This is what happened for centuries before the Civil Rights movement.
And the Civil Rights and feminists movement emerged in part because that wasn't "working." Feminists, for example, concluded that they needed to not be financially dependent on their husbands in order to maximize their freedom thus resulting in anti-discrimination laws and welfare state expansion.
Yours doesn't serve whites? Great, mine does.
You're ignoring two things here. If you violate social norms with your business, other businesses can work against you. Thus, your supply chain, advertising opportunities, etc. can become compromised. Secondly, you are assuming that those who are being discriminated against have enough straightforward access to accommodating businesses so as to not be fucked.
I don't even know why we are arguing this in extract terms. History has played out in accordance with what I've been saying. There is little need for abstract theory here.
Feminists are Leftists. Nothing works fast enough for the left.
If you violate social norms with your business, other businesses can work against you. Thus, your supply chain, advertising opportunities, etc. can become compromised.
If anyone cares. Vast majority of the time, they don't. This is only a thing that has come about recently with the massive push of political power to espouse a dogmatic moral framework on the highly centralized, advertising supported, investment securing, publicly traded companies.
Most private businesses don't give a shit. If they do, you'll find some that care, and others that don't. Your complaint works in a Corporatist system, which Liberalism explicitly opposes.
Secondly, you are assuming that those who are being discriminated against have enough straightforward access to accommodating businesses so as to not be fucked.
Again, the vast and sweeping majority of the time they do, and with the benefit of freedom of movement in the US, they can also leave to a place that won't be discriminatory towards them. What you'll find is that the market tends to punish businesses that actively discriminate. They're simply denying themselves commerce. This is why attitudes like "I don't care what color he is, as long as his money is still green" were common-place among small businesses even in segregated societies.
I don't even know why we are arguing this in extract terms. History has played out in accordance with what I've been saying. There is little need for abstract theory here.
These are abstract situations you gave me. You gave me a specific term, which is great. And history played out exactly as I've described. Racialism had to be institutionalized as public policy in order to get to the worst excesses. Strip that away, and people behave like normal adults.
The subtext is that societal norms and maintaining them would hedge on the whims and preferences of whatever private sector actors control the markets. If wealthy people want transgenderism normalized, then that's what you get.
Again, the vast and sweeping majority of the time they do,
We're talking about history, not just modern society. It was a lot harder to move before cars were invented and then became affordable. It would also hurt your negotiating power for higher wages if employers know many business won't hire you.
This is why attitudes like "I don't care what color he is, as long as his money is still green"
Don't forget about gender here. This same reasoning is why businesses would hire women which leads to economic "independence" from their husbands which leads to the unraveling of marriage. You speak of the importance of upholding traditional marriage, but liberalism has only and ideological mechanism for destroying it.
Racialism had to be institutionalized as public policy in order to get to the worst excesses. Strip that away, and people behave like normal adults.
Schools are more segregated now with state enforced integration than they were with state enforced segregation. I don't think "behave like normal adults" is a good way to describe the outcomes liberalism has lead to.
The subtext is that societal norms and maintaining them would hedge on the whims and preferences whatever private sector actors control the markets. If wealthy people want transgenderism normalized, then that's what you get.
On the contrary, it depends on the consumer, not the business owner. It's the demand that is at issue. You win the culture war among your community first.
We're talking about history, not just modern society. It was a lot harder to move before cars were invented and then became affordable. It would also hurt your negotiating power for higher wages if employers know man business won't hire you.
Cars or not, it makes no difference. Someone choosing not to hire you when you can still do the job doesn't mean that the other business won't hire you. In fact, it may mean they have an opportunity. It might hurt your wages at first, but if your a deal because the other business didn't hire you, it's likely that you'll be worth keeping happy as you create more benefit to your new employer.
Don't forget about gender here. This same reasoning is why businesses would hire women which leads to economic " independence" from their husbands which leads to the unraveling of marriage.
I didn't. Women already had economic independence in the West, Liberalism or not. Women could make independent wealth at any time from their husbands, including separate employment. There wasn't really any institutional structure that barred women from working. Women just spent their time tending to the home. You don't need to bar women from work, they're at home anyways. Liberalism never touched that.
Schools are segregated now with state enforced integration than they were with state enforced segregation. I don't think "behave like normal adults" is a good way to describe the outcomes liberalism has lead to.
Self-segregation is the normal response to forced integration. I've never argued for forced integration. Instead, it happens naturally over time, on an individual level. The aggressive racializing of policy, only demotes more division.
On the contrary, it depends on the consumer, not the business owner. It's the demand that is at issue. You win the culture war among your community first.
This is a complete inversion of reality, especially today. Imagine how difficult it is to boycott the place where peoples buy their food. Add in all the shell companies and other shadowy bullshit, and it's even hard to figure out what a company might be doing in the first place. Then there is the ownership of mass communication and the resultant advantages in the info war that entails. I'm baffled that anyone who posts here still believes this stuff.
it's likely that you'll be worth keeping happy as you create more benefit to your new employer.
Huh? Being discriminated against gives you less leverage over your alternative employer, not more, baffling stuff you are trying to claim here.
There wasn't really any institutional structure that barred women from working.
The agricultural nature of labor did that. That became less and less of the case after the industrial revolution and its consequences (kek).
I've never argued for forced integration. Instead, it happens naturally over time, on an individual level.
And the Civil Rights and feminists movement emerged in part because that wasn't "working." Feminists, for example, concluded that they needed to not be financially dependent on their husbands in order to maximize their freedom thus resulting in anti-discrimination laws and welfare state expansion.
You're ignoring two things here. If you violate social norms with your business, other businesses can work against you. Thus, your supply chain, advertising opportunities, etc. can become compromised. Secondly, you are assuming that those who are being discriminated against have enough straightforward access to accommodating businesses so as to not be fucked.
I don't even know why we are arguing this in extract terms. History has played out in accordance with what I've been saying. There is little need for abstract theory here.
Feminists are Leftists. Nothing works fast enough for the left.
If anyone cares. Vast majority of the time, they don't. This is only a thing that has come about recently with the massive push of political power to espouse a dogmatic moral framework on the highly centralized, advertising supported, investment securing, publicly traded companies.
Most private businesses don't give a shit. If they do, you'll find some that care, and others that don't. Your complaint works in a Corporatist system, which Liberalism explicitly opposes.
Again, the vast and sweeping majority of the time they do, and with the benefit of freedom of movement in the US, they can also leave to a place that won't be discriminatory towards them. What you'll find is that the market tends to punish businesses that actively discriminate. They're simply denying themselves commerce. This is why attitudes like "I don't care what color he is, as long as his money is still green" were common-place among small businesses even in segregated societies.
These are abstract situations you gave me. You gave me a specific term, which is great. And history played out exactly as I've described. Racialism had to be institutionalized as public policy in order to get to the worst excesses. Strip that away, and people behave like normal adults.
The subtext is that societal norms and maintaining them would hedge on the whims and preferences of whatever private sector actors control the markets. If wealthy people want transgenderism normalized, then that's what you get.
We're talking about history, not just modern society. It was a lot harder to move before cars were invented and then became affordable. It would also hurt your negotiating power for higher wages if employers know many business won't hire you.
Don't forget about gender here. This same reasoning is why businesses would hire women which leads to economic "independence" from their husbands which leads to the unraveling of marriage. You speak of the importance of upholding traditional marriage, but liberalism has only and ideological mechanism for destroying it.
Schools are more segregated now with state enforced integration than they were with state enforced segregation. I don't think "behave like normal adults" is a good way to describe the outcomes liberalism has lead to.
On the contrary, it depends on the consumer, not the business owner. It's the demand that is at issue. You win the culture war among your community first.
Cars or not, it makes no difference. Someone choosing not to hire you when you can still do the job doesn't mean that the other business won't hire you. In fact, it may mean they have an opportunity. It might hurt your wages at first, but if your a deal because the other business didn't hire you, it's likely that you'll be worth keeping happy as you create more benefit to your new employer.
I didn't. Women already had economic independence in the West, Liberalism or not. Women could make independent wealth at any time from their husbands, including separate employment. There wasn't really any institutional structure that barred women from working. Women just spent their time tending to the home. You don't need to bar women from work, they're at home anyways. Liberalism never touched that.
Self-segregation is the normal response to forced integration. I've never argued for forced integration. Instead, it happens naturally over time, on an individual level. The aggressive racializing of policy, only demotes more division.
This is a complete inversion of reality, especially today. Imagine how difficult it is to boycott the place where peoples buy their food. Add in all the shell companies and other shadowy bullshit, and it's even hard to figure out what a company might be doing in the first place. Then there is the ownership of mass communication and the resultant advantages in the info war that entails. I'm baffled that anyone who posts here still believes this stuff.
Huh? Being discriminated against gives you less leverage over your alternative employer, not more, baffling stuff you are trying to claim here.
The agricultural nature of labor did that. That became less and less of the case after the industrial revolution and its consequences (kek).
That's pure conjecture on your part.