Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
6. Defend your opinion
This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
I found out about them yesterday, they have basically created a "private society" where they are building their houses and infrastructure from scratch in the middle of the forested mountains.
My thought is that, if they are taking their themselves out of society and leave the rest of us alone and the government knows 100% where they are then I say let them be monitored and kept away from civilized society.
If a person of color wants to rent an apartment in that town, and the landlord denies them because of their skin color (which is against the law in the United States source ), what are you proposing would be the legal consequences for that "whites only town" landlord? Should they face the full weight of US law, or are you saying we should give them a pass because they're whites only?
As long as they aren't being supported by the government in any way (including using prebuilt infrastructure) they should be left alone, because again its convenient for the government to have a place where they can watch all the christo-facists and get them out of normal society.
Also I don't know why anyone would want to force themselves into that awful group.
I'm sorry, that's just nuts. I can't imagine telling 38.4% of Americans "You can't go to this place in and be protected by our laws in America. Its for 'whites-only'"
source
You keep coming back to this. It doesn't matter why a person of color would go there. We live in a country where we have laws that make lots of forms of discrimination illegal across the entire country. The thought of simply suspending those hard won protections for people of all races is a slap in the face to the hundreds of thousands or millions that fought for those protections and for everyone that came after.
Racial supremacy (of any race, not just white) is society cancer, and it isn't benign. We, as a society, need to continuously work to keep educating everyone and dispelling the myths these groups use to justify their behavior. Giving them a legal free pass to break discrimination laws is the worst thing we could do.
I think they should be given a pass - same way women-only gyms get one. That hypothetical person of color has a million places they can go and just one where they’re not welcome. Seems like a fair trade to me.
So how about if they open a restaurant, perhaps a lunch counter service. Are you saying as long as there are other equal lunch counters that serve people of color separately, then this "whites-only" is allowable?
how "just one"? if such a thing was allowed there, why wouldn't it be elsewhere?
Well, I didn’t literally mean there’d be just a single place. Obviously, once you set that precedent, other places like it would start popping up too. But it’s not obvious to me that this is a bad thing - or at least worse than the alternatives. I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with people wanting to live among like-minded people and, in effect, build echo chambers for themselves.
I do think the philosophy behind it is immoral from my perspective, but that’s not really the point. What matters is the concrete effect this ideology has in the real world. And if, in our current cities, we have racists committing racist violence against minorities, then is it really so much worse to just let them all move off into their own little enclave where they can live out their perfect lives without any black people around, if that’s what they want? At least then the rest of us wouldn’t have to deal with them on a daily basis.