Porn Site Bans North Carolina Users

[Machismo]

No, what you want is to be pedantic. You have no interest in anything other than reducing this entire conversation down to a single point so that you can be right based on technicality.

You cannot even admit to the definition of a word.

[Grym]

I think they shouldn't ban porn for North Carolina users, just restrict to gay and lesbian porn only.

[Machismo]

Homophobia is belief based. The outcome of homophobic actions are physically measurable; no belief is required.

Whether or not "gay people will send us to hell" is belief. Refusing to serve someone because they are gay causes that person to not be able to access that particular service at least, and causes mental or physical damage at worst.

Yes, homophobia is a terrible thing, you don't need to tell me twice. That is something I have believed for a long time. That does not mean I'm going to force my beliefs onto others, at the expense of their freedoms. Yes, they are assholes and bigots, but they should be free to be assholes and bigots. Forcing them to follow my beliefs is not going to change them, just as banning gay marriage did not change gay people... it just pissed them off.

[Delekii]

Yes, homophobia is a terrible thing, you don't need to tell me twice. That is something I have believed for a long time. That does not mean I'm going to force my beliefs onto others, at the expense of their freedoms. Yes, they are assholes and bigots, but they should be free to be assholes and bigots. Forcing them to follow my beliefs is not going to change them, just as banning gay marriage did not change gay people... it just pissed them off.

Forcing them to act as if those beliefs do not exist may not change them, but it changes the experiences of those against whom they discriminate. That is the ENTIRE point. I think we finally might have got there.

We probably can't change people to the point where homophobia doesn't exist, but we can change the rules so that it has less potential to cause harm. This is the primary reason why almost every law in existence exists. Laws against discrimination don't serve the primary function of changing the beliefs of those who want to discriminate; that is a happy outcome if it occurs. They exist to protect those who suffer from discrimination.

To carry on this point, the vast majority of laws in existence are discriminatory in nature; it's almost definitionally the case.

You cannot even admit to the definition of a word.

Literally the only reason you can possibly be so caught up on the definition of the word is pedantism. It has no relevance to the discussion, you have almost said as much yourself.

Why do you need people to say something that is true and irrelevant?



I want you to say "I like cookies". Until you do, I won't engage you in further conversation.

[derpkitteh]

I think they shouldn't ban porn for North Carolina users, just restrict to gay and lesbian porn only.

most gay hating men love lesbians.

just restrict it to boi butts.

[Basileus]

The amount of circle jerk fighting going on in this thread is utterly hilarious.

OT: I support Xhamster doing this, given it's well within their rights to not supply their business to a location them deem unfit for whatever reason.

Go Genn!

[volkanik]

They are doing North Carolinians a favor. Xhamster is low quality shit. There are way better free sites out there with 1080p stuff and 30+ minute videos.

[Felya]

I'm merely saying they are all discrimination. I also think people should be free to discriminate. Because to limit private discrimination is to force one's beliefs onto others. And since it is not applied in a consistent manner, discrimination is being used to force people to not discriminate.

Do you think that the inconsistency of the application of discrimination has something to do with you thinking that not dating every single person you see is the same as not doing business in a state that has laws not favorable to your business? Because that right there, your belief that all discrimination is the same, is the problem.

[GennGreymane]

The amount of circle jerk fighting going on in this thread is utterly hilarious.

OT: I support Xhamster doing this, given it's well within their rights to not supply their business to a location them deem unfit for whatever reason.

Go Genn!

*poses sexually*

- - - Updated - - -

most gay hating men love lesbians.

just restrict it to boi butts.

#boibutts

[satimy]

SO what, what if there was a tax issue they didn't like, or a regulation? That's a derivatives issue now if you are a shareholder.

Goal Posts have been moved successfully.

[GennGreymane]

Goal Posts have been moved successfully.

Well, I am not wrong, if you as a share holder think the company is not maximizing profits (which I guessed as an issue you had), well.... derivatives suit....

[dbudd424]

And now everyone in North Carolina will learn to use a vpn

[Machismo]

Forcing them to act as if those beliefs do not exist may not change them, but it changes the experiences of those against whom they discriminate. That is the ENTIRE point. I think we finally might have got there.

We probably can't change people to the point where homophobia doesn't exist, but we can change the rules so that it has less potential to cause harm. This is the primary reason why almost every law in existence exists. Laws against discrimination don't serve the primary function of changing the beliefs of those who want to discriminate; that is a happy outcome if it occurs. They exist to protect those who suffer from discrimination.

To carry on this point, the vast majority of laws in existence are discriminatory in nature; it's almost definitionally the case.



Literally the only reason you can possibly be so caught up on the definition of the word is pedantism. It has no relevance to the discussion, you have almost said as much yourself.

Why do you need people to say something that is true and irrelevant?



I want you to say "I like cookies". Until you do, I won't engage you in further conversation.

Once again, you are simply trying to say that your moral beliefs are more important than theirs. They have long been saying the same thing about their beliefs. However, the issue comes when you want to use the government to mandate your beliefs, at the expense of their freedom.

The issue with refusing to admit to it being discrimination is important, when that is part of the justification for their support of the discrimination. There were pletny of people who wanted to ban gay marriage, who swore they were not discriminating. They were also wrong.

[derpkitteh]

but wait, why does anyone care about xhamster when there's redtube and pornhub? those two both have more HD stuff than xhamster ever has, and neither xhamster or pornhub has the good fetish stuff you gotta dig deeper for.

[Machismo]

Do you think that the inconsistency of the application of discrimination has something to do with you thinking that not dating every single person you see is the same as not doing business in a state that has laws not favorable to your business? Because that right there, your belief that all discrimination is the same, is the problem.

I do not believe all discrimination is the same, but I do at least want to recognize exactly what discrimination is.

When you force people to do things against their will, you are taking away their freedom. For some, they seem perfectly content to force a business to serve everyone. Their justification is that since it is a business, the public deserves to have a say in it. Personally, I think that is utter bullshit. The people who should have a say in how a business operates, are its owners. The exact same thing goes for an individual.

[Deleted]

That defeats the purpose of the internet
Hopefully they will always have enough other sites.

[Anastacy]

How will the homophobes get their gay porn now?

Thread winner right here.

Isn't there a graph somewhere showing population percentages of states that look up gay porn? I remember the Bible Belt being particularly high-lighted.

[Shawken]

I do not believe all discrimination is the same, but I do at least want to recognize exactly what discrimination is.

When you force people to do things against their will, you are taking away their freedom. For some, they seem perfectly content to force a business to serve everyone. Their justification is that since it is a business, the public deserves to have a say in it. Personally, I think that is utter bullshit. The people who should have a say in how a business operates, are its owners. The exact same thing goes for an individual.

I am having such a hard time understanding why people cannot, at the very least, appreciate your stance (which is also my stance). I do not care what the porn site does. It can ONLY allow gay people to view it for all I care.

My point is the individual should be empowered to make these decisions for themselves and deal with the consequences. Do I think that the discrimination that the porn site is doing is not as bad? Yes. Is it still the exact same thing the law in NC is allowing businesses to do? Yes, it is.

Should you discriminate against gay people? Well, no. But you should have the right as an individual to do so.

[kail]

Hmm not a fan of what this could mean in the future. If online companies simply deny an entire area because of their politicians, they are hurting the wrong people. Too many innocents will be affected by this. Is xhamster just trying to get the people pissed at their politicians? Because they could just as likely turn the blame to xhamster.

Companies don't have to agree with legislation, but this isn't the best way to express an opinion.

[Anastacy]

Hmm not a fan of what this could mean in the future. If online companies simply deny an entire area because of their politicians, they are hurting the wrong people. Too many innocents will be affected by this. Is xhamster just trying to get the people pissed at their politicians? Because they could just as likely turn the blame to xhamster.

Companies don't have to agree with legislation, but this isn't the best way to express an opinion.

Too many innocents harmed?

Let's look at this from another angle...

State votes that religion can discriminate based on...whatever, really (or was it just homosexuals)?

Porn company denies access from said state.

Wouldn't the very obvious pro-religion state also be in favor of banning porn sites (or, rather, porn sites restricting access from said state)?

Oh, wait, religions are encouraged to ignore which parts of their holy books they wish to deny. My bads!