It’s absolutely not against the law for Facebook to decide who it wants to help or not help. It’s a private entity.
Just from a moral standpoint a huge company, like google and facebook are, should not discriminate who they give advertising space to (in the context of political parties during an election)
Agree with me, disagree with me, don't try to poke in my head.
Actually I can't think of a worse form of bigotry than attributing motivations for behavior of others.
Not an ounce of racism motivates it. I absolutely despise the BNP and the alt-right.
You thinking it's obvious I'm a racist shows how close-minded people on both sides of the debate can be.
Opposition to refugees (modest numbers, carefully vetted since decades, coming from real crisis situations) is at least motivated by dimwitted xenophobia. Opposition to mass immigration would be a different category.
Does this include foreign spouses? Students?
P.s. discussion isn't bad if conducted in good faith and not a vehicle for propaganda. It's the lies and hate-mongering in the ads that are bad.
Like, I don't know if that was a carefully thought out zinger or an accidental numbnut of a line but bravo. Bravo.
Clear arguments from your core principles for why not allow something is nigh and day different from the chilling effects that blanket labeling has.
Yes, the problem is clearly very nasty, and yes it will inevitably have some marginal effects.
But the disease is ignorance, the cure is exercising discrimination AND providing the information to help ignorance. AND of course allow the debate of that information.
The debate can be as simple as the 60 piece twitter story about that Viking textile fragment with Allah that turns out to be not Allah. (Where the scholar pointed out that the dating is wrong, the person that claimed that the text is Allah is wrong because there was no space on the textile for that. End of story.)
And in case of the Holocaust, yes, there's probably a 0.000000001% chance that we're being bamboozled by the New World Order, but that's almost the same as end of story (because we have more pressing matters).
However, you don't have a moral obligation to help a racist send their message. Otherwise, treat all people as people.
'Treat all people as people' is exactly the culture that allows these assholes to become POTUS. By not acknowledging the danger of some views you allow it to fester and, ironically, become a great threat to the safety of other humans/people.
Once you accept a moral system that justifies no longer treating human beings as people, you've allowed yourself a system that can justify anything. Look at every genocide of the past century; they all start with classifying a group of people as sub-human and worthy of discrimination.
That is a view to be fought, not descended to.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#The_Sec...
Seems like those 'other' groups were generally defined by biological characteristics, not ideologies, no? I guess the 'anti-communist' movement would fall under ideology, not biology, but the majority of examples I can think of that you're alluding to have to do with biology, no?
No. "Jewish" isn't biological, although there is some correlation, and America's red scare was soundly ideological.
I would think that's your 'red scare' unless you're talking about something else.
The "jewish" one - thinking specifically of ww2 - it definitely was more of a biological component, as "how much" you were jewish, and from what lineage, made a difference. "jewish" is both cultural and may have a racial/biological component (imu).
Quick question: does anyone defending the racists, sexists, homophobes, etc., have any other argument than "SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!"?
A grocery store is a private entity. Outside of banning someone for being a protected class, they are free to refuse service to anyone. Even if someone is a protected class, they still can be banned for valid reasons (i:e; stealing, threats, etc). Being a racist is not a protected class. Nor should it be. The grocery store has the right not to do business with them.
Facebook and Google are private entities. They can refuse service for any reason (with some restrictions). They have no ethical obligation to give service to everyone. No one has any obligation to use Facebook or Google's services either.
TL;DR: Outside of a few legal requirements, no one has any obligations to associate with anyone.
Sure, why not? Racists want to deny people their rights; why shouldn't people get the equal opportunity to deny racists their rights?
> Racists are humans too.
Racists see other humans as lesser. I think that automatically disqualifies them from being considered human.
I have tried to pick my verbiage carefully. Members of a group, for better or worse, are representative of that group but not in totality. Thus, generic statements are often not easy to make and leads me to point this out in response to your statement.
Also, I'm part black, if you're curious. I'm definitely not in the group most would expect to point this out. My white genes are a definite minority. ;-)
At any rate, some people who claim to be involved in BLM have made very, very racist statements that absolutely are discriminatory. Some have even gone so far as to suggest acts of violence. A search of 'twitter bans BLM member' should turn up some results, if you want citations.
Are you sure?
To me is looks like this:
Loosening the regulations on US mortgages was a strong contributing factor to a global financial crisis.
Since then, tightening regulations on global banking has led to banks being much less likely to fail and trigger another crisis.
you are in for a big surprise the next time a crisis hits the market. And even if your statement were true, only a few banks crashing would lead to a catastrophic domino effect, because everything is very largely inter-connected. What we have done since 2008 is largely insufficient to consider the current financial system as robust.
With regards to financial regulation, I think transparency and data reporting are hugely important. Much regulation can be done by counterparties if they can have better transparency.
The quality, timeliness and enforcement of the laws that establish regulation will determine the outcome.
Current regulation is weak, but society is better off with it than it was without it. A brief look at the history of the US financial system and its "crashes" may shed some light over this, perhaps even demonstrating that, if anything, regulation needs to improve (both in terms of coverage and enforcing).
The point is that this should be regulated and/or disallowed, much in the same way that you (fortunately) can't go on TV to call for violence against specific groups of people or to run false advertising, or, in a developed/civilized country, you'll be facing consequences.
One way of doing this would be for FB and other media to be forced to provide authorities with official (and validated) company information regarding the entities that are using their service for this end, much in the same way as would happen to a company running false advertisements on TV.
I wonder if you know that under Stalin, you got executed for being "enemy to the society", and then your children were officially "children of enemy to the society".
Because, as maps say, "You are here."
I don't believe this story concerns citizens fighting for their freedom from opression, it's actually related to private entities fearmongering and spreading falsehoods, and media companies (FB) facilitating their work. Maybe you'd need to have a referendum to be convinced, but I think most people will agree that hate speech and lies are damaging to virtually any society, especially because these tactics are well known throughout history.
Why you are conflating those two issues is beyond me, perhaps even beyond you, but I decline the bait...