4 ms·

I see. What if you walk in and are somebody named wvenable so they kick you out? As you've said, you believe they have that right. What if you walk in and are

I see. What if you walk in and are somebody named wvenable so they kick you out? As you've said, you believe they have that right. What if you walk in and are ginger so they kick you out? Have poor eyesight? Are dressed in the costume of a religion they don't like? Are dressed in the costume of a political ideology they don't like? I'm trying to work out a set of fundamental principals are would distinguish good discrimination from bad. I often see people, such as yourself, adamantly insisting that some kinds are good or some are bad but the distinction seems arbitrary.

wvenable 6y ago
US law has defined a few protected classes (race, color, religion, sex, age, and disability). Is that a perfect list? Probably not. Is it a reasonable legal and moral framework, I think so. Based on that protected class list, you can probably work out my answers to your questions easily. So it's not that arbitrary. I could reverse this and ask your the same type of questions. As a business owner, am I not allowed to have any control over who and what business that I do? If I allow posts on my website, I must allow Nazi hate posts? If I allow images, I must allow all images except those that are illegal? If you're being rude to my workers, I can't turn you away, I just have to take it? If you say yes, I'd like how that is fair to me. If you say no, then that is also arbitrary, right?
- exporectomy 6y ago
  I guess your answers are: 1. Have the right 2. Have the right 3. Don't have the right 4. Don't have the right 5. Have the right But what's so different between 2 and 3 or between 4 and 5? I could understand it if you see them as grey areas but it sounds like you're adamant they have no moral requirement to serve ginger people but that it's immoral to refuse short-sighted people. And why are religious and political ideologies distinct? I don't have much of an answer myself, but I don't think religion should be protected. People are free to change their religion or lie about it to avoid discrimination if they want. Do you agree that excluding Muslims is wrong but excluding (nonviolent) Islamists is a right? How can you even tell the difference? I wondered if you opinion was based on some philosophy. It seems it's just a copy of what you've absorbed from your culture and suffers from all the same problems.
  - wvenable 6y ago
    > it sounds like you're adamant they have no moral requirement to serve ginger people I'm not sure how you get adamant from my comment. I went out of my way to claim that this description was not perfect. One could argue that ginger falls under "race". I personally don't believe you should deny someone service because of there genetic appearance. I'd go all in on appearance but then you might might have to serve naked people! Everything is grey. Religion is a grey area too; in some cases it's more equivalent to political believes and in other cases it's more like race. People also mistake appearance and religion all the time. > Do you agree that excluding Muslims is wrong but excluding (nonviolent) Islamists is a right? No I don't. People like to claim their persecuted because of who they are rather than what they do and how that impacts others. Lets be clear, we are talking about Facebook blocking content (actively posted material) that they deem unacceptable. You made this about the who rather than the what and I don't think that applies in this case at all. So we've really gone down this rabbit hole for nothing.
    - exporectomy 6y ago
      This is the quote that makes it look like you have a strong opinion on at least an aspect of this topic, including discriminating against people for who they are not what they post. So I thought you might have some unique set of beliefs. Turns out you don't, and see it as a rabbit hole, which is OK and we can stop here. > I totally believe that Facebook doesn't have any legal or moral requirement to host anything they don't want to. They could literally just punt me tomorrow because they don't like my name and that's their right.
      - wvenable 6y ago
        You make a good point, I did say that! I do believe that you shouldn't be forced to do business with someone. And it doesn't matter if they're black, white, disabled, Nazi, Muslim, etc. But it does matter if the reason you don't want to do business with them is because of racism, sexism, agism, etc. If I all the sudden only want to do business with 100 people and I'm currently doing business with 200. I can randomly select 100 people and punt them. I don't need a reason. I can punt the least profitable. I can punt them because of alphabetical order. But it would be unfair and immoral of me to punt them because they are black or disabled. In the case of Facebook, they're just offering people a free space to post stuff. They're not obligated to continue to that forever. They don't need a good reason to punt you. But their are situations where they could have a bad reason. The question is, is this topic a bad reason to punt people? Given the low obligation that Facebook has to host anything -- I don't think so.

wvenable 6y ago

US law has defined a few protected classes (race, color, religion, sex, age, and disability). Is that a perfect list? Probably not. Is it a reasonable legal and moral framework, I think so. Based on that protected class list, you can probably work out my answers to your questions easily. So it's not that arbitrary. I could reverse this and ask your the same type of questions. As a business owner, am I not allowed to have any control over who and what business that I do? If I allow posts on my website, I must allow Nazi hate posts? If I allow images, I must allow all images except those that are illegal? If you're being rude to my workers, I can't turn you away, I just have to take it? If you say yes, I'd like how that is fair to me. If you say no, then that is also arbitrary, right?

exporectomy 6y ago
I guess your answers are: 1. Have the right 2. Have the right 3. Don't have the right 4. Don't have the right 5. Have the right But what's so different between 2 and 3 or between 4 and 5? I could understand it if you see them as grey areas but it sounds like you're adamant they have no moral requirement to serve ginger people but that it's immoral to refuse short-sighted people. And why are religious and political ideologies distinct? I don't have much of an answer myself, but I don't think religion should be protected. People are free to change their religion or lie about it to avoid discrimination if they want. Do you agree that excluding Muslims is wrong but excluding (nonviolent) Islamists is a right? How can you even tell the difference? I wondered if you opinion was based on some philosophy. It seems it's just a copy of what you've absorbed from your culture and suffers from all the same problems.
- wvenable 6y ago
  > it sounds like you're adamant they have no moral requirement to serve ginger people I'm not sure how you get adamant from my comment. I went out of my way to claim that this description was not perfect. One could argue that ginger falls under "race". I personally don't believe you should deny someone service because of there genetic appearance. I'd go all in on appearance but then you might might have to serve naked people! Everything is grey. Religion is a grey area too; in some cases it's more equivalent to political believes and in other cases it's more like race. People also mistake appearance and religion all the time. > Do you agree that excluding Muslims is wrong but excluding (nonviolent) Islamists is a right? No I don't. People like to claim their persecuted because of who they are rather than what they do and how that impacts others. Lets be clear, we are talking about Facebook blocking content (actively posted material) that they deem unacceptable. You made this about the who rather than the what and I don't think that applies in this case at all. So we've really gone down this rabbit hole for nothing.
  - exporectomy 6y ago
    This is the quote that makes it look like you have a strong opinion on at least an aspect of this topic, including discriminating against people for who they are not what they post. So I thought you might have some unique set of beliefs. Turns out you don't, and see it as a rabbit hole, which is OK and we can stop here. > I totally believe that Facebook doesn't have any legal or moral requirement to host anything they don't want to. They could literally just punt me tomorrow because they don't like my name and that's their right.
    - wvenable 6y ago
      You make a good point, I did say that! I do believe that you shouldn't be forced to do business with someone. And it doesn't matter if they're black, white, disabled, Nazi, Muslim, etc. But it does matter if the reason you don't want to do business with them is because of racism, sexism, agism, etc. If I all the sudden only want to do business with 100 people and I'm currently doing business with 200. I can randomly select 100 people and punt them. I don't need a reason. I can punt the least profitable. I can punt them because of alphabetical order. But it would be unfair and immoral of me to punt them because they are black or disabled. In the case of Facebook, they're just offering people a free space to post stuff. They're not obligated to continue to that forever. They don't need a good reason to punt you. But their are situations where they could have a bad reason. The question is, is this topic a bad reason to punt people? Given the low obligation that Facebook has to host anything -- I don't think so.