4 ms·

I will gladly discriminate against Nazis, just as you would likely discriminate against folks whose personal creed included "user Dig1t belongs in a death camp.

by jude- 5y ago

I will gladly discriminate against Nazis, just as you would likely discriminate against folks whose personal creed included "user Dig1t belongs in a death camp." It's okay to apply standards to public spaces. Not every ideology deserves to be heard.

Dig1t 5y ago
I think most people would gladly discriminate against Nazis in their personal lives. When it comes to official/legal policies though, like say renting an apartment to someone, I think it becomes problematic to start saying it's okay to discriminate against people with particular beliefs or ideas, even if those ideas are abhorrent to most people. There's a long list of reasons why allowing this kind of discrimination is a bad idea IMO, both idealogical and practical.
- jude- 5y ago
  This proposed law (and this thread) is specifically about discrimination on private online platforms, not housing. Being kicked off of Twitter is nowhere near as life-threatening or disruptive to a person as getting kicked out of housing. The seriousness of the latter merits anti-discrimination laws, but the former is so frivolous that it's laughable that some people to feel entitled to use someone else's servers to spew their nonsense.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    Twitter is a very public platform -- you said so yourself in your previous comment. If we're willing to force a religious baker to provide services for a group they find abhorrent (however misguided they are about that), why aren't we also willing to force a much more consequential service provider to provide services for a group they find abhorrent (however right or wrong they are about that)?
    - threatofrain 5y ago
      For the US baking case, the decided case law is that religious businesses are free to discriminate against gay people. Also, for religious places of employment, it is already a Constitutional right to fire priests for homosexuality, or to expel homosexual students from a religious school. It is also religiously critical for religious institutions to be able to engage in religious discrimination; lest we ask whether we may have a Jewish pope lead the Catholic church. We can discuss what ought to be all day, but I don't see the winds shifting anytime soon. We mind as well also discuss whether the world should be united, or... it would be a better expenditure of energy to discuss the oughts which we can actually do something about.

by jude- 5y ago

Dig1t 5y ago

I think most people would gladly discriminate against Nazis in their personal lives. When it comes to official/legal policies though, like say renting an apartment to someone, I think it becomes problematic to start saying it's okay to discriminate against people with particular beliefs or ideas, even if those ideas are abhorrent to most people. There's a long list of reasons why allowing this kind of discrimination is a bad idea IMO, both idealogical and practical.

jude- 5y ago
This proposed law (and this thread) is specifically about discrimination on private online platforms, not housing. Being kicked off of Twitter is nowhere near as life-threatening or disruptive to a person as getting kicked out of housing. The seriousness of the latter merits anti-discrimination laws, but the former is so frivolous that it's laughable that some people to feel entitled to use someone else's servers to spew their nonsense.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Twitter is a very public platform -- you said so yourself in your previous comment. If we're willing to force a religious baker to provide services for a group they find abhorrent (however misguided they are about that), why aren't we also willing to force a much more consequential service provider to provide services for a group they find abhorrent (however right or wrong they are about that)?
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    For the US baking case, the decided case law is that religious businesses are free to discriminate against gay people. Also, for religious places of employment, it is already a Constitutional right to fire priests for homosexuality, or to expel homosexual students from a religious school. It is also religiously critical for religious institutions to be able to engage in religious discrimination; lest we ask whether we may have a Jewish pope lead the Catholic church. We can discuss what ought to be all day, but I don't see the winds shifting anytime soon. We mind as well also discuss whether the world should be united, or... it would be a better expenditure of energy to discuss the oughts which we can actually do something about.