3 ms·
>If you banned vandals and violent people from your private property for their malicious behavior, people would not band against you or cry about first amendmen
by Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>If you banned vandals and violent people from your private property for their malicious behavior, people would not band against you or cry about first amendment "ideals".
The government is allowed to ban such people from its premises as well. You choose a poor example.
As for the reasoning behind the bans, you are ignoring the unequal application of those bans which shows such claimed reasons to have been lies.
>If you honestly think that what Reddit did is the equivalent of racism
I never called it the equivalent of racism. I used racism as an example of where the ideals that ban the government, while not banning the individual, can be used to cast moral judgment upon the individual. That you could confuse these gives evidence to your own strong bias.
- bduerst 11y agoIt's a perfect good example because it's analagous to what Reddit did, and you're splitting hairs because it doesn't fit your own narrative on racism and moral judgement that you crafted for your own personal reality. You even admit that you don't think that what reddit did is the equivalent of racism, so you admit your analogy isn't even relevant to the situation. Just as if you gave the analogy of "people judge a bar that doesn't let you bear arms because of second amendment ideals!", it's still moot, because while yes, they do pass moral judgement, it's completely irrelevant from people selectively ignoring safety reasons behind the firearm ban. Passing moral judgement that resulted from a bias is still a bias.