3 ms·

I don't think it's illegal in any way. I do think it's a dangerous and impractical strategy to not do business with anyone with a mainstream political belief di

I don't think it's illegal in any way. I do think it's a dangerous and impractical strategy to not do business with anyone with a mainstream political belief different than my own. I can understand with extreme views, but on an issue like this I'd prefer discourse over further polarization. It doesn't sound like such a bad idea until it's applied to people/businesses with your beliefs.

skuhn 5y ago
I feel like where we're at odds is in four places: 1. This is not a mainstream political belief. The law at the root of the current issue in Texas is far beyond the mainstream. The intention at some level is to shift the Overton window of what is mainstream in its favor, but that has not occurred yet. 2. It's not my responsibility to educate this guy to my point of view. I don't know him and I don't work with him. Actually the only thing I know about him is that he doesn't respect the rights of others that I feel are important, so I'm doubly disinclined to make his acquaintance. I would presume that some amount of discourse did occur within Tripwire, but I don't think we know. 3. I'm allowed to vote with my dollars. It doesn't have to be a glorious public crusade, and it may not make the slightest bit of difference. In this case, it certainly won't. But those dollars work for me, and I can choose to deploy them so as not to (tacitly or actively) support people or business who wish to harm myself and people who I identify with. That's what I have chosen to do, and others should make their own choices. 4. In a different scenario, I might indeed feel differently. I don't find that the slippery slope is a solid argument for why I can't take (lawful) action to preserve my values though.
- epicureanideal 5y ago
  > 1. This is not a mainstream political belief. See @javagram's comment elsewhere in this thread. Reposted in part below: >> For reference - https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx >> Views on abortion have been mostly static since 1975 in the US population as a whole. ~30% “legal under any”, ~50% “legal only under certain”, ~20% “illegal in all”.
belltaco 5y ago
>anyone with a mainstream political belief different than my own The law as written goes far beyond a mainstream political belief. There is no civil reward for turning in or reporting or suing a child rapist, serial rapist, a pedophile, a child abuser or a cannibal or a serial killer, much less someone that assisted them. None of these are legal activities in any state or country. But you can report someone helping someone else get an abortion and you get a minimum of $10K? That's a full degree of separation from an abortion and is an indirect 'crime'. Is that 'crime' somehow way worse than all the direct heinous crimes that I listed that we have to allow civil litigation? Abortion is legal in large parts of the world. What about women who get unfairly sued? How do you prove you did not have an abortion? Who's going to pay for the lawyers to defend them? Is there a precedent for this apart from autocratic regimes where people are supposed to watch others?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > The law as written goes far beyond a mainstream political belief. There is no civil reward for turning in or reporting or suing a child rapist, serial rapist, a pedophile, a child abuser or a cannibal or a serial killer, much less someone that assisted them. None of these are legal activities in any state or country. I'm not defending the law, but it seems it's written like that only because the Texas legislature has been prevented from legislating directly to address what they see as a legitimate issue, unlike in the other areas you listed. The law's structure is a kludge to get around that limitation. You'd probably see similar kludges if the Supreme Court set similar permissive precedents in the areas you listed or areas of polarized moral sentiment (e.g. gay conversion therapy).
k4c9x 5y ago
Discourse is pointless if no action is ever taken. The arguments on both sides are centuries old at this point. This law is actively doing harm. The time for talk is over.

skuhn 5y ago

I feel like where we're at odds is in four places: 1. This is not a mainstream political belief. The law at the root of the current issue in Texas is far beyond the mainstream. The intention at some level is to shift the Overton window of what is mainstream in its favor, but that has not occurred yet. 2. It's not my responsibility to educate this guy to my point of view. I don't know him and I don't work with him. Actually the only thing I know about him is that he doesn't respect the rights of others that I feel are important, so I'm doubly disinclined to make his acquaintance. I would presume that some amount of discourse did occur within Tripwire, but I don't think we know. 3. I'm allowed to vote with my dollars. It doesn't have to be a glorious public crusade, and it may not make the slightest bit of difference. In this case, it certainly won't. But those dollars work for me, and I can choose to deploy them so as not to (tacitly or actively) support people or business who wish to harm myself and people who I identify with. That's what I have chosen to do, and others should make their own choices. 4. In a different scenario, I might indeed feel differently. I don't find that the slippery slope is a solid argument for why I can't take (lawful) action to preserve my values though.

epicureanideal 5y ago
> 1. This is not a mainstream political belief. See @javagram's comment elsewhere in this thread. Reposted in part below: >> For reference - https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx >> Views on abortion have been mostly static since 1975 in the US population as a whole. ~30% “legal under any”, ~50% “legal only under certain”, ~20% “illegal in all”.

belltaco 5y ago

>anyone with a mainstream political belief different than my own The law as written goes far beyond a mainstream political belief. There is no civil reward for turning in or reporting or suing a child rapist, serial rapist, a pedophile, a child abuser or a cannibal or a serial killer, much less someone that assisted them. None of these are legal activities in any state or country. But you can report someone helping someone else get an abortion and you get a minimum of $10K? That's a full degree of separation from an abortion and is an indirect 'crime'. Is that 'crime' somehow way worse than all the direct heinous crimes that I listed that we have to allow civil litigation? Abortion is legal in large parts of the world. What about women who get unfairly sued? How do you prove you did not have an abortion? Who's going to pay for the lawyers to defend them? Is there a precedent for this apart from autocratic regimes where people are supposed to watch others?

tablespoon 5y ago
> The law as written goes far beyond a mainstream political belief. There is no civil reward for turning in or reporting or suing a child rapist, serial rapist, a pedophile, a child abuser or a cannibal or a serial killer, much less someone that assisted them. None of these are legal activities in any state or country. I'm not defending the law, but it seems it's written like that only because the Texas legislature has been prevented from legislating directly to address what they see as a legitimate issue, unlike in the other areas you listed. The law's structure is a kludge to get around that limitation. You'd probably see similar kludges if the Supreme Court set similar permissive precedents in the areas you listed or areas of polarized moral sentiment (e.g. gay conversion therapy).

k4c9x 5y ago

Discourse is pointless if no action is ever taken. The arguments on both sides are centuries old at this point. This law is actively doing harm. The time for talk is over.