If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they're lying.
Evidence or GTFO.
I just measure everything in burgers, the way God intended.
Now all the Dems need to do is to stop hand-wringing over procedure and actually condemn the war itself. Because at the rate things are going, these types will only be alienated from the Republicans until the next smooth-talker comes along who knows how to talk out of both sides of his mouth about it.
"How could anyone think Trump would be a peace president?" Because the Dems were unambiguously pro-war so people looking for someone who'd stay out of conflicts cope'd themselves into believing it.
You’re just attacking me, not my argument
No, I'm pretty clearly attacking your argument. Your argument rests on this assumption that if allowing denial of service based on race only affects minorities <5% of the population, that that makes it acceptable somehow. It's a horrible position but the fact that it reflects very poorly on you to voice it is beside the point.
You skipped the whole counter argument (comparing to scabs and unions) that this lacks the social structure to support that behavior. If you tried to open a business that wasn’t racist then the racist people would come and threaten you, this isn’t happening with the Uber situation.
Regardless, the Civil Rights Act applies to all businesses. It doesn't matter if you think one particular business model makes the Civil Rights Act unnecessary - it is still the law. And opening up exceptions to it would set a dangerous precedent.
The thing is that Uber is not performing any discrimination, they are enabling other people to discriminate against each other and attempting to still provide service through it. Claiming that Uber is discriminating is functionally not true.
It doesn't matter either way. "Discriminating" and "enabling discrimination" are both illegal. I have no idea why you're so attached to this legal technicality of "contractors" that Uber uses to skirt labor laws, because it doesn't even change anything here. Declaring someone a contractor does not magically repeal the Civil Rights Act.
The scale at which you would have to be a minority for this to impact you significantly is somewhere in the 1-5% range
OK, so you need to reach a threshold of 5% of the population before you're allowed to have rights, got it.
with the assumption that the other 95-99% are opposed to you.
That assumption isn't actually necessary.
Let's say there's a small town where 65% are non-racist (or less racist) whites, 30% are racist whites, and 5% are black. If your diner decides to serve that 5%, the 30% of racists will refuse to eat there, and you'll end up losing a lot of customers. So, rather than "95-99%" needing to be opposed to you, it only needs to be the case that your population is outnumbered by the people who hate you - which is the case for many minority groups in many places in the country.
A diner not serving black people is impactful because a handful of people are the business owners and are effectively gating you out.
That's not really true. If if was just a matter of a handful of business owners being racists, then those racist businesses would be out-competed by non-racist businesses that appeal to everyone. The problem was wider and more systemic, being welcoming to everyone would cause racists to boycott the business, so even if a business owner wasn't racist themselves, they would be incentivized to ban the people who the racists hated.
This also goes both ways and is potentially international, Japanese could choose not to serve non-Japanese, a black person could choose not to serve white people for comfort or security.
You’re fundamentally not understanding why Uber allowing people to make this decision is not the same as 1960’s segregation.
Because it isn't! The scenario you described is literally the exact sort of thing the Civil Rights Act exists to stop! You are literally advocating for allowing denial of service based on protected classes!
So long as the option goes both ways this only hurts the people who opt into the program, not everyone else. The only way this could hurt others would be if those who choose to opt in (as in they only want a certain thing) get priority in the scheduling or if you live somewhere where you are the overwhelming minority.
So the only way it could hurt anyone is if they're a minority. Yes, that's exactly why we have the Civil Rights Act and why what you're suggesting is illegal.
In the second example, if you are still living in a sun down town then getting Uber rides is probably not your biggest problem.
Next you're going to tell me that black people in racist towns should just eat at home if restaurants don't want to serve them. And if the bus driver makes you sit at the back of the bus, just drive a car.
Even now, Uber drivers are independent contractors
This is a bullshit legal category that exists primarily to exploit loopholes, but even that does not give anyone the right to discriminate and violate the Civil Rights Act.
If the driver pulls up and thinks you’re sketchy they can cancel the ride, there is no obligation.
Strictly speaking, if a driver cancelled every ride that a black person booked, they could be sued for it, although such a suit would be very difficult in practice because you'd have to have enough records of that driver (or the company, if that was the target of the suit) to show a consistent bias.
This is the case in every business. Denial of service based on protected classes is illegal.
So you disagree with the Civil Rights Act then? Because one of the things it did was force businesses to serve customers, regardless of things like race or sex. And before we had it, there where large parts of the South where black people would be refused service, and if someone did serve them, they'd lose a bunch of white customers.
That's the very good reason why it's "not already an option."
Neither drivers nor Uber have the right, or should have the right, to refuse service based on categories protected in the Civil Rights Act.
Not enough communists.
No, you haven't. I have shown that it was terrorism, even by your definition though. You don't care and just keep adding on extra stipulations that aren't in your definition.
He never took credit for that violence, in fact, he tried to pretend it wasn’t him
Nowhere in either definition, at all. Complete non sequitor.
He never made any demands
Nowhere in either definition, at all. Complete non sequitor.
Just like the location is irrelevant. Just like every extra stipulation you pull out of your ass is irrelevant.
Yes. It's obvious that you're acting smarmy to cover the gaps whenever you have nothing, to cover all the holes in your argument. It's like you think if you just act smug, people won't notice when you're cornered and have no actual response.
It doesn't work. It's transparent. You're not actually covering up the holes in your reasoning, you're just demonstrating that you don't care about how many holes there are in your reasoning, because you're intellectually dishonest.
I find it frustrating that so many communities are just for news articles. Look, I'm terminally politics-brained, but you'll never get anywhere if you're always just reacting to the current thing. There's not really a place for higher level discussion or for people to share thoughtful, original ideas. The result is thousands of the same arguments on the same three topics screaming the same talking points at each other over and over. And it seems like that's all people want.
Really more of a frustration with people in general. Wish people were more curious about the world.
God, you're so smarmy when you can't think of an actual point. Do you not realize how transparent it is?
It was the only objection you raised at that point, so yes, it was your entire argument. Whether you had some super-secret argument in your head that you weren't saying isn't relevant to the argument you actually made.
I love how you simultaneously claim I'm strawmanning you and defend the positions I'm criticizing.
No, people don't have to be afraid for it to be terrorism, no, the location isn't relevant to whether it's terrorism (we've been over this, a bomb that goes off on a plane over international waters is still terrorism), no, the perpetrator doesn't have to take credit for it. None of those criteria are included anywhere in either your made up definition or the actual definition.
But again, it doesn't matter because you're a fundamentally unreasonable person. You don't care about logic or evidence or consistency. You'll just respond to this with another meaningless snipe like "oNlY iF yOu DoN't KnOw WhAt A t Is," because that's the highest capacity for thought that you possess.
You said "Terrorism is the use of violence against the general public to change behaviours or policies." Location is not in that definition. Whether people are terrified (which the Romulans were) is not included in that definition. Whether the perpetrator takes credit is not included in that definition. How on earth can you not see how completely full of shit you are when you keep adding new, arbitrary stipulations to exclude this one instance of terrorism??
Literally every single component of the definition I cited fits Garak's actions to a T. You kept insisting that I'm "expanding" the definition to include anything, yet completely ignored the question I asked you on every single example you brought up.
It doesn't matter. One comment you say it's not terrorism because people "didn't seem terrified." Another comment you claim it doesn't count as terrorism because of the location where it happened! I cut your arguments down again and again and you don't care. You will just shift your position over and over again, denying that you ever held the previous one even though the comments are right there. You're a completely shameless troll. You have to know how full of shit you are, I don't know who you think you're fooling.
Because The Atlantic cannot publish a single article without including a brain-meltingly awful take in it.
I already refuted like three of your positions. Every time you shift the goalposts and call it a "strawman" and if I refute your new position you'll do the same, because you're a clown.
McCarthyism to the tenth power
The main job of a conservative influencer is to come up with new ways of saying, "I think we should do the Holocaust" that are palatable to suburbanites.
What a shit take. That's like saying, "I don't know how the Church thinks the Inquisition will go when they've deviated so far from Jesus' teachings themselves," or "I don't know how Hitler thinks gassing the Jews will work when he has Jewish ancestors himself."
It doesn't fucking matter. They can pick whatever label they like, communist, heretic, immigrant, Jew, whatever, and apply it to whoever they feel like and not apply it to whoever they don't feel like. You are an absolute rube if you think this sort of "gotcha" will slow them down in any way, you're literally accepting their framing by doing that.
If I can automatically secure the location, then I pick the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.