|
Post by robeiae on Jun 25, 2018 10:28:34 GMT -5
I personally do not believe government employees/officials should be fair game for public confrontations at all, when they are living their private lives. This is especially true of non-elected officials. Maybe there's a case to be made for confronting elected officials when they're out in public--based on the idea that they use public appearances as a political tool--but not people who are functionally just employees. That includes mouthpieces like Sanders, imo.
As to refusing service, the business has that right, but in my view it's a dangerous game to play for all involved; it has the potential to only make things more divisive.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jun 25, 2018 10:51:49 GMT -5
I don't believe anyone should ever be forced to perform any service for anyone, ever. I really am pro-choice.
That said, refusing to serve government officials who have a direct path to your license is probably about as dumb as insulting your waiter or forcing someone to make food for you. The result is equally likely to be highly unpalatable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2018 11:12:27 GMT -5
I'll accept Rob's argument and Don's argument as not unreasonable, generally speaking. I agree the restaurant owner has this right; we can debate on whether the best course (for her restaurant and/or in general) to exercise it, or if not, what the better courses are.
What I won't accept is "civility" lectures from those supporting and/or enabling Trump's monstrous daily assaults on civility. If you're out there actively condemning Trump and his cohorts' incivility as unacceptable, you've got some standing. But if you're saying, "well, it's not so nice maybe, but if policies I think are good are enacted..." -- or worse yet, completely ignoring or actively freaking cheering Trump's daily assaults against civil discourse (and democratic norms and human decency, ffs) -- then popping up to tut-tut the restaurant owner, well, as Popehat said, sit your ass down. Your problem is clearly not with "incivility."
I'll note that declining to serve Sanders isn't quite the same thing as riotously accosting a celebrity trying to enjoy a quiet dinner with their spouse. I'll also note that I think a government official (whether elected or appointed) is not just any celebrity. Sanders isn't some person pushing papers around in the west wing. She's out there actively lying (and playing hide the ball) every day for this administration. And right now, the administration is doing some heinous stuff. She's making a personal choice to do that work. Citizens have a right to tell her what they think about that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2018 11:43:29 GMT -5
robeiae , I'm curious as to just how far you'd extend your "government officials, especially non-elected ones, should be left alone, always, when they are just out for dinner or otherwise not acting in their official capacity at that moment." Josef Mengele and Joseph Goebbels go out for a nice dinner at The Red Hen in alternate universe. They are currently, in their official capacity, enabling and furthering the slaughter of millions, not to mention other horrors. But right now, they are just trying to eat a quiet farm-to-table dinner. Should the restaurant owner and patron smile and serve them? Should the other patrons hush up about their little quibbles with the death camps? Or is there in fact some point at which their official actions and/or support for official horrors cross a line at which we need not say, "oh, this is them as PRIVATE individuals, not them as officials"? ETA: I'm with Jennifer Rubin on this one: To be clear -- Ms. Rubin is actually extending this argument beyond government officials, to private citizens who champion such policies. And frankly, I agree with her there, too. (I also agree with her that we should do this sparingly and reserve it for situations where things have crossed the rubicon, as it were. But I think that's where we are at this point -- especially with regard to government officials.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2018 12:14:05 GMT -5
IT'S ALL ABOUT CIVILITY, YOU FUCKING LIBTURDS! WE'LL FUCKING KILL YOU IF YOU DON'T LEARN TO BE MORE FUCKING CIVIL!
LIKE THIS, SEE? FOLLOW OUR FUCKING EXAMPLE:
I mean, come on.
ETA:
WE'LL KILL ANYONE WHO EVEN LOOKS LIKE YOU! WE DON'T FUCKING CARE! WE ARE TOO UPSET ABOUT YOUR RUDENESS TO WORRY ABOUT SILLY DISTINCTIONS LIKE WHETHER IT WAS ACTUALLY YOU WHO PISSED US OFF! YOU'D BETTER ALL START BEING NICE TO SARAH SANDERS OR EVERYBODY WITHOUT A MAGA HAT DIES!
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 25, 2018 13:15:08 GMT -5
I'm with Jennifer Rubin on this one: So, thought exercise: Substitute "abortion" for "child-separation policy." There are people who really do feel as strongly as you do about Trump's immigration policy that abortion is murdering babies. Does that make it fair game for them to harass Democrats and other pro-choice politicians? I mean, I understand the urge to say "Trump is different, we're literally fighting Hitler here!" But unless you're really, truly convinced that we are actually fighting Hitler here, it's a damned slippery slope.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2018 13:40:49 GMT -5
I think the child separation policy (such a nice name for it--really doesn't begin to cover what's happening) is in fact past the line, yes. It's not gassing 6 million jews yet, but it's a step on that road that we should never ever take -- cruel, inhumane, and unconstitutional.
People who vehemently oppose abortion do in fact do this kind of thing, and indeed beyond it (here, I am not advocating throwing rotten tomatoes, but, e.g., refusing to serve Sarah Sanders). If you really, genuinely think a zygote is a human being and it's just plain murder at every stage, period, regardless of whether the mother's life is in danger or she was a victim or rape or incest, and nothing in the world could justify it, then yes, I get why you might not want to serve dinner to an abortion advocate.
That said, I think people's feels aside, we can take "just how exactly how good is the argument for ending the policy you hate" into account when considering whether it is appropriate to storm dinner tables or not serve Sarah Sanders a beer. Making all abortion illegal raises a different ethical, humanitarian issue in a way ending this family separation policy does not.
End family separation, even if you assume that there is no other possible way to reduce illegal immigration (which I flatly reject and so would most of us, no?), the outcome is "gee, maybe some economic impact maybe though some studies say otherwise." Really, that's it. That's why Huckabee and Trump are trying to make the migrants out as dangerous criminals, despite evidence that they aren't. That's ... not actually much of a counterweight, IMO.
End all legal abortion, or make it incredibly difficult to get, and the outcome is (a) lots of dangerous illegal abortions (that's demonstrated in the places where it is illegal), which injure, maim, and kill women, especially when combined with shutting down of birth control clinics and the ending of policies that help poor families take care of babies, (b) a huge increase in babies that are going to be born to mothers that should not have them or cannot take care of them (see, e.g., the end of policies to help poor families) -- and no, there are not people anxious to adopt all of those babies because they're not all white, healthy, and drug-free, and (c) even taking aside all of that, you've got the libertarian-y, constitution-y argument about a woman's right to bodily autonomy -- not forcing women to go through pregnancies and give birth (not to mention carry the economic costs for all of that, which are considerable) even if the women got pregnant through no doing of her own, whether because her birth control failed or she was raped.
So, yes, I think when deciding which issues we are considering storming the dinner table for (or just refusing service for), we should consider whether ending the policy we hate creates different horrible outcomes for people, or whether it is simply a matter of "Jesus H. Christ, we are putting babies in cages and tossing due process out the window to keep out a bunch of desperate people who want to pick our fruit."
As Rubin noted, we should choose and consider carefully before engaging in shunning and shaming. I think this policy, for all the reasons above and the ones I noted on twelve pages or so of another thread, amply meet the criteria.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 25, 2018 13:51:51 GMT -5
I mean, I've seen people, both internationally and among US leftists, argue that Obama was a war criminal for his drone policy. Fill-in-the-blank people-are-literally-dying-because-of-X-policy. They're all tragic.
I get that for you, the current border policy is a defining and visceral issue, and I don't really disagree. Nor do I think a restaurant owner shouldn't be allowed to harangue customers she finds morally repugnant and refuse them service. Obviously she should be allowed to do that.
It's just... the world is always going to be messy and we're always going to be a superpower which means there are always going to be atrocities happening around the world which we are, to some degree, complicit in. And so especially in Washington, there's always been an understanding that you might absolutely hate your political opponents, but they're still entitled to go about their daily lives without overt harassment. You can't have two sides disagreeing over literal life-and-death issues and maintain a civil society unless you recognize that.
The idea that now employees of the Trump administration are fair game because it is so evil strikes me as a violation of that social contract. And if this really is Berlin, 1933, then it's justified.
But you can't unring that bell. If the Democrats retake the White House in 2020, the hate you saw for Obama will be nothing compared to the escalation we'll see if this becomes the new norm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2018 14:02:05 GMT -5
I actually had big problems with Obama's drone policy, tbh. And of course yuuuuuugge problems with Bush's torture policy. I would have given them a piece of my mind if they'd stopped into my imaginary restaurant while those policies were going on, especially the latter which IMO is ABSOLUTELY a violation of human rights and the fundamental values of this country.
Mind you, all I am advocating (at least right now) is stuff like what this restaurant owner did -- exercise her right not to serve people like, e.g., Sanders, and to tell them why. I do not advocate burning cop cars and egging buildings.
I actually do begin to fear that it may actually come to far worse at some point if the political process doesn't resolve this. There is a point where I would think storming the Bastille is appropriate. But right now what is appropriate is peaceful, nonviolent, constitutionally-protected protest, and of course, far more importantly, political action. (Congress, get off your damn ass and act like a co-equal branch before I'm forced to make you do it. And VOTE, people, for the love of god.)
I think what the restaurant owner did is squarely within the former. And to the extent it was not "polite", I think that's rather rich coming from anyone in or supporting this particular administration.
ETA:
Again, at least part of the reason I particularly feel that way about this policy is that there really aren't comparable life-and-death issues on the other side of it, other than ones manufactured for political purposes. Honestly, taking aside that there are far less draconian ways to reduce illegal immigration, what we have here is have some debatable economic issues vs babies torn from their parents, possibly forever, dumped in cages and drugged, in violation of the constitution and all humane norms. It shouldn't even be a discussion--the policy should end, should not be restarted, and the 2000 or so kids the admin scattered to the winds need to be reunited with their parents, stat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2018 14:43:23 GMT -5
A terrific Twitter thread on this, IMO:
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 25, 2018 17:23:09 GMT -5
robeiae , I'm curious as to just how far you'd extend your "government officials, especially non-elected ones, should be left alone, always, when they are just out for dinner or otherwise not acting in their official capacity at that moment." Josef Mengele and Joseph Goebbels go out for a nice dinner at The Red Hen in alternate universe. They are currently, in their official capacity, enabling and furthering the slaughter of millions, not to mention other horrors. But right now, they are just trying to eat a quiet farm-to-table dinner. Should the restaurant owner and patron smile and serve them? Should the other patrons hush up about their little quibbles with the death camps? Or is there in fact some point at which their official actions and/or support for official horrors cross a line at which we need not say, "oh, this is them as PRIVATE individuals, not them as officials"? Your scenario is terribly flawed, because it's not grounded in the reality of our current system of government. And btw, if a restaurant owner refused to serve those two guys, that restaurant owner would be dead or in a cattle car in short order. So would any patrons who opted to give them any grief. Imo, you seem to be looking for justification for actions that you know are fundamentally wrong. Turn the tables. If, say, Elizabeth Warren's chief of staff was next to me at a restaurant with their family, do you think it would be okay for people to berate them for helping a phony American Indian and a communist screw over the American people? And if the restaurant owner refused to serve them for the same reasons--and this went public--would the people okay with Sanders being denied service just chalk this up with a "well, the owner is within their rights," as well?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2018 17:42:31 GMT -5
Sigh. My point is exactly the same as the one in the Twitter thread I quote or in Rubin's piece, which I think is obvious: do you really think there is no point, ever, at which it is justifiable to refuse to serve or otherwise protest against a public official because of their official actions when he drops into your establishment for a nosh? Really? None? ever?
If so, well, I agree to disagree.
But if you agree that some actions might theoretically be bad enough to justify it, the argument is where the line would be drawn.
ETA:
I think Amadan and I do a fair job of batting about where that line might lie, and what the issues are when considering if and when to draw it.
I explicitly agreed that we shouldn't curse people out in restaurants over small stuff or mere policy issues.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 25, 2018 18:07:56 GMT -5
Sigh.
For starters, you're operating with loose definitions. Public official? Does that include government employees across the board? Does it include elected officials (because I said, I can see that maybe a case can be made for them)?
As to "justifying" refusal of service, I already agreed the owner could do this. Whether or not it is "justified" is 100% subjective. Maybe some owner doesn't want to serve Fred because Fred has a Hillary bumper sticker and wears Hillary t-shirts. Owner's choice. I think it's foolish, but I'll bet that during the election season, there would be plenty of people who felt this was "justified" (probably plenty, still).
Why not speak the plain truth here, as opposed to trying to box me in? If you think it's okay to accost government employees out in public when they're not actually working, simply because you don't like a given government policy, then just say so. You'll note I never raised the issue of legality. Do as you please, but don't expect to pat you or anyone else for behaving like a jackwagon. Ditto for the guy on twitter you think has it nailed down.
If I wasn't so cynical, this would all be terribly depressing, this intellectualized search for justification to behave poorly.
And can we have this discussion without summoning Nazis to the party? Maybe? JHCOAPS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2018 18:29:18 GMT -5
I think I made my points, and they're all above. We're I to respond to each sentence of your post, it would be to some previous statement I already made.
One of us is dancing. I don't think it's me.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 25, 2018 18:48:28 GMT -5
I think you're begging the question, rob. (The same question I was actually trying to address.)
There are, I'm sure, administration policies you'd consider so abhorrent you'd support public shaming and shunning and harassment - like, say, if the Trump administration were literally trying to bring back slavery, or create actual, non-metaphorical concentration camps. Right?
On the other hand, we probably all agree that public shaming, shunning, and harassment because you don't like the administraton's tax policy is over the line.
So per that Twitter thread Cass posted, the question is whether we're in Category 1 or Category 2 - which will be subjective, per person.
I don't think we're in Category 1 yet, but I can sympathize with those who do. On the other hand, I think a lot of people who do think we're in Category 1 now are unwilling to recognize that their position is subjective and that there are people on the other side who see a lot of "liberal" policies as being in that Category. So once you declare that we've crossed that threshold, the other side is going respond in kind.
Since there are people who think tax policies they don't approve of are Category 1, I am very reluctant (less reluctant than you, but more reluctant than Cass) to pull that trigger. Not just because now the other side will do it too, but also because you can only cry Hitler so many times before that level of outrage loses its power.
|
|