave it as you will. So yes, I do see harms. But also, I see harm in being sucked back into this discussion, given the contentious and even virulent tone it has taken. Even as I encourage Mojo to avoid doing harm to others, I will try to protect myself from harm, too.