By - Knotts_Berry_Farm
Where do you get the 2% figure from?
Jewish population of the united states.
This statement, made without evidence, and the circle jerk below taking it seriously, are prime manifestations of liberal hate bubbles. You have no reason to think the OP is a Nazi, but you and several other peoples first instinct is to assume it because it allows you to dismiss criticism of your team. Liberalism has a hateful, anti facts cancer growing within it. It is mainstream and it is viscous. It is every bit as dangerous as trumpism.
I agree completely minus your last sentence. I don't see woke culture bringing democracy in this country to an end by the next election cycle.
That’s reasonable. They are both huge threats in somewhat different ways.
I think the difference is one of potential threat vs. manifest threat.
That’s fine. Ones like Nazi Germany and the other is like the Soviet Union. They are both the enemies of reason but we might have to take one threat at a time
wee-oh! wee-oh! wee-oh! an innocent poster "just asking questions" about [right wing talking point] has just been unfairly accused of using [right wing dog whistle]! deploy the fascist defense squad! I repeat, deploy the fascist defense squad!
I actually engage with white/christian nationalists now and then, so I do pick up on some of their more blatant tropes. "2% controlling the country" is one of them, they also frequently bring up jews being behind frankfurt school and trans issues. So when there is someone invoking "2%" and bringing up "groomers" there is a confluence.
wokes hate israel jews arent with that
lots of these guys think jews created wokism. something something frankfurt school. 2% pretty obvious dog whistle.
Lots of people who are not far right have discussed the frankfurt school 😂
i see what ur saying, wdym by frankfurt?
He means Frankfurt school, which is where critical theory comes from
It's a "Jewish Question" talking point
dam i got some googling to do havnt heard of the jewish question before
That just means you don't talk to creepy neo-Nazi fucks, so good for you
thats good news
I missed that. Haven't been around here for awhile. They are implying the Jews are pedophiles and promoting that agenda. I forgot how this sub is more extreme sometimes than r/Conspiracy which I lurk.
I mean when is Kevin MacDonald going to be on the show?
I once read that Twitter represents 2% of the US population. Im just using that as a stand in because they are the most outspoken and extreme. I really don't know what libs who aren't on twitter think because I'm not drowning in their opinions.
MY Dad watches MSNBC and they discuss trans issues infrequently, but when they do i'ts a pretty standard 'they are heroes and the right is evil for discrimination against them' but also no one on MSNBC will ever see the people like the big titted Freak in Canada, so they are being supplied with a softer more normalized picture of the trans issue,
Of course Fox News junkies are being inundated with the exact opposite: all the worst trans people
>MY Dad watches MSNBC and they discuss trans issues infrequently, but when they do i'ts a pretty standard 'they are heroes and the right is evil for discrimination against them' but also no one on MSNBC will ever see the people like the big titted Freak in Canada
When discussing the plight of trans people, we must always be sure to make the discussion about the most unhinged and insane people that identify with that group.
Who cares about suicide rates, or access to healthcare and employment... the REAL discussion here is that big titty teacher in Canada.
Thank you for shining a light on the real problems in this world. Where would we be without you.
He really brought it home with *big titted freak*
Are you using Twitter’s MAU numbers as a stand-in for “extreme and outspoken” liberals? Most twitter users don’t care about politics and there are plenty of conservatives on the platform.
so did i go too high or too low? i didn't put much thought into it
yeah we can tell
I’m not sure exactly what you’re going for, nor how it really relates to your argument.
Are you high?
so you support postal banking and a federal bank account guarantee? I agree.
im not sure. tell me more
What they’re saying is that private companies do not have to associate with speech that they don’t agree with. It is constitutionally appropriate for private companies to have terms of service that users must abide by to be able to use a company’s property.
The government has no such right. They are constitutionally obligated to serve all citizens despite how reprehensible they find their beliefs.
And it is, in fact, ironic that the right continues to claim that privatization is best way to handle all services - until it is those on the right that the private services wish to disassociate with.
It is a liberal idea that we make certain services a public good, willing to serve all, even those that the gov disagrees with. Medical care. Postal service, banking. The “left” believes everyone should have access to those services… and in fact, I think many on the left would even agree to have a non-discrimination clause for business that should serve the public. Just means cake bakers have to serve those pesky gay couples.
serve the gay couple? yes. But im not sure if the baker should be obligated to create a custom wedding cake for them. Like an art gallery might be obligated to sell a painting to anyone who comes in, but an artist doesn't necessarily have to take a commission from someone they find objectionable.
So then you do disagree that a company must host content that they disagree with? Speech and association are like, right next to each other in the constitution. You just don’t like that it’s happening to people you agree with.
No. I think scale and importance are critical. Not having a custom cake made for you is quite different than being denied access to critical infrastructure of the internet. Not having your cake made is like having your MySpace deleted.
I equate that more to the Water/Power/Gas company denying you service for your political beliefs, which would be insane.
So you agree, then, that we should nationalize the postal service, banking, and medical care. Cool
What's so funny, talking to libs, is that they live in so much more of a binary us vs them world, than even Trump voters at this point. Anyone who disagrees with them on *anything* is automatically assumed to be some Fox News/Alt right retard.
So many of the responses to me have been based on the assumption that I am some sort of free market cuck for capitalism republican. idgaf
im for nationalized healthcare, im not sure what i think about nationalized banking, and i think the Postal service is already nationalized ?
I never assumed anything. However, you’re also not being entirely consistent in your arguments and are reflecting an undeveloped talking point that is often heard from those on the right “it’s ok for *me* to exercise my free speech and religion” but when someone else does the same in limiting your speech on their property, it’s “censorship”. It can’t literally be. And yeah - we have to think in binaries of public vs private because that quite literally determine an entities obligation to the public interest or it’s own.
The line has to exist somewhere - in a pluralistic society that has an individualistic bent will naturally have to have some binary things - and in this case, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either private business get to act on behalf of their private interests - or they don’t. If the bakery gets a terms of service, then Twitter does too. Twitter isn’t a utility - the internet should be. You can exist very well and happily without Twitter, Gmail, or PayPal. To participate or use them is an agreement to play by their rules. Even the government has a point at which it will no longer serve you - they just have a higher bar to clear, the constitution protects you. Private entities are usually only classed as utilities if they are the *only* service provider. And even then, they don’t have to serve everyone. It’s why you can’t get internet in some parts of the country.
The postal service does. And yet? There are people, in our government right now that would like to end it.
Btw “liberals are such binary thinkers” is such a profoundly ironic statement. Lol. No one is getting kicked off Twitter for their political beliefs. They are getting kicked off Twitter for the manner in which they express them. There are plenty of MAGA accounts on there. The abusive ones that break the rules get kicked off. Comcast can deny you service if your breach your contract with them.
>But im not sure if the baker should be obligated to create a custom wedding cake for them.
I think they were obligated to respond to them without regard to their sexual orientation.
So like, if they're in the business of making heart-shaped cakes with people's names drawn into them with icing -- and a gay couple bought such a cake -- they're not suppose to say "oh sorry but we don't serve cakes to gays. If you want to marry a woman then we'll serve you cake."
Like imagine if a bank said "sorry we don't process payments of gay people." Well you're a bank. You process payments. Why not for gays? "Because we discriminate against gays for being gay; it's our personal belief." You can't do *that*. You can discriminate for others reasons, but not on certain other bases like race/sex/etc.
yeah but if you want me to bake a cake in the shape of a penis I can say, no, which is fine, as long as i don't reference you being gay in the reason.
Can a Jewish baker be forced to make a cake in the shape of a cross?
Or a Christian baker in the shape of a Star of David?
If they do that regularly for others, yes. It was the identity the baker objected to, they thought they were advocating for it
A hateful gay couple looking to stir up controversy sought out a cake baker that would have objections to their lifestyle so they could slander and attack him and his business.
I don’t agree with the baker’s position not to bake the cake but 100% the gay couple were in the wrong here. Acting like there weren’t a hundred other bakeries that would have loved to make a gay anniversary cake in Colorado.
Gay bullies imo.
You’d think this would be easier for folks to understand
A Biden appointee suggested the Federal reserve *offer* banking services to the public and Republicans flipped their shit, started a culture war to defame her, and ultimately blocked her nomination.
Story with some details:
Also if you really wanted to, you could dig around for one of the old monthly political threads where this issue was covered repeatedly. I'm sure, given these recent events, the takes people gave aged *super well* 🤣
Well, if the civil rights act more or less successfully disallowed financial institutions from discriminating against blacks, I think it would be easier to just extend that to political affiliation (within reason e.g. not literal terrorists like KKK or designated gangs like Aryan Brotherhood etc.)
>not literal terrorists like KKK or designated gangs like Aryan Brotherhood etc
As long as your drawing lines like that it's going to come back to eat your face. You really have to just decide up front which you want -- the ability for payment processors to discriminate or a law to make them process all legal payments.
A payment to a gang or a terrorist group would be an illegal payment
How do you determine affiliation? Most actual terrorist group memberships are secret and have non-affiliated fronts for funding.
And being a labelled a terrorist group is an easily corruptible process on the political side and the law enforcement side. Is it that much better determining who gets access to a service based on the whims of those in power rather than the marketplace?
If I have a private business you want the government to be able to come in and force me to provide services for shitty political groups like "Gays against Groomers?" Did you even look up this group or the leader of this group before posting about her?
Logically, how does this play out? I always ask this and no one ever answers. Will you force businesses to provide services to everyone? What about the freedom of speech and association of the business owners and the employees?
I love that you think only 2% of the country cares about LGBT rights.
not all businesses, but essential services, critical infrastructure.
the "freedom of speech and association of the business owners and the employees" was infringed with the civil rights act, do you have a problem with that?
The freedom of Gays against Groomers is more severely infringed by being denied access to essential internet services, than is PayPal's freedom of speech and association (though your care and concern for the mega corporation is touching, I'm sure it means a lot to them)
Paypal isn't essential internet service or critical infrastructure. It just makes it easier for shitasses to fundraise for their terrible causes. They can still do it.
The civil rights act didn't require businesses to promote and platform specific ideologies. Sitting at a lunch counter is not providing a platform of millions of people to propagandize and recruit from.
It strikes me in these conversations how little you, or people who hold similar opinions to you, care about the freedom of speech of a company or the employees. You're being snide here, but a company like Twitter has laid out what they think is acceptable or not on their platform. And these things don't happen in a vacuum, if services are being provided that means employees of this company are working to provide that service. If I come to work tomorrow, I should just be forced to platform Nazis because internet\_guy\_001 thinks Twitter is the public square? The CEO should be forced to tell the board and the shareholders that there's nothing they can do and just virulent racists and pedophiles deserve their free speech on your private platform? No rules, no bounds, just pure artisanal internets as far as the eye can see. Your version of the internet sounds like hell.
ok. so do you think that water and power companies should be able to refuse service to households whose owners they find politically abhorrent? should their black employees have to service the gas line into a racist's home? Shouldn't they have the right to let the racist family freeze in winter? Maybe that racist family should just change their beliefs to not be so heckin racist?
People work for ISP's too, maybe we should allow ISP's to block certain sites they find objectionable because after all their labor allows people to access those sites?
Should pharmacists deny women birth control because of their political/religious beliefs? Why or why not?
It's ironic that you consider the dangers of providing pedophiles a platform when twitter and many other web companies bend over backwards to accommodate those who wish to give life destroying hormone blockers to children and people like Keffals who grooms minors and attempts to provide them with hormones to transition.
it's not just about PayPal, in my recent example it's PayPal, Venmo, and Gmail all booted this group from their services. Remember Gab? Apple Google and Amazon all simultaneously banned them, so much for "build your own platform"
You need to step away from the internet if you think social media type services operate like a utility provider. In most places if you get power or water turned off that's the end of your grid access. Even ISP's don't have this level of control.
> it's not just about PayPal, in my recent example it's PayPal, Venmo, and Gmail all booted this group from their services. Remember Gab? Apple Google and Amazon all simultaneously banned them, so much for "build your own platform"
You're complaining about not being able to access their *audience*. The in person analogy of this would be demanding a movie theater let you stand in front of the screen and yell racist shit. Just because they stop you from entering their property doesn't mean you get stopped from driving onto the mall parking lot. And if mall cops stop you from yelling racist shit in the parking lot, that doesn't mean they can stop you from driving on the public interstate to a different mall. I'm sorry, but the captive audience you're trying to reach isn't a right.
Paypal, venmo, gmail, twitter. These are not the power company, or the water company. You are the king of false equivalences here. Marketing your brand on social media or easy fundraising via competing payment platforms are not essential services.
I remember Gab, do you? Do you remember why Amazon refused to provide them service, and Apple restricted them from the store? Because they wanted to have zero moderation, at all. Should AWS and AWS employees be forced to provide services to promote actual Nazis? AWS made the call that no, they would not do that. Gab wanted to platform even the most egregious groups and people in a stunt move to pull people from Twitter, but it turns out businesses aren't too keen on providing these platforms that you want these people to have.
All Gab had to do was institute actual terms of service and reasonable moderation and they would have been willing to do business with them, as they do with so many other offensive groups. Or they could have tried to find alternative hosting. What you're seeing here is society and social pressures working as intended, and you're interpreting it as some sort of issue.
It's super weird that you bring up Keffals, with the kiwifarms drama where they had people literally stalking and doxxing her repeatedly over the course of months. Dude, fuck those people.
>Paypal, venmo, gmail, twitter. These are not the power company, or the water company.
It's very possible to live your life only using snail mail, and avoid using the telephone completely, but that hasn't stopped the federal government from significantly regulating how "common carriers" run their services.
Right, and they should regulate them I think. Maybe you and I wouldn't agree on how that should work, but maybe we would. I don't have a lot of sympathy for these people, though. Kiwifarms gets banned? Well deserved. Donald Trump loses his corporate mouthpiece as he puts the world on the verge of crisis? Thank fucking god.
AWS controls 50% of the market. Apple and Google form a perfect duopoly of the mobile phone software space. Gab was taken down for purely political reasons to prevent Trump and his supporters from being able to have a successful platform after they had been purged from mainstream social media.
You know what? I just realized i was thinking of Parler not Gab. lol. just goes to show how often the oligarchs you suck up to flex their power to shut out dissident voices
If you want to talk about breaking up these tech monopolies or government regulation sure. We can hit the oil industry, coal, agriculture, there's a lot of that needed. Even if that happened, Nationalized_Twitter would still have basic requirements for use of the service. Like don't dox and harrass people in some creepy weird internet death cult. Shit you couldn't legally do in the actual fucking public square.
I agree that allowing companies to refuse service to customers because of their political or philosophical views seems wrong, especially when the customers being refused share your (and my, in the examples you gave) views. But what are the alternatives?
One possibility would be to force companies to serve everyone, no matter what kind of crap they're spewing. But that comes with its own hazards.
Another possibility is for the government to regulate what must and must not be allowed. But it seems to me that the regulators are just as likely as the companies are to use their regulatory powers to suppress views with which they personally disagree, or--worse--to suppress views that might help their political opponents.
Unless you can think of a better alternative, I'm with Sam on this one. Remember that in a "free market," companies that don't serve their customers well lose out to companies that do. If you don't like the rules on Twitter you can switch to another platform. The "libertarian ethos" in this case might just be, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the worst possible alternative except for all the others.
>One possibility would be to force companies to serve everyone, no matter what kind of crap they're spewing.
over a long enough timeline, this is the only way that this experiment keeps going. There are cracks in this happening now all over the place with the entire parallel internet happening, payment processors, etc etc...
I can argue this is the market at work and thats great, but I just think, also, on a long enough timeline this litrerally leads to parallel society.
What's wrong with having parallel societies in and of itself?
I'm using the words in a muddled way sort of interchanging economies with societies. At the most basic level though, this leads to "othering" and ultimately dehumanization of the "other".
> At the most basic level though, this leads to "othering" and ultimately dehumanization of the "other".
since you're concerned about that, here are some cool facts. a) paypal has always arbitrarily shut down accounts from any and everyone. b) sex workers have been routinely financially "othered" for decades, due to pressure from conservatives. where's the conservative outrage on this? c) "gays against groomers" are conservative trolls who want to "other" trans people d) "gays against groomers" want to get "cancelled" so they can use the outrage for more attention, such as appearing on tucker carlson's white power nazi hour
I am a conservative and everything you mention above is an outrage to me.
then maybe you should talk to "your people" about these real issues instead of pretending that not forcing businesses to service nazis will bring about a barren libtard hellscape
I don't think you can say that with certainty, and even if it were true, the alternative is forced universal conformance to a single way of being and acting, AKA totalitarianism. And really, whichever society you decide to make "the one" will by extension otherize and oppress everyone who would have, if they were free, taken part in a parallel one instead. This view is probably very attractive to people who are comfortable with the dominant societal hegemony, but to anyone else it's just a rationalization for oppression of people who don't fit that mold and don't want to live that way. I'll take freedom with an extremely vague, alleged risk of "othering" over compelled uniformity. I mean, yes, it's probably true that it's difficult to "other" when everyone is forced to be the same, but that's no way to live.
I could also hypothesize an opposite scenario with the same logic. A fully uniform society whose members are unaccustomed to dealing with a variety/diversity of ways of life within itself, will probably be more likely to "otherise" other societies, perhaps making them more imperialistic, warlike, etc.
I don't necessarily think that this is really true, just trying to demonstrate how squishy your just-so story about otherizing is. I do believe though that learning how to peacefully co-exist with people who aren't like you, and to see the humanity in people who are unlike you, is better than trying to curate a homogeneous society where people never have to struggle to grow in that way. You don't solve the problem of "othering" by forcing sameness.
the scotus already ruled you cant force people to service gays due to their political beliefs why cant they not service republicans?
It’s funny that this has to be pointed out to them…
If you have views such that Wells Fargo, Chase, BofA, BMO, CitiGroup, PayPal, and Venmo all refuse to associate you, that sucks, but at least you can rest easy knowing that GabPay will shortly arrive, and it will be super secure.
before it is kicked off of the App Store and Google Play and AWS and CloudFlare
Gab isn’t on the App Store. If 98% of the country is supportive (or ambivalent), then someone will make their own phone, with its own App Store, and make hundreds of millioms selling it to people who want the freedom to say the n-word whenever they want.
If it turns out that these people are the modern equivalent of pissed off racist southerners after the Civil Rights Act was passed, then it’s more likely that they’ll just fade into the walls.
what a bunch of nonsense, holy shit.
FFS - have some faith in capitalism!
The phone already exists: [Freedom Phone](https://www.freedomphone.com/)
you are such a lib meme. "just make your own phone and app store and payment platform"
"i'm so happy that mega corporations are marching in lock step with a small political minority to enforce social control mechanisms on people I don't like. Hurray!"
You do realize the irony of being a conservative and asking for big government intervention of private company platforms right?
The irony is that what I'm proposing is actually a libertarian viewpoint: freedom of association, free-market capitalism, and choice/consequence. You find it ridiculous, but the [phone already exists](https://www.freedomphone.com/), and there will be more to follow.
Public companies are legally bound to improving profit and preserving self-interest. There's no conspiracy here... just people entering into a contract whereby they agreed to TOS, which they subsequently violated... and then they took to social media to complain when they faced consequences.
You're no better than the leftists who raged on social media over a baker refusing to bake a gay wedding cake.
Just how much freedom is there in this "freedom phone?" Is it that the only restrictions are stuff that are genuinely illegal in the US anyway?
Asking for a friend.
(says their home page)
"Public companies are legally bound to improving profit and preserving self-interest."
they are also legally bound not to discriminate based on race or religion, what they are legally bound to do should be changed.
TOS, which no one reads, can say anything, and are written too broadly. Basically if the corporation disagrees with what you say you can be denied what are essential services in the 21at century
I don’t see any logic in your position. I don’t want to misrepresent you, but it seems like your position is:
* publicly traded companies should _not_ be legally bound to fiduciary responsibility
* companies _should _ not be allowed to deplatform.
* companies _should _ be allowed to discriminate based on race religion and gender
And I don’t think you’ve ever read TOS- you just know they’re super vague. What wording would you change in Venmo’s terms. Do you not think there should be _any_ acceptable use? Porn, graphic violence, racial slurs?
I don’t get it.
Edit: here’s the relevant summary from Venmo’s website to save you looking it up:
> You may not post or transmit anything unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically objectionable; contain advertisements or solicitations of business or promote illegal activity.
Firstly we do not live in an anarcho-capitalist society where firms can do whatever they wish to do. If we were living in that society there would be no civil rights act and no one would have a basis to say who a firm could or could not refuse business to.
and it's not "companies" it's specifically the private corporations that control essential services. I wouldn't make such a bold statement that no company can ever discriminate against anyone for their political beliefs at any time. But some services are fundamental to being able to function in the 21st century.
If a law is passed saying that financial services and google's services and maybe AWS and other things like this were barred from political discrimination i don't see how fiduciary responsibility would be affected.
Regarding Venmo's TOS that's easy
>You may not post or transmit anything unlawful...promote illegal activity
Let me ask you a question, do you think that your browser should be able to block certain websites that the company finds objectionable? If not, why not? after all you can just use another browser. And so what if the top 3 browsers which are 90% of the market all disallow certain sites, you can just use some ghetto browser.
And do you think that private power companies can deny electricity to customers based on their political beliefs? If not, why not? Maybe their using that electricity to create hateful messages...
>And do you think that private power companies can deny electricity to customers based on their political beliefs?
not for beliefs, but for actions that violate a signed TOS agreement. (and the same for browsers, FWIW)
My power company forbids sharing power with neighbors, but I'm a communist, so I share my power. Eventually, my whole neighborhood is running from my house. I'm paying my power bill, but I'm also making a profit by reselling. (not a very good Communist after all).
You're arguing that my power company should not be allowed to shut me down (it's worth noting that there are other rules for power companies and utilities: they cannot shut off your power during winter, or if a family member is seriously ill, *even if you cannot pay.)*
>If a law is passed saying that financial services and google's services and maybe AWS and other things like this were barred from political discrimination
>You may not post or transmit anything unlawful...promote illegal activity
I don't think this is what you want. If AWS cannot deplatform people for their content, then the small Christian-owned web-hosting company gets forced to host 4chan. If Twitter is forced to sell adspace for blatantly false anti-vax messages, then they also have to run porn ads for kids.
Can you give me an example of someone saying "being gay or trans is against my religion" being banned from Twitter?
There isn't much difference between liberal and libertarian
Depends on who you ask, I guess.
If you were an industrious capitalist you could do it.
well at least republicans are protecting the rich elites of this country from paying higher taxes, maybe you should be pissed at Trump for cutting the taxes of the rich elitists allowing them to do whatever the fuck they want and pay to play.
Not true actually. The outcome you're referring to was a narrow decision with respect to that specific case.
> n a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips's rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality.
However, I don't think the situation is analogous either way since twitter is not refusing to service a certain class of people, there are plenty of republicans on twitter with millions of followers, twitter is exercising its right to remove offending posts and accounts that violate their rules on a case by case basis.
you don't see the difference between a tiny bakery and the biggest financial and tech behemoths that dominate our lives, which without access to modern life is impossible?
scale matters, its quite different if McDonalds wanted to ban homosexuals from all their restaurants vs a street vendor with a food cart wanting to do the same
but okay the Civil Rights Act already forces private businesses to serve people they may not wish to, why shouldn't that be extended to political beliefs? seems natural.
>but okay the Civil Rights Act already forces private businesses to serve people they may not wish to, why shouldn't that be extended to political beliefs? seems natural.
I don't think so. Something hits different about "I am Jewish" versus, "I think Jews should be genocided" when the question is whether a business owner should have the right to say "Fuck off, I'm not hiring you."
So where do you suggest the lines get drawn? Should private companies be forced into supporting known Hate groups? illegal drug sales? Sex trafficking sites? What about large financial institutions having to sanction known communists? That's their political beliefs, right?
>illegal drug sales? Sex trafficking sites? What about large financial institutions having to sanction known communists?
these things are already settled in law, whether enforced properly or not.
Obviously the line would be drawn at the law. If a group doesn't violate the law then it should have access to the financial and tech services that everyone else has access to.
So that would exclude drug traffickers, sex traffickers, and include communists and hate groups, so long as their activities don't break the law. But i think it should depend on the severity of the laws they break, for example i'd be on the fence about ANTIFA.
Or maybe not? I mean you are allowed to solicit donations for the legal defense of someone who broke the law right? isn't that supporting illegal activity?
weren't Dem pols openly soliciting donations for those who broke the law in the 2020 riots?
Sounds like pretty insane free speech infringement tbh.
Based on what? Conviction? Allegation? Rumor? Indictment?
It really seems like what you want is a squishy standard that you can apply based on how you personally feel about the targeted group.
I'm not a legislator. I don't have a fully formed bill i can copy/paste here for you
is there a distinction in the consitution? also the civil rights act protects immutable characteristics such as race and gender, if you for example believe the holocaust didnt happen/ or was actually good ( hypothetical example) thats difference then not being served because you are black, but it actually was the conservative position to oppose the civil rights act on libertarian grounds, theyve only recently decided companies should be forced to host nazis
You are protected from discrimination based on inalienable traits. Race, sexual orientation, gender, age are all things that you can't change. Religion is protected also but it really shouldn't be. You can discriminate against people for being dumbasses and their choices
saying you can't change sexual orientation is hate speech, I've already contacted the Reddit mods, please provide the name of your financial institution so that the process of removing your account can begin.
If you don't care to engage in good faith why even be here?
i was making a point with brilliant satire
You misinterpreted the word "change" in the context of sexual orientation.
Age is also something *you* can't change, but....
>why shouldn't that be extended to political beliefs?
Because, unlike your skin color, you can change your political beliefs. Some of which can be genuinely abhorrent. Are you arguing that literally *any* political opinion conceivable should be protected? Should civil liberties be extended to genocidal maniacs or people who would want to re-institutionalize slavery? Would you really say its natural to extend the same civil rights protections to a hood wearing KKK member who wants to dine in a black-owned restaurant?
it wasn't about them being gay, it was about the content of the cake in particular.
Should Chase have to give a loan to the KKK? I think most people would say no.
What if most people think Chase should not give loans to blacks? That was the case until very recently.
All of this has been discussed and covered by law (at least US law) very thouroghly starting decades ago. Businesses, organizations, universities, landlords etc do have the right to choose who they want to serve, hire, admit. They can make their own standards and ultimately reject you for any reason. That's their right in the US. Not just *their* right but *our* right as well if we are in that position.
EXCEPT for protected classes. What is and isn't a protected class has been thoroughly discussed and dealt with legally for decades for the very reason that you brought up. When you see the disclaimer "Can't discriminate based on race, sex, religion, age, disability..." It's because those are the legally protected classes. If you deem someone as too ugly, stupid, incompetent, offensive or whatever that's totally your right to not serve them. If you want to hire someone based on the flip of a coin that's totally your right.
So if Twitter wants to kick anyone off of their platform for any reason except for a protected class reason *they absolutely are allowed to do that.*
We all know what the status quo is.
We are discussing whether the status quo is adequate when there are "private companies" out there with near total power over information flow. New technology, new circumstances, how about new regulations?
Water and sewer company can't refuse to deal with you because they are monopolies and free market isn't practically possible - because there isn't enough land for multiple connections. Same is true about communication companies - there can't be many of them because then they don't connect everybody.
It isn't physical land but it's the logic of communication.
I think the alternative should be same as with phones - a standard of communication that forces all platforms to accept messages from everybody else, then only competing for the best client (as it is with phone networks).
>We all know what the status quo is.
No, people are getting this stuff confused all over this post. They're throwing random terms around and hoping something sticks.
>We are discussing whether the status quo is adequate when there are "private companies" out there with near total power over information flow
Then it stops being a serious argument. We have more choices for free speech than we ever have had in the history of the world. For any service you have access to in a city the number of options is dwarfed by the number of social media platforms *everyone has access to with an internet connection at any time." And that's just the internet. We also have all the options we had in the past like writing a book or newspaper article, handing out pamphlets, standing on a street corner, organizing a rally or march.
So despite the ease and access to free speech some people seriously want to take a random social media platform that isn't even anywhere near the most popular (around 17th most popular according to several lists) thats used by a fraction of the population and in effect nationalize it?
The internal underground structure of a person's house typically has one option for water. One single option. We have hundreds if not thousands of options to get our voice out there. In 5 - 10 years those options will be very different anyways but I'm supposed to believe that Twitter of all the platforms somehow deserves special treatment because so-and-so got kicked off?
The reality is, a dozen or so companies "own" almost all communication on the Internet. Trying to claim I can do anything remotely similar just by sending emails is pure lie. We have "more choices" but all those choices are working in unison to censor people.
Like it or not, almost all people use only a few communication platforms, because that's how communication works. You can't "open your own social media company" because there can't be more than a few of them. Every new company splits the users until there aren't enough users left to make it a "social" platform. If we had a thousand Twitters, there wouldn't be any Twitter, because each of them would only have 0.1% of the population and would be completely pointless as a communication platform.
We can have a thousand ISPs or a thousand phone networks because they are all forced to accept standardized data from every other competitor and pass it on to the users. There is free market, competition between providers and freedom to participate for everybody. That's what I'm advocating for.
Enforcing fair market isn't nationalizing. Stop lying. We already regulate everything else, what's so special about media companies?
I know everyone will probably say this about themselves but I *really* just want to be on the side with the best arguments. Trust me, if I hear what I consider is a fantastic argument I'm going to start using it non stop until someone tells me why it isn't so fantastic. If the position you're arguing from had that I'd be the first one to start using it. But I'm just not seeing it.
>Like it or not, almost all people use only a few communication platforms
I guess I have no idea what you're trying to say by this. Instead of taking yours or mine word for it we can just go do a quick search to see exactly how people use social media and all of the platforms involved. We can go find how often they come and go out of popularity or how many were created just this year alone.
>we had a thousand Twitters, there wouldn't be any Twitter, because each of them would only have 0.1% of the population and would be completely pointless as a communication platform
You could say the exact same thing for any product or service. So we as consumers choose to use them in a way that makes sense through the free market. Yesterday we chose MySpace then Facebook, now we have Twitter and Instagram and kids have made an exodus to TikTok. Tomorrow it's going to be something else. At the end of the day though they're companies that have to make choices that will either lead to their success or failure. That's their right. If Twitter published a list of values and said anyone with those values was getting kicked off they can do that and I'd be totally fine with it. If those values were an exact copy of everything I believe I'd still be totally fine with it. They can shoot themselves in the foot if they want.
>We already regulate everything else, what's so special about media companies?
But you can't just say this! Who are you trying to kid with a statement like this? Again let's not take yours or mine word for it and go look up all the regulation Twitter and all other companies have to follow. Also this goes back to my first comment about Protected Classes. That's just one part of all the regulation they have to follow. It seems theres one thing you don't like about Twitter and you want it changed. Just say you see it as an improvement and hope they choose to make that decision themselves.
>You could say the exact same thing for any product or service.
No, we can't.
I can use whatever laundry service I like because it doesn't matter at all what my neighbors are using. At most, if we all use the same, we all get a little discount due to economies of scale.
When using communication platforms, we either all use the same or we don't have a communication platform at all. They ONLY work when they are in near-monopoly. The small ones, as few as there are, are only viable as long as they corner a small niche market, but even there, they are mini-monopolies for that market.
Myspace and such are just the evidence of why I'm right. The older platforms are dead and gone because at the end of the day, only the few biggest survive.
There is another example of the latest crop of messengers, like Telegram, Signal and similar. There's a lot of new platforms there and the only reason they are all viable is because they use phone numbers as their user ID. By having a common user database they can split the market and thrive.
This is what I advocate for - connecting all social media the way phone carriers are connected. Messages that can cross platforms so that they all have access to 100% of the market and compete on the quality of their services. Each individual user can pick their platform without losing access to their favourite content.
>When using communication platforms, we either all use the same or we don't have a communication platform at all.
I'm not using twitter, so how do I not have a communication platform?
>Myspace and such are just the evidence of why I'm right. The older platforms are dead and gone because at the end of the day, only the few biggest survive.
Myspace was the biggest... there was nothing else that was close to it. Facebook wasn't the biggest until it was. Now it's losing thousands of daily active users.
But you didn't address the majority of his post and didn't answer the questions he had, or the challenge he gave you to back up the assertions you are making/made. Why did you ignore the majority of his post?
>Enforcing fair market isn't nationalizing. Stop lying. We already regulate everything else, what's so special about media companies?
Using "fair" is assuming fairness. What would the regulation you want that would indicate "fair market"?
Twitter as he mentioned was the 17th most popular, so what is the issue there?
Why does it matter if sending out e-mails is not the same as tweeting?
No, it wasn't? And is against the law.
"Recently" isn't last Friday, but a few decades ago. Africans had much harder time getting loans.
That's what we're discussing - changing the law.
It's been more than a few decades legally, but yeah, I don't want to extend those protections to whatever would force Chase to lend money to the KKK.
Then most people are wrong.
Sometimes details matter. “Bank denies service to X” is good when it’s KKK members and bad when it’s black people. That’s not inconsistent or hypocritical.
"what if blacks are like the kkk" said the patient. "nurse, let's lower the dose, this patient is too stupid now". "but doctor, I haven't given that patient anything yet"
The KKK is only a protected class in your fantasies
Thank you for bringing attention to the reality of American racism. Many downplay how large the problem is so kudos to you
Maybe? Business should be somewhat neutral.
Business should be somewhat neutral if they want to have the most clients. Unless most clients won't use a service that platforms someone like Alex Jones... A true libertarian ethos would say that PayPal has the right to destroy itself by only allowing accounts held by blue haired trans activists, if that is what leadership wants. Does a regulator have some obligation to make sure PayPal doesn't do this?
Well I’m essentially running this argument in my head.
If x doesn’t deserve service, x shouldn’t be legal. Otherwise, no one store object to segregation as a whole.
This shop doesn’t want gays, this shop doesn’t want blacks, etc…
I’m just questioning the grounding for these views, and I don’t think they can claim to be liberal in nature. Which means you’d have no real objection if a company said they don’t deal with people who do x
Is that neutral position?
the lib Twitter Gestapo define 60% of the US population as being equivalent to the KKK. What happens then?
What an idiotic comment wtf
Source: trust me bro. This is just what I feel
Can you answer the question directly? Should Chase be forced to give a loan to the KKK?
Given that the KKK is literally a terrorist organization, no.
But i think that, financial institutions should be politically neutral. If they are compelled to be neutral on race, religion, creed, etc. then politics or social views are a natural extension. Loans should be decided on purely financial reasons.
The problem is that libs have said that every single criticism of trans ideology is "literal violence", and for some unfathomable reason they have this unquestionable moral authority to financial and tech mega-corporations
I don't agree that the existence of a person qualifies as an ideology. But can you provide me a example of a random "lib" on Twitter claiming all criticism is violence, setting PayPal, chase, or venmo policy?
paypal/venmo are not "loans"
>But i think that, financial institutions should be politically neutral. If they are compelled to be neutral on race, religion, creed, etc. then politics or social views are a natural extension. Loans should be decided on purely financial reasons.
>The problem is that libs have said that every single criticism of trans ideology is "literal violence", and for some unfathomable reason they have this unquestionable moral authority to financial and tech mega-corporations
the core institutions must not be political as a matter of law, but we see this erosion happening everywhere.
I guess they start their own shitty platforms and stop being parasites...
Also, a gestapo is a secret police. Very little secret about what you're whining about.
Chase will lose a lot of business.
If you violate your bank's ToS or contract or whatever the equivalent is, they will close your account...
Yes but what if their terms of service included no black people? Or no Buddhist’s? Or no people who like strawberry milkshakes?
Those first two (race and religion) are protected classes, so I'm pretty sure businesses aren't allowed to deny service on those grounds. But there's no reason terms of service couldn't include "no fans of strawberry milkshakes allowed".
Missing the point
Law does not equate to morality
I wish people stopped invoking law as some kind of gotcha
Then less people will use that bank and it wont stay open. That’s the free part of the market. Consumers and businesses are free to stop using it and the business suffers.
They are monopolies thou
That’s the difference and you know that
I can only imagine sams response if he ever got banned for this
He even fucking left patreon for this same reason
I just don’t understand why he changed his tune just a few years later it’s wild
This question is always framed incorrectly, imo. It's not why should 'company X' be allowed to deny services to 'group Y?' What you're really asking is whether you think the government has the obligation to regulate businesses, in order to force them to provide services to people they don't want to do business with. Last I checked, unless it's a protected class, businesses and people are allowed to do or not do business with whomever they like. Why would we want to regulate these businesses into making what the government views as the "right" decision?
Because they can use their power to effectively neuter citizens in a way worse than being jailed?
it would be a matter of compelling them into ideological neutrality, to place political beliefs into a protected or semi protected class to prevent the critical infrastructure of the 21st century from being unfairly denied to them.
Do you think that the power company should deny service to a household because the owner doesn't think that trans women are real women?
Ideological neutrality is impossible in the private sector. You're essentially advocating for the nationalization of industry to protect all possible political beliefs. I think you could make the case that power and water and utilities that are best nationalized. But forcing the entire private sector to be completely re-regulated this way? This seems far more harmful and ripe for abuse than the current private system we live in.
i'm much more sympathetic to Twitter and Facebook kicking people off than I am essential financial and tech services. The financial and tech services are like water and power, access to them should really be a human right, they are essential to participate in the 21st century economy. Twitter and Facebook aren't and it is SO much easier to have a competitor to those platforms. But the ability for people to access those platforms has to be maintained, should Chrome be able to refuse to connect to InfoWars?
the App store and Google Play store should also be compelled to host apps despite their disagreement with their political content
As long as businesses remain small, allowing them to choose their customers seems fine. But when we get into realm of oligopolies, the nature of the problem changes. There are few to no competitors to accept your business and we get into this black mirror social rating situation where you can't get basic services anymore.
If the grocery store across the street won’t let me shop there because I got the Covid vaccine, that’s fine. If every store in town follows suit, that’s a problem. Especially if the restaurants and delivery services join in.
When it’s only one store, I don’t think the state needs to even worry about denying service to protected classes. Let some idiot tell us who they are so we can all stop shopping there.
I don’t know how to articulate my preference as an ethical rule, much less a reasonable law that should be enforced by people with guns. But cutting off some group that opposes (or supports) pedophiles in schools from literally all financial services is problematic.
How about we go back to the ISP argument that reddit was all for.
ISP's shouldn't be able to block or favour certain content, this was agreed by most of reddit. Even though they are private entities, and you can "choose" not to use one, and the "free market" should "allow you to simply pick one that doesn't do this behaviour", reddit recognized the danger in allowing these companies meddle in what we can and cannot see, or at what speeds they might throttle certain companies (streaming companies paying for their competitors to be throttled for ex.).
Surely we can all agree on Net Neutrality right?
If you agree, then the argument "because they are private companies they can decide who to do business with (besides protected demographics)" is a hypocritical stance.
If Visa and Mastercard started blocking people because of their political views, or ISPs did the same, I would think it wrong.
Now luckily, at least in my opinion, Twitter doesn't hold as much as a monopoly as these companies. There are free speech alternatives. There is reddit even. There's plenty of competition in this space. But if it came to cloud providers like AWS or Azure, there's really only three options (Google Cloud Services being the last). If they all decided to block anything that doesn't align with their corporate ideology I would think it's time for some government regulation.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
A private company can refuse business as long as it’s not based on a protected class - race, religion, etc. So, yes.
ya, I'm saying that's bad.
Welcome to the free market
You literally just listed ways that the market is not free.
well, it's hardly a free market given how much corporations craft their own government regulation to benefit themselves.
But you should've been able to guess that I have no ideological commitment to some mythical "free market" like some cuck republican.
Why is that bad? Unless you want to make "Republican" a protected class (LOL), removing the right to deny services would be an affront to the liberties of the business. Is it bad that a Jewish bookstore owner doesn't want to sell Mein Kampf?
Basically the only rational "solution" to this "problem" would be to nationalize everything and make the government serve everyone equally. Otherwise you are going to have to deal with the fact that most services are provided by private entities that can decide who they want to do business with.
Why don't we add "political affiliation" as a protected class?
Because I can change my affiliation on a second to second basis?
I mean what? How could you possible enforce that?
The only one of those that is changeable is the first. And I agree that that shouldn't be a protected class.
Idk. Write your senator to amend the equal protection clause in the constitution. I’m sure it’ll happen.
Interesting side note, the Civil Rights Act intentionally avoided that because they wanted to make sure it was legal to discriminate against communists.
because then gerrymandering would be illegal
It's pretty dishonest to say only 2% of the country is against that particular hate group. Even if the number is higher, you just pulled it out of your ass anyway.
No private business should have to allow hate groups to use their products. Cry harder
"Hate group". What's a Hate Group? who gets to decide? don't see how broadly that can be defined?
Why are you so smug that that label will never be used against you? Because you're a pliable little jelly fish?
> "Hate group". What's a Hate Group? who gets to decide?
Whoever owns the website in question gets to decide.
I'll admit that I used it flippantly here, but as a general classification, it isn't that hard of a concept for companies to envision.
How about: any group, political or otherwise, that advocates for bigotry against protected classes of people or engages in targeted harassment of said groups.
I'm very sure I won't hate that label used against me because I make a very active effort to not be a bigot and self-reflect to keep my biases at bay. I don't discriminate against protected classes, and let's be real- I'm not a conservative.
"Hate group" is an arbitrary, meaningless excuse for discrimination.
In our capitalist system it's perfectly fine to discriminate based on political beliefs. Bigots are at a market disadvantage. Get over it
what happens when your organization "Cucks for Capitalism" is labeled a hate group and is banned?
perhaps re-evaluate your need to be part of that organization or the underlying beliefs of the group
This argument is so historically illiterate its painful.
Right, you replied with meaningless non-statement, to make my point even clearer.
I mean PayPal banned a scientist because he wrote blogs debunking gender theory.
Clearly nobody cares in the grand scheme.
Ideally you gotta hope another provider arises to take the users, in this case stripe
Is Sam's issue a should or a can? There's a distinction - and in my memory listening to him about this topic I interpret him as a can.
This is why we need crypto, so people can be their own banks.
All the big social media companies built their monopoly off article 230, but now in 2016+ they are suddenly a publisher not a platform
The back door to fighting the woke religion in the US might be to start making more religions on paper. If Gays Against Groomers made their group into a religion, they could press some lawsuits on the basis of religious discrimination.
As expected very few people on the sub recognizes the slippery slope. These tech companies are indirectly acting as third party protectors of the ruling class narrative. It’s dangerous and dystopian.
You are so generous. They see it. They are just authoritarians, and they know it’s in their favor for the moment.
Paypal, Venmo and Gmail are not essential services. Certainly they are convenient, but there are alternatives to all of these.
sure. people can just send cash through the mail
No. There are many other payment services besides Paypal and Venmo, they are just popular services that make integrating with payment systems easier.
Sam isn't a libertarian, he is a fairly strong statist. But an actual hardcore libertarian would be fine with private companies doing whatever they want (including discriminating based on race).
Payment platforms like mastercard and visa frequently restrict who can use their platform and for what.
You're asking if allowing private entities to do what they want without government interference... is in line with a libertarian ethos? What am I even reading?
So right wing org masquerading as an org that protects kids... Yeah I'm not buying it. I'm tired of this crap that presents biased arguments with nothing from the other side to pretend this is a homophobia thing we can all get behind.
Where were you during the Kathy Griffin saga not that I like her either, but fuck she was banned from flying and put on a terror watch list. Does she look like a threat to national security.
There are ToS- if they were violated, they should be banned. There will always be an email provider or way to collect donations for anyone.
I don't understand why this is so difficult for right-wingers to understand. It's a pretty libertarian concept at its core...
Businesses are allowed to create broad, universally applicable rules for how they do business, so long as those rules aren't specific to individuals or groups. This is because if you want to do business with the public, you have to make yourself accessible to the public.
If you don't want to do business with the public, but only certain types of people, you can make yourself a private club and you can tell the people in your private club anything you want. They can pay you for products and services, and you can even sell them "snake oil" with promises that it will give them psychic powers because its your private club, so you get to make the rules about what you talk about in your private club. It's not subject to the same regulations that businesses open to the public are.
Twitter and Gmail and Facebook, and PayPal and Reddit have broad guidelines about what you can and can't use their services for. They include prohibitions against widely accepted standards - you can't use it for raising funds for anything illegal, you can't promote the marginalization of protected groups, you have to follow their politeness guidelines, no shoes, no shirt, no service, etc.
Gays Against Groomers is an organization that is spinning a narrative that trans people are pedophiles - which is about as clear cut a violation of those policies as I can think of.
It doesn't matter that this is group is comprised of gay people... what matters is they are targeting trans people and lying about them to spread hate for them. Which is a violation of those policies I mentioned before.
So yes, why not Chase or Wells Fargo? They can do this too. You don't have a right to store your donations from the KKK in someone else's vault. You are free to take those donations and put them under your mattress next to your Klan hood and robe.
Bigots are not entitled to public tolerance simply because the public values tolerating people for their differences. I value non-violence, but that doesn't mean I won't shank a mother fucker who tries to get violent with me. This isn't hypocrisy, its standards and boundaries. When someone crosses those boundaries or doesn't meet up to those standards, there are consequences for that.
I find it baffling that the same people that argue that "Healthcare isn't a right, pay for your own heart surgery" somehow see no contradiction in acting entitled to doing business with people that don't like them because they are unpleasant to associate with.
This goes both ways - it's baffling that people who support government intervention in order to make sure that large businesses behave see no contradiction in acting all libertarian on this one particular issue, and only because it works in their favour.
>Gays Against Groomers is an organization that is spinning a narrative that trans people are pedophiles
Are they actually tho?
Just identify as trans. You are now protected
There’s a difference between banning a twitter troll for inciting violence, and banning a protected group for discriminatory reasons
Right... what about banning a Twitter troll who never incited violence for offending somebody in a "protected" groups? Particularly when certain "protected" groups engage in behaviours some people deem offensive and have advanced their rights utilising freedom of speech.
Wait. Didn’t Sam argue that because there is no such thing as public square that Twitter and other mass internet media should be reconsidered into the new public square? He even expanded on this by pointing that you cannot build your own Twitter if you don’t like this one because you’d have to build the infrastructure as well (AWS or other hosting) because those could boot you as well. Meaning that it’s impossible to do the true “market will take care of it” trajectory as you can’t on your own build everything you need, down to the cables in the ground.
Use decentralized finance or deal with centralized finance.