lollol
1d ago
Yeah, but most normal IQ illegal immigrants can't even get and manage all that let alone the 80-90 IQ people.
lollol
1d ago
eternal unrelenting flood of 80-90iq foreigners
How can 80-90 IQ people navigate the life of an illegal immigrant? Seems to me like they would likely run into trouble somewhere along the way.
lollol
1d ago
Social security can be described as "tax the young, give money to the old", healthcare through government (medicare, obamacare, etc.) can be described as "tax the healthy, give money to the ill", defense spending can be described as "tax the peaceful, give money to the warlike", and so on and so on. Yet, the defense companies then spend on domestic workforce and supply chains, and the ill spends money on hospitals and drugs and health services, and the old still live and give money to their progeny, and so on.
What I want to say is can you pinpoint exactly what you want to say instead of just implying things. My stance is the US government has waste it can cut, inefficiencies it can manage, bloat it can let go, etc. and any economics savings that it can't find a better investment for, it should just give it to the voters. Straight cash or a mailed check would be best but I'm good with tax cuts, tax credits, and so on.
lollol
2d ago
power overruled democracy
I believe the entirety of the last 10 years shows that power (no matter the power) really doesn't overrule democracy. Sure, short term successes, but the bill for the overreach always come due.
cancelled dissenters
Oh man, this line gets trots out all the time. It's very thin skin behavior for me. America is the most robust marketplace of ideas I know, no matter how much you think your ideas are gonna be cancelled, there will always be an audience for you. Some people will come to like your ideas because it's contrarian and edgy and not in the mainstream. If your ideas aren't accepted by other people, there could be so many other reasons just as much. Maybe the audience weren't in the right place, time, and/or mindset to receive your ideas. Maybe the way you communicated and conveyed your idea wasn't right. And sometimes maybe your idea just sucks and you're not seeing it. And if you are actually legitimately cancelled, well, uhhh at the very least I see a possible lawsuit opportunity; if it's a government, that's a constitutional violation if they didn't handle it right; and/or if it's salacious enough, you can milk it by presenting your story to the other side who I presume would be sympathetic towards you. I do believe in the cheesy stuff like "the arc of history is long but it bends towards justice" kind of shit, I get that not all legitimately cancelled will have the conviction to standup for their beliefs when the full weight of the present blocks them from seeing the future, but to say that Americans being called up and polled by a private company and feel compelled to have to lie/altered their view is just kinda out of touch.
lollol
2d ago
I think there was an easy argument that Biden spent too much!
I agree generally. I probably come in to any discussion about government spending with a baseline of thinking that the government spent too much.
If you are arguing over whether Iran was more a direct cause, then yes.
And so disagree with the voters or not, that's what they would have thought of as the reason why their prices are so high or that their lives are so hard. I also forgot to mention tariffs earlier so I'm throwing it in as well. Look, if Iran is worth it, and I am very open to this argument because I have no fondness of that regime, then the Trump administration has just not convinced people of that. If it wasn't all because of Iran (and tariffs), then the Trump administration and Republicans in general have not convinced people that the case. The simple argument is just common sense to people and they voted accordingly.
At the same time, gas prices even in nominal terms are significantly lower compared to Biden’s gas problem.
In this site, looking at the "Adjusted for Inflation (CPI)" chart, I see that Nov 2022 gas price was $4.10 and Nov 2026 gas price is $4.00. In nominal terms, it was $3.61 in Nov 2022 and $4.00 in Nov 2026. Even if I disregard that nominal terms show something different, but if we look at the trend, in 2022, people can see/feel that prices were super duper high but it was dropping over time. They probably begrudge why things aren't getting better faster but they probably had a feel that the economics is at least not chaotic and not unpredictable and not getting worse. 2026 prices though has stayed in high prices for a while and it doesn't look like it's dropping and there is no clear plan of how Trump and the Republicans will help them after the midterms.
Re Ukraine, we spent ten years freaking out about “election interference.” What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
I disagree that Trump's interests align with mine so I don't really agree with this take, assuming what you mean is that Trump retaliation is good for Trump and Trump is the goose to my interest's gander.
Also, I’d rather not have Europe as allies if it rid us of Democrats.
I disagree with this goal. I think having allies and friends are good for the US, even if it means the job is complex and hard to navigate. I also disagree that Republicans/right-leans should make it a goal to get rid of Democrats/left-leans, and vice versa. Having such diverse and "energetic" opposition to each other, while still able to maintain peaceful and prosperous society, is exactly why America continues to be the most powerful country in the world. History is littered with leaders and movements and countries that weren't able to adapt and change because they've already wiped out all opposition and got stuck in their ways. Short term success sure through sheer brute force, sure, but nothing long lasting.
lollol
2d ago
General inflation from unnecessary stimulus and general anti O&G policies
I definitely don't discount the inflationary policies of the Biden administration. But you have to at least agree with me that starting a war is a very simple easy to understand cause that everyone can attribute directly to the rise in gas prices comparatively.
I can understand why Ukraine would make the choice they made. But the point is that Ukraine actively fought their war in a way to influence the American election (ie election interference). Maybe we ought to punish them for that?
Uhhhh, let the nation who does not interfere in others elections cast the first stone. There's no right or wrong here, there is just national interest. It's true that maybe Trump should and can punish Ukraine out of retaliation, but that's not really accomplishing anything strategic and would be a long term investment for the country. I am of the interest that US power is strong and multiplied through our alliances (unless the US have the national will to expand the country once more). A move to hurt Ukraine is just hurting oneself here in my opinion.
lollol
2d ago
Gas prices didn’t get to where they were primarily because of Russia in 2022
What factors about gas prices that the average voter would have linked to Biden and therefore punished him in the 2022 midterms for?
Notably, diesel got to where it was largely due to Ukraine’s efforts which seem targeted to get Dems elected. I hope Trump turns off all help to Ukraine and Ukraine gets overrun.
Ukraine is fighting an existential war with a nuclear power, if I was in charge of Ukraine I would do the same. Maybe if Trump was a better diplomat or his administration has better expertise in a strategic sense, they could have maintained relationships with Ukraine, be in the know, and asked/negotiated so that Russian refineries be hit after the midterms. Ukraine isn't in the game to help Trump, Ukraine is in the game to help itself. If Trump turns off all help and let Ukraine gets overrun, he will go down as the US president that let the re-emergence of Russia. Add in the unfolding blunder with Iran and what is there except to laugh.
lollol
2d ago
Things got bad enough economically because of the president's choices. Gas prices did peak June 2022 but the average voter I'm sure is able to differentiate when it's Russia starting a war then vs America starting a war now.
One can think of the stretch of time from 2000 to 2008 as the peak and beginning of the end for the neocon. 2008 to 2016 as the peak and fall of the neolib, with Biden being a last gasp. Trump 1 can be largely perceived as an attempt to communicate something new, and there was something there, or at least just lucky enough, to become first winner from the various different populous movements of the current times (Bernie/DSA, MAHA, techbro/UBI, etc.). Unfortunately or fortunately, Trump 1 was shackled by the last gasp of the neocon. Trump 2 though is just Trump. I don't think there is anything suggestive of an ethos or a doctrine or a philosophy or an ideology or a platform or a manifesto or anything here, except maybe the instinct of an octogenarian. Once the US populace got to experience the nakedness of Trump, the callousness, the capriciousness, the avarice, they quickly changed their minds (it would take time to admit regret).
One can see that the Democratic party has fielded bad candidates for 3 straight presidential elections. Hilary Clinton might have been a good candidate up to 2008, but not after. Biden might have been good in 2016, and he got lucky in 2020, but we all saw what happened on that debate stage. Harris was unimaginative, offered nothing new, anchored by the past, and again, we know how that went. And bubbling in the background the whole time was the perfect breeding ground for the future.
With 2026, I think the Democratic Party has an exciting bench of new faces with new voices articulating new ideas, or at least new (and seductive) to the American populace. Talarico in Texas and Hamilton in Kansas is spearheading a rejuvenated religious-based moral left. El-Sayed in Michigan is the natural successor of Bernie in the Senate, wrapped in a drop of Trumpian-style, being a charismatic bruiser for the populous cause (his chosen dragon is healthcare for all). Ossof in Georgia is the closest to the path Obama took, a polished and disciplined orator with a relatively clean political record, but with the airs of a firm patrician, not a perfected generic Democrat but possibly a transcendent one.
We must not forget that two years ago, the entire political spectrum of punditry was bemoaning that the Democrats will now have to go into the political wilderness. In 2025 January, Talarico was a Texas state house representative (not even federal), Hamilton was a pastor of a church (a megachurch though), El-Sayed was a director of a county department of health (admittedly the largest one in the state), and Ossof is a US Senator who last time won only by 1 point. Well, Trump blundered his way into accelerating the Democrats emergence. Yet, 2024 was just the latest in a decades long series of shellacking the Democrats had to have to finally let go of that neoliberal hammer they picked up since Bill Clinton. Some might be worried about how the left will hone their identity-grievance sickle instead, and there might still be a last gasp, but I think Trump is a bitter warning of its double-edges. In contrast, the Republicans have delayed trying to do the homework since 2012 now. There was a reason Trump won the primary in 2016: because the other Republicans were still braindead with neocon rhetoric and offered nothing else. Once Trump came in and took the reins, Trump let them turned off their brain, they didn't have to decide anything, they didn't have to think of anything, they didn't have to feel anything; Trump decides and they just scramble behind him while offering sycophantic adulations. In a way, the 12 years of the Trump-era (2016-2028) taught both the Democrats and Republicans what not to do. They finally have to think and do something new.
I have never been excited for the Republican party until after this election because I know the Democratic party has and will give it a shellacking. America is stronger when both side of the political spectrum is strong. Not in the gridlock balance of power kind of way that Americans are used to since the 90s, but like how a pair of knives sharpen each other. Trump isn't it, and I'm not sorry to say it. Vestiges of Trumpian-style will continue, but movements of Tea Party/America First/MAGA/religious right just needed Trump as a vehicle for a while, they certainly don't need Trump to continue, and they shouldn't be defined by Trump either.
Aren't you excited for the new faces with new voices articulating new ideas of the Republicans in the future? I am.
lollol
3d ago
From what I understand, the Dems already won a bunch in 2006, that's why the Republicans didn't lose as hard, 2008 was just the Dems running up the score after the blowout already happened. "Corruption" became the top rated issue, higher than grocery and gas prices, following a monthslong messaging effort by Democrats to link widespread economic dissatisfaction with what they allege is rampant corruption by President Donald Trump and his Republican allies.. It was about, for a voter, going from, "my life is hard because everything is so expensive" to "my life is hard because all this corruption and billionaires is making my life expensive" or "my life is hard because Trump cares more about his own personal benefit than making my life easier".
There is this idiom in China: "Water that is too clear has few fish, and one who is too critical has few friends". I really don't think people cares about Trump's corruption if prices are low and they can still "seem" to improve their life reasonably. But now that their life gotten so hard and so bad quickly enough, and with a clear decision made by the one in charge (Iran war), voters become instantly persuaded. Republicans may not vote for the other guy, but why would they show up for their team when they feel like they're being treated as chumps.
lollol
3d ago
That’s essentially what happened this election, things got bad enough economically that the choice became easier.
lollol
4d ago
I saw a lot of persuasion in the last two years. Plenty of people were persuaded to try Trump one more time in 2024, and plenty of people were persuaded to keep him in check in 2026. Think of Obama-Trump voters, they must have been persuaded. Even persuading them to stay home and not vote is itself a kind of persuasion. Trump, in a way, persuaded people not to vote for him. Also, to chalk off entire groups of people as propagandized and kool-aid drinkers of the "never-ending fire" media is just being condescending towards the American people. Young men 18-29 didn't swing 39-points from +14 Republican in 2024 to +25 Democrat in 26 so that you can call them "new voting-age kiddos". And if the Dems fuck it up, I wouldn't be surprised if the population swung again.
I also think there is a tendency to overestimate the intensity of partisan conflicts. "blood-boiling elections" are still double-digit steps in the ladder of conflict before reaching "outright war". And I really don't see many people being trampled by the others. Maybe it's because I'm an immigrant, but America and Americans are quite peaceful and prosperous, and sufficiently high on the Maslow hierarchy of needs that Sayre's Law is being performed at societal scale.
lollol
4d ago
They can only be resolved through decades-long grueling lawfare.
Not gonna leave any room for persuasion or the "changes come one tombstone at a time"?
lollol
4d ago
Progressives are perfectly capable of shoving a political issue down the people's throat regardless of public opinion. California voted against gay "marriage" in 2008. It didn't matter; Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional by the judiciary, then the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.
Gay rights are not the best example because public opinion on gay rights really did change that fast. "Same-sex marriages should be valid" went from 40% approved to 60% approved between 2008 and 2015 if I look at the chart in https://news.gallup.com/poll/710810/support-lgbtq-issues-remains-down-peak.aspx
lollol
5d ago
to be fair to @pusher_robot, this is from SpaceXAI wikipedia page:
On October 4, 2026, after United States President Donald Trump mandated federal agencies to use the term "super intelligence" to refer to AI, Musk posted "No more AI", followed by "SI" and "It's better".[63][64] After an X user asked whether SpaceXAI could be renamed SpaceXSI, Musk replied, "Yes, we will make that change".[65] The same day, SpaceXAI LLC filed a United States trademark application for SPACEXSI.[14] On October 10, the company's official X account was renamed to SpaceX Super Intelligence and its handle was changed to @SpaceXSI.[13] By October 13, the company's official website and legal terms used the SpaceXSI branding, while the legal name of the company remained as SpaceXAI LLC and the logo is simply SpaceX's standard logo.[66][67][68][8][9]
I didn't know that Trump mandated SI instead of AI for federal agencies actually.
lollol
6d ago
He's focusing on his ballroom, the reflecting pool
The arch too, I think the Dems could trade for a lot (healthcare subsidies) if they would also fund the ballroom and/or arch.
Well, I've been lurking in /r/fivethirtyeight and listening to Nate Silver and the FiveThirtyEight alumni on youtube, and a few things pop out that I think mottizens would want to know:
A. Semafor revealed for the shocking win by Annie Andrews against Darline Graham, sister of Lindsay Graham, in South Carolina that: "On Oct. 5, the Andrews campaign received a poll showing her with a 3-point lead over Graham. But the Democrat’s campaign decided against publicly releasing the poll — or any subsequent internal poll — showing Andrews with a lead over Graham, wary of drawing too much attention from national Republicans and jeopardizing a peak at the right time, according to Chas Goldman, a strategist for Andrews."
A.1. I must say this is pretty shrewd and speaks to a certain appetite for risk/bravery from Andrews. I'm just trying to imagine being in the situation where there is unexpectedly positive internal polling, and some advisors would be saying "it's great news, we should release the polls so that we can get more funding and drive excitement" and etc., and then some others would argue the way that Andrews decided on.
A.2.. It was a gamble also that Graham/Trump camp, who hopefully got some pollsters that gave the same numbers, didn't release those same Dem-positive polling.
A.3. We don't have a counterfactual on what would have happened if Andrews did release those polls. But based on what I think of Trump and Musk, there might have been a lot more GOP money pumped in the last few weeks.
B. I don't have a good link or verified these numbers but the bottom 4 states in terms of Democratic shift are Jackson in Maine (+3 shift), Flannagan in Minnesota (+6 shift), Markey in Massachusetts (+7 shift), and El-Sayed in Michigan (+8 shift). All four runs under the +13 national average shift. Bernie Sanders only made 4 Senate endorsements in 2026, three are in the bottom four (Minnesota, Massachusetts, Michigan), and the fourth was Graham Platner of Maine.
B.1. These could be signs that progressive liberal politics really do need a blue tsunami to win any office.
B.2. Or this is particularly prescient of Bernie, as progressive as possible yet still win.
C. On the other hand, Ossof in Georgia is winning a comfortable +18 in 2026, especially compared to +1 back in 2021
C.1. This might mean that once red state citizens get past the fears of a blue politician, they might come to like it.
C.2. Anyone who wants to be part of a presidential primary campaign should come running to Georgia.
D. Can I remind everyone that Angie Nixon who lost by 3 points in Florida is DSA.
D.1. Of the races to sacrifice in terms of national strategy, this is apparently a good one cause this Florida is expensive, big movements here would have gotten Trump's personal attention, and because this is a special election the race would come up again in 2028 anyway.
D.2. I personally think maybe Angie Nixon has a chance to be the Stacey Abrams of Florida. Fight so hard to lay the groundworks and rebuild the Dem party in a ruby red state, then some other guy would swoop in and win on that foundation
D.3. Some Democratic operative somewhere, maybe even the Morris Katz guy, is probably combing for some left-leaning, young, masculine Cuban-American to run in 2028.
E. Adam Hamilton in Kansas , Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Roy Cooper in North Carolina are really good examples of excellent candidate grooming by the Dems.
E.1. In contrast are gonna be the Republican candidates (Roger Marshall, Jon Husted, Ashley Hinson) in these races.
E.2. In a good +6 Dem environment, which was around July-Sep this year based on a quick glance here, these races might have been more nail-bitingly close than this clear Dem sweep.
E.3. This has plenty of down ballot implications which we will only figure out in the days and weeks ahead.
F. Shoutout to Roy Cooper of North Carolina still going undefeated in North Carolina.
F.1. This will be overshadowed because of the Roy Cooper factor but this is apparently an inexperienced Trump pick in Michael Whatley?
G. The crown jewel is obviously blue Texas, and Talarico really ran up the score, which certainly helped Hinojosa.
G.1. For me though the dark crown jewel would be if Mississippi is confirmed flip. And then people can joke about how once Mississippi got a little educated they stopped being red.
G.2. "Pick another protein? I'd rather pick another senator" is the best political ad of the year.
G.3. Talarico in Texas, Hamilton in Kansas, Warnock in Georgia, the Dems have certain individuals that can credibly say counter the image that Republicans are the only one representing the religious of America.
lollol
6d ago
I don't want people to be not permitted to discriminate on political belief. I want them to not be permitted to discriminate on political belief if, like actual discrimination against blacks, it causes a large scale, pervasive effect that cuts people off from much of modern society. There's a difference between one person discriminating, and multiple social media networks that make up a huge portion of the country and having millions of users discriminating.
If you personally don't want to invite blacks to your party, it's a private party. Fine. If discriminating makes it hard for black people to eat in a restaurant because 90% of the restaurants around won't let them in, that's different.
Please give me a right-wing belief that would lead to 90% of the internet becoming inaccessible to a person holding that belief and cut them off from much of modern society.
I'm not sure what you think the "math" shows here. The question is not whether it's genderless, it's whether it's something you can choose not to do. You can certainly choose not to do it.
The math was me trying to show you how I think of the world. I am increasingly of the belief that I can try to diagram or model or explain whatever which way but we are just not able to communicate with each other.
Howabout this: behavior is a set of stuff, gender is a set of stuff, and gender-based behavior is the intersection of those two sets. The law, and my personal belief, is that gender-based discrimination should not be allowed, that means gender set of stuff should not be used to discriminate, which includes gender-based behavior. "kissing" is a behavior but it's not a gender-based behavior, "kissing men" or "same-sex kissing" is a behavior but it's also a gender-based behavior, and as such can't be the basis of a ban. Does that make sense to you?
Howabout this: there is a circle of behavior-stuff, there is another circle of gender-stuff, those two circles can overlap in an intersection of gender-based-behavior-stuff. "kissing" is another smaller circle that is totally in the behavior-stuff circle, but overlaps a little into the gender-based-behavior-stuff-intersection. that little section has stuff like "same-sex kissing" or "men kissing men" stuff. If a restaurant bans the whole "kissing" circle, that's ok to me because looks like they are banning a behavior, it just so happens that the gender-based stuff was in it. But if they ban only the little overlap part, well, to me that's clearly banning something gender-based and as such is not fine.
It's not genderless, but kicking themotte off of Reddit is not politicial-belief-less either.
well yeah, and i dislike that and would lodge my complaint against that, but I don't think reddit ability to do that should be made illegal. Like I already said, banning people for their political belief is fine for private places of "public accommodations".
lollol
6d ago
I'm experiencing some dissonance because things in Florida went approximately how I expected: reversion towards the mean but overall the GOP held on to power across the board.
I'm sure data nerds are out there but I wonder if it was the map before the gerrymander would the Dems have kept or gained any seats in Florida.
I am asking you about your standards
look, I think you don't get my truths/axioms and how it currently maps to reality. In this specific discussion, my personal preferences seem to largely align with the current laws and how its currently enforced. It just so happens that the common legal stuff largely agrees with me, that's why I am using the same words the law uses to also say what I want to say.
Of course if there were only two restaurants in town and they both refused to serve blacks, my response would be: this is unacceptable. As I already explained, I would go and find legislators that support my view of how race/color-based discrimination isn't correct. Thankfully I don't have to because of efforts by others in the past.
I think it's fine to discriminate based on political belief, that's why I won't go and find legislators that support that view. In fact, if there is a groundswell of people who try to get legislation that enforce: "You have to respect every political belief", I would go and find legislators that support my opposite view that: "I don't have to entertain every political belief". This would mean stuff like if you try to get "political belief" somehow be a protected class, I would oppose that. If you try to get a constitutional amendment on political belief discrimination, I for sure would do that.
In addition, I notice you haven't tackled my dog owner forum example. Nor have you detailed out any "specific examples of right wing beliefs that get you banned from a large portion of the internet...so that our discussion can be more focused instead of me guessing at what you're meaning" like I asked before.
I am trying to understand and engage and be persuaded by you. Maybe there is a particular corner case, or as you said, evidence, that I haven't considered. But I don't see it.
It's something they can change in the same way that kissing a member of the same sex is something you can change. You can avoid the action, but ultimately the action is based on something you can't change.
"kissing" is genderless action, "kissing a member of the same sex" is now not genderless because there is a gender modifier. Since I've been looking at a lot of math I'm gonna try to model what I think:
- There is a set
P(persons). - There is a function
find_gender(x)such that for apthat is a member ofP,find_gender(p)is of the set{m, f}wheremmeans male andfmeans female in the biological gender/sex kind of way. (find_gender(lollol) = m) - there is a function
kissing(p1, p2), withp1andp2being member ofP, where this means the kisserp1perform the behavior of kissing on person-being-kissedp2 - Let's say there is a restaurant
r1of the setR(private places of "public accommodation") - Let's say there is a function
ban(r, behavior)which means restaurantrbansbehavior
Now let's examine the following scenarios:
r1has a ban on kissing. To me that meansbehavior = kissing(p1,p2)inban(r1, behavior)r1has a ban on kissing men. To me that meansbehavior = (kissing(p1,p2) AND find_gender(p2) == m)inban(r1, behavior)r1has a ban on same-sex kissing. To me that meansbehavior = (kissing(p1,p2) AND find_gender(p1) == find_gender(p2))inban(r1, behavior)
You notice how the difference between kissing(p1,p2) vs kissing(p1,p2) AND find_gender(p1) == find_gender(p2) is just the AND find_gender(p1) == find_gender(p2)) part?
Well, in my mind, discrimination by gender is being tripped up when the behavior being banned uses find_gender().
And in contrast to you, I don't care about find_political_belief() when private places create bans.
lollol
6d ago
People change their political beliefs based on evidence, not based on them being threatened. The threat may change which belief they express, but it can't change their belief.
Ok, so people's political belief can change based on evidence, so at least we agree that political belief can change.
That's banning based on behavior. You could decide not to do it. Just the fact that only some people are able to do the behavior doesn't make it innate.
I'll explain my view of the example as follows:
- A restaurant have a "ban on all kissing". This is constitutional, legal, and for me personally ok because it is banning a behavior. Maybe the restaurant has a theme of a monastery or something.
- A restaurant have a "ban on kissing men". This is maybe constitutional, but not legal, and for me personally not ok because although it is still banning the behavior, it is now bringing in gender into the scenario. From my perspective, the only difference is the gender of the person being kissed, and that's clearly gender-based discrimination.
- A restaurant have a "ban on men kissing men". This is maybe constitutional, but doubly not legal, and for me personally not ok because although it is banning a behavior, it is now bringing in gender twice into this scenario.
- And so on and so on
Do you get what I'm saying? That from my perspective, "kissing" is a genderless behavior on its own. Hell, on some days my male neutered cat kisses me more than my wife kisses me. And yeah, you can totally ban the behavior "kissing". But once you bring in "can't kiss men", "men can't kiss men", then to me, it's clearly bringing gender into the equation and attempting to discriminate based on gender.
I basically said it: if the "private decision" is such that you're banned from a large portion of the available venues, we should cease treating it as a private decision. (For nitpickers, it also has to be significant in scale; being banned from the only store that sells orange-flavored boba doesn't count.)
Normally this happens because of a combination of oligopolies and of widespread prejudice. If there's one person running every restaurant in the town, banning you means banning you from all restaurants. If there are twenty restaurants in the town and they all independently think the same thing about you because of widespread prejudice and want to ban you, that's still banning you from all restaurants.
First of all, sounds to me like the greater problem is oligarchy/monopoly/cartel power and the people and its government can just solve that first.
Second of all, since it's political speech and not something the person can't change about themselves, well maybe they should think about why they garnered the ban of all the restaurants. It's not binary, there is always a spectrum; there will be owners who truly dislike that political belief, there will be some that would have not banned that person if it wasn't for persuasion, there will be some that would have not banned that person if it wasn't for coercion.
Third, from my right to free expression and assembly, it's implied that I have freedom of expressive association, which means I can associate with who I want, and not associate with people I don't want, and most importantly, political speech is not a protected class so I can discriminate based on political speech if I want to.
Fourth, is your argument that the government should uses its state monopoly of violence to force private places of "public accommodation" to cater and give service to people that they disagree with politically? Are you sure? Let's say there is a privately run dog owners forum, let's even assume somehow there is only one dog owner forum in the US (truly impossible situation in a place like the US btw), and there is this group of people who advocates for the eating of dog meat and proliferation of dog meat consumption in the US, are you saying the forum must accommodate them and can't ban them? Isn't, in a way, it's the government forcing a political belief upon the owners of the dog owners forum? I really don't think you've thought all this through and at least so far I'm not convinced.
Fifth, I saw this article on how the owner of Madison Square Garden and the Sphere and so on bans thousands of lawyers and I just want to link it here even though it doesn't really jives with what we are talking about which is "banning people based on their political belief".
lollol
7d ago
And I'd say the same is true for politics. I can't by force of will come to believe some political belief different than I actually believe.
Yeah maybe you can't, but the common understanding is that people do change their political beliefs. What you would need to do is convince enough people that political belief is like religious belief, that it's more like something someone is and not something someone can change, and then get a constitutional amendment on that. And yeah, I will fight you along the way because I don't have the same "truth" of the world as you do.
This is gerrymandering the definition of "thing they can't change". They are being banned for kissing in the restaurant. They can change whether they kiss in the restaurant. It's true that their desire to do the banned thing is something they can't change, but they can change the behavior itself.
Well yeah, that's why i said a restaurant can ban kissing behavior, when you say "can't kiss a man if you're a man", that's not banning based on behavior, that's banning based on who they are.
But in the context of real life, we don't accept that people can be banned for any reason.
In meat-space, we decided that if you express political beliefs people don't like, they can ban you from their private stuff. Sounds to me like it's logical that in the online world, we can also decide that if you express political beliefs people don't like, they can ban you from their private stuff. In meat space, we decided that you cannot ban people from your private stuff because of their race. Sounds to me like it's logical that in the online world, we can also decide that you cannot ban people from your private stuff because of their race.
I would be much more amenable to smarter arguments of what is a private place of "public accommodations". It's easy in meat-space to know that a restaurant in the middle of town is a private place of "public accommodations". And it's easy then to make the parallel that social media platforms are also private place of "public accommodation". Anyone can "walk" into these sites and sign up for an account and presumably agree to terms of use and agreements. Anyone can "make use" of the features provided by such a space. And because social media platforms are also private place of "public accommodation", therefore social media platforms also get the rights of a restaurant. Now if you can somehow argue that social media platforms are government-funded or government-backed or government-actors, or so on, then you can legitimately say that social media platforms cannot ban people for their political beliefs.
Let's take an example that you run a restaurant and the government send you a letter pointing out that the government is concerned about certain people, that these people are "dangerous". You think the government is being bullshit and suppressing these people from enjoying the succulent meals you would make for them based on political belief. You fear that the government will retaliate you and you can lay out the details of how the government already or would do that. Guess what you can do? You can do exactly what various different social platforms do: most lay down and take it, some find workarounds/delay tactics, a few fight.
Furthermore, in real life, I'd say that one of the issues with banning black people from restaurants is that not wanting black people in restaurants was common enough that even though the decision to ban them was made by individual restaurant owners, they were in effect being banned by a large portion of an industry, which is much worse than just not being able to get a meal in a particular restaurant. This is also true for banning people from the Internet; if you express right-wing beliefs, the biggest places are all closed off to you even if you can still use some niche forum like themotte.
First of all, I don't believe that race/color is similar to political beliefs so I don't even agree or share your understanding of the parallel. Second of all, what right wing beliefs get you banned from a large portion of the internet? Let's pin down on some particular examples so that our discussion can be more focused instead of me guessing at what you're meaning.
That's not a sign of low IQ, it's a sign of recklessness or desperation or normalization of improper practices in industry.
again, also not a sign of low IQ.
As I was thinking about the earlier comment on how illegal immigrants can get help, I thought of how there is probably a modern underground railroad for illegal immigrants and I just don't know about it, and that is in addition (or maybe complement) to the government and NGO help. I can see how people of lower IQ get help, assuming some kind of significant community/social bond so people would help out one another.
More options
Context Copy link