Wynton Marsalis on the importance of aggressive inspiration in education ...

[Tal_175]

Some books are smut and obscenity which should all be banned.

No further questions, your honor.

[ruger9]

One is free to start a private social media company and ban anyone who is not a trans man of Guatemalan descent and were not born in February 1967. That is not a violation of anyone's birth right to free speech. Certainly not the same thing as government banning books. I hope it is obvious to everyone that this is a false equivalence.

And what do you think would happen if someone started a social media platform, and censored/banned all non-Christian, non-binary points of view? Or all leftist/progressive points of view?

BTW, no one has said Twitter didn't have the "right" to do what they did. What they did (by censoring alternative medical information, as well as conservative points of view), was perfectly legal. So that means, if I own a private company, I should be able to censor who I employ, right? If I don't want to employ certain religions, or certain "gender identities", I should be able to do that right? PRIVATE COMPANY (your words)

[Tal_175]

And what do you think would happen if someone started a social media platform, and censored/banned all non-Christian, non-binary points of view? Or all leftist/progressive points of view?

BTW, no one has said Twitter didn't have the "right" to do what they did. What they did (by censoring alternative medical information, as well as conservative points of view), was perfectly legal. So that means, if I own a private company, I should be able to censor who I employ, right? If I don't want to employ certain religions, or certain "gender identities", I should be able to do that right? PRIVATE COMPANY (your words)

One point at a time. Let's not keep moving the goalposts. Do you agree that social media company removing posts and government banning books constitutes a false equivalence?

[Tal_175]

Regarding your other points:

And what do you think would happen if someone started a social media platform, and censored/banned all non-Christian, non-binary points of view? Or all leftist/progressive points of view?

That would probably turn into 4chan. Your point?

BTW, no one has said Twitter didn't have the "right" to do what they did. What they did (by censoring alternative medical information, as well as conservative points of view), was perfectly legal. So that means, if I own a private company, I should be able to censor who I employ, right? If I don't want to employ certain religions, or certain "gender identities", I should be able to do that right? PRIVATE COMPANY (your words)

You seem to be conflating the issues here. Do you see the difference between:
- A private golf club imposing a certain dress code and etiquette on their members. Thus, removing members who use profanities, express offensive views, or wear speedos on their premises.
- A private golf club not accepting Jewish people as members.

[AllanAllen]

.

[mr. beaumont]

A lot of what I see these days is people being offended because something they don't like exists. That's not how getting offended works.

[jameslovestal]

Is there public funding for religious institutions? Because if so, I am unaware of it. I know religious institutions have certain tax benefits... perhaps THAT is what we should do with the arts, instead of funding them?

I consider tax benefits an indirect form of public funding; thus, I support no tax benefits for either, other than private citizen donors getting a tax break for contribution to the arts or a religious institution.

[jameslovestal]

Regarding your other points:


You seem to be conflating the issues here. Do you see the difference between:
- A private golf club imposing a certain dress code and etiquette on their members. Thus, removing members who use profanities, express offensive views, or wear speedos on their premises.
- A private golf club not accepting Jewish people as members.

I don't see much of a difference. A private club should be able to define who is a member. That includes not accepting someone based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other factor. The only law I would want is that these factors have to be made public, as well as the membership. This way I can boycott the business of anyone that is a member of a club where I disagree with the factors they use for exclusion. (Which I would if a club excluded people based on the example factors, I listed).

The government should not force people to associate with people they don't wish to outside of a business environment.

This way I know who the bigots are in my community, and I can counter them via boycotts and other legal means. I believe such a change would reduce such bigoted behavior in the long run (after a slight increase in the short run).

[jameslovestal]

Some books are smut and obscenity which should all be banned.

At first, I believed you might lean libertarian, but now I see you just wish to have a nanny state, just like the liberals you despise.

Let people do what they wish unless it causes direct harm to others!!!!!

[Tal_175]

I don't see much of a difference. A private club should be able to define who is a member. That includes not accepting someone based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other factor. The only law I would want is that these factors have to be made public, as well as the membership. This way I can boycott the business of anyone that is a member of a club where I disagree with the factors they use for exclusion. (Which I would if a club excluded people based on the example factors, I listed).

The government should not force people to associate with people they don't wish to outside of a business environment.

This way I know who the bigots are in my community, and I can counter them via boycotts and other legal means. I believe such a change would reduce such bigoted behavior in the long run (after a slight increase in the short run).

Well, I think this is a separate discussion all together.
But I suppose we would all agree that there is a difference between the Wimbledon Tennis Club imposing a dress code in the tournaments vs not allowing, say, black players to complete all together.

Whether a grassroots, community based, anarchic social organisation (with or without private property) is superior to the ones with governments and other power centers is an academic discussion for another 100 years or so.

[ruger9]

One point at a time. Let's not keep moving the goalposts. Do you agree that social media company removing posts and government banning books constitutes a false equivalence?

No, because on principle I am against it in both instances. The actions can not be deemed "right" or "wrong" based on who does them; the actions themselves hold "right" and "wrong" regardless of who perpetrates it.

I notice you like to use the phrase "false equivalence" alot... likely because you think that trumps everything and shuts down a debate; it does not; it only shows that you know a clever debate tactic.

[jameslovestal]

Well, I think this is a separate discussion all together.
But I suppose we would all agree that there is a difference between the Wimbledon Tennis Club imposing a dress code in the tournaments vs not allowing, say, black players to complete all together.

Whether a grassroots, community based, anarchic social organisation (with or without private property) is superior to the ones with governments and other power centers is an academic discussion for another 100 years or so.

It looks like you misunderstood my use of government; When I said " The government should not force people to associate with people they don't wish to outside of a business environment", I meant this only as it relates to a privately own and operated club or organization. I.e., the government shouldn't impose rules and laws on these privately owned and operated clubs and organizations.

Thus, I still don't agree with your assumption; There is NOT a difference, as it relates to a private club or organization having a dress-code or a membership requirement that excluded people based on race, gender, religion etc...

I.e., the club owners \ members should be the sole people that decide these things and the government shouldn't impose on their right to do so.

[ruger9]

Regarding your other points:

That would probably turn into 4chan. Your point?


You seem to be conflating the issues here. Do you see the difference between:
- A private golf club imposing a certain dress code and etiquette on their members. Thus, removing members who use profanities, express offensive views, or wear speedos on their premises.
- A private golf club not accepting Jewish people as members.

If you want to use "private company" to mean they can do whatever they want because they are private, it's the whole enchilada: you can't have your cake and eat it too. "Private" either means autonomous or it does not. And if it does not, that means it NEVER does. In ANYTHING.

I approach things from point of principle. Something is either right or it is not. The action defines itself. "Legal" and "right/wrong" are frequently not the same thing. Was Twitter banning right wing posts legal? Yes. Was it right? No. And I would be saying the exact same thing if it were a platform that banned and censored left-wing speech as well. You might be able to tell I'm pretty big on free speech, and pretty down on censorship... especially when it's the state doing it.

[Tal_175]

If you want to use "private company" to mean they can do whatever they want because they are private, it's the whole enchilada: you can't have your cake and eat it too. "Private" either means autonomous or it does not. And if it does not, that means it NEVER does. In ANYTHING.

I didn't say a private company can do whatever they want.
You asked:

And what do you think would happen if someone started a social media platform, and censored/banned all non-Christian, non-binary points of view? Or all leftist/progressive points of view?

BTW, no one has said Twitter didn't have the "right" to do what they did. What they did (by censoring alternative medical information, as well as conservative points of view), was perfectly legal. So that means, if I own a private company, I should be able to censor who I employ, right? If I don't want to employ certain religions, or certain "gender identities", I should be able to do that right? PRIVATE COMPANY (your words)

And I pointed out that you are missing an important distinction between a company discriminating in their hiring policy vs imposing a code of conduct for their employees or customers.

Do you believe that it is morally wrong for, say, a private golf club to impose a dress and behaviour code on their members and guests?

[ruger9]

I didn't say a private company can do whatever they want.
You asked:


And I pointed out that you are missing an important distinction between a company discriminating in their hiring policy vs imposing a code of conduct for their employees or customers.

Do you believe that it is morally wrong for, say, a private golf club to impose a dress and behaviour code on their members?

Since you answered a question with a question, I will do the same:

Do you think there is a difference between morally right and legal? And a second, related question: do you think you can (or should) legislate morality?

[Tal_175]

Since you answered a question with a question, I will do the same:

Do you think there is a difference between morally right and legal? And a second, related question: do you think you can (or should) legislate morality?

I did answer your question. Twice.

For the third time. You asked:

And what do you think would happen if someone started a social media platform, and censored/banned all non-Christian, non-binary points of view? Or all leftist/progressive points of view?

BTW, no one has said Twitter didn't have the "right" to do what they did. What they did (by censoring alternative medical information, as well as conservative points of view), was perfectly legal. So that means, if I own a private company, I should be able to censor who I employ, right? If I don't want to employ certain religions, or certain "gender identities", I should be able to do that right? PRIVATE COMPANY (your words)

And I answered both of your questions. If my answer wasn't clear, I repeat (for the third time): No, a company shouldn't discriminate based on race or religion. But a private company can impose rules with regards to how employees and customers should conduct themselves.

For example, sexist views are well within the scope freedom of speech and expression, but a company can fire an employee for expressing overtly sexist views in meetings. It is in the interest of the company to maintain a productive and harmonious work environment for its success.
Likewise, in some states and provinces, women can be topless in public legally. But a family oriented golf club can ban a member for being topless in their premises because it may pose a threat to their business model by alienating their target membership body.

So let me ask again as this is the crucial point of the debate: Do you believe that it is morally wrong for, say, a private golf club to impose a dress and behaviour code on their members and guests as they see fit for their business model?

[ruger9]

I did answer your question. Twice.

For the third time. You asked:


And I answered both of your questions. If my answer wasn't clear, I repeat (for the third time): No, a company shouldn't discriminate based on race or religion. But I private company can impose rules with regards to how employees and customers should conduct themselves.

For example, sexist views are well within the scope freedom of speech and expression, but a company can fire an employee for expressing overtly sexist views in meetings. It is in the interest of the company to maintain a productive and harmonious work environment for its success.
Likewise, in some states and provinces, women can be topless in public legally. But a family oriented golf club can ban a member for being topless in their premises because it may pose a threat to their business model by alienating their target membership body.

So let me ask again as this is the crucial point of the debate: Do you believe that it is morally wrong for, say, a private golf club to impose a dress and behaviour code on their members and guests as they see fit for their business model?

Morally wrong? No. It's also not illegal, nor should it be.

I, personally, do think it's morally wrong to discriminate based on race or religion.

However, once you start legislating morality, we are back to the sticky wicket of WHO'S morality. For example, I think it's morally wrong to expose children to LGBTetc. drag queens under the guise of "storytelling" at the local library. It's legal, tho. I'm sure there are some who think it's morally RIGHT to do such a thing. So who is correct? Who is the group making legislation out of their feelings? My point being, legislating morality is a dangerous game... interestingly, the Founding Fathers tried to do that to a degree, in pointing out in many papers and letters (and even the Founding Documents themselves) that "God"/"Creator" had a hand in the creation of this country. There are many people who think that was a "morally wrong" thing. So now what? They scream "separation of church and state!" yet have no problem with the UN-separation of other "cults" such as the trans community. And I mean do disrespect when I say "cults", I am only pointing out that to one group, Christianty is a cult, while to the other group, trans is a cult. Who's right? Who's wrong? Who's to say?

Which leads us back to THE square one: it's all OPINION, which gives neither group the moral high ground, logically.

[Christian Miller]

How is it elite? It didn't cost me more to see The Mask of Orpheus than it did to see Herbie Hancock or my ticket for Shakti.

Well I had more the Barber of Seville and Rigoletto in mind. I think going to see Birtwistle is something … else.

A girl once asked me out to a modern opera for a first date because she thought it would be a good test to see if I liked her haha…. She didn’t bank on my being a total weirdo and just liking modern opera. We also ended up married with kids, so I guess it wasn’t too bad a choice.

Anyway, yes opera has enormous prestige and cultural capital which jazz lacks, despite the best efforts of Wynton et al. There’s no Royal or National Jazz club, for example.

it costs more to go to see a football match yada yada. We are talking about the perception of an artform and opera is, well, posh. At least in anglo land.

[DawgBone]

At first, I believed you might lean libertarian, but now I see you just wish to have a nanny state, just like the liberals you despise.

Let people do what they wish unless it causes direct harm to others!!!!!

Libertarians are conservatives without morals.

I don't vote, ever. I have never registered. I don't feel my vote counts. It doesnt count. I don't have an Interest in left wing political stances and I don't beleve the right represents me either. They arent moral or conservative. Neither am I interested in imposing my political will on others because then I become the people I despise for attempting to impose their will on me.

It's trendy and common since spoiled hedonistic and self centered boomers took over govt to spin obscene material as some protected freedom. Modernist talking points with no basis in reality. Just a sign of a culture in deep decay.

[James W]

Anyway, yes opera has enormous prestige and cultural capital which jazz despite the best efforts of Wynton lacks. There’s no Royal or National Jazz club, for example.

It may well do, but I don't see prestige and something as intangible as cultural capital as being necessarily synonymous with something 'elite', which suggests to me that opera contains some inherent quality not meant for unmoneyed or purportedly uneducated people. I know a lot of BS surrounds opera and other things - which do after all have to function under capitalism. For me or anyone else who loves music things like prestige or cultural capital (i.e. the BS) are irrelevant. Jazz doesn't have that baggage - which might be either a good or bad thing, depending on the situation.

[Christian Miller]

It may well do, but I don't see prestige and something as intangible as cultural capital as being necessarily synonymous with something 'elite', which suggests to me that opera contains some inherent quality not meant for unmoneyed or purportedly uneducated people. I know a lot of BS surrounds opera and other things - which do after all have to function under capitalism. For me or anyone else who loves music things like prestige or cultural capital (i.e. the BS) are irrelevant. Jazz doesn't have that baggage - which might be either a good or bad thing, depending on the situation.

Well the BS has a tangible effect on funding among other things. As David Byrne points out, the opera and ballet are recipients of more private philanthropy than, jazz clubs, say. Why do you think that is?

Music doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it’s social.

I don’t really see what this has to do with capitalism tbh. The Soviet Union for instance, held classical music in the same sort of importance.

[DawgBone]

Well the BS has a tangible effect on funding among other things. As David Byrne points out, the opera and ballet are recipients of more private philanthropy than, jazz clubs, say. Why do you think that is?

Music doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it’s social.

Rich white people, actually most white people, aren't into black music which is what jazz and blues mostly is.

[mr. beaumont]

So now what? They scream "separation of church and state!" yet have no problem with the UN-separation of other "cults" such as the trans community. And I mean do disrespect when I say "cults", I am only pointing out that to one group, Christianty is a cult, while to the other group, trans is a cult. Who's right? Who's wrong? Who's to say?.

Cult has several definitions. Christianity fits one. Not the evil scary one.

The trans community doesn't fit any definition of cult. So who's right and who's wrong is pretty clear.

[Spook410]

Rich white people, actually most white people, aren't into black music which is what jazz and blues mostly is.

Umm.. rock and roll is blues

[DawgBone]

Umm.. rock and roll is blues

No, it's not. Blues rock isn't even blues. Rocking blues is blues. If you can't tell the difference between rock, blues rock, and rocking blues we have nothing to discuss cuz I ain't playing the "my favorite pentatonic rock guitarist is blues" game. Get with the program.