Comment by tga_d | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tga_d | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You (and Price) are painting yourself into such a bizarre rhetorical corner. You honestly believe that nobody should have consequences for any actions outside of the literal legal system? If I let someone use my house to hold parties while I'm away, and I get a few dozen people telling me that this person is engaging in abusive tirades every time they do, that I can't rescind my offer to let them use my house? That they are owed a literal platform at my own expense because... principle? How does that make any sense? How do you have any friends if you can't resolve disputes with them outside of a courtroom?

>If a gay teenager or a pregnant teenager gets kicked out of their house for being gay or falling pregnant, would you be as callous as to tell them “you may be protected against government consequences but you’re not protected against social consequences”?

Of course not, but I also wouldn't go out of my way to do anything to help the people who kicked out that teenager! There is no equivalence here, and it's utterly dystopian that you and anyone else seem to insist otherwise. What, specifically, is the protected class you think Kiwi Farms is a part of?

The false equivalence is you comparing a business relationship to an interpersonal relationship between two people in real life.

Do you believe stores should be allowed to ban black people from shopping there? Do you believe pharmacies should be allowed to deny medication to jewish people? Perhaps you believe bakeries should not have to sell cakes to gay people?

Are these groups not “owed a literal service at their own expense because... principles”?

To me it seems you’re the one painting yourself a bizarre rhetorical corner. You can’t have it both ways. If we agreed as a society businesses should not discriminate, then they should not discriminate.

So to answer the question you should asked, yes, I honestly believe that nobody should have consequences for any actions outside of the literal legal system when dealing with a business. Business relationships are not the same as interpersonal relationships.

And to answer this one too:

> What, specifically, is the protected class you think Kiwi Farms is a part of?

People who think differently from you.

I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse or don't realize the argument you're making, but the comparison I was making was to be analagous to yours -- you made an interpersonal analogy, so I followed in kind. My analogy doesn't change significantly at all when brought into business relationships: if a customer in a cafe and starts shouting death threats at other customers, you honestly believe the proprietor has no standing to kick them out without bringing a lawsuit or law enforcement? Do you think bouncers at night clubs and "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs are also discrimination?

> People who think differently from you.

The issue at hand is not that they "think differently" than me, it's that they did terrible things to innocent people. The mere virtue of them having a different opinion from me doesn't mean they're suddenly off limits for repercussions, again, that's assinine, and nobody reasonable thinks the only time there should be consequences for anything is when they're legal consequences.

I think you’re the one being obtuse. That or you are profoundly ignorant and accepted the mainstream narrative uncritically. Kiwfarms was not driven off the internet because “they did terrible things to innocent people”. The did not. The equivalence with a customer shouting death threats or a no shirt no entry sign is false.

A hate campaign was launched against a minority group wielding no societal power by a socially dominant group backed by governments and corporations alike. A group of people with institutional power used their power, influence and privilege to harass and silence a powerless minority. Because they think different to them. This is why Kiwifarms is no longer on the internet.

A better comparison with what happened is, at some point in the past before civil rights were implemented, a white man overhears a black man talking. The white man doesn’t like what the black man is saying, so he says “that black man there is a murderer!”. So the black man is arrested and executed. And you, a passerby, take the word of the white man and begin telling everyone “oh that black guy was a vicious murderer”.

In any case, I have no further wish to engage. I have expressed my thoughts on the matter. I’ll leave you with an echo of my original post. When you’ll find yourself outside the cathedral, just tell your self “nobody reasonable thinks the only time there should be consequences for anything is when they're legal consequences”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com