7 ms·

This isn't so much a case of allowing a baker to make a gay wedding cake, as that's discrimination. This is more like the bar kicking out an unruly patron, whi

This isn't so much a case of allowing a baker to make a gay wedding cake, as that's discrimination. This is more like the bar kicking out an unruly patron, which is a terms-of-service violation. It's a big distinction, unless you want to argue that discrimination is ok.

Jonnax 6y ago
The idea that was put forward by the Repuican party is that people had a right to refuse service. I'm not arguing that discrimination is okay. But the RNC did argue that. So it's entertaining to see.
DaniloDias 6y ago
I don’t follow your logic. 70m Americans are represented by the RNC. Your metaphor breaks immediately.
- locopati 6y ago
  are you sure that those 70m are who the RNC represents?
- DaniloDias 6y ago
  Downvotes here sadden me. If you insist on dehumanizing people you disagree with, violence is the only destination. We have got to stop demonizing people who don’t share our perspective. The outcome is predictable, avoidable and undesirable. Maintain the current course and you will pull everyone over the cliff with you.
  - confidantlake 6y ago
    I get downvoted all the time, I never threaten violence over it. It may sting the ego a bit but come on man, it is just internet points.
    - DaniloDias 6y ago
      That is not what I was expressing. I am observing that this censorious behavior will predictably lead to others using violence. 70 million Americans voted for trump. How do you expect them to respond to this censorship? We have got to find a way to get along. Those who leverage their power this way will create the outcome they claim they want to prevent.
      - heyoni 6y ago
        There’s a time for getting along, and now is absolutely not that time. The fact that 74 million voted for Trump, who is inciting violence against our democratic process means that this is the time to choose a side. It’s been forced upon us and the dust is far from settling. This is NOT a slippery slope or censorship, jfc...to do nothing at this point is unfathomable.
        DaniloDias 6y ago
        Are you calling for violence against them???
        heyoni 6y ago
        No. Is that what you’re getting from my comment?
        DaniloDias 6y ago
        Yes? What possible solution is there for 74m people who you disagree with that have to have something done to them? You said “to do nothing is unfathomable.” If the solution is to rob them of representation, what the hell are they going to resort to????
        heyoni 6y ago
        And violence is the only thing you can think of in a thread about a cms revoking services to said opposition? That’s all I meant. If you’re American, you have to pick a side. Do you condemn or condone? No one is sitting around going like “I feel like they had some good points but I donnu”. This is bigger than covid, and at some point, at this point in my opinion, we have to make a decision. We either nip this in the bud now or watch it get worse. And if you work at Twitter, that might mean pushing to ban Trump for the last four years. Some tech savvy individual went and reverse engineered Parler’s API and archived 96% of public content. All this in the hopes that it’ll dissuade any further escalation. And if that isn’t a good enough explanation, then maybe people are just fucking tired of enabling or doing business with people they consider to be deranged and dangerous. I realize you want everyone to come together and find some compromise or common ground but like, where do we even begin? There was no election fraud. Not even Trump’s lawyers could utter those words in court, because they understood that repeating their clients’ overt lies could get them disbarred. I genuinely think that the stop the steal is run by opportunistic leeches who prey on the mentally ill. And that taking away their platforms on private social media might actually give us the pause we need for a peaceful transfer of power. No one should be forced to bake a cake at gunpoint and no one should be forced to go to work on making an online platform work for people we (and the law) view as terrorists. That’s my rant. You can disagree with all of if you want, but you can’t argue with individuals not wanting to go to work for other individuals. Whether it be Salesforce or Twitter or Facebook...they chose to do something and frankly, those who are worried about this potentially happening to them need to realize how bad what happened at the capitol was, and how rare it is. There’s no slippery slope here.
prepend 6y ago
I think it’s like a bar kicking out a patron saying “they weren’t adhering to our values.” The bar can certainly refuse service to anyone, but if they act in such a manner they will affect their clientele. And then imagine there’s only three bars (aws, azure, gcp) and if you get thrown out of the bar, you die (go out of business). I don’t think this is where we are now, but I think this is a step toward this dystopian state where corporate bureaucracies make these decisions. I think the real risk is that amidst banning all the clearly bad people, they will also convenience ban anyone they like since it’s impossible to audit since they have information. It’s kind of like not being able to do discovery in a lawsuit.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  A large part of the reason there are only 3 large "bars" (ignoring the fact that there's no need to use cloud computing to run a service, it's merely convenient) is that the RNC had worked hard for decades to protect the financial moats of large wealthy businesses.
  - prepend 6y ago
    While this may have some poetic justice for the RNC, my concern is how this will be used on others where there is no poetic justice. I think there is also a principle of rule of law where the law must apply to law breakers as well. The police shouldn’t be allowed to violate the 4 amendment for assholes and criminals. Not because they don’t deserve it, but because it results in injustice for innocents.
bobthechef 6y ago
You're presuming something that baker does not agree to. The baker views gay marriage as morally wrong or even an absurd notion. Punishing him because he has moral objections that you disagree with by framing it as a matter of "discrimination" (understood as bigoted treatment) is to ignore that his motives and perceptions may involve no bigotry at all in his view. Soapboxy post scriptum: This is what I dislike about these "neutrality meta" discourses. "Neutrality" is ultimately just another word for "common ground", but the less common ground you share, the less of this neutrality there is to work from. Now, in this case, your characterization of the baker's actions as "discrimination" is completely opposed to his view of his actions, but you presuppose your characterization as an element of this neutral common ground by which we can judge him. From his point of view, he may see this as an act of virtue. He may even see this as an act of love for the gay customers by communicating to them that their relationship is illicit and self-destructive. Indeed, that would be the traditional view. If someone's an alcoholic, you might kindly inform them for their own good. So not only do I see little point in pretending to a false neutrality, but you can't both reduce everything to a mere matter of interpretation and opinion, a plurality of incommensurate views, and then turn around and elevate your view as the neutral one. Either there is a truth of the matter about which we may disagree but which can in principle be resolved reasonably or which can be tolerated, or there is no truth of the matter and it's all at bottom merely a matter of power and accident. In which case, it seems a little silly and contradictory to hold the latter and simultaneously express moral indignation at someone who is behaving in accordance with his own views. You only get to do that, maybe, if you believe there is a truth of the matter to which this other person is bound but egregiously violating. But if you believe you're right, or you love the truth and believe that it can in principle be known, have a humble and sincere desire to know it and a willingness to discuss and consider and respectfully argue, as well as the courage to humbly accept conclusions that would put you at odds with others you would rather not be at odds with, then it should be possible to arrive at some measure of agreement. I think it is much better to start there with the hope that over time we can make progress, not through force but through reason, rather than to give up on the possibility.

Jonnax 6y ago

The idea that was put forward by the Repuican party is that people had a right to refuse service. I'm not arguing that discrimination is okay. But the RNC did argue that. So it's entertaining to see.

DaniloDias 6y ago

I don’t follow your logic. 70m Americans are represented by the RNC. Your metaphor breaks immediately.

locopati 6y ago
are you sure that those 70m are who the RNC represents?
DaniloDias 6y ago
Downvotes here sadden me. If you insist on dehumanizing people you disagree with, violence is the only destination. We have got to stop demonizing people who don’t share our perspective. The outcome is predictable, avoidable and undesirable. Maintain the current course and you will pull everyone over the cliff with you.
- confidantlake 6y ago
  I get downvoted all the time, I never threaten violence over it. It may sting the ego a bit but come on man, it is just internet points.
  - DaniloDias 6y ago
    That is not what I was expressing. I am observing that this censorious behavior will predictably lead to others using violence. 70 million Americans voted for trump. How do you expect them to respond to this censorship? We have got to find a way to get along. Those who leverage their power this way will create the outcome they claim they want to prevent.
    - heyoni 6y ago
      There’s a time for getting along, and now is absolutely not that time. The fact that 74 million voted for Trump, who is inciting violence against our democratic process means that this is the time to choose a side. It’s been forced upon us and the dust is far from settling. This is NOT a slippery slope or censorship, jfc...to do nothing at this point is unfathomable.
      - DaniloDias 6y ago
        Are you calling for violence against them???
        heyoni 6y ago
        No. Is that what you’re getting from my comment?
        DaniloDias 6y ago
        Yes? What possible solution is there for 74m people who you disagree with that have to have something done to them? You said “to do nothing is unfathomable.” If the solution is to rob them of representation, what the hell are they going to resort to????
        heyoni 6y ago
        And violence is the only thing you can think of in a thread about a cms revoking services to said opposition? That’s all I meant. If you’re American, you have to pick a side. Do you condemn or condone? No one is sitting around going like “I feel like they had some good points but I donnu”. This is bigger than covid, and at some point, at this point in my opinion, we have to make a decision. We either nip this in the bud now or watch it get worse. And if you work at Twitter, that might mean pushing to ban Trump for the last four years. Some tech savvy individual went and reverse engineered Parler’s API and archived 96% of public content. All this in the hopes that it’ll dissuade any further escalation. And if that isn’t a good enough explanation, then maybe people are just fucking tired of enabling or doing business with people they consider to be deranged and dangerous. I realize you want everyone to come together and find some compromise or common ground but like, where do we even begin? There was no election fraud. Not even Trump’s lawyers could utter those words in court, because they understood that repeating their clients’ overt lies could get them disbarred. I genuinely think that the stop the steal is run by opportunistic leeches who prey on the mentally ill. And that taking away their platforms on private social media might actually give us the pause we need for a peaceful transfer of power. No one should be forced to bake a cake at gunpoint and no one should be forced to go to work on making an online platform work for people we (and the law) view as terrorists. That’s my rant. You can disagree with all of if you want, but you can’t argue with individuals not wanting to go to work for other individuals. Whether it be Salesforce or Twitter or Facebook...they chose to do something and frankly, those who are worried about this potentially happening to them need to realize how bad what happened at the capitol was, and how rare it is. There’s no slippery slope here.

prepend 6y ago

I think it’s like a bar kicking out a patron saying “they weren’t adhering to our values.” The bar can certainly refuse service to anyone, but if they act in such a manner they will affect their clientele. And then imagine there’s only three bars (aws, azure, gcp) and if you get thrown out of the bar, you die (go out of business). I don’t think this is where we are now, but I think this is a step toward this dystopian state where corporate bureaucracies make these decisions. I think the real risk is that amidst banning all the clearly bad people, they will also convenience ban anyone they like since it’s impossible to audit since they have information. It’s kind of like not being able to do discovery in a lawsuit.

alisonkisk 6y ago
A large part of the reason there are only 3 large "bars" (ignoring the fact that there's no need to use cloud computing to run a service, it's merely convenient) is that the RNC had worked hard for decades to protect the financial moats of large wealthy businesses.
- prepend 6y ago
  While this may have some poetic justice for the RNC, my concern is how this will be used on others where there is no poetic justice. I think there is also a principle of rule of law where the law must apply to law breakers as well. The police shouldn’t be allowed to violate the 4 amendment for assholes and criminals. Not because they don’t deserve it, but because it results in injustice for innocents.

bobthechef 6y ago

You're presuming something that baker does not agree to. The baker views gay marriage as morally wrong or even an absurd notion. Punishing him because he has moral objections that you disagree with by framing it as a matter of "discrimination" (understood as bigoted treatment) is to ignore that his motives and perceptions may involve no bigotry at all in his view. Soapboxy post scriptum: This is what I dislike about these "neutrality meta" discourses. "Neutrality" is ultimately just another word for "common ground", but the less common ground you share, the less of this neutrality there is to work from. Now, in this case, your characterization of the baker's actions as "discrimination" is completely opposed to his view of his actions, but you presuppose your characterization as an element of this neutral common ground by which we can judge him. From his point of view, he may see this as an act of virtue. He may even see this as an act of love for the gay customers by communicating to them that their relationship is illicit and self-destructive. Indeed, that would be the traditional view. If someone's an alcoholic, you might kindly inform them for their own good. So not only do I see little point in pretending to a false neutrality, but you can't both reduce everything to a mere matter of interpretation and opinion, a plurality of incommensurate views, and then turn around and elevate your view as the neutral one. Either there is a truth of the matter about which we may disagree but which can in principle be resolved reasonably or which can be tolerated, or there is no truth of the matter and it's all at bottom merely a matter of power and accident. In which case, it seems a little silly and contradictory to hold the latter and simultaneously express moral indignation at someone who is behaving in accordance with his own views. You only get to do that, maybe, if you believe there is a truth of the matter to which this other person is bound but egregiously violating. But if you believe you're right, or you love the truth and believe that it can in principle be known, have a humble and sincere desire to know it and a willingness to discuss and consider and respectfully argue, as well as the courage to humbly accept conclusions that would put you at odds with others you would rather not be at odds with, then it should be possible to arrive at some measure of agreement. I think it is much better to start there with the hope that over time we can make progress, not through force but through reason, rather than to give up on the possibility.