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.
People refusing to employ you reduces the demand for your labor. There is not a single upside to that within liberalism. You're making some weird points for a lolbert. This is a complete contradiction of market logic.
I think all of human history has shown it.
On the contrary, human history is rife with tribalism.
People refusing to employ you reduces the demand for your labor. There is not a single upside to that within liberalism. You're making some weird points for a lolbert. This is a complete contradiction of market logic.
You're not recognizing the passage of time. If you are a great deal (high productivity, low cost), an employer will be more inclined to higher you, and then will be more inclined to keep you. As you provide productivity that improves the business, making sure you don't leave or do something else becomes a higher priority.
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.
This whole conversation was about how I would address a specific example.
Initially. That's my point: if you're an in-demand worker and someone refuses to employ you, you can become very valuable for another employer.
I think all of human history has shown it.
People refusing to employ you reduces the demand for your labor. There is not a single upside to that within liberalism. You're making some weird points for a lolbert. This is a complete contradiction of market logic.
On the contrary, human history is rife with tribalism.
You're not recognizing the passage of time. If you are a great deal (high productivity, low cost), an employer will be more inclined to higher you, and then will be more inclined to keep you. As you provide productivity that improves the business, making sure you don't leave or do something else becomes a higher priority.