YouTube going full thought police.

[Machismo]

Not really. Neither of those are. But nice deflection. Whataboutism ain't gonna change that you are okay with minorities being fucked over. Because those are the people who would be affected by the erosion of protections. Black guy living in small town. Needs medicine. Only pharmacy in town denies him service. What is he to do? Always drive to the next, or over next town? Should he have to move? If you value the freedom of someone to be racist over someone being able to get medicine despite their race...you are racist. You don't care. Your little deflections prove that this is just a game to you.

It's not a deflection, I just want you to be consistent. BLM pushed racist bullshit at some of their rallies. You support them, apparently... making you racist. Antifa attacked people and used violence. That means you are a fascist for not condemning them and banning them outright.

I value the freedom of someone to be and act as they like, so long as it does not harm others. Choosing to not sell to someone is no more harmful than choosing to not buy from someone. Are you harming someone when you do not buy from their store?

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't call you any of those things. I called you out on selectively culling definitions to suit your own purpose. You don't support freedom, you support freedom only for those with the means to take it. With no legal protections from discrimination, minority groups have been abused again and again and again throughout history without exception. Those with power, use that power. It's great that you think this idealistic society exists wherein everyone can just do as they please and things just kind of take care of themselves. That's not fucking reality. If you are going to stand there and say that you dislike homophobia, but people are free to discriminate against gays, then who the fuck cares if you dislike homophobia? You didn't do anything about it. You aren't a homophobe. You aren't basically one, or the next best thing to one. You're a dude who didn't give a shit because it didn't affect you and you found a neat way to justify it.

No one is taking away freedom to be a homophobe. You can hate gays all day. You can write books about it, you can go on tv or the radio or the internet and talk about it, you can exclude them from your private clubs and religions. You can't deny them a job or housing or health care because those things are protected. And yes, you do have to keep working with white nationalists unless they actually say or do something. You can't fire someone for being a Nazi. You can fire someone for saying anti-Semitic things. See my way actually treats people as individuals and judges them based on words and actions.

- - - Updated - - -



That guy lost his job because he said women are biologically incapable of certain jobs because he found some pseudoscience bullshit that says men are more ambitious.

Nope, I support freedom for everyone, even people I don't happen to like, such as homophobes, xenophobes, racists, and sexists.

You seem to think that I don't understand that there will be problems with a society that puts freedom above all else. I know there will be problems, and I'm fine with that. At least it will be consistent, and not authoritarian. Once we start demanding an authoritarian society, we don't get to then turn around and complain when it doesn't suit our interests. That's selfish and hypocritical.

I don't hate gay people. I do hate homophobes. However, I value freedom over my hatred of homophobes. Sorry, I don't want to force someone to work with a Nazi or white nationalist, call me crazy like that.

[buck008]

Nope, I support freedom for everyone, even people I don't happen to like, such as homophobes, xenophobes, racists, and sexists.

You seem to think that I don't understand that there will be problems with a society that puts freedom above all else. I know there will be problems, and I'm fine with that. At least it will be consistent, and not authoritarian. Once we start demanding an authoritarian society, we don't get to then turn around and complain when it doesn't suit our interests. That's selfish and hypocritical.

I don't hate gay people. I do hate homophobes. However, I value freedom over my hatred of homophobes. Sorry, I don't want to force someone to work with a Nazi or white nationalist, call me crazy like that.

You and I have vastly different ideas of what authoritarianism means. Because allowing the wholesale marginalization of whole classes of people is pretty fucking authoritarian. You do gloss over the problems of such a society, because it very much would not be free. You are really only protecting the people that have the means to marginalize those they do not like and have no power to fight back. That's not freedom. That's just handing over control to the majority group and allowing them to do as they please to everyone else. You are massively naive if you think otherwise.

[Machismo]

You and I have vastly different ideas of what authoritarianism means. Because allowing the wholesale marginalization of whole classes of people is pretty fucking authoritarian. You do gloss over the problems of such a society, because it very much would not be free. You are really only protecting the people that have the means to marginalize those they do not like and have no power to fight back. That's not freedom. That's just handing over control to the majority group and allowing them to do as they please to everyone else. You are massively naive if you think otherwise.

Mine is based off of government use of force, as well as tribalistic use of force. Refusing to serve someone is no different than refusing to patronize a business. In the end, it's a voluntary transaction between two people. An a capitalistic society, the consumers have the power. Whether they choose to use that power is their choice to make. I never said people can do whatever they please to others. If they wish to cause harm, then I would stop them. I do not feel that refusing to serve someone is harmful. Otherwise, I would also have to say that refusing to patronize a business is also harmful.

[buck008]

Mine is based off of government use of force, as well as tribalistic use of force. Refusing to serve someone is no different than refusing to patronize a business. In the end, it's a voluntary transaction between two people. An a capitalistic society, the consumers have the power. Whether they choose to use that power is their choice to make. I never said people can do whatever they please to others. If they wish to cause harm, then I would stop them. I do not feel that refusing to serve someone is harmful. Otherwise, I would also have to say that refusing to patronize a business is also harmful.

You also said that you can refuse to hire people or fire people. You were silent on things like housing. For example, the Fair Housing Act that prevents discrimination in renting/purchasing. There are countless ways that those in power can marginalize groups they don't like if they are allowed to. For example, businesses are allowed to refuse service to black people. They don't have to sell houses to black people that can otherwise qualify for them. That creates a de facto segregation without there legally being such a practice. Let me know if that sounds familiar.

[Elba]

I value the freedom of someone to be and act as they like, so long as it does not harm others. Choosing to not sell to someone is no more harmful than choosing to not buy from someone. Are you harming someone when you do not buy from their store?

Those aren't even remotely comparable in impact.

[Cedon]

it happens when liberals infect the minds of companies.

No, it's what happens when a source of money gets threatened. Google isn't protecting liberalism, it's protecting an income stream.

[Machismo]

You also said that you can refuse to hire people or fire people. You were silent on things like housing. For example, the Fair Housing Act that prevents discrimination in renting/purchasing. There are countless ways that those in power can marginalize groups they don't like if they are allowed to. For example, businesses are allowed to refuse service to black people. They don't have to sell houses to black people that can otherwise qualify for them. That creates a de facto segregation without there legally being such a practice. Let me know if that sounds familiar.

I didn't know the issue of housing was raised. I would also agree that people can sell or rent to whomever they want. I have no problem if individuals wish to segregate. I have a huge problem when the government tries to do it.

- - - Updated - - -

Those aren't even remotely comparable in impact.

It's both sides of a voluntary transaction.

[buck008]

I didn't know the issue of housing was raised. I would also agree that people can sell or rent to whomever they want. I have no problem if individuals wish to segregate. I have a huge problem when the government tries to do it.

Individuals didn't want to segregate. One group decided that they didn't want the other one around. These are the blinders you have to put on to make your ideology work.

- - - Updated - - -

It's both sides of a voluntary transaction.

One says that you MUST go to this store and purchase. One says that you can not remove someone from your store unless they do something. Totally the same.

[Theodarzna]

The magic of Libertarians sperging out about "Muh private company" as if we aren't allowed to judge a company's actions or culture.

[Helgrimm]

Yep, they are racist. When they tell white people to leave, you still CONDONE them. That makes you a racist. When antifa attacks people, you still CONDONE them. By your very comment, you are a racist fascist.

Well, thanks for also admitting to being a hypocrite.

Looks like you're using a few bad apples to justify burning the entire orchard..... by your logic, Trump and his supporters should be banned because the KKK voted for him.

[Machismo]

Individuals didn't want to segregate. One group decided that they didn't want the other one around. These are the blinders you have to put on to make your ideology work.

- - - Updated - - -



One says that you MUST go to this store and purchase. One says that you can not remove someone from your store unless they do something. Totally the same.

It's a voluntary transaction between two people. If you are going to require that one sell to another, why not also require that the other purchase from them?

- - - Updated - - -

The magic of Libertarians sperging out about "Muh private company" as if we aren't allowed to judge a company's actions or culture.

Of course you can judge a company, and you can also judge a private individual. Judge companies and actions all you like, just don't try to legislate them because of it.

- - - Updated - - -

Looks like you're using a few bad apples to justify burning the entire orchard..... by your logic, Trump and his supporters should be banned because the KKK voted for him.

I don't want to ban anything, that's the entire point.

[buck008]

It's a voluntary transaction between two people. If you are going to require that one sell to another, why not also require that the other purchase from them?

Interesting that you chose not to respond to the first part. Also, if you can't see the difference between actively forcing people to consume certain goods from certain places, and not allowing a shop keeper to remove a person from their business just for being a certain demographic, I'm afraid you've lost touch with reality in a significant way.

[Endus]

It's a voluntary transaction between two people. If you are going to require that one sell to another, why not also require that the other purchase from them?

You get that this is a ridiculous comparison, right?

It's like saying "hey, if two guys get in a boxing ring, they can both punch each other voluntarily, so why should it be illegal for someone to cold-cock another guy out of nowhere for no reason?"

Context matters. Also, the transaction isn't forced against anyone's will. By opening a business, the owner agreed to abide by the laws, which state they cannot discriminate in certain ways. If they wanted to retain that right, they were free to not open a business to the public in the first place. Same way you can't be charged for shoddy health standards that lead to some friends getting food poisoning when they eat a meal at your place, but if you open a restaurant, you're suddenly going to be held to health codes.

[Baelic]

Not surprising, considering they run mostly off advertising revenue. And advertisers only want to be associated with certain content.

[Machismo]

Interesting that you chose not to respond to the first part. Also, if you can't see the difference between actively forcing people to consume certain goods from certain places, and not allowing a shop keeper to remove a person from their business just for being a certain demographic, I'm afraid you've lost touch with reality in a significant way.

Individuals seek to segregate themselves all the time.

Forcing someone to purchase a product from someone is no different than forcing someone to sell a product to a person.

- - - Updated - - -

You get that this is a ridiculous comparison, right?

It's like saying "hey, if two guys get in a boxing ring, they can both punch each other voluntarily, so why should it be illegal for someone to cold-cock another guy out of nowhere for no reason?"

Context matters. Also, the transaction isn't forced against anyone's will. By opening a business, the owner agreed to abide by the laws, which state they cannot discriminate in certain ways. If they wanted to retain that right, they were free to not open a business to the public in the first place. Same way you can't be charged for shoddy health standards that lead to some friends getting food poisoning when they eat a meal at your place, but if you open a restaurant, you're suddenly going to be held to health codes.

There's one difference, I don't support harming others.

Government is force. It's that simple. At the end of the day, it's a guy with a gun, telling you to do something, or else...

[Endus]

There's one difference, I don't support harming others.

Government is force. It's that simple. At the end of the day, it's a guy with a gun, telling you to do something, or else...

And?

Sorry, I can't hold with your apparent support for anarchy. All that is, is a call for someone with even less ethical purview than the government to be the one holding the gun, because nobody has any authority to stop them.

You're arguing against the concept of law itself, here. That's a ridiculous perspective, because if you remove rule of law, then you're opening the door for anyone who's stronger than you to stick a gun in your face and tell you to do whatever comes into their head, with no say whatsoever, unlike with representative government, where you do get such a say.

There's always going to be someone with a gun. The question is whether they're working to protect a representative society and its carefully crafted protections, or if they're just serving their own interests. Any circumstance you can create where there's no such gun-wielder "forcing" anyone to do anything, that only lasts until someone, anyone, realizes that guns exist. Or any other weapon.

[Machismo]

And?

Sorry, I can't hold with your apparent support for anarchy. All that is, is a call for someone with even less ethical purview than the government to be the one holding the gun, because nobody has any authority to stop them.

You're arguing against the concept of law itself, here. That's a ridiculous perspective, because if you remove rule of law, then you're opening the door for anyone who's stronger than you to stick a gun in your face and tell you to do whatever comes into their head, with no say whatsoever, unlike with representative government, where you do get such a say.

I don't support anarchy.

I'm arguing against restricting actions that do not cause actual harm. If refusing to sell to someone is harm, then you shouldn't allow anyone to do so. And as you have made clear on many occasions, businesses should be able to choose with whom they work.

[Endus]

I don't support anarchy.

Then drop the silly "man with a gun" nonsense, because that's an argument against the concept of rule of law itself.

I'm arguing against restricting actions that do not cause actual harm. If refusing to sell to someone is harm, then you shouldn't allow anyone to do so. And as you have made clear on many occasions, businesses should be able to choose with whom they work.

It's not unrestricted in either case. And to be frank, you're probably referring to threads where I was talking about how at-will employment works. I don't actually support the concept of at-will employment; it's not how employment works anywhere in Canada. You need legal cause to fire someone, here.

Because, yes, I consider firing someone without cause to be "harm". I consider discriminating against customers out of hateful prejudice to be "harm". Those aren't oddball concepts; they're pretty much accepted standards throughout most of the developed world.

[Machismo]

Then drop the silly "man with a gun" nonsense, because that's an argument against the concept of rule of law itself.



It's not unrestricted in either case. And to be frank, you're probably referring to threads where I was talking about how at-will employment works. I don't actually support the concept of at-will employment; it's not how employment works anywhere in Canada. You need legal cause to fire someone, here.

Because, yes, I consider firing someone without cause to be "harm". I consider discriminating against customers out of hateful prejudice to be "harm". Those aren't oddball concepts; they're pretty much accepted standards throughout most of the developed world.

So, you weren't serious when you said people should be able to fire employees, or choose not to do business with people they didn't want? But hey, it's good to know that you would force a business to serve neo-Nazis, the Westboro Baptist Church, and the KKK, even if the owner hated such people.

[buck008]

Individuals seek to segregate themselves all the time.

Forcing someone to purchase a product from someone is no different than forcing someone to sell a product to a person.

That's objectively not what we were talking about. You have to actively ignore this fact to keep going down this line of thinking. You have to be willing and able to totally ignore the many instances throughout history where a lack of consequences for discrimination has lead to abuse. Not a hypothetical or what could potentially happen. Actual history. It's ridiculous at face value.

Forcing a person to make a purchase is completely different on nearly every level. One requires a person to limit their purchasing options for an arbitrary reason and spend their personal income on products that they may or may not want or need. Forcing a shopkeeper to sell their goods causes them to make money.

There's one difference, I don't support harming others.

Government is force. It's that simple. At the end of the day, it's a guy with a gun, telling you to do something, or else...

See, this is an active endorsement of anarchy. You keep saying it isn't, but that's bullshit. Your whole shtick is about how evil government is, but that's a real fucking easy position to take from your comfy seat in a country that's had stable government providing regulation and infrastructure for 200 years. Sorry, I'd rather back popularly elected representatives over whichever fuckhead climbs to the top of the hill this Tuesday.