“It is astonishing to see the pride of that such individuals taken in their embrace of gender or racial discrimination as a tool of social justice. They see no moral or legal problem with penalizing people due to the color of their skin or their gender. Instead, they foster the same blind stereotypes and prejudices that once segregated societies on these grounds. They learned the history but not its lesson.”
—-Blogging prof Jonathan Turley, writing about a Canadian director who has insisted that white, “cis” males pay a higher ticket price to see his film. It’s called “Justice Pricing.”
Observations:
1 Turley is wrong: there’s nothing astonishing about it, as I just explained.
2. Now we know there is a place for all the anti-democratic social justice warriors who would be very happy to see the U.S. establish unconstitutional “Justice Pricing,” “Justice Hiring,” “Justice Promotions,” “Justice Convictions,” “Justice Admissions,” “Justice Expulsions,” “Justice Taxing,” “Justice Elections,” “Justice Sentencing,” “Justice Justice” and more: Canada.
3. “Justice Pricing” is about as Orwellian as it gets, don’t you think?
4. And this is why culture wars have to be engaged, fought and won, as well as why no responsible citizen can afford to a conscientious objector to the battle.. This kind of stuff is cultural poison, spreading false and dangerous values that will rot democracy as surely as ground glass will kill a spaniel. Non-confrontational men who shrug this off by saying, “Eh, I didn’t want to see that movie anyway” are foolishly assisting in their own subjugation.
5. A classic, and classically unethical, libertarian analysis comes from one of Turley’s commenters:
“I fully support his economic liberty. He’s taken the financial risk on this project. It’s his creative output. He gets to decide how to market it and set the optimal pricing strategy.
This seems like a sub-optimal pricing scheme on its face. It will limit his access to a huge segment of the population. But that’s the price he pays for his freedom.
There is no coercion going on here. The product is not a “necessity”. White males can either: 1) accept his price; 2) re-negotiate mutually acceptable terms; or 3) walk away. It’s hard to see how rational white men – which obviously excludes social justice leftists – will vote with the dollars to enrich someone who hates them for being white. But it’s their money. It’s their choice.”
The “public accommodations” category does not only cover “necessities” narrowly defined. Your economic freedom doesn’t outweigh my right to the same opportunities to enjoy my life that anyone else has. Bars are not “necessary.” Candy stores are not “necessary.” Video game arcades are not “necessary.”
This fatuous position ignores that fact that the pricing scheme is unethical: divisive, abusive, biased, bigoted and denigrating. It’s wrong, as well as a dangerous slippery slope.
Ethics Alarms 
We’ll just see who gets the last laugh: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mzvz9OOqqdM
I’m not sure it’s Orwellian. Maybe just stupid, wrong, and unethical.
I now think you might have been making a general statement about justice pricing, if that’s case I retract my statement.
Orwellian in the sense of “War is Peace.” Injustice is justice.
Who says you can’t teach an old dog new tricks? I had to look up what exactly “cis gendered” means: “denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex.” My God, I’ve been cis gendered my entire life! Kind of like the way I’ve been speaking prose my entire life! But I guess I’m supposed to feel bad about the cis gendered thing. Dang.
They say that ‘the first step to being cured is admitting you have a problem,’ Bill.
Or is it ‘there is no dog like an old dog?’ I got those mixed up 🙂
The director is an idiot, and you and Turley are exactly right.
Do bars/clubs still do “girls drink free” nights or otherwise lower the price for women, or is that just a pop culture myth? That seems like it would be illegal under the same principle.
I think that went out with the disco era: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LjG7-5kbevo
Here you are, counselor: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/features/2011/should_ladies_nights_really_be_illegal_an_excerpt_from_richard_t/week_1/should_ladies_nights_really_be_illegal_an_excerpt_from_richard_t_1.html
Thanks, OB. That’s an interesting article. I agree the Mother’s Day lawsuit was frivolous. But discounts or cover waivers for women at bars/clubs isn’t even about chivalry or “female entitlement,” they’re about getting as many women drunk as possible. Good riddance.
I think that’s perhaps an uncharitable interpretation… It always seemed to me that ladies night was incentive for girls to come out, and that was incentive for guys to come out. I’m mean… What’s the benefit to bar management of giving away booze in order to deal with over-intoxicated patrons? But regardless of wither it was female entitlement or misogyny… I think we can all agree that it was a shitty practice.
I typed this from my phone…. What strange auto-corrects.
Good question. I think not.
I hope white males stay home in droves.
But as the Department of Justice pointed out in its recent amicus brief , ” the
business has already chosen to speak: The painting has
already been painted or the photograph already taken”.
This same rationale applies to making the film. The director has already made the film.
He’s not selling the film. He’s selling admission to a theater that is showing the film.
Furthermore since he doesn’t own the theatre wouldn’t the theatre be on the hook for libel?
li…bel…? Why?
More like a RICO violation. (Only Popehat fans will get this one.)
IT”S NEVER RICO!
I’m not sure how you think this proves your point, ME. A baker couldn’t charge a straight couple more than a gay couple for the same cake, either.
This is a variation on the theme of that stupid fad that started a couple of years ago where student groups had bake sales they charged male students more at. The difference is that it’s hard to take legal action over a quasi-impromptu bake sale and a theater is a much more stationary target. And as this ridiculous social meme ramps up to more and more mainstream establishments, the more solid the target on their back for legal action.
The answer to discrimination is not to discriminate in a different way.
But my point was that people who baked this have basically done exactly that… In fact, they’ve done it in a more clear way, because “gender” has generally stronger legal protections than “sexual orientation”.
I wonder how the people who complain about “affirmative action bake sales” taking place are responding to this…
Oh, wait, this time it’s being done by a leftist in the name of “social justice,” so it’s okay.
The double standard appears again. Yet those who complain of the double standard are somehow the bad guys.
If you’re wondering how you got President Donald Trump, this is one of the reasons why.
I wonder how the people who complain about “affirmative action bake sales” taking place are responding to this…
Oh, wait, this time it’s being done by a leftist in the name of “social justice,” so it’s okay.
They’re both wrong.
Right.
I am cis-patriotic and cis-Canadian, so perhaps related to theater and theater pricing as is the subject of this thread, I just wanted to share my “Justice lyrics” to part of the Star Spangled Banner – which I intend to sing in the event some abducting alien (an extraterrestrial from a space ship, I mean, not that “other kind” of illegal immigrant), or stray tsunami, coincidentally deposits me in the stadium just prior to kickoff of a Nabobs and Fuckheads League (NFL) game with that silly-shaped “ball” – I admit, these lyrics are politically incorrect, because they excise the traditional lyrics about rockets and bombs (lest we give too much glory to violence…):
And the assholes’ no-shows,
Kneeling quack politicos,
Gives proof here and now,
That to hell they shall go!
Jack, about that analogy for values that will rot democracy as surely as . . . . . . please get it out of my head.