1864

There are 2 sides when we are discussing right or wrong:

  1. Morality/Principle, what should be right or wrong

  2. Legaleze, what is legally right or wrong.

If a dictator passes a law which requires every black person in a country to be slaughtered and his property distributed to white folk, then it will be legal to kill all blacks, genocide them, and steal their stuff. Does it mean it is a moral state of affairs? Does it mean it is right on principle?

Morality is constant. Laws change like the wind and are different from place to place. Raping is morally wrong, no matter the laws of a country. Some countries allow for the rape of women and rape is institutionalized, like in Islamic State for instance. It doesn’t change the fact tha rape is wrong.

So you are arguing that current laws in US allow for political discrimination. Does this mean it is moral in a democratic society to discriminate on people based on political beliefs? Shouldn’t a democratic society protect all points of view? Shouldn’t a democratic society enforce political tolerance and diversity?

Think about why diversity and tolerance are enforced in all other fields. Why tolerance and diversity is enforced in terms of race? Because otherwise there would be slavery or strife and civil war. Why it is enforced in terms of sex? Because it allows the previously weak females to not depend on their husbands and thus submit to their wills, thus allowing them to be free to make choices.

You are protecting minorities because minorities need protection in order to not be servants of the status quo and to be allowed to make choices.

Yet, in a country which falsely pretends is democratic, political diversity is not promoted. One is not allowed to have a different opinion from the mainstream. Or, to be technically precise, he is allowed, but he will be ostracized and be forced to live like a pariah just because he believes in a different organization for society


This is wrong because it undermines your freedom to choose, like a patriarchy undermines females’ right to choose how they live their lives.

Why leftists are against the patriarchy? After all, back then when patriarchy ruled, women could still refuse to marry and obey their husbands, couldn’t they? They were free. Oh but no one would hire them, and in some ages past they wouldn’t own property or have political rights, in some countries they may even be susceptible to rape if unmarried, but they were free alright
 Gee, i wonder why many women didn’t make that choice to live liberated lives back then


Freedom of choice is not unrelated to the power structure of a society. Someone who is about to die of starvation is free to sell his 10million dollar mansion for a stake to eat, that doesn’t make hi decision free. He didn’t chose freely, he was about to die. He had to. It was never a free choice.

That is why a proper democratic state should ensure that political discrimination be illegal. In order to protect the minority ideas.

1865

I can’t distinguish between stopping Twitter/google/fb/hosts from closing accounts and stopping Tom from banning people from QT3. The principles are the same. Both have same status under US law. Size and corporate structure of course differ but there aren’t free speech regulations unique to listed companies.

If a govt banned gab.ai I would understand your argument

1866

So a Marxist calling QT3 members leftists as an insult
huh.

1867

It’s like all those guys on the_donald that start with “as a black man
” but they’re really white neo nazis.

1868

Nice strawman argument. I am not using it as an insult. I am using it as a political categorization. I am not quite adept at the US political spectrum since i do not live there, but from my understanding people who think in a certain way are US leftists, so i call them leftists. That is not an insult. That is just a description.

I do however strongly believe that what i currently percieve as the mainstream US left, is not marxist at all, and is quite fascist instead. USSR called themselves socialistic but they truly weren’t, they were fascist dictatorships, and commited all crimes associated with military juntas and fascist states, including genocide.

In the same vein, just because the current us leftists think they are marxists (or are close/influenced by it), doesn’t make it true. I see no true leftist (socialist/democratic) thought in this political sphere.

All i see is globalist/multicultural fascism on one end and white nationalistic/white supremacy fascism on the other end. Both sides want political freedom to diminsh, but they differ in that the left wants whites marginalized and privileges be granted to minorities to compensate for whatever they want to compensate, and the right wants the same but with whites on top of things. Not a big difference really, unless you are a racist (meaning that what race controls the political field is really important to you, for non racists it is irrelevant).

1869

Sorry, I am still not 100% convinced. Perhaps you could give me more examples that support your argument.

1870

QT3 is not a monopoly. Youtube, facebook, google, are monopolies in a way.

Oh yeah, -technically- they are not, there are some alternatives that 0.2% of the population uses, so i suppose they are not monopolies. LOL.

If Tom wants to play Hitler/Stalin and begins banning innocent people from his forum just because he disagrees with them or dislikes them, well that would be morally wrong and undemocratic, but it is his forum and he can do that. Those people would join another forum instead.

But if someone gets banned by all the mega corporation monopolies, where will he go?

Monopolies are supposed to be prevented, aren’t they? If Intel ever becomes a monopoly in cpus, the US government will break them up. Why? Isn’t Intel a private company? It is, but the state made monopolies illegal.

Then why information monopolies are allowed to form and dictate the political discussion?

In my opinion, it should become illegal to discriminate politically online. The law should prevent provoking violence, libel, spreading lies, you know, actually illegal stuff. Yes in that case ban accounts, fine by me. But as long as someone is not breaking any laws and just wants to discuss his political views, he shouldn’t be ostracized for it.

1871

Not convinced about what exactly?

1872

Monopolies aren’t illegal.

1873

My definition of monopoly is a sector with one company, or perhaps a cartel with no competition.

I can create socmedia accounts on alternatives to the market leaders with ease.

Your argument is the right for Radio Télévision des Milles Collines to use the private networks of socmedia companies. I disagree.

1874

Except that the painter bought those materials.

I can’t just paint stuff on the side of your house, and then own your house.

Your analogies are really bad.

Because you are attempting to restrict the rights of citizens, by forcing them to endorse and support ideas that they oppose.

Your plan is bad, and is the result of you not considering the unintended consequences of those actions.

They don’t.

The fact that they invented twitter, created the software, paid for the infrastructure, and maintain all of it.

That’s what gives them that right. Because they own it.

Yeah, that’d be a shame. But it wouldn’t be an erosion of my rights.

Just like if I carpool with some guy, and he gives me a ride to work every day
 then I tell him he’s a dickhead, and he stops coming to pick me up. That would be inconvenient for me, but it’d be a result of my own actions. He’s not under any obligation, legally or morally, to drive me to work.

1875

Not an argument at all just merely an observation. :-)

1876

Is it though? Or is it just that you think your version of morality is constant?

Morals change over time and laws change to reflect that.

1877

What about all the lead up to this? The part where he demonizes Jews, describes them as subhuman, identifies locations of their businesses, synagogues and community centres (without any overt call to action)? Lists as fact their crimes against humanity, which consists of centuries of lies?

In Canada we have the concept of hate speech or propaganda in the Criminal Code. It puts a limit on freedom of expression, because even before someone gets to the point of advocating violence directly, it is believed that there are reasonable limits a society can place on what people are allowed to publicly advocate. The hate propaganda concept has been refined through multiple court cases, and the Canadian Supreme Court has defined it as any expression that is “intended or likely to circulate extreme feelings of opprobrium and enmity against a racial or religious group”. What do you think of that? Or does your defence of Freedom of Expression only see its end point when the other person clearly advocates violence? Anything short of that is acceptable?

1878

Monopolies are definitely illegal.

1879

Monopolies are only illegal if they are established or maintained through improper conduct, such as exclusionary or predatory acts. That makes them anticompetitive and it’s the anticompetitive part that is illegal.

1880

The dumbest thing you’ll read
 possibly ever.

1881

But you’re plenty happy to tell us how our laws work?

Gotcha.

1882

The best response I saw to that tweet was “This is your Mona Lisa.”

1883

I’m partial to this one:

Or you know
 the old Tweets were he bitched about the media and Charlie Hebdo after they were fucking attacked.