4 ms·

Not my logic. Refusing service to someone based on their sexual orientation, religion, or color of their skin is a very different moral proposition than refusi

Not 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 ago
Then 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 ago
  Neither "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.

war1025 6y ago

Then 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 ago
Neither "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.