3 ms·

Just from the sidebar: The Growing Menace of Bill Gates’ ‘Global Health’ Whale Population Grows Despite Attenborough Climate Scaremongering Headmistress

by Udo 4y ago

Just from the sidebar: The Growing Menace of Bill Gates’ ‘Global Health’ Whale Population Grows Despite Attenborough Climate Scaremongering Headmistress of England’s Most Successful State School Reported to Police For ‘Hate Crime’ After Jordan Peterson Visit Pentagon Launches Probe into Woke Diversity Officer After her Tweets Asking Where She Can “Get a Break From White Nonsense for a While” Woke High School Defends Trans Teacher With Prosthetic Breasts in Name of Creating “Safe and Inclusive Environment” It seems to be a Q-adjacent site with a clear goal of disinformation and culture war bullshit.

2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
So we should ban anything we don't agree with? A bunch of people don't agree with sex workers so it's OK to ban them from payment services too?
- henearkr 4y ago
  I'm just not sad about it lol, that's all. I agree with the "big principle" that they should have access to basic internet services, in theory. But I also think that there should be laws forbidding anti-science and conspiracy theory mindset, because it ruins everything brought by knowledge and rationality, and leads to stupidly destructive actions.
- Udo 4y ago
  "We" are not banning anything. PayPal does, and yes, it's most likely because of the positions held by this site. Refer to my earlier comment on why this is problematic. But yes, in this specific case, I agree with the ban because I believe the site to be part of a disinformation network. Obviously, the positions held by the site are shared by a lot of people here, but that doesn't change my opinion of it. If you believe they are spreading worthwhile information on there, that's obviously your right and my beef is not with you - I think it should be possible to politically disagree with someone and still be able to go out and have a beer together. My beef is with sites like this which are causing harm on a societal scale.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
    No, I read some of the articles and it all sounds a bit stupid. But if you're ok with companies that should almost be utilities withholding their services because their choice matches your ethics. Then I expect you to also be ok when they make choices that don't match your ethics.
    - Udo 4y ago
      > withholding their services because their choice matches your ethics I do actually think the site is unethical, yes. But those are not "my" ethics, just ethics in general. There is sufficient evidence to argue against the Daily Sceptic on purely humanist grounds. On top of that I do find the site personally objectionable, that is also true. I also believe that the intent and consequences behind opinions matter. If there is a website that clearly influences a lot of people to be anti-science and that tries to promote social inequity then I don't view this neutrally as just another opinion. Ethically, this is not on the same level as, say, someone's opinions about the Game of Thrones finale. > But if you're ok with companies that should almost be utilities withholding their services I told you two times already that I'm not okay with this, only that this is one of the exceedingly rare cases where I welcome the way things have already been working for years.

by Udo 4y ago

2muchcoffeeman 4y ago

So we should ban anything we don't agree with? A bunch of people don't agree with sex workers so it's OK to ban them from payment services too?

henearkr 4y ago
I'm just not sad about it lol, that's all. I agree with the "big principle" that they should have access to basic internet services, in theory. But I also think that there should be laws forbidding anti-science and conspiracy theory mindset, because it ruins everything brought by knowledge and rationality, and leads to stupidly destructive actions.
Udo 4y ago
"We" are not banning anything. PayPal does, and yes, it's most likely because of the positions held by this site. Refer to my earlier comment on why this is problematic. But yes, in this specific case, I agree with the ban because I believe the site to be part of a disinformation network. Obviously, the positions held by the site are shared by a lot of people here, but that doesn't change my opinion of it. If you believe they are spreading worthwhile information on there, that's obviously your right and my beef is not with you - I think it should be possible to politically disagree with someone and still be able to go out and have a beer together. My beef is with sites like this which are causing harm on a societal scale.
- 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
  No, I read some of the articles and it all sounds a bit stupid. But if you're ok with companies that should almost be utilities withholding their services because their choice matches your ethics. Then I expect you to also be ok when they make choices that don't match your ethics.
  - Udo 4y ago
    > withholding their services because their choice matches your ethics I do actually think the site is unethical, yes. But those are not "my" ethics, just ethics in general. There is sufficient evidence to argue against the Daily Sceptic on purely humanist grounds. On top of that I do find the site personally objectionable, that is also true. I also believe that the intent and consequences behind opinions matter. If there is a website that clearly influences a lot of people to be anti-science and that tries to promote social inequity then I don't view this neutrally as just another opinion. Ethically, this is not on the same level as, say, someone's opinions about the Game of Thrones finale. > But if you're ok with companies that should almost be utilities withholding their services I told you two times already that I'm not okay with this, only that this is one of the exceedingly rare cases where I welcome the way things have already been working for years.