There is no poly shaming going on here. The article makes clear that:
I think you missed my point entirely.
We all just learned from Walgreens’ latest report that placing barriers between consumers and the goods they’re trying to purchase reduces sales, and CVS’ response to this problem is to add a login requirement.
We tolerate people that hold those beliefs in that they are allowed to exist in open society where they can be called out
This point is hugely important, but not for the reason that you intended.
You are mistaken on an essential aspect of your argument: calling out bigoted or discriminatory views out is the definition of not tolerating them. At the same time, the bigotry you’re describing - not permitting people to exist in open society - is exactly the reason we cannot tolerate those kind of views.
The essence of bigotry is that entire categories of individuals don’t deserve the same rights as others. People who hold those views aren’t interested in debating the issue because they believe that their opponents don’t deserve the right to be part of the discussion.
One side is saying that we cannot tolerate these views. The other side is saying that they will not tolerate our humanity.
This isn’t a perspective that is subject to change by reason.
My mistake. I thought you were arguing the other way.
This misses the point entirely.
DEI is about finding the best candidate for the job, and paying them fair wages.
What you’re describing is literally anti-DEI. Musk and Trump have both been open about using the H-1B visa program to find foreign workers who will work cheaply, and they do it so that they don’t have to pay American workers a fair amount.
This is not a good counterexample. A boycott has immediate financial consequences for the boycotted company/industry. No such pressure is generated by sitting out an election.
In fact, a central strategy of the right wing in the United States is to reduce overall voter turnout, which is achieved either by restricting access to voting or by discouraging voter participation. By sitting out the vote you did exactly what the right wing wanted you to do.
Yeah, that seems like a reasonable approach.
By comparison, North Carolina attempted to implement a voter ID law in 2016 that was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court because it deliberately targeted black voters.
No, this article is talking about things like rejecting registration based on minor clerical errors like ink color, rejecting provisional ballots arbitrarily, and restricting the availability of ballot boxes. That sort of thing.
On the voter id question, by the way, the argument isn’t about whether or not you should have ID to vote, it’s about whether you can get ID in the first place.
Most countries in the world either issue IDs to everyone or allow you to prove your identity with things like bank statements and utility bills, or just somebody else who can vouch for you. The problem with US voter ID laws is that they only give you a few options for acceptable documents, and then make it hard to get those documents.
Pay someone who knows what they are getting into and can quit whenever they feel like it.
How do you think these young women would appear on the show? This may come as a surprise, but despite the 3 letter name, MTV lacks widespread intelligence gathering capacity and definitely can’t read your text messages without your consent.
I’m fairly confident that anybody appearing on this show would have sent in an application to the company, and signed a non-indentured contract.
The average tip at most fine dining restaurants in American cities is between 18-25%, so a fixed 23% service charge instead comes out about even on cost.
I don’t know what it’s like at this restaurant, but most places that have a fixed gratuity make it fairly obvious, to avoid exactly the situation you raise.
No, that’s an incorrect summation of one part of my argument.
The response to your comment is in my second sentence.