4 ms·
If banks and a score of major tech companies independently decide not to do business with someone, maybe that someone is the problem.
by ssalazar 6y ago
If banks and a score of major tech companies independently decide not to do business with someone, maybe that someone is the problem.
- whatthesmack 6y agoI don't doubt that it could be used as a hint among other points, but doesn't that approach scream "tyranny of the mob"? How often in the past has a minority view been objectively right and a majority view been wrong? For example, Galileo was accused of heresy due to his belief that the Earth revolved around the sun. The "maybe that someone is the problem" view would say Galileo was the problem.
- robertlagrant 6y agoHistory is full of people whose thinking stopped at "no smoke without fire". Those people are still here today.
- joshuamorton 6y agoThe free market argument is that it isn't tyranny of the mob. It's tyranny of the market. The companies are responding to market forces, which implies that so many people are concerned that it's actually a democratic push of people voting with their wallets.
- MrBuddyCasino 6y agoThere was a time when many businesses refused service to blacks and jews. By our logic, that would have been right and proper. As a bonus, I'll just add this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
- ssalazar 6y agoNot my logic. Refusing service to someone based on their sexual orientation, religion, or color of their skin is a very different moral proposition than refusing service based on facilitating the subversion of the democratically elected government that sustains said business.
- war1025 6y agoThen add political affiliation as a protected class and prosecute people who break actual laws. My personal opinion is that this discussion about tech, politics, censorship, etc. is something that needs to happen, and maybe all parties were completely within their rights to act how they did. There are a lot of people who don't see that as self-evident, and what they are hearing is "if you are pro-Trump, you deserve to be a social pariah." That is a real quick path to radicalization. Society is based on a set of mutually agreed upon rules. If you convince enough people through your actions that the rules are "Heads I win, Tails you lose", then they'll decide not to play by those rules anymore. And then all hell breaks loose.
- anaerobicover 6y ago> Society is based on a set of mutually agreed upon rules. Agreed, and it follows from that that "political affiliation" protection cannot include "wants to destroy the government" -- no matter from what quadrant that sentiment flows (anarchist, socialist, fascist, whatever). Agreeing to democracy -- and probably republicanism -- (note, both lowercase) is a bright line across which you've really decided to step outside of our mutual rules.
- ssalazar 6y agoNeither "conservatives", "republicans", nor any other actual political affiliation are being shut out by any of these companies. People who affiliate with "opposing a democratic election with direct violence" are.
- war1025 6y ago> People who affiliate with "opposing a democratic election with direct violence" are. The trouble is that many of the same people saying these actions were perfectly acceptable also have a habit of casually stating that all people who voted for Trump are the irredeemable scum of the earth.
- cheeseomlit 6y agoIn 1984 everyone hated Goldstein's guts, but was he really the problem?
- rodgerd 6y agoRead another book, for god's sake. Try Homage to Catalonia. You'll find the author likes shooting fascists, not platforming them.