Freedom of speech immediately forgotten when money is at stake.
no worries - there is a parallel economy rising from this leftist takeover.
sites like gab are growing like there is no tomorrow.
Don’t companies have the freedom to choose who they do business with?
What exactly is “leftist takeover” about not hosting a website that’s used to spy on and report citizens for “crimes”? This is something I expect to see in an authoritarian country. Not the United States. It’s something I expect from Big Government invading people’s lives. What’s next? Maybe a “leftist” state will create a site like this for reporting gun owners? Maybe you can start reporting people who drive from California to another state to purchase 30 rd mags instead of what’s legally allowed in California? Or better yet maybe you just don’t like the 2nd Amendment neighbors you have so you anonymously report them. What’s the worst that could happen? Maybe the police show up and make that person’s life a living hell. Nothing like passive aggressive SWATing. You can quickly see how this spirals out of control.
This website is like the exact opposite of what we need in the United States. It’s the kind of thing communist countries do.
Given the precedent set by the Supreme Court, probably every gun owner and even people whose politics are deemed as "aiding and abetting" gun ownership being sued into bankruptcy by unrelated third parties, because the Supreme Court position has made it clear that a state setting civil penalties for something it wishes it could ban and permitting private bounty hunters to collect couldn't possibly be infringing on anyones' constitutional rights
Edit: anyone want to tell me how a law constructed to circumvent constitutional restrictions on the state banning something by allowing them to make it a civil offence unrelated third parties can sue for doesn't set a precedent that it would be OK for a state with different political priorities to try this by setting civil penalties for gun ownership or unacceptable speech?
That's the problem with conflating everything to freedom of speech, then forgetting its exceptions while prioritizing it over every other right. You end up with these perversions wherein the right to violate someone else's Constitutional rights is just "speech".
Don't forget that even in the US that we dance on the knifes edge of authoritarianism where neighbors narc on neighbors all the time.
My conservative friends (truly friends) would you rather confront someone in an honorable way to their face, or report someone anonymously on the Internet to the government. Which of these approaches really align with your own beliefs about resolving problems?
If someone backed into your truck or something are you going to work it out like gentleman/woman or would you not talk to them and sit on your phone and report them to the police anonymously? Seriously. Face your accuser and all that.
The danger is that the anonymity will be used by disgruntled people to make false accusations or get revenge instead of only by civic minded citizens trying to improve society but this is a danger in all the examples above not just the abortion one.
I think the unsanitary conditions is more similar to violence or misrepresentation so I don't see it as too different.
The mask thing I think is a little more controversial and could be argued probably. But in all of these cases it seems that there is a dispute between an injured party and the injuring party. You'd have to argue that a fetus is an injured party and that a physician and the mother are injuring the fetus against its will. Some probably will. I won't.
What this shows is that harm reduction (the principal moral foundation for “leftists”, “progressives” etc. according to Jonathan Haidt) is inadequate as the sole foundation for an ethic.
What this shows is that conservatives do not give a single shit about harm, but this is about their own little morals and ethic allows them to justify a miserable existence for a woman and a child because you, as a man who is never going to be in a situation where your only choices are either getting an abortion in secret or being sued for doing do, thought that you could control their bodies.
> There is no unborn child. It's not even a thinking mass of cells. A fetus is not a life.
The fetus would grow into a life if it were not for the violent intervention of an abortion. Is the future relevant to a system of ethics? Take for example the debate over universal pre-k. What harm is there right now if a toddler in the ghetto doesn't learn their ABCs until a few years later. Or is it the proponents think it will lead to problems later on in life.
> What this shows is that conservatives do not give a single shit about harm
Maybe a single shit but harm/care is only one of several moral foundations. Read your Haidt. Or atleast this excerpt from the wikipedia page on moral foundations theory:
"Researchers have found that people's sensitivities to the five/six moral foundations correlate with their political ideologies. Using the Moral Foundations Questionnaire, Haidt and Graham found that libertarians are most sensitive to the proposed Liberty foundation, liberals are most sensitive to the Care and Fairness foundations, while conservatives are equally sensitive to all five/six foundations."
Incidently, another of Haidts' findings is that conservatives are much better at understanding why liberals are liberal than liberals are at understanding why conservatives are conservative.
> this is about their own little morals and ethic
Well duh! morals and ethics are by definition the principles that drive a person to act.
> allows them to justify a miserable existence for a woman and a child
From the childs point of view (what child is that btw? I thought a fetus wasn't one.) not existing at all seems to be as miserable as possible. But a better question might be is there no reason to oppose abortion except a desire to cause misery.
> because you, as a man who is never going to be in a situation where your only choices are either getting an abortion in secret or being sued for doing do
I'm never going to be a loser drug addict who got his neck stepped on by the police. Can I say nothing in support of George Floyd? In general, can one only express a moral opinion on subjects one has direct experience of?
> thought that you could control their bodies.
This is about a law. Law is an instrument by which human societies control the bodies of women and men. Law is also how those societies can discuss when to control and how much but control is what is going on. As I write this, there is this group of strangers called "doctors" who are attempting to control my body by covering my face and sticking me with needles. Can you think of a non-nefarious reason why they might be doing this?
But while I accept that this argument may be contested and there may be a debate on "generic abortion" in "benign circumstances", a key issue here is a non-exceptions law (it's six weeks even in case of rape or incest), which to me seems absolutely indefensible.
Let's look at a hypothetic but realistic example of a thirteen year old girl who is eight weeks pregnant after being raped by her mother's boyfriend. Would it be morally acceptable to prevent her from getting an abortion and force the victimized kid to carry it to term? If someone's answer is yes or maybe, then IMHO that does pass into the territory of just "a desire to cause misery" and their moral compass is so outrageously immoral that any of their arguments with respect to morality should be ignored without listening/reading. If the answer is no, then a law that implements a blanket ban without allowing for such circumstances (the example may seem outrageous but such cases, sadly, are not that rare) is not morally justifiable if it does not enable abortions at least in such cases.
What I'm trying to say is that this particular law is so outrageous that I would expect that both sides of the ordinary "pro-choice" vs "pro-life" argument should be against this particular law, because it does go to essentially misogynic extremes that do not have a sufficient justification in all the reasonable "pro-life" arguments.
How can not existing be [as] miserable [as possible]? Is existing not being? Is misery not possible? Or am I missing another option?
> what child is that btw? I thought a fetus wasn't one.
As far as I know nobody disputes that (unless there are complications with the pregnancy) a fetus usually evolves into a child when an abortion is made impossible.