3 ms·

doesn't it go both ways? if you flip both positions, it's also inconsistent.

SkyBelow 6y ago
I have to say I generally agree with you that when someone points out a contradiction in some common political stance, the reverse of that contradiction exists in the opposite stance. It seems pretty common, though it generally results from distilling a more complex view into a simplified statement (which may edge into the territory of creating men of straw).
- colpabar 6y ago
  >generally results from distilling a more complex view into a simplified statement couldn't agree more. it's so frustrating seeing this everywhere online. this isn't twitter, you can write as much as you want. I read comments online to try and understand other viewpoints, and I can't do that without substance.
ivanbakel 6y ago
How so? The first hypocrisy is the defense of the right of a business to make arbitrary decisions w.r.t. service (not bake the cake), while simultaneously demanding that the business not have the power to refuse service (condemning private censorship). The reverse position is not hypocritical in the same way, because condemning discrimination against customers on LGBT grounds is not at odds with censoring discriminatory speech - in fact, the two positions are aligned. You could try to argue that private censorship is itself a form of discrimination, but most people who hold the second position would not concede that the people who practice hate speech are a minority worthy of protection - so for them, no discrimination is occurring.
retpirato 6y ago
Google removing apps with spam/malware is one thing, & not something people would actually complain about. That also doesn't apply to removing the fediverse apps. They don't contain malware, they're simply alternative social networks. If they're going to remove them for having content they consider inappropriate or whatever excuse they're using, they need to remove other social media apps like facebook & twitter, because they certainly both have plenty of that too. Otherwise it just looks like an attempt to remove competitors to facebook/twitter. I also don't see what this has to do with a business refusing to make a cake. Businesses do have a right to refuse service. In this case if you're going to remove apps claiming they violate a specific violation, but don't remove other apps which will also inevitably be in violation the same way, it's reasonable for people to question it.

I have to say I generally agree with you that when someone points out a contradiction in some common political stance, the reverse of that contradiction exists in the opposite stance. It seems pretty common, though it generally results from distilling a more complex view into a simplified statement (which may edge into the territory of creating men of straw).

colpabar 6y ago
>generally results from distilling a more complex view into a simplified statement couldn't agree more. it's so frustrating seeing this everywhere online. this isn't twitter, you can write as much as you want. I read comments online to try and understand other viewpoints, and I can't do that without substance.

ivanbakel 6y ago

How so? The first hypocrisy is the defense of the right of a business to make arbitrary decisions w.r.t. service (not bake the cake), while simultaneously demanding that the business not have the power to refuse service (condemning private censorship). The reverse position is not hypocritical in the same way, because condemning discrimination against customers on LGBT grounds is not at odds with censoring discriminatory speech - in fact, the two positions are aligned. You could try to argue that private censorship is itself a form of discrimination, but most people who hold the second position would not concede that the people who practice hate speech are a minority worthy of protection - so for them, no discrimination is occurring.

retpirato 6y ago

Google removing apps with spam/malware is one thing, & not something people would actually complain about. That also doesn't apply to removing the fediverse apps. They don't contain malware, they're simply alternative social networks. If they're going to remove them for having content they consider inappropriate or whatever excuse they're using, they need to remove other social media apps like facebook & twitter, because they certainly both have plenty of that too. Otherwise it just looks like an attempt to remove competitors to facebook/twitter. I also don't see what this has to do with a business refusing to make a cake. Businesses do have a right to refuse service. In this case if you're going to remove apps claiming they violate a specific violation, but don't remove other apps which will also inevitably be in violation the same way, it's reasonable for people to question it.