Cancel Culture turned its gaze to Baby Yoda

Originally posted by cdtm
I would.

Speaking of slippery slopes, banning over "hate speech" is one. Who decides where that line is?

Is hate speech only overt statements, like "Certain people should burn in.."

Or does it include the latest definition on "Microaggressions" that no one outside of academia would have a clue about?

Or do we simply let any disadvantaged group make up the rules as they go along, and someone from said group complains, for any reason, that is hate speech?

And what stops legitimate political dissent from being labeled hate speech, and silenced? As politics are so polarized at this point that double standards are simply never self policed from within a political community.

I say let people say whatever they want, no matter how vile. Let the communities self police, or work out for themselves their own social norms. If someone is offended, they have options ranging from ignoring the perpetrator, blocking them, not engaging with them, or simply "dealing with it" when offended.

BIG AGREE WITH THIS RIGHT HERE

I especially can't trust the side that can't properly define words like racist, sexist, nazi, or fascist to have a non-insane definition of "hate speech".

The hilarious part is that calling someone a racist or a nazi merely because you disagree with them would seem to be pretty hateful speech.

Their definition is "anyone that disagrees with me".

Originally posted by snowdragon
I asked if they are a platform or publisher, so you say "self policing" and that would make them a publisher, got it 😉

would KMC then a publisher then?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
would KMC then a publisher then?

What they always conveniently gloss over, as surely they're aware, is that all these companies, Twitter, Youtube, Facebook etc have a EULA which every user agrees too (digitally) and if you break the rules, you're subject to censorship or banning.

There's also an extremely easy fix for them, if you don't like how a social media company operates, don't use the service, find a service whose culture better fits your views/needs.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
would KMC then a publisher then?

It would seem KMC functions more as a distributor from the perspective of moderation and information.

Originally posted by Robtard
What they always conveniently gloss over, as surely they're aware, is that all these companies, Twitter, Youtube, Facebook etc have a EULA which every user agrees too (digitally) and if you break the rules, you're subject to censorship or banning.

Are you consistent in this principle and think Christians can turn away gays, muslims can turn away whites etc. ?

I mean this in a service setting.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Are you consistent in this principle and think Christians can turn away gays, muslims can turn away whites etc. ?

I mean this in a service setting.

As long as said actions don't break our existing laws in regards to discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation and/or religion, I don't really care.

But as you probably know, those actions often do break our laws.

I'd also add that turning someone away because they're gay or a different religion is not very Christian and would make Jesus cry. So really, these people are using "my religion" as a means to hide their own bigotry.

Originally posted by Robtard
As long as said actions don't break our existing laws in regards to discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation and/or religion, I don't really care.

But as you probably know, those actions often do break our laws.

It's not illegal to discriminate tho.
If i own a business i can turn away anyone at any time, no?

Edit: in the context of owner to customer.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
It's not illegal to discriminate tho.
If i own a business i can turn away anyone at any time, no?

Edit: in the context of owner to customer.

What part didn't you understand?

-Yes you can

-Unless it breaks our existing laws on discrimination

Originally posted by Robtard
What part didn't you understand?

-Yes you can

-Unless it breaks our existing laws on discrimination

Im saying specifically from the point of a business owner that there isnt any laws and im specifically talking about employee or owner to customer relations, not owner to employees, so there is no existing law.

So youre saying yes, it is kosher from robtard's pov that a christian baker can legally and legitimately tell a gay person no and to get out?

Edit: youre being consistent, and that's all i ask.

I doubt he will agree a Christian baker should be able to tell a gay person to get out, but I'd love to be wrong.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Im saying specifically from the point of a business owner that there isnt any laws and im specifically talking about employee or owner to customer relations, not owner to employees, so there is no existing law.

So youre saying yes, it is kosher from robtard's pov that a christian baker can legally and legitimately tell a gay person no and to get out?

This is wrong. There are laws in America that prohibit a business owner from certain discrimination practices against customers. See: The Civil Rights Act of 1964

The "Christian" baker is less cut and dry because he's using his own freedom of religion as the reason why he's discriminating against people.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is wrong. There are laws in America that prohibit a business owner from certain discrimination practices. See: The Civil Rights Act of 1964

The "Christian" baker is less cut and dry because he's using his own freedom of religion as the reason why he's discriminating against people.

You're absolutely right. I just looked it up.

Wow, i didnt know the civil rights act forced inclusion.
Do you like that the state forces association that way?

Edit: thank you for correcting me and providing information. I misunderstood it at first. Your patience is appreciated.

"forced inclusion" 😂 Oh you people.

I like that people can't be discriminated against because of something as trivial as their skin color.

Going back to the 'yes you can turn people away, but as long as it doesn't break existing laws' stated earliar: if that "Christian" baker, wanted to turn away a customer because they're disabled, the American Disabilities Act of 1990 would likely overrule his own business owner's rights.

So, he can't turn away democrats?

Originally posted by Robtard
"forced inclusion" 😂 Oh you people.

I like that people can't be discriminated against because of something as trivial as their skin color.

Back to that "Christian" bake, if he wanted to turn away a customer because they're disabled, the American Disabilities Act of 1990 would likely overrule his own business owner's rights.

I call it forced because the role of the state.
The state is a monopoly on force, meaning there is no greater disparity in a power dynamic than between that of the levisthan and it's citizenry.
The closest we get is the disparity in the power dynamic between adult snd child.
It would be weird if a parent forced their child to never turn down a friend no matter what, or else.
The or else being the threat of punishment.
Now, if that same child chose to befriend everyone they met autonomously there would be no sinister element to that scenario.

My problem with forced inclusion in this case is how it actually preserves the business interests of the racists, sexists, whatever-ists.

If the owner of a diary queen franchise, in a free market, says they wont sell ice cream to someone because theyre black, for example, then that guy would be seen as a racist jerk and his dq would collapse.

In the current mixed economy the same racist dq owner still has hate in his heart and the money made from serving all those black people allows him to mobilize that hate.

So, if im black, id wanna ask what's more important; easy access to a racist guy's ice cream i can get because the money the state steals from me through taxes forces him to sell it to me?
Or that a racist loses his business, and therefore a large portion of his power to act in this world?

I see your point of: "If the owner of a diary queen franchise, in a free market, says they wont sell ice cream to someone because theyre black, for example, then that guy would be seen as a racist jerk and his dq would collapse."

I both agree and disagree. I like that idea that these people should be exposed, but we've seen where these bigots end up profiting because other like minded bigots flock to give them patronage and it would suck for those hypothetical Black people to lose out on Dairy Cream because of bigots if there's not another DQ within driving distance.

So let's stick to the existing laws on discrimination.

We shouldn't have laws on discrimination for private entities.

Originally posted by wxyz
We shouldn't have laws on discrimination for private entities.

Your opinion has been noted.