4 ms·

>The idea that you should be able to shield or blind yourself to content is a flat out stupid one. Honest question: Do you feel private organisations and comm

by CM30 8y ago

>The idea that you should be able to shield or blind yourself to content is a flat out stupid one. Honest question: Do you feel private organisations and communities shouldn't be able to kick out people they dislike? Because that's how almost all organisations and groups work, real life, internet or otherwise. Doesn't seem very unreasonable to say someone running a hobbyist club or sports team or business should be able to kick out someone they/the people involved can't get along with.

stcredzero 8y ago
Do you feel private organisations and communities shouldn't be able to kick out people they dislike? Because that's how almost all organisations and groups work, real life, internet or otherwise. Do you feel like people should be excluded because of their race? Their gender? Their age? Their sexual orientation? Their religion? Isn't that last one a choice according to a lot of people? People should be able to make intimate temporary spaces which will sometimes even be exclusionary. However, permanent places in the public sphere should not be exclusionary. When the majority of a society starts feeling free to push around a minority, this is when oppression happens. This is especially true when it comes to politics. People should have freedom of association, so long as it doesn't interfere with other's freedom to pursue happiness. Doesn't seem very unreasonable to say someone running a hobbyist club or sports team or business should be able to kick out someone they/the people involved can't get along with. Activists have been seen colluding online, planning to deny their political enemies their hobbies and pastimes. It's called, "No escapism," and it's just a stealth form of harassment for political purposes. In the end, progress is best served by welcoming differences, talking, and sincerely interacting. You don't fight hate by acting hatefully. If you can at all help it, you shouldn't try to reduce violence through violence. You don't increase the world's tolerance by refusing tolerance. Here's a good litmus test: Are the tactics you're proposing to use similar to the ones people used to use against gay people, or people of the "wrong" religion, or people of the "wrong" race? If so, then you're probably the villain in the story. Zu jeder Zeit und an jedem Ort bleiben die Taten der Menschen die gleichen.
- someguydave 8y ago
  >However, permanent places in the public sphere should not be exclusionary. How do you define "public"? > You don't fight hate by acting hatefully. Is excluding someone a hateful act?
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Is excluding someone a hateful act? It depends on how you do it. If it's of the same side, flying the same colors that wants to enact violence, then the other signifiers of hate can be read pretty reliably.
- throwaway8879 8y ago
  Private business are not "places in the public sphere" and should be exclusionary if they want to. You think the New York Times is going to publish something just because someone sends in their thoughts? It doesn't work that way, and neither should media on the internet.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Private businesses are absolutely places in the public sphere. If you pull your pants down in the middle of a Wal-Mart, are you not exposing yourself in public? YouTube, Twitter, etc. and similar public sites with predominantly public content are absolutely "in the public sphere", and definitely the modern analogue of the street corner you can shout your feelings in. We really no longer have the luxury of saying the government is the only entity that needs to respect your freedom of speech, and the law desperately needs to catch up with that reality.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      Don't try to approach the law axiomatically like that. You won't get anywhere. In this case, you have it backwards: the law doesn't start with a definition of "public place" and then attach conditions to it, but rather starts with conditions ("you can't lasciviously expose yourself in public") to which specific definitions of the word public space are attached. It does not therefore make sense to reason from "indecent exposure is illegal in a grocery store" to "here is a set of claims I can make on a grocery store as a public space".

by CM30 8y ago

stcredzero 8y ago

Do you feel private organisations and communities shouldn't be able to kick out people they dislike? Because that's how almost all organisations and groups work, real life, internet or otherwise. Do you feel like people should be excluded because of their race? Their gender? Their age? Their sexual orientation? Their religion? Isn't that last one a choice according to a lot of people? People should be able to make intimate temporary spaces which will sometimes even be exclusionary. However, permanent places in the public sphere should not be exclusionary. When the majority of a society starts feeling free to push around a minority, this is when oppression happens. This is especially true when it comes to politics. People should have freedom of association, so long as it doesn't interfere with other's freedom to pursue happiness. Doesn't seem very unreasonable to say someone running a hobbyist club or sports team or business should be able to kick out someone they/the people involved can't get along with. Activists have been seen colluding online, planning to deny their political enemies their hobbies and pastimes. It's called, "No escapism," and it's just a stealth form of harassment for political purposes. In the end, progress is best served by welcoming differences, talking, and sincerely interacting. You don't fight hate by acting hatefully. If you can at all help it, you shouldn't try to reduce violence through violence. You don't increase the world's tolerance by refusing tolerance. Here's a good litmus test: Are the tactics you're proposing to use similar to the ones people used to use against gay people, or people of the "wrong" religion, or people of the "wrong" race? If so, then you're probably the villain in the story. Zu jeder Zeit und an jedem Ort bleiben die Taten der Menschen die gleichen.

someguydave 8y ago
>However, permanent places in the public sphere should not be exclusionary. How do you define "public"? > You don't fight hate by acting hatefully. Is excluding someone a hateful act?
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Is excluding someone a hateful act? It depends on how you do it. If it's of the same side, flying the same colors that wants to enact violence, then the other signifiers of hate can be read pretty reliably.
throwaway8879 8y ago
Private business are not "places in the public sphere" and should be exclusionary if they want to. You think the New York Times is going to publish something just because someone sends in their thoughts? It doesn't work that way, and neither should media on the internet.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Private businesses are absolutely places in the public sphere. If you pull your pants down in the middle of a Wal-Mart, are you not exposing yourself in public? YouTube, Twitter, etc. and similar public sites with predominantly public content are absolutely "in the public sphere", and definitely the modern analogue of the street corner you can shout your feelings in. We really no longer have the luxury of saying the government is the only entity that needs to respect your freedom of speech, and the law desperately needs to catch up with that reality.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Don't try to approach the law axiomatically like that. You won't get anywhere. In this case, you have it backwards: the law doesn't start with a definition of "public place" and then attach conditions to it, but rather starts with conditions ("you can't lasciviously expose yourself in public") to which specific definitions of the word public space are attached. It does not therefore make sense to reason from "indecent exposure is illegal in a grocery store" to "here is a set of claims I can make on a grocery store as a public space".