4 ms·

I'm saying the only difference between OP and a racist 1960's store owner is who they think should be excluded. Not that the Florida law holds merit. Just th

I'm saying the only difference between OP and a racist 1960's store owner is *who* they think should be excluded. Not that the Florida law holds merit. Just that the irony here is lost to most people.

anoonmoose 5y ago
It's not ironic because they aren't the same thing and that isn't the only difference. In one case, you're banning someone over something they can't change about themselves and didn't choose. In the other case, you're banning someone because of an opinion they hold, that you disagree with. I do not consider those to be the same thing. (Is the above also an argument that religious affiliation shouldn't be a protected class? Yes. Unpopular opinion that I hold, and I'll take the heat for it.)
wonderwonder 5y ago
You seem to be implying that 45% of the country's voting population who have the free choice to choose whatever political party they want is currently being treated the same as the 12% of the population that is African American (who are not free to choose the color of their skin) during Jim Crow. That is quite the persecution complex and quite a statement. If you are not stating this and I somehow got your intent wrong, my apologies. Additionally I did not state I want anyone removed from social media, I just stated that private companies are allowed to censor over things that dont fall under a protected status.
- barbacoa 5y ago
  I'm not defending the actions of Trump voters or trying to paint them as martyrs. This is more a issue with principle and long term precedent. back after 9/11 Republicans were largely in favor of the patriot act because they thought it would only be used against those Muslims they didn't care for. Fifteen years later those same counter terrorism spying laws were used to spy on and undermine the Republican presidential candidate. That's irony. Decades from now when the political winds change again what do you think will happen the next Bernie Sanders type candidates get close to winning elections? Don't be surprised if all the tech companies use AI to throttle any online communication that is supportive and magnify anything negative of the populist candidate.
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    Most of these people will completely change their stances the second someone they don't like gets voted in. I think theres a good chance that someone right wing is back in office after 4 years of Biden. When that happens they better hope it's not Trump 2 (or actual Trump). I just don't understand the inability of people to see what happens when they give so much power away. That power does not disappear when the next POTUS appears. These tech companies will 100% change with the wind, in fact, they already do it for China. They're only doing these things to garner favor from the current administration in hopes of staying away from any regulation. There's nothing altruistic about their behavior at all.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  >You seem to be implying that 45% of the country's voting population who have the free choice to choose whatever political party they want is currently being treated the same as the 12% of the population that is African American (who are not free to choose the color of their skin) during Jim Crow. So, essentially you're telling people they should stop thinking the way they do and think the way you want them to? Would you apply this to trans people as well? I'm trying to figure out where your line is. Basically if it's an external physical attribute then discrimination is bad but if it's mental then discrimination is fine and dandy? Does this apply to homosexuality, religion, cultural attitudes etc?
  - wonderwonder 5y ago
    My line is that its not wrong for a private company to censor a politician or entity that calls for violence and attempts to overturn an election without evidence. People claiming that all republicans are being censored are disingenuous. The only people being censored are those spreading unfounded dangerous claims that threaten the very heart of US democracy. Everyone else is still posting and tweeting without a care in the world besides the crosses they choose to bear in order to get clicks and eyeballs. No political party is being widely censored currently despite what certain media figures would have you believe.
  - anoonmoose 5y ago
    Homosexuality and transgenderism, no, because they aren't choices, in my opinion based on the evidence I've seen they are biological/genetic in nature. Religion and cultural attitudes, yes, they're choices. I'll admit I'm in the minority here, but it's the only way I've found to have the view I have and be consistent.

I'm saying the only difference between OP and a racist 1960's store owner is *who* they think should be excluded. Not that the Florida law holds merit. Just th

anoonmoose 5y ago

It's not ironic because they aren't the same thing and that isn't the only difference. In one case, you're banning someone over something they can't change about themselves and didn't choose. In the other case, you're banning someone because of an opinion they hold, that you disagree with. I do not consider those to be the same thing. (Is the above also an argument that religious affiliation shouldn't be a protected class? Yes. Unpopular opinion that I hold, and I'll take the heat for it.)

wonderwonder 5y ago

You seem to be implying that 45% of the country's voting population who have the free choice to choose whatever political party they want is currently being treated the same as the 12% of the population that is African American (who are not free to choose the color of their skin) during Jim Crow. That is quite the persecution complex and quite a statement. If you are not stating this and I somehow got your intent wrong, my apologies. Additionally I did not state I want anyone removed from social media, I just stated that private companies are allowed to censor over things that dont fall under a protected status.

barbacoa 5y ago
I'm not defending the actions of Trump voters or trying to paint them as martyrs. This is more a issue with principle and long term precedent. back after 9/11 Republicans were largely in favor of the patriot act because they thought it would only be used against those Muslims they didn't care for. Fifteen years later those same counter terrorism spying laws were used to spy on and undermine the Republican presidential candidate. That's irony. Decades from now when the political winds change again what do you think will happen the next Bernie Sanders type candidates get close to winning elections? Don't be surprised if all the tech companies use AI to throttle any online communication that is supportive and magnify anything negative of the populist candidate.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  Most of these people will completely change their stances the second someone they don't like gets voted in. I think theres a good chance that someone right wing is back in office after 4 years of Biden. When that happens they better hope it's not Trump 2 (or actual Trump). I just don't understand the inability of people to see what happens when they give so much power away. That power does not disappear when the next POTUS appears. These tech companies will 100% change with the wind, in fact, they already do it for China. They're only doing these things to garner favor from the current administration in hopes of staying away from any regulation. There's nothing altruistic about their behavior at all.
CountDrewku 5y ago
>You seem to be implying that 45% of the country's voting population who have the free choice to choose whatever political party they want is currently being treated the same as the 12% of the population that is African American (who are not free to choose the color of their skin) during Jim Crow. So, essentially you're telling people they should stop thinking the way they do and think the way you want them to? Would you apply this to trans people as well? I'm trying to figure out where your line is. Basically if it's an external physical attribute then discrimination is bad but if it's mental then discrimination is fine and dandy? Does this apply to homosexuality, religion, cultural attitudes etc?
- wonderwonder 5y ago
  My line is that its not wrong for a private company to censor a politician or entity that calls for violence and attempts to overturn an election without evidence. People claiming that all republicans are being censored are disingenuous. The only people being censored are those spreading unfounded dangerous claims that threaten the very heart of US democracy. Everyone else is still posting and tweeting without a care in the world besides the crosses they choose to bear in order to get clicks and eyeballs. No political party is being widely censored currently despite what certain media figures would have you believe.
- anoonmoose 5y ago
  Homosexuality and transgenderism, no, because they aren't choices, in my opinion based on the evidence I've seen they are biological/genetic in nature. Religion and cultural attitudes, yes, they're choices. I'll admit I'm in the minority here, but it's the only way I've found to have the view I have and be consistent.