Not saying not to question it. The behaviour on here from some is like they are being thrown in jail for speaking their minds.
I have not seen anyone share that sentiment.
But, having your job be at stake or feeling like you canāt speak a certain side politically because there is a very real and present danger of it hurting you financially and socially is garbage.
It foments more hatred and less discussion and discussion and debate are necessary for the advancement of ideas and is overall good for society.
2 Likes
My Draft Lottery number was too high. I was not drafted.
1 Like
I donāt agree with ācancel cultureā, but itās not your government doing it to you.
Literally nobody said it wasā¦ I have not seen anyone here misrepresent the first amendment and I think I am suited better than most to make that determination.
But with federal and government subsidies, I could make an argument that many big tech / social media sites are skirting a fine line. Even more so as many things in that realm are being pushed as a public utility.
2 Likes
Fair enough and maybe I overreacted.
Until social media outlets are a public utility it should be free to operate in a manner that it is best for itās profits, even if that means censoring some. Wouldnāt be surprised if it is outlined in the āTerms and Conditionsā.
1 Like
Oh it 100% is.
Private business can do whatever it wants - no issue there, but when private business is propped up by government (taxpayer) money - is it really private?
1 Like
I guess the unfortunately reality is they prop each other up.
1 Like
They are definitely in bed with each other.
Right.
No one has said the government is the one taking away this freedom! You can be shut of banks, payment processors, and jobs! And if enough companies get on this bandwagon, someone can be shut out of society.
People who say, āthatās their right to disassociate,ā are not grounded in reality and I believe they are playing a wiseass game of semantics. Again, Iām not saying that to insult people but thatās how I see it.
As said before, enough powerful people actually want governmental repression of free speech!
4 Likes
Whatās the alternative though? That the government force companies to do business with people they find abhorrent? Should banks have to service the Klan? Should an employer have to retain someone with a KKK bumper sticker in the parking lot?
1 Like
Donāt take money / be in bed with the government and do whatever you want as long as it isnāt discriminatory legally?
And nobody is pushing for doing business with openly racist entities. And with todayās world - something abhorrent to one side or the other can be some of the dumbest shit I have ever heard.
Such as supporting the opposing sideās political candidate.
That is not a society I want to live in. It is pathetic.
Thatās the whole point, though. Who gets to decide whatās abhorrent or racist? You? Or the business owner. If you donāt like the stand the business is taking, you are free to not do business with them.
1 Like
You donāt see how this eventually leads to having nowhere to do business? If we had kept business and politics separate, as they were always intended to be, this wouldnāt be an issue. Furthermore, if people would stop bringing politics and beliefs into their place of work - this wouldnāt be an issue.
I agree with your point though. Regardless, if a business is taking govt money, they ought to be subjected to the first ammendment.
2 Likes
As said before, this isnāt just about saying mean things about people or racism. I myself do not even ask certain questions or present facts here or elsewhere online because of this.
The term racism seems to have ever-expanding definitions and is now used as an epithet when someone has nothing intellectual to offer in many cases. There was even a time on here where people were routinely throwing that word around very loosely, along with anti-Semite.
2 Likes
Does get tricky in some cases. Many churches got PPP money during Covid. I guess, they arenāt seen as a business by the government. I donāt think they should be subjected to 1st amendment rules. They should be allowed to reject job applicants due to differing beliefs for example.
Again, who should be the one who gets to decide what is abhorrent or what is racist?
Why do you think āthey were always intended to beā separate? Where is that written?
Well, words are supposed to mean something and in a serious society, the definition is clear.
What does abhorrent mean? How can you objectively state whether someone finds something abhorrent or not? Should Hobby Lobby have the right to refuse to sell decorations to the Planned Parenthood down the street?
1 Like