Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Uh, compare the division between men/women, black/white, and gay/straight now to 100 years ago.
|
Cliff's argument (and mine) is that this is the result of equal rights at the individual level, not the group level. In other words, the division between black and white is much less than it was 100 years ago more thanks to the philosophy of Martin Luther King than to the tactics of the Black Panthers.
Quote:
|
If I believe the right to gay marriage is important, please explain how I'm discriminating against someone else. Anyone.
|
This is a straw man. No one would argue that "if you believe the right to gay marriage is important, you're discriminating against straights (or anyone else for that matter)". The argument is that gay marriage is important because there's no reason to deny people happiness on the basis of their sexual orientation, and allowing people to marry who they love causes no harm to anyone, nor does it restrict their freedoms. The people who argue that it restricts their "religious freedom" are essentially attempting to enforce their own religious values onto people who don't want to subscribe to them, which is an anti-liberal view, in the classical sense.
Quote:
|
Getting rid of IP is not getting rid of discrimination. That's like saying you're going to stop taking Tylenol to make your headaches go away.
|
Getting rid of identity politics won't get rid of discrimination, again this is something that no one is arguing. What is being argued is that the best way to combat discrimination is the classical liberal model, and that identity politics only serves to create new divisions, entrench existing ones and drive people further to extremes. It's a bad solution to discrimination.
In other words, our view is that you're not taking tylenol to get rid of your headache, you're eating broken glass.