Not bitching about being oppressed, making an observation about one group of people being suppressed. Having different rules & standards for one group of people on a social media platform is bigotry in action.
-
-
Replying to @imatriarch @Cernovich
I didn't mean you now, but what it will be like for 2020 conservatives. I try to listen to all viewpoints on SM, I see the left being banned, suspended etc as well as the right, neither side sees (nor wants to) the other sides. I also see the asymmetry of claims.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Duncan_Bell @imatriarch
Two big issues. 1. Why didn’t women just start their own companies rather than demand equal treatment? As you know, it wouldn’t have been possible. 2. SM cos begged users to come onto their platforms and promised free speech. Once they became monopolies, rules changed. Fraud.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Cernovich @imatriarch
1. ? Suffragette era, or Hollywood in the 90's etc? Not sure I follow? 2. They begged? They provided something of value for nothing as a loss leader and people loved it, came in their millions. Capitalism at its best. THEN they monetised it and imposed rules. Same as most cos
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Duncan_Bell @imatriarch
1. Why have anti discrimination laws at all? People can just start their own Hollywood / Wall Street. It’s that simple? 2. Yes, they did. They made promises to users. In any other context this would be understood as civil fraud. For some reason, the left worships monopolies now.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Cernovich @imatriarch
Anti - dis laws relate to employment, treatment under law and in society etc, same as racism. This is another false comparison. It is a private company offering a service. I hate monopolies. Listen! They are anti-competition! But who would stop that? BIG GOVERNMENT! Tough choice
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Duncan_Bell @imatriarch
“It is a private company offering a service.” Should social media companies be allowed under the law to ban all Muslims? What about all women? Or all men? What sort of denial of service should be legally allowed?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Cernovich @imatriarch
I'm not sure more false comparison fallacies are helping the central point. Banning on abusing ToS is not the same thing as banning on skin colour or sex. Not by a long way. Should they ban ISIS terror manuals? Yes. OMG! Censorship! We agree there should be a line, you think...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @Cernovich @imatriarch
I didn't intend to but thought it was obvious in my reply. No, you should not be banned for your race, or gender. I'll leave religion alone for now as an atheist. But you political views are not the same as your naturally born condition. Agreed?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Two issues. One is the idea that immutable traits differ from political views. Which is a fair distinction. Second, anti discrimination laws exist because once a company has monopolistic power, Group Whatever can’t practically “start your own bank” or whatever.
-
-
Replying to @Cernovich @imatriarch
"One of the many reasons anti-discrimination laws exist is to protect discrimination in employment. It also relates to housing, education, and other areas of social life, such as public accommodations." Monopolies are a different thing. We're conflating the two needlessly.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.