I'm just asking, if there is the freedom of association.. why isn't there a freedom of dissociation ? Why force together people that would prefer to be separate ? Isn't this a violation of individual liberty ? (serious question)
Care to specify what exactly you're thinking about? I mean in a sense we have that freedom, you don't necessarily have to associate with people that you don't want to. It's probably more the reasons you have for it that count here.
Why be the person to escalate? Assume good faith. It's' actually in the rules on this site, and is a strong strategy even if you turn out to be right about someone else's intentions. And you're probably a worse mind reader than you think.
It's a serious question. And actually living in proximity can be considered a form of association. But that is not the main topic of the article, which is showing mostly public places or businesses which were forced to bring/serve together people who did not want to be together previously.
That's an extraordinarily disingenuous description of the situation (especially since you're clearly not talking about individuals associating but racially-delimited groups).
There effectively is a freedom of disassociation, except maybe at the margins.
Part of the question might be "should business owners be forced to serve all their customers equally?". I suspect the question is moot and business owners themselves were likely against segregation to a solid majority. Having two entrances looks expensive as does having a decorative wall or different systems to deal with certain customers. Businessmen who choose not to serve customers will exist, but they will be rare. As strategies go, "let's not have customers!" is a loser.
Racist business owners would be common. Business owners who let that get in the way of making money would be much less so. Greed is a great equaliser.
This was not at all historically true. White business owners all over the South publically and vociferously supported segregation. The White Citizens Councils we're usually organized and led by wealthy white people in the community, frequently business owners, and wealthy white people contributed substantial support got the Klan.
Because it's hard for a state to justify and defend itself if populations are separated on clear lines. Thus, the state must enforce some sort homogeneity which will lead to better population mood and patriotism.
You're either implying that segregation can be reduced to "black and white people preferring not to be near each other" or this question is completely unrelated to the post.
As somebody not living in the US but aware of US internal affairs due to the huge gravity of US media and tech, I don't understand how the current trend won't lead to more segregation.
If you never drop a subject it never reaches an equilibrium within the population. How could one group feel closeness towards another when the media constantly reminds them how antagonic they were not long ago?
You are basically destroying social cohesion in the name of creating it.
And articles like this are like the cherry on top. You have people constantly digging for this stuff and finding any connection so the subject never stops being front center. It's like an obsession.
23 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 63.7 ms ] threadEdit: yes, I went there first because the sealioning on a throwaway was an obvious tell.
Living on the same planet is a form of association, asshole. Please go to the moon, you are infringing on my right of free association.
Obvious fascist.
Part of the question might be "should business owners be forced to serve all their customers equally?". I suspect the question is moot and business owners themselves were likely against segregation to a solid majority. Having two entrances looks expensive as does having a decorative wall or different systems to deal with certain customers. Businessmen who choose not to serve customers will exist, but they will be rare. As strategies go, "let's not have customers!" is a loser.
Racist business owners would be common. Business owners who let that get in the way of making money would be much less so. Greed is a great equaliser.
If you never drop a subject it never reaches an equilibrium within the population. How could one group feel closeness towards another when the media constantly reminds them how antagonic they were not long ago?
You are basically destroying social cohesion in the name of creating it.
And articles like this are like the cherry on top. You have people constantly digging for this stuff and finding any connection so the subject never stops being front center. It's like an obsession.
As a US citizen, I hate that politics is constantly pitting people against each other. I hope others see through it, too.