5 ms·

Isn't the opposite true as well? Lots of people think bakeries should not be able to refuse gay customers, but do think big tech should be able to arbitrarily c

Isn't the opposite true as well? Lots of people think bakeries should not be able to refuse gay customers, but do think big tech should be able to arbitrarily choose who they do business with. Nearly everyone sees the world through the lens of their Party, and come up with all sorts of justifications afterwards.

alexilliamson 6y ago
Yes that's a good point. I want to see both venn diagrams.
- antisthenes 6y ago
  Here's a hot take: stop trying to label people and neatly place them within Venn diagrams. People can have complex positions that don't neatly fit into a binary view of the world.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    The law creates a binary view of the world. Actions are either legal or not, and we all have to live with the same law. Complexity makes hypocrisy inevitable in that system, but that doesn't make it desirable. You'd like to think that somebody confronted with objective, straightforward, simple hypocrisies would be willing to seek a compromise. Often, it's the opposite.
    - antisthenes 6y ago
      Well, I'd like to believe that several reasonable people holding complex ideological positions can come to a compromise in terms of a more of less binary law, and abide by it, despite not being in complete agreement with it. Maybe that's too optimistic, but there it is.
      - jfengel 6y ago
        I would love to believe that, but in my experience, the law is most often set by people holding the strongest positions. That creates enthusiasm and certainty. Discussing complex ideological positions is dull and uncertain. Those strongest positions are usually held by a minority, but often, that minority can forge an alliance with other minorities to become a majority. Maybe that's too pessimistic, but there it is. Paradoxically, I hope you're right.
bryanlarsen 6y ago
Actions, not beliefs. Bakeries should have the right to ban anybody who has gay sex on their premises. Big tech should not be able arbitrarily ban somebody based on internal beliefs that they don't act upon on the big tech platform.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  > Actions, not beliefs. Sounds very succinct and simple, but who draws the line? Can a bakery deny a customer who "acts gay"? That's an action, not a belief. Does voicing an opinion count as an action? You still have to decide which actions are protected and which are ban-worthy.
  - bryanlarsen 6y ago
    > who draws the line? judges, politicians, lawyers, cops and voters, just like everything else.
    - dahfizz 6y ago
      Sure, obviously. The question I should have asked is: where should we draw the line, and why?
Corrado 6y ago
I think that's disingenuous. All business have rules and regulations that "customers" must follow. No shoes; no shirt; no service. I can't refuse service to you if you are thinking about taking your shirt off, but I can refuse service if you actually take your shirt off.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  I don't understand how that point applies here. A bakery could come up with "rules and regulations" which would effectively deny service to any group the baker wished. The baker could make rules against holding hands with someone of the same sex, or not speaking proper english. There could even be a strict "don't argue with the baker" rule, and the baker could sass and goad customers he didn't want into arguing with him so he can throw the customer out. The entire controversy around what happened with Parler is the question of whether the rules the big tech platforms have are just, and evenly enforced. I have not seen anyone arguing against the concept of rules itself.
  - Corrado 6y ago
    As far as I understand it, yes, the rules the big tech platforms have ARE just. In this case the customer (Parlor) didn't follow the rules (ToS) and was given notice as to what rules were broken and how they needed to fix things. They did not correct their actions and so they were removed. When they took corrective action, they were allowed back as customers. Seems pretty simple to me. Now, the question of "even" enforcement is another matter, and I don't think I have enough knowledge or background to have an opinion on that.

alexilliamson 6y ago

Yes that's a good point. I want to see both venn diagrams.

antisthenes 6y ago
Here's a hot take: stop trying to label people and neatly place them within Venn diagrams. People can have complex positions that don't neatly fit into a binary view of the world.
- jfengel 6y ago
  The law creates a binary view of the world. Actions are either legal or not, and we all have to live with the same law. Complexity makes hypocrisy inevitable in that system, but that doesn't make it desirable. You'd like to think that somebody confronted with objective, straightforward, simple hypocrisies would be willing to seek a compromise. Often, it's the opposite.
  - antisthenes 6y ago
    Well, I'd like to believe that several reasonable people holding complex ideological positions can come to a compromise in terms of a more of less binary law, and abide by it, despite not being in complete agreement with it. Maybe that's too optimistic, but there it is.
    - jfengel 6y ago
      I would love to believe that, but in my experience, the law is most often set by people holding the strongest positions. That creates enthusiasm and certainty. Discussing complex ideological positions is dull and uncertain. Those strongest positions are usually held by a minority, but often, that minority can forge an alliance with other minorities to become a majority. Maybe that's too pessimistic, but there it is. Paradoxically, I hope you're right.

bryanlarsen 6y ago

Actions, not beliefs. Bakeries should have the right to ban anybody who has gay sex on their premises. Big tech should not be able arbitrarily ban somebody based on internal beliefs that they don't act upon on the big tech platform.

dahfizz 6y ago
> Actions, not beliefs. Sounds very succinct and simple, but who draws the line? Can a bakery deny a customer who "acts gay"? That's an action, not a belief. Does voicing an opinion count as an action? You still have to decide which actions are protected and which are ban-worthy.
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  > who draws the line? judges, politicians, lawyers, cops and voters, just like everything else.
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    Sure, obviously. The question I should have asked is: where should we draw the line, and why?

Corrado 6y ago

I think that's disingenuous. All business have rules and regulations that "customers" must follow. No shoes; no shirt; no service. I can't refuse service to you if you are thinking about taking your shirt off, but I can refuse service if you actually take your shirt off.

dahfizz 6y ago
I don't understand how that point applies here. A bakery could come up with "rules and regulations" which would effectively deny service to any group the baker wished. The baker could make rules against holding hands with someone of the same sex, or not speaking proper english. There could even be a strict "don't argue with the baker" rule, and the baker could sass and goad customers he didn't want into arguing with him so he can throw the customer out. The entire controversy around what happened with Parler is the question of whether the rules the big tech platforms have are just, and evenly enforced. I have not seen anyone arguing against the concept of rules itself.
- Corrado 6y ago
  As far as I understand it, yes, the rules the big tech platforms have ARE just. In this case the customer (Parlor) didn't follow the rules (ToS) and was given notice as to what rules were broken and how they needed to fix things. They did not correct their actions and so they were removed. When they took corrective action, they were allowed back as customers. Seems pretty simple to me. Now, the question of "even" enforcement is another matter, and I don't think I have enough knowledge or background to have an opinion on that.