4 ms·

You're fine with preventing KKK members from buying food? You would literally have them starve to death? And you're fine with private corporations making decisi

You're fine with preventing KKK members from buying food? You would literally have them starve to death? And you're fine with private corporations making decisions on who has the right to live and who doesn't? Personally, I value human rights. I think even KKK members have the right to live.

sneak 6y ago
No, I'm fine with any individual who sells food (or any other thing) being able to opt to not do business with anyone they like. That's a big difference from what you claimed. That's actually already true now (outside of protected classes). Any restaurant can ask KKK members to leave if they so desire. Same with any supermarket. Any individual proprietor having freedom of association is a long long way from "specific types of customers should be barred from buying food from anyone and should literally starve to death". That's a strawman position that you invented.
- exporectomy 6y ago
  How do you draw a line between religion (protected class) and other ideologies/oragnizations/beliefs that you don't want protection for? Where do, eg Scientologists, Pastafarians, and cult members fit? Is it right to be able to exclude Islamists (political ideology) despite them being Muslims (religion)?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - sneak 6y ago
    The state has already drawn those lines, and does not recognize KKK membership as a religion. The legal lines for what is or isn't protected are fairly well defined, by people other than me. My own personal opinions and beliefs on the matter don't count for anything.
    - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
      > The state has already drawn those lines, And surely the state is never one or two elections from redrawing those lines to include you right? That would be impossible right? You have all the “correct” ideas... and I’m sure those KKK spectres don’t think the same damn thing. You’re right; let’s not be good, just, or ethical to anyone the state doesn’t force us to. ESP when their only crime is thinking the wrong thing. That’s a really good system that would surely never bite the wrong people in the ass.
    - exporectomy 6y ago
      I'm interested in what you believe, not what the law says. I think you're using appeal to the law as a way of avoiding having to defend your stated beliefs. If you don't understand what you believe or why, then it's a good chance to think about it enough to make a cohesive statement. Maybe your belief is simply "whatever the law says, I agree". That's fine but also the end of any productive attempt to work out what's right and wrong.
- mindslight 6y ago
  Large enough quantitative differences create qualitative differences. If your hypothetical KKK member gets banned from a supermarket or two for preaching there, they can still go elsewhere. If your hypothetical KKK member tries preaching at one supermarket, and gets put on an industry-wide blacklist shared by all supermarkets out of an abundance of caution, then that collusion constitutes de facto government despite being administered by "private" companies. Also keep in mind that in this hypothetical scenario, no grocery store has to ban this KKK member outright to punish the problematic behavior. They can allow them to still shop there while notifying them that any future preaching will be grounds for trespass charges. This is the right solution when the market isn't big enough for meaningful choice between supermarkets.
  - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    And to expand... When Twitch and Facebook and Twitter ban you... well, there is always another supermarket unless there isn’t.
    - sneak 6y ago
      Fortunately there are still millions of different websites and thousands of web hosts. Being banned from the big and popular ones in the top 20 is at the moment only an inconvenience.
- baobabKoodaa 6y ago
  > No, I'm fine with any individual who sells food (or any other thing) being able to opt to not do business with anyone they like ... That's actually already true now (outside of protected classes). Man, the U.S. is a weird place. In Finland, for example, banks are forced to provide basic banking services to everyone, because access to basic banking services is considered to be more important than freedom of association. (I tried to look up if we have a similar law that prevents grocery stores from blacklisting customers, but I didn't find anything.) > Any individual proprietor having freedom of association is a long long way from "specific types of customers should be barred from buying food from anyone and should literally starve to death". That's a strawman position that you invented. In Finland there are 3 large grocery chains. If you were banned from all three, it would be difficult for you to access food. Could you still ask a friend to buy food for you? Sure. Could you still access food by stealing it? Sure. But on a spectrum between "buy food from the supermarket" and "starve to death", this position is closer to the "starve" end of the spectrum.
  - sneak 6y ago
    There are cities in the US with more people in them than all of Finland; I am not sure a direct comparison of the situations makes sense. When you only have 6 million people in the whole country, a handful of banks, and 3 supermarkets, it might make sense to set the lever differently, although even that is open for some debate. I think both Finland and the US are weird places. :)
staticman2 6y ago
A KKK member could presumably still buy food if banned from a grocery store for preaching hate speech at the grocery store, they would just have to hire someone to do the shopping for them. In America there is no right to food or shelter so I don't know why this concern is raised in a discussion of free speech?
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  > In America there is no right to food or shelter Yes, there definitely is. Food and shelter are vital to life. I seem to recall something about life liberty and happiness in some obscure little read part of the constitution. Let me know if you see it on a re-read. (Please don’t go off and try and claim that rights are things anyone else has to provide) Aside from the obvious issues with banning someone from buying food for having the wrong thoughts - which I should just be able to end right there because how insane is that!? - there are points to be made about: - protected classes and not needing them all enumerated before you are forced to treat people well even if they are mean - ethically not being a fascist that would block people from buying food for disagreeing with them, and congrats, this is actual fascism - generally just minding your own fucking business about how wrong someone is and being able to separate even awful beliefs from participation in other aspects of society - and most importantly not short-sightedly canceling people because tomorrow it might be you that has the unpopular idea, as unbelievable as I’m sure you could find that
  - sneak 6y ago
    > Yes, there definitely is. Food and shelter are vital to life. I seem to recall something about life liberty and happiness in some obscure little read part of the constitution. Let me know if you see it on a re-read. You are mistaken, and have confused the US declaration of independence (not a legal document, more of a philosophical one) with the US constitution (a binding legal document). I did a re-read to be sure, as you suggested. I saw it in the declaration, not the constitution. GP is right, however: you have a right to life, but nowhere in there do you have a right to not be kicked out of grocery stores and restaurants, or to be provided food by any second party. I think perhaps you should tone down the condescension in your comment. :(

sneak 6y ago

No, I'm fine with any individual who sells food (or any other thing) being able to opt to not do business with anyone they like. That's a big difference from what you claimed. That's actually already true now (outside of protected classes). Any restaurant can ask KKK members to leave if they so desire. Same with any supermarket. Any individual proprietor having freedom of association is a long long way from "specific types of customers should be barred from buying food from anyone and should literally starve to death". That's a strawman position that you invented.

exporectomy 6y ago
How do you draw a line between religion (protected class) and other ideologies/oragnizations/beliefs that you don't want protection for? Where do, eg Scientologists, Pastafarians, and cult members fit? Is it right to be able to exclude Islamists (political ideology) despite them being Muslims (religion)?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sneak 6y ago
  The state has already drawn those lines, and does not recognize KKK membership as a religion. The legal lines for what is or isn't protected are fairly well defined, by people other than me. My own personal opinions and beliefs on the matter don't count for anything.
  - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    > The state has already drawn those lines, And surely the state is never one or two elections from redrawing those lines to include you right? That would be impossible right? You have all the “correct” ideas... and I’m sure those KKK spectres don’t think the same damn thing. You’re right; let’s not be good, just, or ethical to anyone the state doesn’t force us to. ESP when their only crime is thinking the wrong thing. That’s a really good system that would surely never bite the wrong people in the ass.
  - exporectomy 6y ago
    I'm interested in what you believe, not what the law says. I think you're using appeal to the law as a way of avoiding having to defend your stated beliefs. If you don't understand what you believe or why, then it's a good chance to think about it enough to make a cohesive statement. Maybe your belief is simply "whatever the law says, I agree". That's fine but also the end of any productive attempt to work out what's right and wrong.
mindslight 6y ago
Large enough quantitative differences create qualitative differences. If your hypothetical KKK member gets banned from a supermarket or two for preaching there, they can still go elsewhere. If your hypothetical KKK member tries preaching at one supermarket, and gets put on an industry-wide blacklist shared by all supermarkets out of an abundance of caution, then that collusion constitutes de facto government despite being administered by "private" companies. Also keep in mind that in this hypothetical scenario, no grocery store has to ban this KKK member outright to punish the problematic behavior. They can allow them to still shop there while notifying them that any future preaching will be grounds for trespass charges. This is the right solution when the market isn't big enough for meaningful choice between supermarkets.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  And to expand... When Twitch and Facebook and Twitter ban you... well, there is always another supermarket unless there isn’t.
  - sneak 6y ago
    Fortunately there are still millions of different websites and thousands of web hosts. Being banned from the big and popular ones in the top 20 is at the moment only an inconvenience.
baobabKoodaa 6y ago
> No, I'm fine with any individual who sells food (or any other thing) being able to opt to not do business with anyone they like ... That's actually already true now (outside of protected classes). Man, the U.S. is a weird place. In Finland, for example, banks are forced to provide basic banking services to everyone, because access to basic banking services is considered to be more important than freedom of association. (I tried to look up if we have a similar law that prevents grocery stores from blacklisting customers, but I didn't find anything.) > Any individual proprietor having freedom of association is a long long way from "specific types of customers should be barred from buying food from anyone and should literally starve to death". That's a strawman position that you invented. In Finland there are 3 large grocery chains. If you were banned from all three, it would be difficult for you to access food. Could you still ask a friend to buy food for you? Sure. Could you still access food by stealing it? Sure. But on a spectrum between "buy food from the supermarket" and "starve to death", this position is closer to the "starve" end of the spectrum.
- sneak 6y ago
  There are cities in the US with more people in them than all of Finland; I am not sure a direct comparison of the situations makes sense. When you only have 6 million people in the whole country, a handful of banks, and 3 supermarkets, it might make sense to set the lever differently, although even that is open for some debate. I think both Finland and the US are weird places. :)

staticman2 6y ago

A KKK member could presumably still buy food if banned from a grocery store for preaching hate speech at the grocery store, they would just have to hire someone to do the shopping for them. In America there is no right to food or shelter so I don't know why this concern is raised in a discussion of free speech?

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
> In America there is no right to food or shelter Yes, there definitely is. Food and shelter are vital to life. I seem to recall something about life liberty and happiness in some obscure little read part of the constitution. Let me know if you see it on a re-read. (Please don’t go off and try and claim that rights are things anyone else has to provide) Aside from the obvious issues with banning someone from buying food for having the wrong thoughts - which I should just be able to end right there because how insane is that!? - there are points to be made about: - protected classes and not needing them all enumerated before you are forced to treat people well even if they are mean - ethically not being a fascist that would block people from buying food for disagreeing with them, and congrats, this is actual fascism - generally just minding your own fucking business about how wrong someone is and being able to separate even awful beliefs from participation in other aspects of society - and most importantly not short-sightedly canceling people because tomorrow it might be you that has the unpopular idea, as unbelievable as I’m sure you could find that
- sneak 6y ago
  > Yes, there definitely is. Food and shelter are vital to life. I seem to recall something about life liberty and happiness in some obscure little read part of the constitution. Let me know if you see it on a re-read. You are mistaken, and have confused the US declaration of independence (not a legal document, more of a philosophical one) with the US constitution (a binding legal document). I did a re-read to be sure, as you suggested. I saw it in the declaration, not the constitution. GP is right, however: you have a right to life, but nowhere in there do you have a right to not be kicked out of grocery stores and restaurants, or to be provided food by any second party. I think perhaps you should tone down the condescension in your comment. :(