Thursday, August 27, 2015
is this really still shocking in 2015, or is it just kind of clownish?
at
23:55
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
"i just made another killing,
gonna spend it all on bitches."
yikes.
the weeknd are by no means the worst pop act i've ever heard. in years past, i would actually tend to gravitate towards the artsier fringes of pop music (radiohead, for example), so it's not like it's inherently outside of my sphere the way that the bulk of modern pop is. but, if the weeknd is the modern equivalent of art-pop, it really leaves the form with a lot to be desired - both conceptually and practically. i suppose that's reflective of the broader culture, really.
i can't say i've ever taken the time to sit down and listen to an entire record, but what i'll say is that most of what i've heard from him presents an idea or two that could potentially be expanded upon, and yet never is. and, so it always feels unexplored - half-finished, unrefined.
i don't know how old he is or how much potential there is that he'll ever build on the bits and pieces and flashes that he's shown for himself up to this point. but, i guess he's making lots of cash. and gets lots of bitches. so, there may be little incentive, anyways.
gonna spend it all on bitches."
yikes.
the weeknd are by no means the worst pop act i've ever heard. in years past, i would actually tend to gravitate towards the artsier fringes of pop music (radiohead, for example), so it's not like it's inherently outside of my sphere the way that the bulk of modern pop is. but, if the weeknd is the modern equivalent of art-pop, it really leaves the form with a lot to be desired - both conceptually and practically. i suppose that's reflective of the broader culture, really.
i can't say i've ever taken the time to sit down and listen to an entire record, but what i'll say is that most of what i've heard from him presents an idea or two that could potentially be expanded upon, and yet never is. and, so it always feels unexplored - half-finished, unrefined.
i don't know how old he is or how much potential there is that he'll ever build on the bits and pieces and flashes that he's shown for himself up to this point. but, i guess he's making lots of cash. and gets lots of bitches. so, there may be little incentive, anyways.
at
23:12
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
my guess is that it meant to save energy, although it may have perhaps miscalculated this particular hill.
at
09:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i think the court is wrong. and i'm openly queer, fwiw.
i'm a canadian, so i'm approaching it from a slightly different perspective. but the issue the way i would understand it is related to the question of general service v. individual service. there's a difference between walking into a store and ordering a pre-made cake and requesting that a cake be made with a specific design on it. while the discrimination law ought to apply to the rejection of discrimination on general service (walking in and buying a pre-made good), i don't see any legal precedence or coherent argument that suggests that a store owner does not have the right to deny individual service, for whatever reason it could possibly imagine. it could deny a floral pattern because it doesn't like flowers. it doesn't have to explain or justify this, and it's really beyond any legal scope to question it. so, it's not a question of religious freedom, or even a first amendment protection. it's just the basic autonomous right of individuals to choose who they wish to carry out business with. the entire question is really outside of the scope of law; this case should have never even been heard, and the arguments are really not relevant in the context of any of the discussions being had. so, i would expect the supreme court to reverse this ruling, if it gets there. this is an example of what you call judicial activism - it's not legally rooted.
i would further expand on the issue as it relates to access. in canada, there is a specific circumstance where the court would rule that the business must provide service, and that is only if it has a monopoly. that would apply mostly to government services. so, you can't deny a driver's license for this reason, for example. that's what anti-discrimination laws actually exist for. but, we're talking about wedding cakes on the free market, here. chances are pretty high that you can just go to the next store down the street. and, that's what the judge really should have said - that the government does not exist to police this sort of thing.
there's an irony underlying the situation. you don't have to agree with this guy - i certainly don't. but you have to respect his rights to make his own autonomous decisions and carry out his own autonomous actions. you're the one that's being aggressive here, not him; you have no right to try and force him to bake a cake if he doesn't want to - and it doesn't remotely matter what the reason is.
to be more succinct: this doesn't have anything anything to do with the first amendment, it doesn't have anything to do with religious freedom and it doesn't have anything to do with anti-discrimination laws. it has to do with somebody trying to order somebody to do something they don't want to.
there's no fancy legal argument necessary, and getting lost in one is just confusing. the most powerful legal argument the store owner has is the following simple statement:
"no. i don't want to."
once the layers of superfluous arguments are stripped away and that simple point is understood, there's really no further room for debate.
underlipetx
+deathtokoalas except for the fact that if you turn the tables it's okay. When someone wants to have a cake done with a bible verse on it and the bakery refuses, the courts favor the bakery. There's a bias agenda in here people refuse to acknowledge...
the simple statement would not be "no, I don't want to" but "no, it violates my religious beliefs",
deathtokoalas
+underlipetx see, this is a typical right-wing culture war argument, and i don't really want to get into it. the courts should uphold the autonomous rights of individuals to make decisions as to the nature of the business they carry out. critical theory would tend to come down on the other side of this, but activism in the judiciary exists on both the right and the left. the bottom line is that they're both wrong, and this isn't a spectrum issue - it's an issue of fundamental rights and freedoms to not be ordered to do something you don't want to.
the religious freedom clause in the united states constitution is widely interpreted, and widely misinterpreted. but, one thing that is absolutely clear is that it's not meant to be applied to financial transactions on the open market.
the point, though, is that it doesn't matter what the reason is. that reason belongs to the individual making it, and it is not within the realm of state criticism.
as stated - the case should have been thrown out.
underlipetx
+deathtokoalas yes "right wing culture war argument" as in point out the hypocrisy, but then of course we just label it as "right wing culture war argument" and feel okay about it...... Freedom of religion act is meant for protection wherever you go. It's religious discrimination when someone believes that religions place is only "in the household and churches"
although I believe we agree on the issue as well.
wouldn't that go against the view of right to healthcare as well? Honest question since you're from Canada, cause that "right" is saying that you can force someone(a doctor) to treat you.
Drew Gaughan
+underlipetx No, it's not hypocritical because those doctors are government employees providing a service which every Provincial citizen is guaranteed. They aren't baking you a cake.
underlipetx
+Drew Gaughan doctors aren't governmental employees, even in Canada they still have "super hospitals" or privately owned ones, even so, that statement would say it's okay to force a doctor to do something cause the government says so isn't valid. Just a note in not comparing this to baking a cake, it's a separate question.
Drew Gaughan
+underlipetx We don't have privately owned hospitals here in Canada, save for a few in major cities. The problem here is your conflating a life-saving profession with baking a cake. Should a police officer have the right to refuse answering a 911 call because they don't like the colour of the house which they were called to? No, and neither should a doctor refuse to perform a surgery because they dislike the patient.
underlipetx
I said earlier, I'm not comparing this to baking a cake, its a separate honest question I was asking, and since 2005 where the founder of the Canadian healthcare system was sued and deemed that his care system was " a crime against humanity" they allowed the establishment of super hospitals, which in America is just called hospitals.
deathtokoalas
+underlipetx i'm not getting your reference to a 2005 case. i think the closest thing to a "founder" of health care in canada would be tommy douglas, and he died in 1986.
i'm going to take a step back and try and go over this slowly.
first, freedom of religion in the united states is about the government. it's not about behaviour between individuals. what it says is that there can't be laws that force people to do certain religious things or give people certain religious benefits. the basis for this law was to prevent denominations from fighting with each other, which was a legitimate issue at the time. for example, you couldn't pass a law that states that the trinity is true and unitarians are heretics. it's that sort of thing that it meant to address.
the truth is that this part of the constitution is very antiquated and should really read off as rather quaint.
there are a lot of conclusions to draw from this, some better than others. but, the interpretation you're pulling out of it is really just simply wrong. none of the people involved in the process would have for a moment thought it a good idea to get the state involved in policing market transactions - one way or the other. they would have neither supported a religious restoration type act (for reasons other than the first amendment) nor would they argue that the state has the right to order a baker to make a cake. they would have just said that this is a crazy thing to contemplate, and that the entire discourse is tyrannical. the baker decides to make the cake. the customer goes to another store if they're refused. now, let's all smoke a j.
however, they would have all mostly argued that the market is a useful tool to carry out social change. they would have certainly supported the idea of boycotting the bakery in order to put pressure on the baker to change his position. and, some of them may have argued that the anti-discrimination law is in breech of the first amendment, while rejecting the idea that the baker's opinions are protected by "freedom of religion". the idea is that the anti-discrimination act would be a law establishing the primacy of irreligion. let's be clear that this is a very different argument. and it's a bit of a stretch. but, it's the one you need to make if you're walking down this path.
so, the idea that the first amendment bestows rights on individuals in market transactions is wrong. it's just not what is in your constitution. however you feel about the discussion, this is simply not a first amendment issue.
however, the baker still has a constitutional argument. it's just not a first amendment, religious argument - it's more basic than that.
in canada, our human rights laws have specific scope. the federal human rights code deals with issues under federal jurisdiction - government services, basically. the provincial human rights code deals with issues of power. it's actually very specific in what it reduces itself to, but the idea is that somebody in power cannot discriminate against somebody they hold power over. canadian law would be entirely silent on the issue at hand, and the case would no doubt be thrown out of court.
i will address the doctors in a new reply.
deathtokoalas
canada has a clause in it's constitution that will come off as rather alien to americans. it is the following:
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
it looks a little bit familiar: you have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. but, the difference is rather dramatic.
canadian courts have interpreted this part of the constitution, in conjunction with relevant legislation, to mean that canadians have a constitutional right to receive health care (see the morgantaler cases).
now, let's consider the driver's license thing again. let's say the guy that works at the dmv is a religious fundamentalist and is absolutely insistent that women should not drive. is it tyrannical to force him to hand out licenses? the answer is no: because he can quit his job. as an employee of the dmv, he is required to carry out a job description, and that job description is to uphold the rights of women to not be discriminated against when they're getting their license.
this is the kind of argument that we use in canada with doctors and care. patients have a right to certain access; as a doctor, it is a part of their job to provide that. the state will not force them to provide care. rather, it will tell them that if they do not want to do their job then they can find another job.
conversely, nobody has a right to buy a cake. i certainly suspect that the case was driven by entitlement issues. but, that's not an actual right - not in canada, not in the united states, not in the un - nowhere.
underlipetx
+deathtokoalas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaoulli_v_Quebec_%28AG%29
I will rephrase that it was deemed "a violation of human rights"
The person I was thinking of is Claude Castonguay, the former Minister of Health who was in office when the current medicare legislation was enacted.
deathtokoalas
+underlipetx the chaoulli case has not led to any concrete reforms in canada. but, this is not related to the question at hand.
the canadian health care system is essentially a system of insurance monopolies. every province has it's own insurance monopoly, which is funded through progressive taxation. that means everybody uses the same system, which means nobody gets to jump ahead.
the case in question was asking the question of whether this is constitutional. the argument was that the absence of a market increases wait times, which breaks the clause i referenced previously.
a lot of the debate circles around the validity of the idea that an open market would actually reduce wait times. the general opinion is that this is false. this is important, because if the premise is flawed then the argument collapses.
but, no, this case did not rule the system a crime against humanity, and did not create superhospitals. it has not led to any legislation whatsoever
underlipetx
I rephrased as a "Violation of human rights"(it was also deemed a crises as well) and its has led to the ability to have privatized healthcare which they do have that in Canada
deathtokoalas
+underlipetx that's still not quite right. again: this has gone off-topic. the issue in this case was not whether doctors may be allowed to refuse service, but whether the provincial government may be allowed to maintain a monopoly in health insurance. canadian court rulings can sometimes be very subtle and hard to understand from the outside.
what the ruling did was give the quebec government a choice to increase funds to reduce wait times (and uphold the right publicly) or allow that part of the law to expire (thereby theoretically allowing for faster access in a theoretical private system). it was based solely on the idea that the existing system was not providing fast enough service, and that reality was infringing on the existing right.
now, a lot of people have read the ruling as an attempt for the court to increase public investment, rather than allow private practice. but, the government did not amend any legislation or react with any greater funding.
the result has been a small industry of private doctors in quebec that cater solely to the ultra-rich. it's what is called "two-tier healthcare", and does in fact allow the extremely wealthy to jump the queue ahead of everybody else. it's well outside of the financial means for the average person, and has consequently not altered the health care system in any meaningful way.
the general consensus is that should the private system be expanded then the wait times will reappear. at the end of the day, you have x patients and y doctors. whether it's a public or private system doesn't have any effect on how long it takes for those x patients to get to see those y doctors - unless you create a special category of doctors that only the rich can get access to. then, they can get in faster while everybody else has to wait.
there's an argument that a class-action suit would reverse this ruling by arguing that the two-tier health care is increasing wait times by taking resources out of the public system. it hasn't yet materialized, because the private industry is only capable of appealing to the elite and is consequently only siphoning the system of minimal resources.
this is a provincial ruling, not a federal one. most provinces in canada prohibit private practices.
underlipetx
its not off topic as much as comments to the others on this thread, however I do believe your comment is wrong to say that it "cater solely to the ultra-rich"
What is a reality is that if you do not have private health insurance and you want to do something as little as a blood test, that can take up to 2-3 years on a waiting list for a family doctor.
here is a video from a youtube personality who shows the results of such instances:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw
(yes hes a youtube personality, so its done in a bit of a goofy way.)
deathtokoalas
+underlipetx you have a tendency to exaggerate.
blood tests are actually done largely by private offices, or at hospitals. remember: canada's system is an insurance monopoly, it's not government operated. so, you go to the private clinic and they accept your health card. they then bill the insurance company for it.
if you go to a doctor and they want a blood test, they usually send you to one of those private clinics. they tend to give you a few days so you can carry out instructions, like prepare to fast for a few hours.
i've had plenty of blood tests done. i've really never taken notice of how long it was - a couple of days. i mean, they'll book you based on your schedule. i may have not taken the first opening. two-three years is ridiculous.
the market forces at play in quebec act to keep prices disproportionately high; there is a high-quality tax-funded public system available, and, yes, people complain about the waits, but people are whiners. despite the language in the court ruling, the private industry is selling the privilege to jump ahead based on social status.
mris, for example, run into the tens of thousands of dollars. if you can wait a month or two for the people ahead of you to finish, the public system will pay for it. most people make the obvious choice. but, if you've got tens of thousands to burn...
Emmanuel Villa
If your a private business you should be allowed to serve who you please
L1ttleT3d
+deathtokoalas You feel the same about black people, right? I should be able to deny service to black people if I wish? And women? I should be able to deny women jobs or service if I want to?
deathtokoalas
+L1ttleT3d see, this is the part of the thing that the authoritarian left has a very hard time understanding - they think all situations are comparable in these broad general ways, and everybody should always be forced to abide by state dictates in all circumstances. this is not a liberal position. it's a totalitarian statist position. liberals need to be very subtle in terms of how they analyze freedom, and allow for complex clauses that are specific to certain contexts and circumstances.
your question is consequently impossible to answer because the way that it's phrased is incoherent and nonsensical. i cannot answer a question about always denying or not denying service to any specific identifiable group - and it's absurd to suggest anybody should. if you'd like to be a little bit more specific, i'll be happy to expand upon my views.
again: i'm a canadian. our constitution is probably the apex of applied liberalism; it's not the un charter, but it's as close as anybody's ever gotten. and, our rights are all subject to exceptions within the limits of a free and democratic society. rights are always a balance of interests. i'm not able to think in these simplistic, generalized, binary terms that give one side a sickle and the other five minutes to run. it's not a culture i exist in, or a legal tradition i understand.
so, you'll have to be more specific, please. i need a specific scenario. and i will deny you the right to generalize it.
L1ttleT3d
+deathtokoalas Sure thing. Specific question 1: Mary and Peter are up for the same management job. Mary is infinitely more qualified but is a woman and so will inevitably need time off for "woman issues" and pregnancy. It's my business. I don't want to hire Mary - I WANT to hire Peter. Are you going to make me do something I don't want to do? You're not one of these authoritarian government intervention lefties, are you?
Specific question number 2: I have a flower business. I believe mixing the races is abhorrent and violates natural law. A mixed race couple wish me to provide flowers for their wedding. I don't WANT to. Are you going to make me do something I don't want to do? You're not one of these authoritarian government intervention lefties, are you?
Specific question number 3: I am a landlord. I have various tenants applying for housing. Jews are shifty and can't be trusted. As such I don't WANT to let my house to any Jews. I wish to place an ad in the paper that specifies "NO JEWS NEED APPLY." You're not going to make me do something I don't want to do, are you? You're not one of these authoritarian government intervention lefties are you? It's MY house.
deathtokoalas
+L1ttleT3d regarding the first question, there is not a jurisdiction in the world that would force you to hire mary. however, some jurisdictions may require you to compensate her for discriminatory hiring practices. i would agree that this is the proper balance.
the second question is similar to the issue at hand. the couple can go to another store. that is the proper rights balance. however, they are also free to draw attention to the situation in media, organize boycotts and do other things to inform consumers of the views of the store in question and try and convince people to not shop there.
the third issue is similar to the first, with the difference that some jurisdictions will force the landlord to allow the tenancy due to the nature of housing. housing is in a category of rights that is only weakly enforced, but it is at least abstractly recognized as a right. most jurisdictions, however, would approach the situation by rewarding compensation for discrimination rather than forcing unwanted tenancy.
you can see that there is a pattern: people are free to be assholes, but may have to pay a fee for it. and, i'd like you to step back and ask yourself the following questions:
1) would mary want to work in this establishment, given that she understands the views of management?
2) would a mixed race couple want to support this business?
3) would the jewish person in question want to live in a property owned by anti-semites?
L1ttleT3d
+deathtokoalas regarding the first question, there is not a jurisdiction in the world that would force you to hire mary. however, some jurisdictions may require you to compensate here for discriminatory hiring practices. i would agree that this is the proper balance.
I live in New Zealand. YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HIRE MARY. You're talking like you're an expert on law. You clearly are not. You need to change your language accordingly.
1) would mary want to work in this establishment, given that she understands the views of management?
2) would a mixed race couple want to support this business?
3) would the jewish person in question want to live in a property owned by anti-semites?
Your position is fairly consistent. I'm cool with that in a way - liberty over equality. We just prioritise them slightly differently.
These responses are nonsense however. If you live in a place where you are a small reviled minority then you're not going to get any support for your boycott. Black people in the 60s could have all the boycotts they want - they weren't welcome anyway. Also fining people IS coercion. I don't understand why you think financial penalties aren't coercive... that's bizarre...
deathtokoalas
+L1ttleT3d i am a moderate expert in canadian law; i took three years of it, before i decided it was just a charade for the ruling class. i naively thought it might be a useful way to fight the corporatocracy. the truth is the rules of the game are rigged.
new zealand doesn't count. it's in the middle of nowhere. you have giant crickets and weird birds running around all over the place. you can have your unique legal practices if you wish, but understand that you're living in a bubble. and, to be honest, i'm rather skeptical - although i cannot dispute your point.
the reason i asked you those questions was to have you see that forcing compliance is not a solution to anything. it's not a question of prioritizing one over the other, it's just a realization that you can't get to equality by beating it into people with a stick. at best, it forces people to be dishonest in public. at worst, it fuels resentment. getting to a proper balance that promotes harmony requires working with a scalpel, not a sickle.
so, it's not that i'm arguing against coercion. it's that i'm arguing that forcing people to do things against their will is not a good approach. i'm recognizing that discrimination is an offense, and agreeing it requires compensation - but i'm pointing towards what is almost universally agreed to be the better approach in remedying the injustice.
the civil rights movement in the 60s was a populist movement where whites and blacks worked together. that said, this dynamic was an urban phenomenon. there was a large migration of blacks out of the south in the middle part of the last century. the government passed laws that forced equal treatment in restaurants, motels and other contexts. it didn't work; white southerners just got more violent. in the end, the most immediate answer was escape. but, if you really want to get to the root of discrimination in racialized societies, you need to analyze systemic root causes. this is the basis of the critical race theory that came out of the failure of the 60s reforms; while i'm not entirely in agreement with their analysis, the basic premise that they're working with is quite difficult to dispute. on some level, you're right - but forcing them to sell them the flowers hardly addresses the issue.
anti-discrimination laws are not powerful enough to eliminate discrimination and oppression - they can only provide for compensation in situations where a clear loss or injustice can be demonstrated.
L1ttleT3d
+deathtokoalas i took three years of it, before i decided it was just a charade for the ruling class
We were taught that day 1 of Law 101. I'm not even kidding. I remember it very well. The definition of law was discussed and it was defined as basically a mechanism for maintaining the status quo. The rich keep their stuff because the police work for them. It's a shame your university lecturer wasn't as forthright as mine, I guess. :P
new zealand doesn't count. it's in the middle of nowhere.
Sure. That's an odd response but I'll take it. It's right next to Australia (and has almost identical laws to Australia and the UK)... but then I guess that's the "middle of nowhere" too, probably.
you have giant crickets and weird birds running around all over the place.
Well we're not quite overrun. I'm not sitting in my house with Weta's and Kakapo clawing at my windows... but O... K...
it's just a realization that you can't get to equality by beating it into people with a stick
I disagree. You can do anything you want if you're willing to get violent enough. We're not willing to impose totalitarianism onto ourselves of course - but technically you CAN beat people into doing what you want.
at best, it forces people to be dishonest in public. at worst, it fuels resentment. getting to a proper balance that promotes harmony requires working with a scalpel, not a sickle.
Fair point. Fines are a sickle, though. Not a scalpel. You need to find a better tool.
you need to analyze systemic root causes. this is the basis of the critical race theory that came out of the failure of the 60s reforms
Now THIS I agree with. Treat the disease not the symptom. Couldn't agree more. The main thing overlooked the the race issues of the USA by many is that it really isn't about race... not really. This is a class thing - with Black people as the underclass. Fix social inequality and the rest will follow, in my opinion.
deathtokoalas
+L1ttleT3d white supremacy didn't come to exist by accident. it was very carefully created by a combination of landholding interests and religious groups to enforce an economic system by theological decree. over time, that evolved into a divide and conquer strategy where poor whites and poor blacks were played off against each other in order to prevent them from uniting to change the status quo. the social aspect of it is the part that's hard, not the class aspect of it. the race issue has to be resolved before the class issue can be addressed. it's really the desperately poor and strikingly uneducated white underclass that is the biggest problem on the ground, even as they take their cues from the top.
it's not that i wasn't told that the law is a tool to maintain the status quo. it's a widely held opinion, even amongst people that have never taken a law course. it's that i didn't realize the extent of it until i actually read the cases. you walk in thinking you've got a hill to climb, but with optimism that you can make a difference. it takes some time for it to really sink in.
L1ttleT3d
+deathtokoalas Oh, don't get me wrong, racism exists. I just think the social inequality / class aspect of it is far more meaningful than pretending this is a simple race issue would lead you to believe.
Alicia Etler
+deathtokoalas You make a valid point, and I do agree with you. The cake example is a poor example to use here. The only ones truly hurt are the business owners who aren't making money off of a potential customer. And even more potential business for anyone agreeing with the gay couple's opinion. A business owner shouldn't need to pander to customers. Yes, they tend to be more successful if they do, but it's not a requirement. A florist who doesn't carry daisies doesn't have to suddenly go out and get some just because the customer requests it in a bouquet. A restaurant doesn't have to offer an all-you-can-eat buffet just because a customer wants it.
However, while that example doesn't fit, I'm sure you agree there's plenty of examples that do. A person applying a job shouldn't be turned away for being homosexual or transgender. Beliefs have no right to be used in determining job performance. If they're qualified to perform a task, and perform it well, why shouldn't they be allowed to? As a specific example, my mom works for a bookkeeping company. A few years back, a transgendered individual applied for a job there. They were perfectly qualified, but they were denied for being transgendered. The excuse given was that they were worried about anyone coming into the office and seeing them, given they would sorta be representing the company. The company is even an Equal Opportunity Employer, to make matters worse, but North Carolina law doesn't protect transgendered people under that. This is a very common practice in far too many states.
As an analogy, the saying "women must work twice as hard for the same amount of money", while slightly inaccurate, is generally true, given the proven pay differential between genders. However, being transgender or homosexual means doing even more work than that because of the sheer amount of businesses that will reject them or hinder their progression (raises, etc.) because of it. Far more than if they were cis female.
P.S. For the record, I'm both mtf transgender and lesbian, so the only thing I have going for me in the sense of job security and otherwise being treated like a sentient being is that I'm white.
deathtokoalas
+Alicia Etler i don't have a point of disagreement with you. but what the actual law in both the united states and canada (and i suspect australia, the uk and new zealand, despite the previous poster's comments) says is not that the employer must hire the individual if they are found guilty of breaking discrimination laws, but that they must pay them a fee to compensate them for losses. it's what is called tort law - it deals solely with financial damages. the idea of the government dictating hiring decisions in private businesses is outside of it's jurisdiction in common law countries; it can set hiring practices, but they can only be enforced by threat of fine.
it's not that the cake example is really fundamentally different. it's just that it's difficult to establish any kind of damage or loss.
Alicia Etler
+deathtokoalas Wow... umm... my apologies. I just realized my other comment massively failed to say the original thing I wanted to say: Thank you for opening my eyes, as I never thought much about the cake incident until reading your comment. Once I did, I realized some irony that is probably your underlying main point. That event is getting far too much publicity for what it deserves, and partly due to people associating it with things it doesn't relate to. The owner has as much of a right to not do business with a customer as that customer has to complain about the owner. Anyone who wants the owner to do anything about it is just as bad as those trying to abolish gay marriage. Both acts are attempting to force someone to do something against their will.
Naomi Nabbit
+deathtokoalas IANAL, but my understanding of the law in the US is that if you offer something to one person, you must offer it to everyone. You cannot legally give preferential treatment to one person over another in a business. A landlord can't deny a black man an apartment who meets all the specified conditions for renting just because "I don't like him." A job can't refuse a woman employment but offer the same position to a man (jobs are actually forbidden from knowing the gender of a candidate before the first interview, though the name usually gives it away, just like they can't know the candidate's age or ethnicity) even if they say it was because "I didn't like her."
Do these things happen? Yes, probably all the time, but that doesn't make them legal, and that doesn't mean they'd win a court case. You can refuse anyone service or fire anyone for any reason you want, but if it comes out that the reason was solely due to the person's membership in a protected minority class, it is not legal in the US, no matter what the person says or believes. Of course, different states have different protected minority classifications, which is what that non-discrimination bill is all about. It's about adding protections at the federal level so that in addition to things like race, gender, and religion which are already there, sexual orientation and gender identity are added to the list everyone has to use.
Donald Lanoux
You see, if all LGBTQ individuals thought like you, they would all collectively better themselves and their community, and have my respect.
deathtokoalas
+Naomi Nabbit you've got the right idea, using official language. i'm just taking what is called a "critical" approach to the law in seeing it how it actually is.
which is that the state cannot prevent or reverse or order behaviour. it can just make you pay a fine if it doesn't like what you're doing.
you're right in saying that if you have general service available, then you need to make it available to everybody. that doesn't apply in this circumstance, and it's easy to come up with circumstances where specific services are not for everybody. like a midwife, for example. or perhaps even a stripper. tutors. and etc. but, if you have something sitting on the shelf, and the transaction involves walking it to the cash? the law says that if you will not serve the person, you are entitled to pay a fine.
that's the "critical" part. the law says "thou shalt not be an asshole". it's just language. in practice, the reality is "thou shalt pay a fine should one decide to be an asshole.". and, worse, half the judges are assholes.
deathtokoalas
+Donald Lanoux i don't think it's a good idea to stereotype people one way or another.
deathtokoalas
+Naomi Nabbit i should clarify a little, i didn't mean to say i'm merely thinking critically. it's a type of legal philosophy. the search term is "critical legal studies". and, it's actually firmly rooted on the left.
Donald Lanoux
+deathtokoalas In a perfect world. Unfortunately a stereotype holds true until presented with opposing evidence. Anyway, I applaud your defense of individual rights
Alicia Etler
+Donald Lanoux "If all LGBTQ individuals thought like you, they would all collectively better themselves and their community, and have my respect." No disrespect meant, but that stereotype is immensely incorrect. Replacing "LGBTQ" with "Christians" is just as inaccurate and wrong. There's many religious people out there that follow their religion's teachings properly. In this case, that means "Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself." Just because the media focuses on the extreme views doesn't mean the vast majority of us are like them. Most homosexual/transgender people are sensible, just like most religious people are sensible. The media aims to label all of us based on a few extremists under the "one bad apple ruins the bunch" idea, and so far, it looks like they succeeded with you.
deathtokoalas
+Alicia Etler yeah, it runs across the spectrum of portrayal in a lot of ways. with transgendered people, specifically, the whole point is that we're trying to fade in. we want people to focus on everything except that aspect of us. even when the media portrays us in what are really absurd (and often regressive) stereotypes, they get applauded - because those stereotypes are the only way that most people interact with transgendered people on the level of them being transgendered because the vast majority of us are really just trying to not draw attention to it, and the vast majority of people, even people that mean well, consequently legitimately don't know better.
i've been a bit of an activist for a while. both online and off. and i could interact with a group like occupy in ways i couldn't interact with a queer rights group, because the trans component invariably ends up dominated by drag queens, which are essentially very dominant queeny gay men that just don't think like transgendered women. there's a spectrum. i'm not trying to box anybody in or cast anybody out. but even the people in these groups that identify as trans tend to think like gay men. those dominant gay male voices end up drowning everything out, and it becomes very hard to get a word in. the general passivity of trans women in face-to-face circumstances makes it hard to get heard over this.
and, it's not just the dominant gay men. i think there's an argument that the t doesn't really belong in lgbt. often times, the transgendered person ends up presenting what is essentially a straight perspective (straight relative to their transitioned role) in what is an overwhelmingly queer group, and ends up far outside the spectrum of acceptable opinion within it.
but, media doesn't seem to want to get beyond the glamour of drag culture to deal with the reality that your average trans person is really a pretty average person with pretty average perspectives and is really just seeking acceptance on the basis of no longer being interpreted as abnormal.
Naomi Nabbit
+deathtokoalas While I agree with some of your larger points, I feel that there are a lot of holes and assumptions in your arguments. Yes, your average trans person is really a pretty average person just seeking acceptance. So is the average homosexual person, bisexual person, intersexed person, asexual person, queer person, and two-spirit (blanket term for Native American people who identify as their native culture's third or fourth gender) person. The average person in a minority that;s discriminated against doesn't want to be discriminated against and they don't want special treatment. They just want to be treated like any other average person.
Heck, the United States was founded on that very principle - an oppressed minority didn't want to be discriminated against just because of where they lived or what religion they practiced, so they rebelled and made their own country. Yes, it was more complicated than that, but at its core, that's what the Declaration of Independence says - we're being treated differently by the government, and that's wrong. Now, I'm not saying we LGBT(QIA2S) folk should throw a bunch of tea into the harbor next year during Pride, just that the US was founded by people who were upset that they were being treated differently for being a minority.
And the reason the T belongs in LGBTQIA2S is that it was in the original term and the original movement (in the US - can't speak for Canadia). The modern LGBT movement in the states started with the Stonewall Riots, which Pride commemorates every year. There were LGB and T people at Stonewall. Yes, there were dragqueens there, but there were also trans people. (Dragqueens, from what I understand, generally identify as gay male crossdressers, not transwomen, but I haven't actually met any dragqueens.) It's part of the same movement because it is the same movement, started at the same time, in the same place, for the same reasons. Yes, straight transgendered folk have a non-marginalized sexual orientation, just like cisgendered homosexuals/bisexuals/etc have a non-marginalized gender identity. That doesn't innately segregate the civil rights movements (even if trans folk often get thrown under the bus by gay rights activists in exchange for LGB rights - being a minority within a minority isn't always easy).
Also, many of the trans people I happen to know, including myself, are also bisexual (or pansexual). I think it's common because we often see gender differently than cisgendered folk. Or, it's just common for people I know because the social circles I tend to hang around include a substantial number of bisexuals. Either way, referring to transgender people as typically straight is pretty heteronormative.
Yes, most transwomen just want to be treated like any other woman, just like most homosexual couples just want to be treated like any other couple.
deathtokoalas
+Naomi Nabbit what i'm getting at is that queeny gay men revel in their rejection of norms, their open flamboyancy and their desire to stand apart from the crowd. they want you to know they're gay and will yell it from the loudest rooftops. it forms the core of their identity, and the filter they desire to be interpreted through.
trans people tend to prefer to fade in to the background and not be noticed. broadly speaking, they'd rather you didn't know that they're trans. they tend to be very shy. they don't base their identities around it, or want you to interpret them through that filter.
this is just diversity. that's fine. the problem is that the queeny gay men almost entirely control the narrative on trans issues, which distorts the public perception on it. and, because we interpret things broadly differently, we tend to disagree more often than we agree. that distortion consequently creates a large disconnect between perception and reality.
there's obviously power in numbers. i don't propose that transgendered people disassociate from the broader queer movement. but, outside observers - especially friendly ones - should realize the limitations that exist.
Naomi Nabbit
+deathtokoalas Aren't you using some pretty negative media stereotypes of gay men? Isn't that exactly what you're complaining about other people doing regarding transwomen? I know quite a few gay men - exactly zero of them are as you've described. You can't argue against stereotypes by using them. That's not how this works. Most gay men I know don't want to be perceived as gay men, they want to be perceived as men, just like we transwomen want to be perceived as women.
I guess it's reasonable for a member of one minority group to be prejudiced against members of another minority group and only see them through the lens of stereotype, but it certainly doesn't support your case or make you sound sympathetic. It just makes you sound like the people you are speaking out against.
Donald Lanoux
+Alicia Etler Fair enough. But I'm a firm believer in silencing extremists and zealots who infringe on others. The problem is the individual above is the first of his/her kind that I have witnessed calling out these zealots. Regardless of a zealot advancing your cause, if he or she infringes on the rights of others who disagree with you, IT IS YOUR DUTY for your cause to check them.
deathtokoalas
+Naomi Nabbit i'm not speaking of these characteristics negatively. if queeny gay men want to be queeny gay men, that's entirely their prerogative - and i don't hold that against them. i'm just pointing out the reasons that the media presentation of transwomen is so thoroughly lacking: transwomen are not gay men.
there's (at least) three transwomen on this thread. we all have pictures up. have you ever seen a media portrayal of a transwoman that looks like one of us?
Dalton Reyburn
+deathtokoalas i'm just curious, would you support the same cake shop's hypothetical decision to not serve people of color? i suppose you're right, ideally the free market would just elevate shops that were more inclusive. but at the same time, don't you think there ought to be some basic protection against people being denied service for things that they can't control? it's not like anybody was asking the baker to graphically depict anal sex on the cake. for all we know, it could have just been the names of two men.
deathtokoalas
+Dalton Reyburn you have to set the hypothetical situation up comparably, and there's not really a very good comparison. an almost comparable situation would be a cake shop owner refusing to make a cake with a black panther flag on it, or something. that's not the same thing as outright refusing general service.
and, i'm also not exactly supporting the decision. i certainly don't actually agree with the store owner. i'm just pointing out that the court ruling is overstepping itself.
i'm a canadian, so i'm approaching it from a slightly different perspective. but the issue the way i would understand it is related to the question of general service v. individual service. there's a difference between walking into a store and ordering a pre-made cake and requesting that a cake be made with a specific design on it. while the discrimination law ought to apply to the rejection of discrimination on general service (walking in and buying a pre-made good), i don't see any legal precedence or coherent argument that suggests that a store owner does not have the right to deny individual service, for whatever reason it could possibly imagine. it could deny a floral pattern because it doesn't like flowers. it doesn't have to explain or justify this, and it's really beyond any legal scope to question it. so, it's not a question of religious freedom, or even a first amendment protection. it's just the basic autonomous right of individuals to choose who they wish to carry out business with. the entire question is really outside of the scope of law; this case should have never even been heard, and the arguments are really not relevant in the context of any of the discussions being had. so, i would expect the supreme court to reverse this ruling, if it gets there. this is an example of what you call judicial activism - it's not legally rooted.
i would further expand on the issue as it relates to access. in canada, there is a specific circumstance where the court would rule that the business must provide service, and that is only if it has a monopoly. that would apply mostly to government services. so, you can't deny a driver's license for this reason, for example. that's what anti-discrimination laws actually exist for. but, we're talking about wedding cakes on the free market, here. chances are pretty high that you can just go to the next store down the street. and, that's what the judge really should have said - that the government does not exist to police this sort of thing.
there's an irony underlying the situation. you don't have to agree with this guy - i certainly don't. but you have to respect his rights to make his own autonomous decisions and carry out his own autonomous actions. you're the one that's being aggressive here, not him; you have no right to try and force him to bake a cake if he doesn't want to - and it doesn't remotely matter what the reason is.
to be more succinct: this doesn't have anything anything to do with the first amendment, it doesn't have anything to do with religious freedom and it doesn't have anything to do with anti-discrimination laws. it has to do with somebody trying to order somebody to do something they don't want to.
there's no fancy legal argument necessary, and getting lost in one is just confusing. the most powerful legal argument the store owner has is the following simple statement:
"no. i don't want to."
once the layers of superfluous arguments are stripped away and that simple point is understood, there's really no further room for debate.
underlipetx
+deathtokoalas except for the fact that if you turn the tables it's okay. When someone wants to have a cake done with a bible verse on it and the bakery refuses, the courts favor the bakery. There's a bias agenda in here people refuse to acknowledge...
the simple statement would not be "no, I don't want to" but "no, it violates my religious beliefs",
deathtokoalas
+underlipetx see, this is a typical right-wing culture war argument, and i don't really want to get into it. the courts should uphold the autonomous rights of individuals to make decisions as to the nature of the business they carry out. critical theory would tend to come down on the other side of this, but activism in the judiciary exists on both the right and the left. the bottom line is that they're both wrong, and this isn't a spectrum issue - it's an issue of fundamental rights and freedoms to not be ordered to do something you don't want to.
the religious freedom clause in the united states constitution is widely interpreted, and widely misinterpreted. but, one thing that is absolutely clear is that it's not meant to be applied to financial transactions on the open market.
the point, though, is that it doesn't matter what the reason is. that reason belongs to the individual making it, and it is not within the realm of state criticism.
as stated - the case should have been thrown out.
underlipetx
+deathtokoalas yes "right wing culture war argument" as in point out the hypocrisy, but then of course we just label it as "right wing culture war argument" and feel okay about it...... Freedom of religion act is meant for protection wherever you go. It's religious discrimination when someone believes that religions place is only "in the household and churches"
although I believe we agree on the issue as well.
wouldn't that go against the view of right to healthcare as well? Honest question since you're from Canada, cause that "right" is saying that you can force someone(a doctor) to treat you.
Drew Gaughan
+underlipetx No, it's not hypocritical because those doctors are government employees providing a service which every Provincial citizen is guaranteed. They aren't baking you a cake.
underlipetx
+Drew Gaughan doctors aren't governmental employees, even in Canada they still have "super hospitals" or privately owned ones, even so, that statement would say it's okay to force a doctor to do something cause the government says so isn't valid. Just a note in not comparing this to baking a cake, it's a separate question.
Drew Gaughan
+underlipetx We don't have privately owned hospitals here in Canada, save for a few in major cities. The problem here is your conflating a life-saving profession with baking a cake. Should a police officer have the right to refuse answering a 911 call because they don't like the colour of the house which they were called to? No, and neither should a doctor refuse to perform a surgery because they dislike the patient.
underlipetx
I said earlier, I'm not comparing this to baking a cake, its a separate honest question I was asking, and since 2005 where the founder of the Canadian healthcare system was sued and deemed that his care system was " a crime against humanity" they allowed the establishment of super hospitals, which in America is just called hospitals.
deathtokoalas
+underlipetx i'm not getting your reference to a 2005 case. i think the closest thing to a "founder" of health care in canada would be tommy douglas, and he died in 1986.
i'm going to take a step back and try and go over this slowly.
first, freedom of religion in the united states is about the government. it's not about behaviour between individuals. what it says is that there can't be laws that force people to do certain religious things or give people certain religious benefits. the basis for this law was to prevent denominations from fighting with each other, which was a legitimate issue at the time. for example, you couldn't pass a law that states that the trinity is true and unitarians are heretics. it's that sort of thing that it meant to address.
the truth is that this part of the constitution is very antiquated and should really read off as rather quaint.
there are a lot of conclusions to draw from this, some better than others. but, the interpretation you're pulling out of it is really just simply wrong. none of the people involved in the process would have for a moment thought it a good idea to get the state involved in policing market transactions - one way or the other. they would have neither supported a religious restoration type act (for reasons other than the first amendment) nor would they argue that the state has the right to order a baker to make a cake. they would have just said that this is a crazy thing to contemplate, and that the entire discourse is tyrannical. the baker decides to make the cake. the customer goes to another store if they're refused. now, let's all smoke a j.
however, they would have all mostly argued that the market is a useful tool to carry out social change. they would have certainly supported the idea of boycotting the bakery in order to put pressure on the baker to change his position. and, some of them may have argued that the anti-discrimination law is in breech of the first amendment, while rejecting the idea that the baker's opinions are protected by "freedom of religion". the idea is that the anti-discrimination act would be a law establishing the primacy of irreligion. let's be clear that this is a very different argument. and it's a bit of a stretch. but, it's the one you need to make if you're walking down this path.
so, the idea that the first amendment bestows rights on individuals in market transactions is wrong. it's just not what is in your constitution. however you feel about the discussion, this is simply not a first amendment issue.
however, the baker still has a constitutional argument. it's just not a first amendment, religious argument - it's more basic than that.
in canada, our human rights laws have specific scope. the federal human rights code deals with issues under federal jurisdiction - government services, basically. the provincial human rights code deals with issues of power. it's actually very specific in what it reduces itself to, but the idea is that somebody in power cannot discriminate against somebody they hold power over. canadian law would be entirely silent on the issue at hand, and the case would no doubt be thrown out of court.
i will address the doctors in a new reply.
deathtokoalas
canada has a clause in it's constitution that will come off as rather alien to americans. it is the following:
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
it looks a little bit familiar: you have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. but, the difference is rather dramatic.
canadian courts have interpreted this part of the constitution, in conjunction with relevant legislation, to mean that canadians have a constitutional right to receive health care (see the morgantaler cases).
now, let's consider the driver's license thing again. let's say the guy that works at the dmv is a religious fundamentalist and is absolutely insistent that women should not drive. is it tyrannical to force him to hand out licenses? the answer is no: because he can quit his job. as an employee of the dmv, he is required to carry out a job description, and that job description is to uphold the rights of women to not be discriminated against when they're getting their license.
this is the kind of argument that we use in canada with doctors and care. patients have a right to certain access; as a doctor, it is a part of their job to provide that. the state will not force them to provide care. rather, it will tell them that if they do not want to do their job then they can find another job.
conversely, nobody has a right to buy a cake. i certainly suspect that the case was driven by entitlement issues. but, that's not an actual right - not in canada, not in the united states, not in the un - nowhere.
underlipetx
+deathtokoalas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaoulli_v_Quebec_%28AG%29
I will rephrase that it was deemed "a violation of human rights"
The person I was thinking of is Claude Castonguay, the former Minister of Health who was in office when the current medicare legislation was enacted.
deathtokoalas
+underlipetx the chaoulli case has not led to any concrete reforms in canada. but, this is not related to the question at hand.
the canadian health care system is essentially a system of insurance monopolies. every province has it's own insurance monopoly, which is funded through progressive taxation. that means everybody uses the same system, which means nobody gets to jump ahead.
the case in question was asking the question of whether this is constitutional. the argument was that the absence of a market increases wait times, which breaks the clause i referenced previously.
a lot of the debate circles around the validity of the idea that an open market would actually reduce wait times. the general opinion is that this is false. this is important, because if the premise is flawed then the argument collapses.
but, no, this case did not rule the system a crime against humanity, and did not create superhospitals. it has not led to any legislation whatsoever
underlipetx
I rephrased as a "Violation of human rights"(it was also deemed a crises as well) and its has led to the ability to have privatized healthcare which they do have that in Canada
deathtokoalas
+underlipetx that's still not quite right. again: this has gone off-topic. the issue in this case was not whether doctors may be allowed to refuse service, but whether the provincial government may be allowed to maintain a monopoly in health insurance. canadian court rulings can sometimes be very subtle and hard to understand from the outside.
what the ruling did was give the quebec government a choice to increase funds to reduce wait times (and uphold the right publicly) or allow that part of the law to expire (thereby theoretically allowing for faster access in a theoretical private system). it was based solely on the idea that the existing system was not providing fast enough service, and that reality was infringing on the existing right.
now, a lot of people have read the ruling as an attempt for the court to increase public investment, rather than allow private practice. but, the government did not amend any legislation or react with any greater funding.
the result has been a small industry of private doctors in quebec that cater solely to the ultra-rich. it's what is called "two-tier healthcare", and does in fact allow the extremely wealthy to jump the queue ahead of everybody else. it's well outside of the financial means for the average person, and has consequently not altered the health care system in any meaningful way.
the general consensus is that should the private system be expanded then the wait times will reappear. at the end of the day, you have x patients and y doctors. whether it's a public or private system doesn't have any effect on how long it takes for those x patients to get to see those y doctors - unless you create a special category of doctors that only the rich can get access to. then, they can get in faster while everybody else has to wait.
there's an argument that a class-action suit would reverse this ruling by arguing that the two-tier health care is increasing wait times by taking resources out of the public system. it hasn't yet materialized, because the private industry is only capable of appealing to the elite and is consequently only siphoning the system of minimal resources.
this is a provincial ruling, not a federal one. most provinces in canada prohibit private practices.
underlipetx
its not off topic as much as comments to the others on this thread, however I do believe your comment is wrong to say that it "cater solely to the ultra-rich"
What is a reality is that if you do not have private health insurance and you want to do something as little as a blood test, that can take up to 2-3 years on a waiting list for a family doctor.
here is a video from a youtube personality who shows the results of such instances:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw
(yes hes a youtube personality, so its done in a bit of a goofy way.)
deathtokoalas
+underlipetx you have a tendency to exaggerate.
blood tests are actually done largely by private offices, or at hospitals. remember: canada's system is an insurance monopoly, it's not government operated. so, you go to the private clinic and they accept your health card. they then bill the insurance company for it.
if you go to a doctor and they want a blood test, they usually send you to one of those private clinics. they tend to give you a few days so you can carry out instructions, like prepare to fast for a few hours.
i've had plenty of blood tests done. i've really never taken notice of how long it was - a couple of days. i mean, they'll book you based on your schedule. i may have not taken the first opening. two-three years is ridiculous.
the market forces at play in quebec act to keep prices disproportionately high; there is a high-quality tax-funded public system available, and, yes, people complain about the waits, but people are whiners. despite the language in the court ruling, the private industry is selling the privilege to jump ahead based on social status.
mris, for example, run into the tens of thousands of dollars. if you can wait a month or two for the people ahead of you to finish, the public system will pay for it. most people make the obvious choice. but, if you've got tens of thousands to burn...
Emmanuel Villa
If your a private business you should be allowed to serve who you please
L1ttleT3d
+deathtokoalas You feel the same about black people, right? I should be able to deny service to black people if I wish? And women? I should be able to deny women jobs or service if I want to?
deathtokoalas
+L1ttleT3d see, this is the part of the thing that the authoritarian left has a very hard time understanding - they think all situations are comparable in these broad general ways, and everybody should always be forced to abide by state dictates in all circumstances. this is not a liberal position. it's a totalitarian statist position. liberals need to be very subtle in terms of how they analyze freedom, and allow for complex clauses that are specific to certain contexts and circumstances.
your question is consequently impossible to answer because the way that it's phrased is incoherent and nonsensical. i cannot answer a question about always denying or not denying service to any specific identifiable group - and it's absurd to suggest anybody should. if you'd like to be a little bit more specific, i'll be happy to expand upon my views.
again: i'm a canadian. our constitution is probably the apex of applied liberalism; it's not the un charter, but it's as close as anybody's ever gotten. and, our rights are all subject to exceptions within the limits of a free and democratic society. rights are always a balance of interests. i'm not able to think in these simplistic, generalized, binary terms that give one side a sickle and the other five minutes to run. it's not a culture i exist in, or a legal tradition i understand.
so, you'll have to be more specific, please. i need a specific scenario. and i will deny you the right to generalize it.
L1ttleT3d
+deathtokoalas Sure thing. Specific question 1: Mary and Peter are up for the same management job. Mary is infinitely more qualified but is a woman and so will inevitably need time off for "woman issues" and pregnancy. It's my business. I don't want to hire Mary - I WANT to hire Peter. Are you going to make me do something I don't want to do? You're not one of these authoritarian government intervention lefties, are you?
Specific question number 2: I have a flower business. I believe mixing the races is abhorrent and violates natural law. A mixed race couple wish me to provide flowers for their wedding. I don't WANT to. Are you going to make me do something I don't want to do? You're not one of these authoritarian government intervention lefties, are you?
Specific question number 3: I am a landlord. I have various tenants applying for housing. Jews are shifty and can't be trusted. As such I don't WANT to let my house to any Jews. I wish to place an ad in the paper that specifies "NO JEWS NEED APPLY." You're not going to make me do something I don't want to do, are you? You're not one of these authoritarian government intervention lefties are you? It's MY house.
deathtokoalas
+L1ttleT3d regarding the first question, there is not a jurisdiction in the world that would force you to hire mary. however, some jurisdictions may require you to compensate her for discriminatory hiring practices. i would agree that this is the proper balance.
the second question is similar to the issue at hand. the couple can go to another store. that is the proper rights balance. however, they are also free to draw attention to the situation in media, organize boycotts and do other things to inform consumers of the views of the store in question and try and convince people to not shop there.
the third issue is similar to the first, with the difference that some jurisdictions will force the landlord to allow the tenancy due to the nature of housing. housing is in a category of rights that is only weakly enforced, but it is at least abstractly recognized as a right. most jurisdictions, however, would approach the situation by rewarding compensation for discrimination rather than forcing unwanted tenancy.
you can see that there is a pattern: people are free to be assholes, but may have to pay a fee for it. and, i'd like you to step back and ask yourself the following questions:
1) would mary want to work in this establishment, given that she understands the views of management?
2) would a mixed race couple want to support this business?
3) would the jewish person in question want to live in a property owned by anti-semites?
L1ttleT3d
+deathtokoalas regarding the first question, there is not a jurisdiction in the world that would force you to hire mary. however, some jurisdictions may require you to compensate here for discriminatory hiring practices. i would agree that this is the proper balance.
I live in New Zealand. YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HIRE MARY. You're talking like you're an expert on law. You clearly are not. You need to change your language accordingly.
1) would mary want to work in this establishment, given that she understands the views of management?
2) would a mixed race couple want to support this business?
3) would the jewish person in question want to live in a property owned by anti-semites?
Your position is fairly consistent. I'm cool with that in a way - liberty over equality. We just prioritise them slightly differently.
These responses are nonsense however. If you live in a place where you are a small reviled minority then you're not going to get any support for your boycott. Black people in the 60s could have all the boycotts they want - they weren't welcome anyway. Also fining people IS coercion. I don't understand why you think financial penalties aren't coercive... that's bizarre...
deathtokoalas
+L1ttleT3d i am a moderate expert in canadian law; i took three years of it, before i decided it was just a charade for the ruling class. i naively thought it might be a useful way to fight the corporatocracy. the truth is the rules of the game are rigged.
new zealand doesn't count. it's in the middle of nowhere. you have giant crickets and weird birds running around all over the place. you can have your unique legal practices if you wish, but understand that you're living in a bubble. and, to be honest, i'm rather skeptical - although i cannot dispute your point.
the reason i asked you those questions was to have you see that forcing compliance is not a solution to anything. it's not a question of prioritizing one over the other, it's just a realization that you can't get to equality by beating it into people with a stick. at best, it forces people to be dishonest in public. at worst, it fuels resentment. getting to a proper balance that promotes harmony requires working with a scalpel, not a sickle.
so, it's not that i'm arguing against coercion. it's that i'm arguing that forcing people to do things against their will is not a good approach. i'm recognizing that discrimination is an offense, and agreeing it requires compensation - but i'm pointing towards what is almost universally agreed to be the better approach in remedying the injustice.
the civil rights movement in the 60s was a populist movement where whites and blacks worked together. that said, this dynamic was an urban phenomenon. there was a large migration of blacks out of the south in the middle part of the last century. the government passed laws that forced equal treatment in restaurants, motels and other contexts. it didn't work; white southerners just got more violent. in the end, the most immediate answer was escape. but, if you really want to get to the root of discrimination in racialized societies, you need to analyze systemic root causes. this is the basis of the critical race theory that came out of the failure of the 60s reforms; while i'm not entirely in agreement with their analysis, the basic premise that they're working with is quite difficult to dispute. on some level, you're right - but forcing them to sell them the flowers hardly addresses the issue.
anti-discrimination laws are not powerful enough to eliminate discrimination and oppression - they can only provide for compensation in situations where a clear loss or injustice can be demonstrated.
L1ttleT3d
+deathtokoalas i took three years of it, before i decided it was just a charade for the ruling class
We were taught that day 1 of Law 101. I'm not even kidding. I remember it very well. The definition of law was discussed and it was defined as basically a mechanism for maintaining the status quo. The rich keep their stuff because the police work for them. It's a shame your university lecturer wasn't as forthright as mine, I guess. :P
new zealand doesn't count. it's in the middle of nowhere.
Sure. That's an odd response but I'll take it. It's right next to Australia (and has almost identical laws to Australia and the UK)... but then I guess that's the "middle of nowhere" too, probably.
you have giant crickets and weird birds running around all over the place.
Well we're not quite overrun. I'm not sitting in my house with Weta's and Kakapo clawing at my windows... but O... K...
it's just a realization that you can't get to equality by beating it into people with a stick
I disagree. You can do anything you want if you're willing to get violent enough. We're not willing to impose totalitarianism onto ourselves of course - but technically you CAN beat people into doing what you want.
at best, it forces people to be dishonest in public. at worst, it fuels resentment. getting to a proper balance that promotes harmony requires working with a scalpel, not a sickle.
Fair point. Fines are a sickle, though. Not a scalpel. You need to find a better tool.
you need to analyze systemic root causes. this is the basis of the critical race theory that came out of the failure of the 60s reforms
Now THIS I agree with. Treat the disease not the symptom. Couldn't agree more. The main thing overlooked the the race issues of the USA by many is that it really isn't about race... not really. This is a class thing - with Black people as the underclass. Fix social inequality and the rest will follow, in my opinion.
deathtokoalas
+L1ttleT3d white supremacy didn't come to exist by accident. it was very carefully created by a combination of landholding interests and religious groups to enforce an economic system by theological decree. over time, that evolved into a divide and conquer strategy where poor whites and poor blacks were played off against each other in order to prevent them from uniting to change the status quo. the social aspect of it is the part that's hard, not the class aspect of it. the race issue has to be resolved before the class issue can be addressed. it's really the desperately poor and strikingly uneducated white underclass that is the biggest problem on the ground, even as they take their cues from the top.
it's not that i wasn't told that the law is a tool to maintain the status quo. it's a widely held opinion, even amongst people that have never taken a law course. it's that i didn't realize the extent of it until i actually read the cases. you walk in thinking you've got a hill to climb, but with optimism that you can make a difference. it takes some time for it to really sink in.
L1ttleT3d
+deathtokoalas Oh, don't get me wrong, racism exists. I just think the social inequality / class aspect of it is far more meaningful than pretending this is a simple race issue would lead you to believe.
Alicia Etler
+deathtokoalas You make a valid point, and I do agree with you. The cake example is a poor example to use here. The only ones truly hurt are the business owners who aren't making money off of a potential customer. And even more potential business for anyone agreeing with the gay couple's opinion. A business owner shouldn't need to pander to customers. Yes, they tend to be more successful if they do, but it's not a requirement. A florist who doesn't carry daisies doesn't have to suddenly go out and get some just because the customer requests it in a bouquet. A restaurant doesn't have to offer an all-you-can-eat buffet just because a customer wants it.
However, while that example doesn't fit, I'm sure you agree there's plenty of examples that do. A person applying a job shouldn't be turned away for being homosexual or transgender. Beliefs have no right to be used in determining job performance. If they're qualified to perform a task, and perform it well, why shouldn't they be allowed to? As a specific example, my mom works for a bookkeeping company. A few years back, a transgendered individual applied for a job there. They were perfectly qualified, but they were denied for being transgendered. The excuse given was that they were worried about anyone coming into the office and seeing them, given they would sorta be representing the company. The company is even an Equal Opportunity Employer, to make matters worse, but North Carolina law doesn't protect transgendered people under that. This is a very common practice in far too many states.
As an analogy, the saying "women must work twice as hard for the same amount of money", while slightly inaccurate, is generally true, given the proven pay differential between genders. However, being transgender or homosexual means doing even more work than that because of the sheer amount of businesses that will reject them or hinder their progression (raises, etc.) because of it. Far more than if they were cis female.
P.S. For the record, I'm both mtf transgender and lesbian, so the only thing I have going for me in the sense of job security and otherwise being treated like a sentient being is that I'm white.
deathtokoalas
+Alicia Etler i don't have a point of disagreement with you. but what the actual law in both the united states and canada (and i suspect australia, the uk and new zealand, despite the previous poster's comments) says is not that the employer must hire the individual if they are found guilty of breaking discrimination laws, but that they must pay them a fee to compensate them for losses. it's what is called tort law - it deals solely with financial damages. the idea of the government dictating hiring decisions in private businesses is outside of it's jurisdiction in common law countries; it can set hiring practices, but they can only be enforced by threat of fine.
it's not that the cake example is really fundamentally different. it's just that it's difficult to establish any kind of damage or loss.
Alicia Etler
+deathtokoalas Wow... umm... my apologies. I just realized my other comment massively failed to say the original thing I wanted to say: Thank you for opening my eyes, as I never thought much about the cake incident until reading your comment. Once I did, I realized some irony that is probably your underlying main point. That event is getting far too much publicity for what it deserves, and partly due to people associating it with things it doesn't relate to. The owner has as much of a right to not do business with a customer as that customer has to complain about the owner. Anyone who wants the owner to do anything about it is just as bad as those trying to abolish gay marriage. Both acts are attempting to force someone to do something against their will.
Naomi Nabbit
+deathtokoalas IANAL, but my understanding of the law in the US is that if you offer something to one person, you must offer it to everyone. You cannot legally give preferential treatment to one person over another in a business. A landlord can't deny a black man an apartment who meets all the specified conditions for renting just because "I don't like him." A job can't refuse a woman employment but offer the same position to a man (jobs are actually forbidden from knowing the gender of a candidate before the first interview, though the name usually gives it away, just like they can't know the candidate's age or ethnicity) even if they say it was because "I didn't like her."
Do these things happen? Yes, probably all the time, but that doesn't make them legal, and that doesn't mean they'd win a court case. You can refuse anyone service or fire anyone for any reason you want, but if it comes out that the reason was solely due to the person's membership in a protected minority class, it is not legal in the US, no matter what the person says or believes. Of course, different states have different protected minority classifications, which is what that non-discrimination bill is all about. It's about adding protections at the federal level so that in addition to things like race, gender, and religion which are already there, sexual orientation and gender identity are added to the list everyone has to use.
Donald Lanoux
You see, if all LGBTQ individuals thought like you, they would all collectively better themselves and their community, and have my respect.
deathtokoalas
+Naomi Nabbit you've got the right idea, using official language. i'm just taking what is called a "critical" approach to the law in seeing it how it actually is.
which is that the state cannot prevent or reverse or order behaviour. it can just make you pay a fine if it doesn't like what you're doing.
you're right in saying that if you have general service available, then you need to make it available to everybody. that doesn't apply in this circumstance, and it's easy to come up with circumstances where specific services are not for everybody. like a midwife, for example. or perhaps even a stripper. tutors. and etc. but, if you have something sitting on the shelf, and the transaction involves walking it to the cash? the law says that if you will not serve the person, you are entitled to pay a fine.
that's the "critical" part. the law says "thou shalt not be an asshole". it's just language. in practice, the reality is "thou shalt pay a fine should one decide to be an asshole.". and, worse, half the judges are assholes.
deathtokoalas
+Donald Lanoux i don't think it's a good idea to stereotype people one way or another.
deathtokoalas
+Naomi Nabbit i should clarify a little, i didn't mean to say i'm merely thinking critically. it's a type of legal philosophy. the search term is "critical legal studies". and, it's actually firmly rooted on the left.
Donald Lanoux
+deathtokoalas In a perfect world. Unfortunately a stereotype holds true until presented with opposing evidence. Anyway, I applaud your defense of individual rights
Alicia Etler
+Donald Lanoux "If all LGBTQ individuals thought like you, they would all collectively better themselves and their community, and have my respect." No disrespect meant, but that stereotype is immensely incorrect. Replacing "LGBTQ" with "Christians" is just as inaccurate and wrong. There's many religious people out there that follow their religion's teachings properly. In this case, that means "Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself." Just because the media focuses on the extreme views doesn't mean the vast majority of us are like them. Most homosexual/transgender people are sensible, just like most religious people are sensible. The media aims to label all of us based on a few extremists under the "one bad apple ruins the bunch" idea, and so far, it looks like they succeeded with you.
deathtokoalas
+Alicia Etler yeah, it runs across the spectrum of portrayal in a lot of ways. with transgendered people, specifically, the whole point is that we're trying to fade in. we want people to focus on everything except that aspect of us. even when the media portrays us in what are really absurd (and often regressive) stereotypes, they get applauded - because those stereotypes are the only way that most people interact with transgendered people on the level of them being transgendered because the vast majority of us are really just trying to not draw attention to it, and the vast majority of people, even people that mean well, consequently legitimately don't know better.
i've been a bit of an activist for a while. both online and off. and i could interact with a group like occupy in ways i couldn't interact with a queer rights group, because the trans component invariably ends up dominated by drag queens, which are essentially very dominant queeny gay men that just don't think like transgendered women. there's a spectrum. i'm not trying to box anybody in or cast anybody out. but even the people in these groups that identify as trans tend to think like gay men. those dominant gay male voices end up drowning everything out, and it becomes very hard to get a word in. the general passivity of trans women in face-to-face circumstances makes it hard to get heard over this.
and, it's not just the dominant gay men. i think there's an argument that the t doesn't really belong in lgbt. often times, the transgendered person ends up presenting what is essentially a straight perspective (straight relative to their transitioned role) in what is an overwhelmingly queer group, and ends up far outside the spectrum of acceptable opinion within it.
but, media doesn't seem to want to get beyond the glamour of drag culture to deal with the reality that your average trans person is really a pretty average person with pretty average perspectives and is really just seeking acceptance on the basis of no longer being interpreted as abnormal.
Naomi Nabbit
+deathtokoalas While I agree with some of your larger points, I feel that there are a lot of holes and assumptions in your arguments. Yes, your average trans person is really a pretty average person just seeking acceptance. So is the average homosexual person, bisexual person, intersexed person, asexual person, queer person, and two-spirit (blanket term for Native American people who identify as their native culture's third or fourth gender) person. The average person in a minority that;s discriminated against doesn't want to be discriminated against and they don't want special treatment. They just want to be treated like any other average person.
Heck, the United States was founded on that very principle - an oppressed minority didn't want to be discriminated against just because of where they lived or what religion they practiced, so they rebelled and made their own country. Yes, it was more complicated than that, but at its core, that's what the Declaration of Independence says - we're being treated differently by the government, and that's wrong. Now, I'm not saying we LGBT(QIA2S) folk should throw a bunch of tea into the harbor next year during Pride, just that the US was founded by people who were upset that they were being treated differently for being a minority.
And the reason the T belongs in LGBTQIA2S is that it was in the original term and the original movement (in the US - can't speak for Canadia). The modern LGBT movement in the states started with the Stonewall Riots, which Pride commemorates every year. There were LGB and T people at Stonewall. Yes, there were dragqueens there, but there were also trans people. (Dragqueens, from what I understand, generally identify as gay male crossdressers, not transwomen, but I haven't actually met any dragqueens.) It's part of the same movement because it is the same movement, started at the same time, in the same place, for the same reasons. Yes, straight transgendered folk have a non-marginalized sexual orientation, just like cisgendered homosexuals/bisexuals/etc have a non-marginalized gender identity. That doesn't innately segregate the civil rights movements (even if trans folk often get thrown under the bus by gay rights activists in exchange for LGB rights - being a minority within a minority isn't always easy).
Also, many of the trans people I happen to know, including myself, are also bisexual (or pansexual). I think it's common because we often see gender differently than cisgendered folk. Or, it's just common for people I know because the social circles I tend to hang around include a substantial number of bisexuals. Either way, referring to transgender people as typically straight is pretty heteronormative.
Yes, most transwomen just want to be treated like any other woman, just like most homosexual couples just want to be treated like any other couple.
deathtokoalas
+Naomi Nabbit what i'm getting at is that queeny gay men revel in their rejection of norms, their open flamboyancy and their desire to stand apart from the crowd. they want you to know they're gay and will yell it from the loudest rooftops. it forms the core of their identity, and the filter they desire to be interpreted through.
trans people tend to prefer to fade in to the background and not be noticed. broadly speaking, they'd rather you didn't know that they're trans. they tend to be very shy. they don't base their identities around it, or want you to interpret them through that filter.
this is just diversity. that's fine. the problem is that the queeny gay men almost entirely control the narrative on trans issues, which distorts the public perception on it. and, because we interpret things broadly differently, we tend to disagree more often than we agree. that distortion consequently creates a large disconnect between perception and reality.
there's obviously power in numbers. i don't propose that transgendered people disassociate from the broader queer movement. but, outside observers - especially friendly ones - should realize the limitations that exist.
Naomi Nabbit
+deathtokoalas Aren't you using some pretty negative media stereotypes of gay men? Isn't that exactly what you're complaining about other people doing regarding transwomen? I know quite a few gay men - exactly zero of them are as you've described. You can't argue against stereotypes by using them. That's not how this works. Most gay men I know don't want to be perceived as gay men, they want to be perceived as men, just like we transwomen want to be perceived as women.
I guess it's reasonable for a member of one minority group to be prejudiced against members of another minority group and only see them through the lens of stereotype, but it certainly doesn't support your case or make you sound sympathetic. It just makes you sound like the people you are speaking out against.
Donald Lanoux
+Alicia Etler Fair enough. But I'm a firm believer in silencing extremists and zealots who infringe on others. The problem is the individual above is the first of his/her kind that I have witnessed calling out these zealots. Regardless of a zealot advancing your cause, if he or she infringes on the rights of others who disagree with you, IT IS YOUR DUTY for your cause to check them.
deathtokoalas
+Naomi Nabbit i'm not speaking of these characteristics negatively. if queeny gay men want to be queeny gay men, that's entirely their prerogative - and i don't hold that against them. i'm just pointing out the reasons that the media presentation of transwomen is so thoroughly lacking: transwomen are not gay men.
there's (at least) three transwomen on this thread. we all have pictures up. have you ever seen a media portrayal of a transwoman that looks like one of us?
Dalton Reyburn
+deathtokoalas i'm just curious, would you support the same cake shop's hypothetical decision to not serve people of color? i suppose you're right, ideally the free market would just elevate shops that were more inclusive. but at the same time, don't you think there ought to be some basic protection against people being denied service for things that they can't control? it's not like anybody was asking the baker to graphically depict anal sex on the cake. for all we know, it could have just been the names of two men.
deathtokoalas
+Dalton Reyburn you have to set the hypothetical situation up comparably, and there's not really a very good comparison. an almost comparable situation would be a cake shop owner refusing to make a cake with a black panther flag on it, or something. that's not the same thing as outright refusing general service.
and, i'm also not exactly supporting the decision. i certainly don't actually agree with the store owner. i'm just pointing out that the court ruling is overstepping itself.
at
02:18
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
thatcher remains a lightning rod. our canadian "new labour" party is modelling itself after blair; it seems to be a bit behind the times. but, she's dead. maybe we can take a step back and be a bit more objective.
in certain terms, she was a disaster to the working class in britain. this is beyond dispute.
but, if you follow her carefully, it's not entirely fair to call her heartless. it's less that she thought the poor ought to starve, and more that she thought it should be up the church to step in and provide the services that were cut by the state. and, that wasn't just lip service. she really honestly believed that, and she was very much behind pushing religious institutions to step into the void.
the criticism should consequently be refocused. at the core of this was a kind of social engineering that attempted to reverse the movement of britons towards secularism. in her mind, a more religiously aware society would both provide for greater services and instill that famous protestant work ethic - the absence of which, is what she felt was at the root cause of poverty.
it's warped. absolutely. deeply flawed - no question. and, it will inevitably need to be reversed.
but it's less that she was heartless and more that she was just a tory - and demonstrated the typical level of delusional thinking that is associated with this.
in certain terms, she was a disaster to the working class in britain. this is beyond dispute.
but, if you follow her carefully, it's not entirely fair to call her heartless. it's less that she thought the poor ought to starve, and more that she thought it should be up the church to step in and provide the services that were cut by the state. and, that wasn't just lip service. she really honestly believed that, and she was very much behind pushing religious institutions to step into the void.
the criticism should consequently be refocused. at the core of this was a kind of social engineering that attempted to reverse the movement of britons towards secularism. in her mind, a more religiously aware society would both provide for greater services and instill that famous protestant work ethic - the absence of which, is what she felt was at the root cause of poverty.
it's warped. absolutely. deeply flawed - no question. and, it will inevitably need to be reversed.
but it's less that she was heartless and more that she was just a tory - and demonstrated the typical level of delusional thinking that is associated with this.
at
01:58
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
(posted to google+)
it seems like youtube posts are no longer cross-linked here. that kind of defeats the point, now, doesn't it?
hopefully, they provide a stream somewhere or other.
for now, what i'll be doing is posting hyperlinks to my comments here.
it seems like youtube posts are no longer cross-linked here. that kind of defeats the point, now, doesn't it?
hopefully, they provide a stream somewhere or other.
for now, what i'll be doing is posting hyperlinks to my comments here.
at
01:29
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Kevin in Vancouver
Is the economy on the right track. Here are the facts and if you read you will see exports are responding to the low dollar.
Exports grew to CAD 44.6 billion in June, the first increase in six months. Exports of consumer goods rose 17.2 percent to a record CAD 6.0 billion, led by pharmaceutical and medicinal products (+41.7 percent), prepared and packaged seafood products (+128.9 percent) and miscellaneous goods and supplies (+17.1 percent). Exports of metal and non-metallic mineral products grew 10.8 percent to CAD 5.1 billion, mainly driven by higher sales of precious metals and precious metal alloys (+18.3 percent). Excluding energy products, shipments were up 6.9 percent.
Jessica Murray
i'm not going to check the numbers, because i believe it. a lower dollar is good for our economy. so, why, then has harper done everything he can to keep the dollar as high as possible?
this growth in exports is in despite of harper, not because of him.
imagine how well we could have been doing if he hadn't gone out of his way to keep the dollar high...
he was beaming with pride when we hit parity, spinning it like it was a source of national pride that had been suppressed by the treasonous "previous government".
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberals-infrastructure-deficits-1.3205535
Is the economy on the right track. Here are the facts and if you read you will see exports are responding to the low dollar.
Exports grew to CAD 44.6 billion in June, the first increase in six months. Exports of consumer goods rose 17.2 percent to a record CAD 6.0 billion, led by pharmaceutical and medicinal products (+41.7 percent), prepared and packaged seafood products (+128.9 percent) and miscellaneous goods and supplies (+17.1 percent). Exports of metal and non-metallic mineral products grew 10.8 percent to CAD 5.1 billion, mainly driven by higher sales of precious metals and precious metal alloys (+18.3 percent). Excluding energy products, shipments were up 6.9 percent.
Jessica Murray
i'm not going to check the numbers, because i believe it. a lower dollar is good for our economy. so, why, then has harper done everything he can to keep the dollar as high as possible?
this growth in exports is in despite of harper, not because of him.
imagine how well we could have been doing if he hadn't gone out of his way to keep the dollar high...
he was beaming with pride when we hit parity, spinning it like it was a source of national pride that had been suppressed by the treasonous "previous government".
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberals-infrastructure-deficits-1.3205535
at
01:07
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
does harper think we have the memories of lab rats? he pushed that stimulus program in 2009 as an exchange for ignatieff's support of the budget. and, he howled and screamed about it at the time. now, he's saying it was his idea and a consequence of his sound training?
again: it's less that he lies. you expect that. it's more that he's the worst liar i've ever seen.
the trolls on this very board, and many boards like it, were going on about the "ignatieff deficit" and howling at the injustice of it all...
"on probation". remember that?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberals-infrastructure-deficits-1.3205535
again: it's less that he lies. you expect that. it's more that he's the worst liar i've ever seen.
the trolls on this very board, and many boards like it, were going on about the "ignatieff deficit" and howling at the injustice of it all...
"on probation". remember that?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberals-infrastructure-deficits-1.3205535
at
00:49
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
some sanity! thank you!
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-chris-hall-analysis-deficit-debate-1.3204828
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-chris-hall-analysis-deficit-debate-1.3204828
at
00:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i think the error that a lot of these studies make is that they compare serious music before 1955 to folk music after 1955. there's certainly been a merging of the ideas starting with zappa and the beatles and pink floyd. but, i really don't think these differences come out if you do like comparisons: debussy to stockhausen or nirvana to ledbetter or bjork to billie holiday or one direction to traditional nursery rhymes.
the only thing i'd pull out as probably being substantially different is that you previously wouldn't expect people in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s to experience the kind of arrested development they experience today. they would have grown out of the nursery rhymes, not latch on to successive ones until they're grandparents. so, the real issue is the juvenilization of society.
www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/science-proves-pop-music-has-actually-gotten-worse-8173368/?no-ist
the only thing i'd pull out as probably being substantially different is that you previously wouldn't expect people in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s to experience the kind of arrested development they experience today. they would have grown out of the nursery rhymes, not latch on to successive ones until they're grandparents. so, the real issue is the juvenilization of society.
www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/science-proves-pop-music-has-actually-gotten-worse-8173368/?no-ist
at
00:25
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
"manage the economy", again.
what does that mean !?!?!?
at least we got a little data on budget spending, here. this is what i've been thinking, it's nice to see a little support for it.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadians-believe-economy-is-in-recession-okay-with-deficit-poll/article26119298/
what does that mean !?!?!?
at least we got a little data on budget spending, here. this is what i've been thinking, it's nice to see a little support for it.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadians-believe-economy-is-in-recession-okay-with-deficit-poll/article26119298/
at
00:13
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)