5 ms·

Actually, I think we should take into account who we're doing business with when we do business. Make the world a better place: Support good people doing good t

Actually, I think we should take into account who we're doing business with when we do business. Make the world a better place: Support good people doing good things.

sparkie 8y ago
That kind of thinking is why black people would be given seats at the back of the bus. You really need to stop making judgements about people.
- chasing 8y ago
  No, I would choose to avoid people and companies who support such racism. But thank you for playing the role of "guy who argues in bad faith." I think we're done, here.
- jsutton 8y ago
  Making judgements about people with whom you're doing business with based on their values and actions is perfectly fine. What isn't fine is making those judgements based on identity or on a general swath of people.
- tptacek 8y ago
  That is a fatuous argument. You could make precisely the same argument about people who shun child molesters. People who shun white supremacists are not the same as white supremacists.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    It's a different argument, because child molestation is a heinous crime, but white supremacy is in itself, not a criminal offence. Certain behaviours which may manifest as a result of white supremacy may be criminal. We have legal systems which can deal with accusation of crimes. If you suspect somebody to be a child molester, you can report them. The legal system makes the judgement. It also prevents you from falsely accusing somebody of molestation if you do so without evidence or reasonable motive. The same legal system should apply to anyone being or claiming to be white supremacist. Their action is not a crime unless they are inciting crime (ie, calling for racial genocide). If the latter is the case, then they should be prosecuted following the due process. Witch hunting is not due process. I also think the same legal process should be applied to the far-left, who are frequently falsely accusing people of something they are not. Unfortunately, most people do not have the resources to fight anonymous twitter trolls for libel. This case with Sargon can be seen as a pretty good example of your argument falling apart. He is frequently labeled as some kind of alt-right white supremacist, when it is precisely this he denounces publicly. (Yes, his words were not the most appropriate, but words are meaningless without context. Patreon specifically ignored the context.) What has become of the left, is not that they're shunning white supremacists, but they are shunning anybody that they perceive to be a white supremacist. A whole different story. If you have loose definitions like "hate speech", then it is justified to take down anyone you perceive to be your political opponent according to your standards. Another example case was the witch hunt against Kavanaugh. It seems the left are determined to dismantle the idea of due process and putting people before judge and jury for the sake of virtue signalling and social "justice" (an oxymoron).
    - tptacek 8y ago
      I could not be less interested in any debate on an HN thread than I am in the one about whether injustices were done to "Sargon of Akkad" and Justice Kavanaugh. People who shun white supremacists are not morally equivalent to white supremacists.
      - sparkie 8y ago
        > People who shun white supremacists are not morally equivalent to white supremacists. I'm not suggesting anything of the like. In fact, I will join you in shunning white supremacists, as I would shun supremacists of any race. When "shunning" becomes more than denunciation, but taking action to unperson people and have them fired, cut off their finance, and make false accusations about their peers, I draw the line. If you want to keep believing in the moral superiority of that kind of social justice, be my guest.
      - chasing 8y ago
        Brett Kavanaugh is so oppressed they only gave him a lifetime seat at the top of one of the three branches of our government, ensuring him several decades of making decisions which will impact all Americans. A great injustice.
    - chasing 8y ago
      From which subreddit are you picking up these rather questionable opinions about how the law does and should work?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

Actually, I think we should take into account who we're doing business with when we do business. Make the world a better place: Support good people doing good things.

sparkie 8y ago

That kind of thinking is why black people would be given seats at the back of the bus. You really need to stop making judgements about people.

chasing 8y ago
No, I would choose to avoid people and companies who support such racism. But thank you for playing the role of "guy who argues in bad faith." I think we're done, here.
jsutton 8y ago
Making judgements about people with whom you're doing business with based on their values and actions is perfectly fine. What isn't fine is making those judgements based on identity or on a general swath of people.
tptacek 8y ago
That is a fatuous argument. You could make precisely the same argument about people who shun child molesters. People who shun white supremacists are not the same as white supremacists.
- sparkie 8y ago
  It's a different argument, because child molestation is a heinous crime, but white supremacy is in itself, not a criminal offence. Certain behaviours which may manifest as a result of white supremacy may be criminal. We have legal systems which can deal with accusation of crimes. If you suspect somebody to be a child molester, you can report them. The legal system makes the judgement. It also prevents you from falsely accusing somebody of molestation if you do so without evidence or reasonable motive. The same legal system should apply to anyone being or claiming to be white supremacist. Their action is not a crime unless they are inciting crime (ie, calling for racial genocide). If the latter is the case, then they should be prosecuted following the due process. Witch hunting is not due process. I also think the same legal process should be applied to the far-left, who are frequently falsely accusing people of something they are not. Unfortunately, most people do not have the resources to fight anonymous twitter trolls for libel. This case with Sargon can be seen as a pretty good example of your argument falling apart. He is frequently labeled as some kind of alt-right white supremacist, when it is precisely this he denounces publicly. (Yes, his words were not the most appropriate, but words are meaningless without context. Patreon specifically ignored the context.) What has become of the left, is not that they're shunning white supremacists, but they are shunning anybody that they perceive to be a white supremacist. A whole different story. If you have loose definitions like "hate speech", then it is justified to take down anyone you perceive to be your political opponent according to your standards. Another example case was the witch hunt against Kavanaugh. It seems the left are determined to dismantle the idea of due process and putting people before judge and jury for the sake of virtue signalling and social "justice" (an oxymoron).
  - tptacek 8y ago
    I could not be less interested in any debate on an HN thread than I am in the one about whether injustices were done to "Sargon of Akkad" and Justice Kavanaugh. People who shun white supremacists are not morally equivalent to white supremacists.
    - sparkie 8y ago
      > People who shun white supremacists are not morally equivalent to white supremacists. I'm not suggesting anything of the like. In fact, I will join you in shunning white supremacists, as I would shun supremacists of any race. When "shunning" becomes more than denunciation, but taking action to unperson people and have them fired, cut off their finance, and make false accusations about their peers, I draw the line. If you want to keep believing in the moral superiority of that kind of social justice, be my guest.
    - chasing 8y ago
      Brett Kavanaugh is so oppressed they only gave him a lifetime seat at the top of one of the three branches of our government, ensuring him several decades of making decisions which will impact all Americans. A great injustice.
  - chasing 8y ago
    From which subreddit are you picking up these rather questionable opinions about how the law does and should work?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]