5 ms·

I wish we would be more explicit here. What political beliefs are they being de-platformed for? Is it the lower taxes? Deregulation? Immigration policy? Which s

I wish we would be more explicit here. What political beliefs are they being de-platformed for? Is it the lower taxes? Deregulation? Immigration policy? Which specific political belief is getting them kicked off of platforms?

gadders 4y ago
Does it matter? Do you have some political beliefs for which you think de-banking is acceptable? What are those?
- tstrimple 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - zirgs 4y ago
    Would it be OK to cut off access to water, electricity and heating for beliefs that some people consider bigoted? Said something wrong on the internet - no more water for you - go dig your own well. What's the difference between an electricity provider and a banking platform?
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
      You can always stuff your cash in your mattress if you manage to be enough of a bigot that every financial institution decides you're radioactive. Harder to do that with utilities like water and electricity. It's worth noting that most US jurisdictions have laws that limit how and when utilities, whether managed publicly or privately, can terminate service. A common example is not being able to cut off gas service in the middle of winter, even if the customer is severely behind on payments. We don't have to worry so much about the slippery slope you describe because we have already established regulatory backstops that consider utilities different from other businesses.
      - zirgs 4y ago
        Gay marriage is illegal in my country. What if conservatives get in power and decide to deplatform those who argue for marriage equality? Remember that "your side" won't be in power forever and deplatforming for political reasons creates ugly precedents.
        sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
        The point of the post you replied to originally is that bigotry is often clothed in the language of politics, and generally that's done by the bigots. It's only politics because the bigots create that relationship as a mask for the bigotry. It's not deplatforming for political reasons. It's deplatforming bigots.
        gadders 4y ago
        Who is or isn't a bigot isn't an objective test. It's easy to accuse someone you disagree with politically of being a bigot.
        mrguyorama 4y ago
        If you cause me harm for something I am, you are a bigot. If you cause me harm because of something I do, you might not be a bigot.
        zirgs 4y ago
        Those who are against gay marriage say that it does harm to families. Those who are against abortions say that they are against killing babies. They also argue that those things aren't political opinions. Currently I'm not afraid to say that gay marriage should be legalised, because the worst that could happen is that some homophobe could insult me with homophobic slurs. But if extra-judicial persecution of political opponents is normalised and encouraged then I sure as hell would keep my mouth shut, because I don't want to lose my job and my bank account. A business that deplatforms "bigots" today could easily start deplatforming "baby killers" and "family wreckers" tomorrow.
  - gadders 4y ago
    Leaving aside the deliberate misrepresentation in your examples, this unbanking only goes one way. I didn't see Joy Reid losing her current account for all her homophobic blog posts, for instance.
- minsc_and_boo 4y ago
  Political belief is human opinion, and not a protected class. Is your position that there is no human opinion for which de-banking is acceptable?
  - gadders 4y ago
    Given that even murderers, rapists and paedophiles get to have bank accounts, I don't think that there is any human opinion for which people should have their banks accounts removed for what they believe. If the views people espouse are illegal, then punish them via the law.
    - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
      So you're okay with your bank assisting ISIL in their weapons transactions? What about illegal activities outside of the law's jurisdiction?
      - gadders 4y ago
        See my previous answer: >>If the views people espouse are illegal, then punish them via the law. This also goes for their activities. There is a clear difference between someone saying "I think Terrorist Group X is great" on twitter and someone using their bank account so that Terrorist Group X can buy stuff to make bombs. And even in that latter case, once the person concerned has finished their prison sentence they should still get a bank account so they can live.

gadders 4y ago

Does it matter? Do you have some political beliefs for which you think de-banking is acceptable? What are those?

tstrimple 4y ago
[flagged]
- zirgs 4y ago
  Would it be OK to cut off access to water, electricity and heating for beliefs that some people consider bigoted? Said something wrong on the internet - no more water for you - go dig your own well. What's the difference between an electricity provider and a banking platform?
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
    You can always stuff your cash in your mattress if you manage to be enough of a bigot that every financial institution decides you're radioactive. Harder to do that with utilities like water and electricity. It's worth noting that most US jurisdictions have laws that limit how and when utilities, whether managed publicly or privately, can terminate service. A common example is not being able to cut off gas service in the middle of winter, even if the customer is severely behind on payments. We don't have to worry so much about the slippery slope you describe because we have already established regulatory backstops that consider utilities different from other businesses.
    - zirgs 4y ago
      Gay marriage is illegal in my country. What if conservatives get in power and decide to deplatform those who argue for marriage equality? Remember that "your side" won't be in power forever and deplatforming for political reasons creates ugly precedents.
      - sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
        The point of the post you replied to originally is that bigotry is often clothed in the language of politics, and generally that's done by the bigots. It's only politics because the bigots create that relationship as a mask for the bigotry. It's not deplatforming for political reasons. It's deplatforming bigots.
        gadders 4y ago
        Who is or isn't a bigot isn't an objective test. It's easy to accuse someone you disagree with politically of being a bigot.
        mrguyorama 4y ago
        If you cause me harm for something I am, you are a bigot. If you cause me harm because of something I do, you might not be a bigot.
        zirgs 4y ago
        Those who are against gay marriage say that it does harm to families. Those who are against abortions say that they are against killing babies. They also argue that those things aren't political opinions. Currently I'm not afraid to say that gay marriage should be legalised, because the worst that could happen is that some homophobe could insult me with homophobic slurs. But if extra-judicial persecution of political opponents is normalised and encouraged then I sure as hell would keep my mouth shut, because I don't want to lose my job and my bank account. A business that deplatforms "bigots" today could easily start deplatforming "baby killers" and "family wreckers" tomorrow.
- gadders 4y ago
  Leaving aside the deliberate misrepresentation in your examples, this unbanking only goes one way. I didn't see Joy Reid losing her current account for all her homophobic blog posts, for instance.
minsc_and_boo 4y ago
Political belief is human opinion, and not a protected class. Is your position that there is no human opinion for which de-banking is acceptable?
- gadders 4y ago
  Given that even murderers, rapists and paedophiles get to have bank accounts, I don't think that there is any human opinion for which people should have their banks accounts removed for what they believe. If the views people espouse are illegal, then punish them via the law.
  - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
    So you're okay with your bank assisting ISIL in their weapons transactions? What about illegal activities outside of the law's jurisdiction?
    - gadders 4y ago
      See my previous answer: >>If the views people espouse are illegal, then punish them via the law. This also goes for their activities. There is a clear difference between someone saying "I think Terrorist Group X is great" on twitter and someone using their bank account so that Terrorist Group X can buy stuff to make bombs. And even in that latter case, once the person concerned has finished their prison sentence they should still get a bank account so they can live.