Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,247
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
So let's imagine the government orders you to write an endorsement of capitalism and a condemnation of socialism. Would you complain about it? Would you feel your rights are being violated? You're being compelled to act against your values; but your values aren't legitimate values. So according to your principle, you don't have a legitimate complaint. The anti-capitalism value you're being compelled to act against isn't a legitimate value. It is an irrational prejudice. Should the rest of us treat that fact as sufficient grounds to override your right not to be compelled to say things you disagree with?They have to be compelled to act against legitimate values to have a legitimate complaint. This is not a legitimate value. It is an irrational prejudice.
No, it isn't just like that; it's more like refusing to cater a soccer tournament because you think soccer is un-American. Whether a person is black is beyond his control; whether a person attempts a gender transition is a choice. It's not about what the person is, but about what the person does.It is just like refusing to serve black people because you don't like them.
What you wrote is another in a recurring pattern among leftists: false equivalences of other things with racial discrimination. "Racist against Muslims" is the classic example. It appears that so many leftists do this because they know perfectly well that racial discrimination is generally perceived as worse than other kinds of discrimination and think tactically pretending they're the same thing will heap extra scorn onto whichever not-as-bad-as-racism behavior they're trying to suppress. It's pious fraud.