For a more constructive answer- Benito Mussolini was a right wing nationalist dictator who came into power of Italy and presided over it through WW2. Many in Italy loved him and followed his strong personality despite his transformation of the country to a police state and his allegiance to the Nazis in the name of Italian nationalism. When the war ended he and his mistress were caught trying to flee the country and were shot and hung from a gas station in public view by Italian partisans. His Grand daughter is a right wing nationalist in Italian parliament who follows Donald Trump. The (former?) Comedian Jim Carrey tweeted the above painting of Mussolini and his mistress hanging, and the caption, primarily in regards to Carrey’s opposition of Donald Trump and far right politics.

However- “your opinion is invalid because of your skin color” is not relevant. Change the narrative. Pretend you’re poor and Jane is rich. You and Jane discuss an issue of the poor. Jane says: “well- poor people....” and you reply to Jane that she is showing bias against the poor, and that her perspective makes her incapable of seeing the issue from a poor perspective. Are you being biased against the rich? No. It’s coincidence the discussion they are having is about skin color- but regardless of the subject matter, a person who hasn’t experienced a thing first hand may or may not have insights or some level of empathy, but cannot fully understand the issue as though they’d experienced it. They can relate it it to things they know of, from a perspective and knowledge base formed through their life experience. That’s as close as it gets. So we should hear each other out, but it isn’t inherent hypocrisy to say a person who hasn’t lived through a thing can’t speak as a first hand expert.

But where the analogy IS apt is that wigs can be a lot to deal with. They need to be cared for, they can be expensive and people wearing them are often careful they don’t get tangled, sweaty, or dirty. They can come off and things like tugging force or wind can remove them, and many people don’t allow others to touch their wigs- much less get any real physical feedback from the wig being touched. Living with someone with a very nice fit body can be similar. A pain. Keeping a “magazine” nice body for most requires a diet, sleep, and work out regiment that is restrictive. It means saying “no” to apt of things that don’t fit that lifestyle. Not so different than dating a female model or woman who is always “done up”- not everyone wants to deal with those levels of care just to see a certain aesthetic. Many just want to live life without the planning and considerations for such additional factors.

I largely agree but won’t go into minute details on muscles and who can or can’t have them- the effort required- etc. I’ll say this- if you love your partners hair, you could come home and they could have cut it or dyed it or shaved it all off. They could go bald or need chemo. If you love their face or their body they could have an accident or need surgery or any number of things could change them- lest we forget aging. So I mean- from that perspective the analogy of imaging a man hung his muscles in the closet sort of falls apart. What’s more- when it comes to physical attraction one can keep a wig on and be intimate, harder to manage with fake muscles.

People with this logic are also the same people who usually speak of “participation” trophies. It’s contradictory. Life is a contest. There is only so much and if you want it and someone else wants it- you are competing. One person will get the job and there are only so many. One person will get that house. You’re trying to get what you want while everyone else wants many of the same things and there are not enough for everyone. There will be those who “lose.” Who do not get what they wanted or needed so that you could. If an Olympic athlete loses because their tendon snapped- is it their fault? How many 80 year old gold medal sprinters have there been in history? 60 year old NFL running backs? It can happen- but is it likely? It’s an ignorant statement that shows a distorted view of reality to say that everyone can succeed. Anyone can succeed- not everyone.

but if you made your fortune off a gamble against astronomical odds you can’t tell people “it’s your fault you aren’t rich. I did it- what’s your excuse?”
At the end of the day the world only has so much money to go around, and so many jobs that pay good money. So long as people want to always have more- there will be someone who has to make that cheap stuff. If everyone were rich no one would be rich. It’s called inflation and market saturation. It’s an impossibility of our current economic system for everyone who tries- no matter how hard- to succeed. It’s disrespectful to those who did their honest best and didn’t make it- people who bling luck went the wrong way on, and to anyone who is fighting their own struggle to tell people that if they really want to there is no reason they can’t succeed. That is true of a single individual in a vacuum- but not a society.

When you look at the statistical odds- a Black man from Tennessee in the time Freeman lived, becoming a wealthy and respected? How many others managed to do that even if we leave out being famous? We have the statistics. We know that the majority of Americans of ALL races and the majority of the world population don’t manage to “pull themselves up by the bootstraps.” We know that even those that do “pull themselves up” often fall or are knocked back down. I mean hell- why do you think movies about exactly that- an underdog pulling themselves up or succeeding- are such a popular genre? They don’t generally make big movies based on the routine. The heartwarming tale of beating the odds is next to fictions like wizard schools and giant robot wars and time traveling love stories and super spies jumping from deadly heights to be shot 7 times and get the bad guy. Anyone can win the lottery too-

Stories are important, and I’m certainly not saying we should erase history or forget people. Just that I don’t much care what happens after I’m gone, I just hope that the people alive then have good lives and are happy. The rest is just details. As for when we get old- who knows? I’ll probably work until I am completely physically incapacitated- if not I’ll hope my retirement savings etc. are enough and I’m not stuck eating cat food. I’ve never had a safety net of knowing that there was someone who could take care of me. I have maybe 5(?) living family members, and I take care of 3 financially and the other 2 often need money or help in other ways. The partner does joke sometimes that we should have like 10 kids for retirement. If they seriously said they wanted a baby tomorrow I’d probably help make it without a thought- but... well... like work. There’s always a plus and a minus so things tend to work out fine either way.

Lol. @aviva- work is just work. It’s why it’s called work and not “happy fun time.” I work as a means to live my life as opposed to living to work, so I don’t much care what I’m doing so long as it pays well and isn’t completely morally decrepit. But in the grand scheme of things my work isn’t that bad. I just have a lot of things to keep track of, but having had the chance to be financially stable and not work- that gets boring too. So I know that if I’m working I’d usually rather be playing and if I could play whenever I wanted I’d get bored- so this is a happy enough balance.

@aviva- my mistake. Lol. That’s what I meant to say.

Discrimination- without due and prudent reason, sound in logic and backed by fact, is not “good.” It causes real physical, emotional, and economic harm and if left unchecked causes instability within a society. The exclusion of groups of people based on broad categories of race, gender, religion, class, etc. harms those people and society as a whole. It cannot he allowed or tolerated. A person is allowed to think and feel what they like. You can hate seat belts but it is the law that you will wear a seat belt or you will suffer consequences if caught. There is a slippery slope. But- slippery slope or not, the will of the people and the will of government has overwhelmingly agreed this far that we will not allow people to subvert or skirt laws intended to allow human beings to live their lives. Hate them or look down on them all you want- but be an adult and behave yourself.

Take also important to note that “discrimination” must be against a protected class to fit the legal definition. While we could make a circular more argument that it’s still discrimination to not hire people who wear jeans or like the color aquamarine- the morality as is you say can be subjective. It’s not as complex as we want to pick at here.

It’s not so much considered “discrimination” to hire a friend as it could be considered a conflict of interest- which many laws exist to prevent and prohibit conflicts of interest as they cause the word of the day- harm. If you were to choose a friend who is under qualified or unqualified over more qualified applicants, if you were to hire a friend and pay them at a rate substantially higher than what people in a similar position make just because they are your friend- these would be good examples of clear conflict of interest. The concepts we need to understand there are that simply hiring a friend isn’t a conflict of interest in itself, and to label it such we must show proof that the decisions made were clearly done simply out of preferential treatment and not on any other grounds.

Now- I have the personal opinion that men aren’t treated quite as they should in domestic violence cases, family court, things like that. Men are often looked at as guilty until proven innocent, less in need of help, and less capable as parents because they are men. We need to change that. But we can acknowledge that men have struggles as all people do, without disowning and trying to tear down or discredit women for pointing out their struggles. That’s like saying you don’t need a doctor when you’re injured badly because you need a surgeon because your best friend needs a kidney. Both are pressing needs- you can see a doctor and they can see a surgeon. It doesn’t have to be one or the other- and the fact men suffer doesn’t disprove a patriarchy any more than the fact A King doesn’t have absolute power and no worries disproves a monarchy.

The second article- asides being almost 10 years old, also states specifically that the author was attending a conference which was geared towards improving the situation of men. If we are trying to disprove the patriarchy, or show that in today’s world men have no shelters from violence- I might ask for citations from less than a decade ago- and I might point out that a large scale conference for change which acknowledges the short comings of the industry and the plight of men doesn’t really paint men as marginalized and ignored.

So while the law is careful about harms that are harder to quantify- precedent exists in it for such. Many crimes like murder are judged upon intent and things like circumstances with a mind to emotions. Tort, pain and suffering, these types of modifiers can effect criminal verdicts as well as civil judgments. The law recognizes a malicious crime to be more severe than one of the moments passions. So wether we look at it from a legal, moral, or social stance- discrimination can’t be justified or tolerated.

Social morals do inform law. They guide choices that are made- even if things like child labor or slavery could be proven advantageous- it’s likely the moral component would override the practical. The “harm” the law seeks to protect from isn’t always a social or economic harm. It is often a harm that would befall an individual or group of individuals. To not burden people inequitably and without just cause. When people fail of their own accord en masses to recognize harms they are causing and rectify them- the law steps in. Before communicable diseases were known to be spread through saliva- it was and still is assault to spit on a person. You have harmed their dignity and given human nature are likely to cause violence and further harm stability etc.

If the majority of American Society decided tomorrow to take up the ideals of Nazi Germany- democracy or not, the fundamental framework upon which our country is built opposes acting on those principals. Those laws and rules can be changed through due process to reflect the “will of the people,” (I hope to never see that day or anything close..) but if and until that we’re to pass, the “majority” socially popular sentiment would still be illegal, unamerican, and wrong. Even if it were legal it would be wrong. And that’s the whole point of these things.

The same applies where any discrimination is concerned- such as the workplace. Society and attitudes and trends can change- but society does not and never has the right to decide who does and does not get to exist. That is where the line between law and social pressures must be drawn. That in any dealings where financial or physical harm are at stake, we make sure to enforce the laws preventing discrimination. Like the speech on the constitution earlier- laws are nothing but words on paper if they aren’t somehow backed up and enforced. Discrimination in commerce and conducting of affairs is forbidden by law for a reason- it causes harm to individuals, groups, and society. So we don’t get to side step those laws and their intent by waving a banner of social zeitgeist.

Yes. But we know that discrimination causes harm in subtle and not so subtle ways. We know there is a real world economic impact when people exclude others. Your theft example- it’s the same thing. Consistency and commerce. If a certain person needs goods but the store owner refuses to serve them- how are they to know what businesses to shop at? They must structure their life around who welcomes them just to fulfill basic commerce needs. Hence it is illegal to discriminate in business based on protected class. But if I can’t outright refuse to serve a person- but I give them service less than what others would receive and have a pattern of making them uncomfortable and scared- if I intimidate them into “choosing” not to shop with me- that’s still discrimination.

There’s sadly always those immature assholes who don’t actually understand or can’t comprehend a thing- they just know other people treat it with a respect or gravity and they can get reactions out of people and satisfy their own need to be “counter culture” and “edgy” by refusing it the proper respect. Lately it does seem a lot of people have been in that sort of space- especially concerning the holocaust. Most grow up someday, it’s usually not soon enough though and others replace them...

Lmao. That would be quite the claim, I wouldn’t blame you for asking for peer reviewed and sourced material to back up a claim that canines and beets were cousins.

@firmlee_grasspit- thank you. We try. I usually find your posts to be quite a treat as well.