Meta convinced a federal court to quash a lawsuit challenging its termination of six Instagram accounts run by self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate and his brother, Tristan.
how does it feel to be a sniveling cuckold of men using poor useful idiots like you to enrich themselves more than anyone in human history? your homophobia is so useful to them. hope you figure it out one day, buddy!
The government should not force someone under threat of violence to do work.
So if there’s a feedlot set up next door to your house, the government shouldn’t proactively require them not to dump the pig slurry into your backyard? Sure, maybe you can sue, but they’re thousands of times richer than you, and as the suit goes through the courts, you’re still buried in pig shit.
How about every credit card company refusing to deal with you because, for example, you’re a libertarian? Just fine, start your own bank? And how about a water company or some other lifeline utility?
It’s entirely reasonable for governments to impose standards on business. Everywhere and every time that has not happened, businesses have committed abuses. Even Adam Smith (the real one, not the modern crackpot who stole his name) knew that. “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
Regardless of any ethical considerations you may or may not have about the affected group: where does it lead if exclusion reaches a critical mass in a largely privatised society, making it impossible for a significant number of people to acquire necessary goods or services?
What exactly would your ideal world look like, and how would one prevent it from devolving into groups segregating by increasingly precise identity- or ideological markers? How would this affect societies and economies at large, if we fully reject the paradox of unlimited tolerance of intolerance? Have you ever tried discussing this with likeminded people and were they able to offer satisfying solutions that could withstand logical examination without requiring religious or otherwise tribal substitutions?
It means the few businesses who help marginalized groups have a lot more business than the other ones and benefit.
Furthermore, I believe in canceling bigots and spamming their businesses yelp pages. The government doesn’t need to force people to be good, society still exists
Who the fuck are “you guys”? You have no clue what I stand for.
And be careful throwing around monoliths, cause the right and pedophiles/white supremecists/grifters/etc. are one in the same if thats the lens were looking at things through
I mean, when a gay couple sued about not getting their wedding cake you guys had the exact opposite response.
I’m of the opinion nobody can force you to provide service like a slave
how does it feel to be a sniveling cuckold of men using poor useful idiots like you to enrich themselves more than anyone in human history? your homophobia is so useful to them. hope you figure it out one day, buddy!
It doesn’t matter what reason someone has to just refuse to do something. The government should not force someone under threat of violence to do work.
I can privately boycott businesses that I disagree with, give them bad reviews, etc.
We actually decided in like the 50s or 60s that it does matter.
As someone else already mentioned, sex traffickers aren’t a protected class.
So if there’s a feedlot set up next door to your house, the government shouldn’t proactively require them not to dump the pig slurry into your backyard? Sure, maybe you can sue, but they’re thousands of times richer than you, and as the suit goes through the courts, you’re still buried in pig shit.
How about every credit card company refusing to deal with you because, for example, you’re a libertarian? Just fine, start your own bank? And how about a water company or some other lifeline utility?
It’s entirely reasonable for governments to impose standards on business. Everywhere and every time that has not happened, businesses have committed abuses. Even Adam Smith (the real one, not the modern crackpot who stole his name) knew that. “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
You have property rights, your backyard is your property.
I can’t force a credit card company to do business with me. They only do it because they calculated it’s worth their while.
Regardless of any ethical considerations you may or may not have about the affected group: where does it lead if exclusion reaches a critical mass in a largely privatised society, making it impossible for a significant number of people to acquire necessary goods or services?
What exactly would your ideal world look like, and how would one prevent it from devolving into groups segregating by increasingly precise identity- or ideological markers? How would this affect societies and economies at large, if we fully reject the paradox of unlimited tolerance of intolerance? Have you ever tried discussing this with likeminded people and were they able to offer satisfying solutions that could withstand logical examination without requiring religious or otherwise tribal substitutions?
It means the few businesses who help marginalized groups have a lot more business than the other ones and benefit.
Furthermore, I believe in canceling bigots and spamming their businesses yelp pages. The government doesn’t need to force people to be good, society still exists
Sex traffickers are not a protected class.
Who the fuck are “you guys”? You have no clue what I stand for.
And be careful throwing around monoliths, cause the right and pedophiles/white supremecists/grifters/etc. are one in the same if thats the lens were looking at things through
People on Lemmy, not you in particular
Lemmy didn’t exist when that happened lol
No, but that’s not the first time I’ve talked about it here with other people