4 ms·

Is it really useful to slap a left or right label on those examples? I heard plenty of uproar about all the "right" stories you referenced and all the response

Is it really useful to slap a left or right label on those examples? I heard plenty of uproar about all the "right" stories you referenced and all the response were the same as the "left" stories; "well, it's a free country and it's their right to do that but it's gonna offend some people and might ultimately be bad for business." There are organizations people tend to view as "above all that non-sense" until they do something stupid, then you see phrases like "very bad path", "slippery slope", "fine line". Then there are organizations people expect might take extreme stances on certain topics and no one is really surprised when they do it. People still talk about it when it happens but it quickly dissolves into something like "well, I'm never going to convince them what they're doing is bad and I was never going to buy their cake anyway. Best I can do is not be that way myself." If there's anything to polarize on it's probably reach of the organization. Actions by organizations that have no direct effect on most peoples lives won't get talked about for very long. When it's a organization that provides a global service with little competition, people get more concerned. But even reach isn't a good divider. Most organizations don't accomplish global reach without first promising things like equality and fairness, but some do, some even promise to do "bad" things. So maybe people's reactions to events like this are more about broken promises.

freehunter 9y ago
I'm trying to highlight two things: one this isn't "a bad path" that we're "starting on". We've been here for a long time. The second thing is, if you think this is "just starting", either you haven't been paying attention or you don't think those other things are a "dangerous path". Basically he's saying that a company refusing to do business with a white supremacist is crossing a line that was not crossed when gays, blacks, hispanics, or women had the exact same treatment. This amounts to one thing: if you're drawing your line in the sand at the persecution of neo-nazis knowing full well that gays, minorities, and women are on the "no protection" side of that line, you might be a neo-nazi yourself. There is no question on what type of outrage ptero is expressing. The only way to read that comment is that he's disappointed that people he agrees with are finally being persecuted.

freehunter 9y ago

I'm trying to highlight two things: one this isn't "a bad path" that we're "starting on". We've been here for a long time. The second thing is, if you think this is "just starting", either you haven't been paying attention or you don't think those other things are a "dangerous path". Basically he's saying that a company refusing to do business with a white supremacist is crossing a line that was not crossed when gays, blacks, hispanics, or women had the exact same treatment. This amounts to one thing: if you're drawing your line in the sand at the persecution of neo-nazis knowing full well that gays, minorities, and women are on the "no protection" side of that line, you might be a neo-nazi yourself. There is no question on what type of outrage ptero is expressing. The only way to read that comment is that he's disappointed that people he agrees with are finally being persecuted.