Would Segregation have been wrong if it really was separate but equal?

[King Arts]

So yeah, if blacks and whites literally had the same number and quality of public accommodations would racial segregation have been wrong? Also we can expand this beyond race, to religion, sex, politics, hair color whatever. Would government enforced separate accommodations for all of these be wrong?

 

[Captain X]

Yes.

 

[King Arts]

Yes.

Can you elaborate, maybe more than a one word answer on why something is morally good or bad?

 

[Bear Ribs]

I would say it would be wrong on several levels.

Firstly, you're duplicating expensive infrastructure for no reason. Why build separate but equal schools instead of building a school? Wasting taxpayer money for no apparent benefit is, in fact, a moral issue.

Secondarily but likely more importantly, you're going to increase disharmony. Consider that once you've opened the door to black and white options, you need to accommodate all the other races. So you need an Asian and Arab school now... but there are many subgroups there that don't get along so you really need a Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Kurd, Persian, etc. school. There will never be an end to it because no group will want to be lumped in with "and those other minor groups" rather than get their own school. Now add in the LGBTQ+ groups each wanting their own school, and notice how the number of letters has been steadily increasing over the years as more and more groups want their own distinctiveness. So now not only are you building dozens to hundreds of duplicate schools, you will face an ever-increasing pressure to build more and more group-specific schools.

Now of course you don't just need separate but equal schools, but all other infrastructure. Why share roads, voting booths, or anything else once you start on that road? A separate but equal military platoon isn't going to be happy with another race as their CO, we need complete separate but equal command chains so that doesn't happen!

This not only raises the actual cost to absurd levels, it increases disharmony because these various bits of infrastructure will never truly be equal. If you have separate but equal turnpikes, some race's turnpike is going to have to be the closest and thus shortest route compared to the others, and the same for every other option. Even for just schools, one school is going to be in an (at least perceived) better physical position and the schools can't share a specific block. Every inequity, imagined or real since some will be very real, will only raise ire and emphasize that X group doesn't really get all the benefits of Y group. Thus the level of social strife will increase from "Separate but equal."

 

[Captain X]

Can you elaborate, maybe more than a one word answer on why something is morally good or bad?

Because people should not be treated differently based on something like race.

 

[ShieldWife]

Nothing in this world (at least regarding humans) is equal to any other thing. So “separate but equal” is as impossible as “together but equal” is now.

Since equality is a myth, we should disregard it.

I don’t see any reason, though, why any kind of voluntary segregation is necessarily immoral. People should have the right to associate with, or not, who ever they want - including businesses or property they own and the labor of their bodies and minds.

 

[Bacle]

Yes, racial segregation would be wrong even in this idea, and it is a dumb question to even ask.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

The division of people, one from another, is the basis for disharmony, suspicion, fear, anger and hate. Of course, all the bad things that come out of that as a result too.

Understanding that melanin levels don't mean shit.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

(Sigh) No, keeping Jim Crow would not have abated the rise of the radical left and multi-culturalism. In fact, it would probably have made it worse.

Or did you think I don't know what these daft questions are almost always about? Not everything that came before, or even "opposed" modernity, is good. Neo-Reactionaries really need to ditch this myopic view of history.

 

[Marduk]

So yeah, if blacks and whites literally had the same number and quality of public accommodations would racial segregation have been wrong? Also we can expand this beyond race, to religion, sex, politics, hair color whatever. Would government enforced separate accommodations for all of these be wrong?

Wrong or not, depends on your personal moral and ideological sensibilities. To the people it was wrong, it would still be wrong. To the rest, still not.
But as others indicate, it sure did have practical downsides, which at some point would raise an even bigger issue with Hispanics.

The division of people, one from another, is the basis for disharmony, suspicion, fear, anger and hate. Of course, all the bad things that come out of that as a result too.

Understanding that melanin levels don't mean shit.

That's just part and parcel of a multicultural society, whether the different cultures are also different races or not, whether their mixing in public accomodations is state enforced, state prohibited or neither.

 

[bintananth]

Because people should not be treated differently based on something like race.

Public restrooms are just about the only bit of "seperate but equal" that makes any sort of sense because men and women do not have the same restroom needs.

A tampon dispenser is about as useless to a man as a urinal is to a woman. Those two items are practically the only things a public restroom is guaranteed to not have both of.

 

[VictortheMonarch]

I would say it would be wrong on several levels.

Firstly, you're duplicating expensive infrastructure for no reason. Why build separate but equal schools instead of building a school? Wasting taxpayer money for no apparent benefit is, in fact, a moral issue.

Secondarily but likely more importantly, you're going to increase disharmony. Consider that once you've opened the door to black and white options, you need to accommodate all the other races. So you need an Asian and Arab school now... but there are many subgroups there that don't get along so you really need a Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Kurd, Persian, etc. school. There will never be an end to it because no group will want to be lumped in with "and those other minor groups" rather than get their own school. Now add in the LGBTQ+ groups each wanting their own school, and notice how the number of letters has been steadily increasing over the years as more and more groups want their own distinctiveness. So now not only are you building dozens to hundreds of duplicate schools, you will face an ever-increasing pressure to build more and more group-specific schools.

Now of course you don't just need separate but equal schools, but all other infrastructure. Why share roads, voting booths, or anything else once you start on that road? A separate but equal military platoon isn't going to be happy with another race as their CO, we need complete separate but equal command chains so that doesn't happen!

This not only raises the actual cost to absurd levels, it increases disharmony because these various bits of infrastructure will never truly be equal. If you have separate but equal turnpikes, some race's turnpike is going to have to be the closest and thus shortest route compared to the others, and the same for every other option. Even for just schools, one school is going to be in an (at least perceived) better physical position and the schools can't share a specific block. Every inequity, imagined or real since some will be very real, will only raise ire and emphasize that X group doesn't really get all the benefits of Y group. Thus the level of social strife will increase from "Separate but equal."

Yeah, this is the kinda shit when we say that CRT is bad. It's foolish to think that two races won't get combative in that environment, hell, even today we don't have anything like that yet there is more black on white crime than ever seen.

 

[bintananth]

Yeah, this is the kinda shit when we say that CRT is bad. It's foolish to think that two races won't get combative in that environment, hell, even today we don't have anything like that yet there is more black on white crime than ever seen.

I think there's less interracial crime where race is part of the motivation today than there used to be. In the past a much more of it didn't make the news because it didn't get reported or recorded and everyone just sorta looked the other way.

 

[DarthOne]

Related:



And also no.

 

[ParadiseLost]

Yes, segregation is a stupid concept and this sort of thread almost feels like a SB psy-op so they can pretend we're debating this.

 

[King Arts]

I would say it would be wrong on several levels.

Firstly, you're duplicating expensive infrastructure for no reason. Why build separate but equal schools instead of building a school? Wasting taxpayer money for no apparent benefit is, in fact, a moral issue.

Secondarily but likely more importantly, you're going to increase disharmony. Consider that once you've opened the door to black and white options, you need to accommodate all the other races. So you need an Asian and Arab school now... but there are many subgroups there that don't get along so you really need a Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Kurd, Persian, etc. school. There will never be an end to it because no group will want to be lumped in with "and those other minor groups" rather than get their own school. Now add in the LGBTQ+ groups each wanting their own school, and notice how the number of letters has been steadily increasing over the years as more and more groups want their own distinctiveness. So now not only are you building dozens to hundreds of duplicate schools, you will face an ever-increasing pressure to build more and more group-specific schools.

Now of course you don't just need separate but equal schools, but all other infrastructure. Why share roads, voting booths, or anything else once you start on that road? A separate but equal military platoon isn't going to be happy with another race as their CO, we need complete separate but equal command chains so that doesn't happen!

This not only raises the actual cost to absurd levels, it increases disharmony because these various bits of infrastructure will never truly be equal. If you have separate but equal turnpikes, some race's turnpike is going to have to be the closest and thus shortest route compared to the others, and the same for every other option. Even for just schools, one school is going to be in an (at least perceived) better physical position and the schools can't share a specific block. Every inequity, imagined or real since some will be very real, will only raise ire and emphasize that X group doesn't really get all the benefits of Y group. Thus the level of social strife will increase from "Separate but equal."

I agree with you segregation is not practical because of what you said it at the bare minimum doubles the price of everything because you have to pay for a second utility. And for every group that is classified you have another one. But that is a practical reason not a moral issue. If the people are willing to waste their tax money by doubling their expenses that's not neccesarily morally bad.

(Sigh) No, keeping Jim Crow would not have abated the rise of the radical left and multi-culturalism. In fact, it would probably have made it worse.

Or did you think I don't know what these daft questions are almost always about? Not everything that came before, or even "opposed" modernity, is good. Neo-Reactionaries really need to ditch this myopic view of history.

Umm actually I wasn't thinking that at all when I made this. I literally saw this exact thing on 4chan's history board and just copied it, didden't think about it, too much.

The division of people, one from another, is the basis for disharmony, suspicion, fear, anger and hate. Of course, all the bad things that come out of that as a result too.

Understanding that melanin levels don't mean shit.

Not neccesarily.

Pillarisation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Buba]

As to the OP - no.
Not as done in USA or SA.

By sex and wealth/social standing - yes.

A tampon dispenser is about as useless to a man as a urinal is to a woman. Those two items are practically the only things a public restroom is guaranteed to not have both of.

Hey, you never know when your GF/SO needs one and you can become her White Tamp... Knight!

There are condom dispensers in lady restrooms. No, never been there, but female aquaintances told me about them.

 

[bintananth]

Hey, you never know when your GF/SO needs one and you can become her White Tamp... Knight!

There are condom dispensers in lady restrooms. No, never been there, but female aquaintances told me about them.

Condom dispensers in a women's restroom? Guess who wants some X-rated fun and doesn't want to deal with either an STD or a pregnancy afterwards.

 

[Buba]

Condom dispensers in a women's restroom? Guess who wants some X-rated fun and doesn't want to deal with either an STD or a pregnancy afterwards.

That's basically what my friends told me after I asked "Why? Whatever for?".
After first giving me the You So Dense look, of course

 

[bintananth]

That's basically what my friends told me after I asked "Why? Whatever for?".
After first giving me the You So Dense look, of course

If you want real fun, ask a woman who prefers to use men's public restrooms why she prefers the men's room over the women's room.

Her answer will not be "because the line is shorter".

Spoiler

The men's room is usually cleaner. A janitor - who has definitely seen some shit - can confirm this.