You asked for my views on the subject. I clearly presented the two cases wherein I believe in government intervention and went on to show...
-
-
I asked for your views on discrimination against political ideologies (and govt sanctioning it). That's not what you wanted to answer
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But I... did answer. I told you specifically when I would support an intervention on the basis of political ideology!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Actually I don't think you really did. Political parties don't fall into your a) b) categories. And if they did, Nazism (at least in the US)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @faroutmadman @csilverandgold and
would be an ideology that has a long history of being held in contempt (except in the 30s). So using your A/B system you could say they
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @faroutmadman @csilverandgold and
qualify for govt protection. I don't think so, but that's just me.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Nazism perhaps, but certainly not white supremacy. And I think historical disadvantage ought to be more material in nature, right?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @csilverandgold @faroutmadman and
not just like... you're mocked or socially disfavored. Getting white supremacists fired is a relatively recent phenomenon, no?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Getting anyone fired for any reason (not related to their job) is relatively recent. But still, it is not a popular position
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Yeah, but there's no material effect, really. So, imo, white supremacists and Nazis don't fall under my historical disadvantage provision.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
with the clarification that "historical disadvantage" does imply SOME kind of material consequence, state-sponsored discrimination, etc.
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.