I'm not defending either, each one is largely arbitrary.
Indeed, in the situations where the difference really is too minimal (such as there being no alternatives to do business with in a town because of rampant racism), we pass laws (such as the Civil Rights Act) to compel private actors to cease to bar business based on signal that has been deemed invalid.
For instance there is a no-banking list in most countries: you won’t be able to use any banking service in that country if a single bank puts you on it. That’s usually a default of payment of a cheque, but it’s not limited to, and banks can trigger conditions where the customer will hit a provable offense.
In that instance the private entities coordinate to enforce a ban on an individual and no law will pass against that.
I’d assume the same would happen for insurances, where there must be a ban on people commiting insurance fraud, and I’d assume it’s not limited to only provable offenses, or charges can be just provoked.
Passing a law against these practices requires buy-in from the public and people not just assuming “they have done something very wrong on paper, why should we care ?”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/more-than...
I prefer having my own, DRM-free local copies.
Can you be more specific? I have an hard time figuring out what you are talking about here. Are you talking about like losing access to Patreon?
And you must remain vigilant that they do not undermine your freedom.
> I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
It's fairly clear that the various hate groups SPLC tracks "are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument".
By, for example, refusing to give economic support or a privately-owned platform of speech or press inches to fascists who are pushing an ideology that leads directly to genocide.
Inherent in the freedom of the press is the freedom to control what the press you own publishes, and inherent in the right to peaceably assemble is the right to refrain from assembling with those you do not choose to support (be that assembly one of common protest or simple commerce).
I'm old enough to remember, and remain disgusted by, that LGBT organizations struggled to import goods or coordinate with financial institutions.
Perhaps the act of suppressing wrong think is indeed cutting both ways, now. Conservatives are reaping what they sewed.
But society has a vested interest in people being judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin or their gender. Society has no vested interest in bolstering the strength of people who should be judged on the content of their character.
Avoid the error of logic that conflates the tool with the use of the tool. Societal censure and giving people no more than what the law says we must give them is a completely appropriate response to the bigot, the fascist, and the misogynist.
For instance, if right wing populism gains ground will the use of economic pressure turn upon progressive groups, without legal recourse?
The tools of oppression aren't necessarily bound by ideology, after all.
America is in the middle of a cultural revolution, not unlike the Civil Rights era of the '60s. It's a fight of ideas and opprobrium, and both sides will definitely use the economic, political, and speech tools at their disposal to win it. As both sides have for years; advocacy, call for censure, political and financial support of this or that cause or politician---none of this is new. What is modestly new is the frequency and "heat" of the battle, because too many obvious injustices have gone unpunished (I think to the perception of both sides of the political spectrum, broadly speaking).
I'm not in favor of any kind of removal of these powers from the people's hands at this time, though. There's a reason we protect public speech and economic censure in general: because if you force people's hands by taking those tools away, they reach for the next most convenient tool.
And America, thanks to the Second Amendment, has a lot of guns.
Canada has a lot of guns, as well, and far less gun crime and strong regulation in their acquisition and use. Most of the illegal and prohibited firearms are smuggled in from the USA. It would be neat if our southern neighbours could stop the flow of illegal firearms into our country...
Thanks for the pleasant conversation. :)
Actual fascists and what people call fascists online are worlds apart.
Unless one basically says ”But the difference is that our ideology is actually correct and theirs is wrong”. That leads to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with that kind of oppression in itself, but only if the targets are the wrong targets.