[totony]

Seems reasonable until you're the target. I personally think companies each enforcing their moral compass w/r to whom their customers can be creates too much of an unstable landscape (particularly societal).

This is one of the reason we have more and more protected classes. Political ideology just isn't one (yet?)

[France_is_bacon]

People calling for the overthrow of a democratically elected government is not a "protected class." Plotting an overthrow is not political ideology. Demagoguery pandering to the ignorant and uneducated should not be a protected class. All of this applies equally to Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Peace and Freedom, Green Party, etc. By the way, I personally am 100% independent, I think all political parties are pretty idiotic. Just saying.

But, to bring it full circle, I don't think that someone selling socks or underwear on Twilio is going to be banned. When that happens, ok.

Furthermore, I know people believe in freedom of expression, and more or less capitalism. I know the Republican Party members side pretty heavily with the cake maker that refused to make cakes for gay weddings, or Catholic hospitals that refuse to offer birth control pills or abortions. But for some reason, when a privately owned company like Twillio, or Facebook, or whomever wants to limit their customer base, it's always a different story, then. For me, yes. For you, no.

[totony]

>Plotting an overthrow is not political ideology. Demagoguery pandering to the ignorant and uneducated should not be a protected class.

Who decides what is overthrow/bad speech? Are they fallible? Do you think protecting the "ignorant masses" is beneficial to democracy? If you have someone dictate what can be said to you, won't that make you less able to think for yourself?

>I know the Republican Party members side pretty heavily with the cake maker that refused to make cakes for gay weddings

Although I agree there always are logically inconsistent people, I don't think this backs it up. Cakes matter so much less than than speech. I haven't thought/not familiar with the hospitals so that might be more appropriate.

>But, to bring it full circle, I don't think that someone selling socks or underwear on Twilio is going to be banned. When that happens, ok.

Yes, but they have shown they want a say in how you conduct your business. What if they ban you for doing business with certain people, what prevents them? (Not their morals as far as they've shown).

Not saying it's likely you will get banned, but I think it should be considered so companies don't all start doing this and you have to shop companies+moral compass.

[France_is_bacon]

>Who decides what is overthrow/bad speech?

Ah, the good ole "who decides" routine. I don't have a specific answer to that. However, what I will say is that we, as a people, have all kinds of panels to decide stuff. The SEC. The FEC. The FDA. So I'd say that the country should only accept people who are independent and not members of either political party. People who maybe have studied and understand what demagoguery is. Also, let it be known, I love how you change what I said - demagoguery - to "bad speech". Noice.

>Are they fallible?

Sure, so does this mean that nobody decides anything on the behalf of all of us? No judges, no congress, local government, etc? That we live in a governmental system of pure anarchy, where all of us do what we wish? That's a rhetorical question...of course that will never happen.

>Do you think protecting the "ignorant masses" is beneficial to democracy?

After what we've seen over the last 1.5 years, for sure. Remember, when the constitution was first framed, only white men with property could vote.

>If you have someone dictate what can be said to you, won't that make you less able to think for yourself?

Silly argument. Do we really have to go over this for the 100 millionth time? Yes, speech can be limited. "Can't yell fire, yada, yada, yada."

>If you have someone dictate what can be said to you, won't that make you less able to think for yourself?

"think for yourself" Ha. Haha. Hahahahaha. People thinking for themselves. That's a good one. Thanks for the belly laugh, I appreciate humor.

>Yes, but they have shown they want a say in how you conduct your business. What if they ban you for doing business with certain people, what prevents them?

It's their platform. They own it. Start your own platform and let people do what they want. Competition. Capitalism. Find a niche and fill it. You should do this, you'll probably do well.

And it is so hilariously funny. The Republicans claim that they have their free speech cut off on Twitter and Facebook. However, on all of their platforms, like conservepedia and reddit's /r/conservatives, and the conservatives new answer to twitter called Parler, they ban everyone that is not conservative. F-cking hilarious.

Look. There are "protected classes/troups." I didn't create them, neither did you. A very few people decided what protected classes are. They decided for us. There's no say at this point. Every person does not get to decide for themselves. It is set in stone, and all have to obey, unless congress changes it.

.

Protected classes include:

Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964

Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964

National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964

Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964

Sexual orientation and gender identity as of Bostock v. Clayton County – Civil Rights Act of 1964[3]

Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act

Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Prohibits discrimination for having children, with an exception for senior housing Also prohibits making a preference for those with children.

Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act

Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States)

.

No one is allowed to discriminate against any of the groups above. So when you say "who decides"? Well, people do. People who are elected to government.

In the same way, the government could pass a law saying "No demagoguery."

.

Read this, just read it. It PERFECTLY fits Trump:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue

How does this not perfectly fit Trump? Demagoguery is thousands of years old, been understood for thousands of years. It has not something developed when Trump became president, just to "stick it to him."

"In every age the vilest specimens of human nature are to be found among demagogues."

— Thomas Macaulay, The History of England from the Accession of James II (1849)

"The shortest way to ruin a country is to give power to demagogues."

— Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquities of Rome, VI (20 BC)

[totony]

>Also, let it be known, I love how you change what I said - demagoguery - to "bad speech".

You were clearly labeling demagoguery as bad speech.

>have all kinds of panels to decide stuff.

Yes, government bodies, not individual companies.

>Yes, speech can be limited.

It's not because you can that you should. Some countries limit most criticism of the government.

>People thinking for themselves. That's a good one.

That's what the country is based on (democracy).

>very few people decided what protected classes are. They decided for us.

That's what a elected democracy does (if it was a direct democracy, the same thing would happen, but different people). It's still better than letting companies do what they want.

>In the same way, the government could pass a law saying "No demagoguery."

But they don't, since that'd just be used against people you dislike (here it seems to be "republicans" for you). The government can do what it wants, that doesn't mean it should. Democracy is just trying to do the best thing thinking the majority of people is the least worse tyrant.

[France_is_bacon]

>You were clearly labeling demagoguery as bad speech.

Nope. Not at all. I was labeling Demagoguery as demagoguery. Not "bad speech" which is WAY more generalized, and is a disingenuous the way that you changed what I said.

>>have all kinds of panels to decide stuff.

>Yes, government bodies, not individual companies.

Yes. Governmental bodies decide stuff. You completely left out that private companies can do as they wish. As long as it is not a protected group, a business can prevent you from coming into their store if they deem that your nose hairs are too long.

It feels like you are deliberately ignoring what I wrote to shoehorn it into your Procrustean bed.

>>Yes, speech can be limited.

>It's not because you can that you should. Some countries limit most criticism of the government.

I wrote very specifically what I was talking about, but yet again, you choose to ignore what I wrote. It's like, I write something like, "Let's pass a law saying you can't jump off the rim of the Grand Canyon. Because, first, it goes against preserving life which society is for; second, it will psychically scar children for life if they see someone splatting on the canyon floor; and third, who's going to pick up the body?" And then you "rebut" by saying, "Oh, and what gives YOU that right? If we can't jump off a cliff, then you're going to say that can't we jump off a street curb. When will the madness ever end? What is all this banning about? Who is the decider who decides when we can or can't jump off a canyon rim or off a street curb?" That's how you are arguing.

>>very few people decided what protected classes are. They decided for us.

>That's what a elected democracy does (if it was a direct democracy, the same thing would happen, but different people).

That's what I said.

>It's still better than letting companies do what they want.

Corporate law is well-defined. Here's the California corporations code: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpand...

There's also all kinds of case law.

When you read all the corporate code and case law for each state and for the nation, get back to me.

All companies do what they want. They decide what products to sell. They put out marketing materials. They open bank accounts. They do what they want.

And again, and again, you ignore what I said. I have said that it is mainly the Republicans who are complaining about this right now. And I gave you examples - that the Republicans want corporations to be able to do what they want, like deny birth control at hospitals or allow companies to not bake wedding cakes for gay marriage and ALL kinds of other things. It's only when it bites THEM in the ass that they cry and whine like little b-tches. And the topping hypocrisy, whic I wrote about and again you ignored, is that they created their own Twitter, called Parlor, and they kick off anyone that is not conservative. Oh, the hypocrisy.

>>In the same way, the government could pass a law saying "No demagoguery."

>But they don't, since that'd just be used against people you dislike (here it seems to be "republicans" for you). The government can do what it wants, that doesn't mean it should. Democracy is just trying to do the best thing thinking the majority of people is the least worse tyrant.

Of course they don't, Captain. It's not to be used against people I dislike, it is to be used against demagogues. I included the link as to what demagogues are. And it is not "republicans" for me. Trump clearly and absolutely is a demagogue. Not according to me, but by all definitions that have been around for over 2,000 years. Which you are not acknowledging, surprise, surprise, although I specifically wrote that.

I have never had any issues with any presidents before Trump. I never thought that any of them were demagogues. I didn't like some of them, but that is a different issue. Trump tried to subvert the entire government to his personal fiefdom. Again, read the wiki definition of demagogue. Did you? Here it is, again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue Read it. Learn something.

>Democracy is just trying to do the best thing thinking the majority of people is the least worse tyrant.

No. We are picking the least worst leader. There should never be any tyrants, which is what I'm saying. You are defending and allowing the possibility of tyrants, not I.

And again, I am NOT democrat nor repubican. I'm independent and have tons of problems with the democrats, too.