Sorry, but I can't really be expected to know everyone's personal views, can I? I imagine you'll think that I should've asked instead of assuming...so I'll ask about these issues so I don't mistakenly use one as an example...
No, I didn't expect you to read my mind. I just wanted to make it clear that issues involving speech aren't serious enough to me. I thought you might have noticed those threads, though I don't think you participated in either of them. Of course, the quote in my signature is a hint in that direction.
You stated that if it's not an actual injustice, it's not a valid or legitimate grievance/issue/concern worthy of pursuing. Let me know if you think any of these are exceptions to that rule...
Oh... You're trying to get people to hate me around here! I'll answer your examples, but I'm going to preface them with a disclaimer. If you say nasty things to people or even just around people that you know are going to be upset by them, you're a jerk. Just because I may say that some people shouldn't be so upset about things, doesn't mean that I'm saying the people they're upset with are good, decent folk.
Gay and lesbian couples shouldn't be concerned about the term "civil union" as long as it carries all the legal weight of a marriage.
I used to think that was fine. In practice, I don't think you can cover all those bases though. What changed my mind was when I heard about a gay couple where one person was in the hospital due to some illness a lot and constantly in severe pain. She wasn't allowed to have her partner by her side because she wasn't considered "family" by hospital policy since she wasn't her "spouse". It seems easier to make all unions "marriage" than to try and find all the places someone might abuse the difference and address them. On top of that, if the government created two separate kinds of unions like this, it would be a nod to placating religious beliefs, and
I would have a problem with that.
But yes, hypothetically, if "marriage" and "civil union" were equal in every single way but title, then there would be no good reason to complain based on any sort of "second class" arguments. I still wouldn't like the religious implications though.
You disagree with all proponents of "safe spaces" since merely being in the presence of others different from yourself, or with different views, isn't an injustice.
That isn't how I understand "safe spaces" so I'm not sure how to answer this one. I thought anyone was allowed to go into a safe space, but what you do there is limited. You make it sound as though certain people are blocked from entrance, and as far as I know that isn't the case.
The way I understand it though, it just seems like a service some students want their school to offer. Give them a place free from arguing and debating so they can color and play with Play-Dough. I don't think people should demand it, nor do I see a good reason to have it, but if there's a sufficient demand, then I don't see why a school wouldn't offer it, much like they would offer designated areas for playing hockey-sack in the quad.
*I'm not conflating "demand" there. I'm intentionally using the word in two different ways.
Native Americans and others who find team mascots such as the Redskins distasteful have no legitimate gripe or reason to protest such things.
Oh people aren't going to like this. I hope you're the only one reading it, but no. I don't see that as any big deal. The team's owners are jerks for not caring and lying about how it isn't offensive, but it isn't deserving of protest. Just hate the Redskins and root for them to lose and move on.
Those offended by confederate statues have no reason to protest since statues don't create injustice.
We discussed this one, actually. I don't think those statues should matter to anyone.
Those who protest against neo nazis for holding rallies or other such public assemblies have no legitimate complaints since holding a rally doesn't create injustice.
You may call special pleading, but this one is different. If a group gets together to say something, anyone who wants to show up and say, "No, that's bad" has every right to. It's just people talking, so who cares?
Would I be right in assuming that if, for example, the department of justice were to pressure a police department to "hire more black officers" you would be against that since it's denying all non-blacks a fair opportunity at those jobs?
Nah, not enough context for that one. What if the town has a large black population, with a decent level of education, and a large number of applicants, and has never hired anyone that isn't white. Something is almost certainly wrong there. Blanket quotas on myriad business types based solely on population makeup: absolutely wrong.
What's a "meaningful amount" and how do you know when some of these things occur?
Most Americans aren't overtly racist. Most Americans are white. And there are more whites in a position to hire and fire than there are minorities. There's a much higher percentage of whites that are doing just fine than the percentage of minorities. So how many instances of a white being discriminated against for being white by a minority could there really be?
How do we know that someone has gotten a "harsher sentence" because of discriminatory practices? I would imagine it's rather rare for a judge to say they've punished someone more harshly for such reasons. I'm sure it's happened...but how can we possibly tell if it's often enough to be a meaningful amount?
You aren't going to find much evidence on a case by case basis, but it can be inferred from statistics. And if it can be inferred from statistics, then it's likely to be a meaningful amount.
You also included groups that "lack protections" but how do you know if that's a "legitimate issue" or not? The link I gave you previously included language that asked for protection for gender identities...which as far as I know is something that cannot be asked of someone in a job interview nor can it be determined by merely looking at someone. Is that a legitimate issue if no one has actually been discriminated against? Is it an issue because other groups have expressed a desire to discriminate against them?
We could have just written a law stating, "You can only fire someone because they're a bad employee or you can't afford to pay them". Instead we took the "You can't fire someone for this reason or that reason" approach. Until all the ways people might discriminate are covered, I'm all for expanding that list if there's any reason to think it might happen. Whites are already covered. Sexuality and gender identity aren't yet. What other group might need protecting in the future? I dunno.
Specifically to your question though, it wouldn't be irrational to expect an employer to find out after some time that an employee is transgender. They shouldn't be able to fire them for that when they do. It doesn't matter that they likely wouldn't know when they hire them.
Do you consider simply stating your position as "picking a fight"? Sounds to me you recognize that dissent and open discussion isn't a prominent feature within identity politics.
On an internet forum? LoL, ya, stating my position is picking a fight.
Yup...as long as you hide what you really think, you'll fit right in.
I don't feel a need to tell everyone everything I think. Do you?
And we're right back at single issue advocacy.
Huh? Identity groups are going to have a lot of issues, and I'm going to pick and choose which ones I agree with or find legitimate enough to care.
Need they only be a target? Or do they need to wait on said discrimination to happen?
They need to be a target and lacking protection. I should have reiterated "protection" as I mentioned earlier, but I'm all for being preventative instead of reactionary, waiting for discrimination to happen.
