5 ms·

You are absolutely correct. They don't have to do anything they don't want to. But do you really believe this is the only thing they will censor? This is a ca

You are absolutely correct. They don't have to do anything they don't want to. But do you really believe this is the only thing they will censor? This is a canary dying, it's indicative of the problems that are coming, and it's going to be more and more censorship, until finally you object to something for real. But because you didn't defend other's speech, there will be nothing left to do.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> But do you really believe this is the only thing they will censor? This is how free societies work. Everyone has the freedom to assemble--and not assemble--with whomever they choose. We have protected classes for lines one cannot draw. But an essential part of democracy, going back to the Athenians, is the public's freedom to associate--and transact--with people of their choosing, and being able to associate--or not associate--on the basis of political views.
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  I get it, and I agree. But it's unevenly applied set of rules that I take issue with. Other businesses censored their products but because it was something the masses didn't want censored, that business was mercilessly attacked.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > it's unevenly applied set of rules There are no rules. That’s freedom of assembly. GoFundMe is free not to do business with anti-vaxxers. You are free not to do business with them for that decision. Everyone decides what matters to them and acts on it to their own accordance. When there is consensus, it cascades and may even prompt the creation of a new protected class.
    - RobertRoberts 8y ago
      >There are no rules. There are lots of them. >...it cascades and may even prompt the creation of a new protected class. Eventually there will be a protected class that you absolutely object to. And then it will be too late to alter the way they are created.
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > it will be too late to alter the way they are created People forming an informal consensus, organizing and getting a bill passed is fundamental to the democratic legislative process.
tombert 8y ago
Would you be supportive of a campaign to hire a hitman to kill Donald Trump? I hate Donald Trump and even I would support that being taken down. Would that make me some tyrant that's trying to destroy free speech? Of course not; I don't think it's right to kill people, simple as that. Anti-vaxxers kill people by reducing herd immunity. I think that's wrong, I wouldn't platform that. To have the Orwellian nightmare that you're describing, you'd really have to have a governing body performing this, and to have them disallowing you from building your own. Now, if the credit card processors were blocking anti-vax stuff, I think you'd have a point, but as it stands it seems like you're just falling into a slippery slope that doesn't exist.
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  You have a few valid points. But the way this topic is discussed is that if you even _question_ vaccine safety you are a complete nutter. The fact that companies don't want that label is evidence that vaccine safety is not being discussed rationally, but with a mob mentality. This is how I think we end up with 1984, through mobs and irrationality, not thoughtful discussion.
  - tombert 8y ago
    I understand your point (and please don't take this the wrong way) but of course there is no thoughtful discussion for this nonsense. Debating against people with absurd, unproven, and dangerous claims does nothing to help the legitimate sciences, but works depressingly well at lending credibility to the erroneous claims. If I were to make the claim that "all kale is radioactive" and that "there's a strong link between eating kale and growing tentacles out of your brain" without providing any evidence of this in the academic literature, you almost certainly wouldn't "debate" me on this, and you'd probably make similar points to the ones I'm making. I'd then fire back with "if you even _question_ the radio-kale theory you are a complete nutter". I might even exclaim "see, they won't even debate me on the kale question! They're trying to censor me! ORWELL!!!"

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> But do you really believe this is the only thing they will censor? This is how free societies work. Everyone has the freedom to assemble--and not assemble--with whomever they choose. We have protected classes for lines one cannot draw. But an essential part of democracy, going back to the Athenians, is the public's freedom to associate--and transact--with people of their choosing, and being able to associate--or not associate--on the basis of political views.

RobertRoberts 8y ago
I get it, and I agree. But it's unevenly applied set of rules that I take issue with. Other businesses censored their products but because it was something the masses didn't want censored, that business was mercilessly attacked.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > it's unevenly applied set of rules There are no rules. That’s freedom of assembly. GoFundMe is free not to do business with anti-vaxxers. You are free not to do business with them for that decision. Everyone decides what matters to them and acts on it to their own accordance. When there is consensus, it cascades and may even prompt the creation of a new protected class.
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    >There are no rules. There are lots of them. >...it cascades and may even prompt the creation of a new protected class. Eventually there will be a protected class that you absolutely object to. And then it will be too late to alter the way they are created.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > it will be too late to alter the way they are created People forming an informal consensus, organizing and getting a bill passed is fundamental to the democratic legislative process.

tombert 8y ago

Would you be supportive of a campaign to hire a hitman to kill Donald Trump? I hate Donald Trump and even I would support that being taken down. Would that make me some tyrant that's trying to destroy free speech? Of course not; I don't think it's right to kill people, simple as that. Anti-vaxxers kill people by reducing herd immunity. I think that's wrong, I wouldn't platform that. To have the Orwellian nightmare that you're describing, you'd really have to have a governing body performing this, and to have them disallowing you from building your own. Now, if the credit card processors were blocking anti-vax stuff, I think you'd have a point, but as it stands it seems like you're just falling into a slippery slope that doesn't exist.

RobertRoberts 8y ago
You have a few valid points. But the way this topic is discussed is that if you even _question_ vaccine safety you are a complete nutter. The fact that companies don't want that label is evidence that vaccine safety is not being discussed rationally, but with a mob mentality. This is how I think we end up with 1984, through mobs and irrationality, not thoughtful discussion.
- tombert 8y ago
  I understand your point (and please don't take this the wrong way) but of course there is no thoughtful discussion for this nonsense. Debating against people with absurd, unproven, and dangerous claims does nothing to help the legitimate sciences, but works depressingly well at lending credibility to the erroneous claims. If I were to make the claim that "all kale is radioactive" and that "there's a strong link between eating kale and growing tentacles out of your brain" without providing any evidence of this in the academic literature, you almost certainly wouldn't "debate" me on this, and you'd probably make similar points to the ones I'm making. I'd then fire back with "if you even _question_ the radio-kale theory you are a complete nutter". I might even exclaim "see, they won't even debate me on the kale question! They're trying to censor me! ORWELL!!!"