[Wowfunhappy]

To steal a line of discussion I heard on a podcast some time ago—at what point along the chain does this stop being acceptable? In other words, which of the following scenarios are you okay with?

• A data center refusing to host Kiwifarms.

• An ISP refusing to provide internet to the data center that hosts Kiwifarms.

• A power company refusing to provide electricity to the data center that hosts Kiwifarms.

• An ISP refusing to provide internet to the homes of Kiwifarms members.

• A power company refusing to provide electricity to the homes of Kiwifarms members.

• A water utility company refusing to provide running water to the homes of Kiwifarms members.

• A doctor refusing to treat Kiwifarms members.

I don't think I know the answer myself right now.

[Justsignedup]

I am okay with 100% of these scenarios.

If I am a Jewish Doctor and a card-carrying Nazi came in, I should have the right to say "he can sit over there and I will not treat you". And if that causes him to die, that is his fault not mine.

If I am a Jewish contractor for a power company and I enter the home of a card-carrying Nazi, I should have the right to say "I will leave now, and you can sit in the dark until you find someone willing to do the work."

If I all the ISP administrators threaten to leave the IPS leaving them without workers because they are also serving Nazi websites, they should have the right to cut off that internet and tell them to find an ISP with Nazi workers to keep things running. And the same can be true for their homes.

Point here is: If you are a danger to society, society is not obligated to work with you as-is. You can certainly make your argument, but society isn't obligated to accept it.

People think just because they exist, they are owed. They are not owed. They are part of a collective, and if the collective deems they are a harm to itself, the collective will absolutely have the right to refuse to work with them. Think about the converse, would any of these Nazis help out Jews out of obligation to some sort of freedom doctrine? Hell no. They operate in the mentality "right for me, wrong for thee!"

So point is, there is no slippery slope. If you ask should the police arrest Nazis? Probably not, not unless they are breaking freedom of speech limitations. But since the _state_ is not blocking their speech, doesn't mean private citizens have to listen to it.

[7402]

> If I am a Jewish Doctor and a card-carrying Nazi came in, I should have the right to say "he can sit over there and I will not treat you". And if that causes him to die, that is his fault not mine.

Not exactly. I don't think medical ethics work that way in matters of life and death. For example:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/medics-told-to-treat-attackers...

Israeli medics told to treat terrorists the same as victims

"New rules from Israeli Medical Association require that the wounded be aided in order of severity of injury, even if that means helping assailants before victims"

[gdy]

"If I am a Jewish Doctor and a card-carrying Nazi came in, I should have the right to say "he can sit over there and I will not treat you". And if that causes him to die, that is his fault not mine."

Would you be okay with dying if a doctor refused to treat you based on this post on HN?

Suppose a doctor has strong convictions about free speech, detests cancel culture and is willing to let you die to make a point?