641–650 of 841 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or not even an arm of the government. The same reasoning would be applied by other companies buying services. Vendors with a reputation for stopping service to clients because of bad news coverage are a risker bet.
That doesn't seem to affect Google much, and we all know how big G loves killing off products.
I think there is justified wariness about building too much on top of any service given away for free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This goes way too far in limiting freedom IMO. It makes sense to not let people discriminate on things that are immutable (like skin color), but it's crazy to not let discrimination happen on things that are a choice. Just like I can decide not to let people not wearing shoes or shirts into my business, why shouldn't I be able to deny entry to a neo-Nazi? What if I'm losing black customers because I have racists regu…
You are missing an obvious dimension: discriminate within reason based on harmful behaviors, not characteristics nor beliefs. Which is pretty much what US law says, because it's reasonable on avwrgt.
Corporations are people. If they don't act ethically, we can't expect people to act ethically. Ending a contract with an agency that runs concentration camps is good. Better, though, is to not accept any contracts with any government that runs concentration camps. Small steps are good. Big steps are better. PS: great fear from all paying customers that run concentration camps that an internet mob could separate them…
> Ending a contract with an agency that runs concentration camps is good. If ending contract with an agency that runs concentration camp has any meaningful impact on said agency, the only thing you achieve is making their service a bit worse and life of people in their custody a bit miserable. That's the opposite of good, you're just hurting people you supposedly care about.
No, I don't think that works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Religion is a protected class, so the question is moot under US law. In any case, I confess I'm always a little suspicious of this method of argument. Bob says, "I will ban neo-Nazis from my forum," and people chime in with, "Well, what about banning Catholics? Vegetarians? People who admit to liking Nickelback?". Is the principle really that if we find one single case where Bob would admit "I don't think banning tha…
Not drawing a line is a simple solution to the problem of where to draw the line. Catholicism is an organization that as one of its main tenets is homophobic. How is that better (or is it worse) than being an Confederate flag-waver or a neo-Nazi or a Black racial separatist or ? I'm sure the answer is obvious to you, but only because of your personal idiosyncratic preferences. Evil is not an objective spectrum. It's…
I don't understand the calls to abolish ICE. Open borders are simply not a realistic policy in the current world. We can barely keep things operating as it is in the US, what would happen when tens of millions of largely unskilled immigrants were to stream across the border? Do people actually think nothing negative will happen?
I'm sure that some people are advocating for completely open borders without concern for consequences. But I think the larger call is saying that ICE as it currently is conceived as a paramilitary-style organization is not the way control the border and manage immigration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> appeal to authority is not a fallacy when the authority is indeed an expert. Sure it is. The point of the fallacy is that an argument should stand on its own merit, and has nothing to do with the person making it. Guess what - experts can be wrong too (e.g. hand washing).
In practice it is about phrasing "expert said that, so it must be true" is a fallacy, reaching a consensus via a relevant authority is not.
Perhaps you could explain the difference?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's right. You don't know. Why don't you enlighten us instead of playing coy?
What, do you want specific details? In the mid 80s, My parents took me to a diner, specifically BOB AND EDITH's on columbia pike, in Arlington VA. During the 80s, Asian Americans were very rare in the Washington DC area, and moreover, there was a trade war going on between the US and Japan. It was fashionable at the time for short fiction to feature dystopian US futures where the active currency was the Yen. We arriv…
> Look, the primary issue of racism that Asian Americans have to deal with is not the same as the racism that African Americans have to deal with
and then making the following wholly unsubstantiated statement:
> which is that to get what we want we have to work twice as hard
How do you know how hard an African American has to work to get the the same place as you? How do you know how hard it is to work against the type of racism that is so much greater than that faced by Asian Americans, that it is in your own words "not in the same league".
I'm not saying you've had it easy by any stretch, but your attempt to blur the lines between the experiences of Asian and African Americans in an attempt to cast aspersion on efforts to provide protection under the law for African Americans' human rights - which is what Black Lives Matter is advocating - seems to show that you value "freedom from legislation" more than you value their human rights.
What does ICE (a big flawed but necessary federal border guarding agency) have to do with BLM (loose movement to ensure equal treatment of US citizens of color by local police departments and preventing horrible abuses)?