Stripe bans Trump campaign

Post by ketamine__ » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 1:58 AM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #376

ketamine__ wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parler bans people that post poop pics. It just so happens that mainstream services have a higher standard. But seriously, how is mounting an insurection a slippery slope? At this point I get the feeling that a lot of people posting here are apologists for domestic terrorism and it worries me. There are violent people and they think like Timothy McVeigh. That should worry you. It should worry you even more if they ca…

> At this point I get the feeling that a lot of people posting here are apologists for domestic terrorism and it worries me. What a great way to shut down any discussion. Anyone who doesn’t agree must be terrorist apologists? If you read these comments and all you can see in anyone not posting full throated praises of this purge are people defending terrorists, consider taking a break from the discussion and come bac…

Post by davesque » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 1:59 AM UTC

npunt wrote: post #382

rglover wrote: post #259

Maybe I'm being naive but it seems like a larger problem is being ignored here that I feel I should call attention to. This is going to piss people off and some of those people are going to be real, nothing-to-lose extremists. Actions like these though seemingly harmless in the short-term are going to radicalize the exact person/type of people that you do not want to radicalize. Because a lot of high-ranking SV folks…

On the other hand, avoiding conflict in the short-term will only embolden those who create and thrive on conflict. For these types of people, their next move is usually to escalate. You see this with bullies, abusive relationships, rapists, serial killers, terrorists, etc. They learn what they can get away with, they like the power it gives them, and they try something more. Therefore, we can't make decisions based o…

Post by nobody9999 » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 2:01 AM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #367

nobody9999 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Section 230 is irrelevant to the discussion in this case[1]. Section 230 refers to the ability of one party to sue over the speech of a third party. That's not in play here at all. Rather, this is about freedom of association. Stripe can associate (do business, in this case) with whom it chooses (with some restrictions[2], but this isn't one of them), and that freedom of association is protected by the constitution[0…

Sorry, I thought this discussion was on a different post. You're right, the argument above doesn't apply to Stripe. Instead, I would respond that freedom of association is considerably more limited than other rights. Soldiers, students, jurors, prisoners, etc are often forced into association with people they would rather not associate with, and businesses are legally forced into association to protect the rights of…

Post by pmiller2 » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 2:05 AM UTC

abernard1 wrote: post #226

eganist wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't believe I'm actually going to go to this topic, but your argument has been made before with the Reichstag Fire [1]. Using threats of violence as a pretext for assuming more government control is a tactic as old as governments. There's a bit of false equivalence here. The fire was, on one hand, a false flag (from the very link you posted), and on the other hand, a stroke of luck. Whereas here, it was an atte…

> It's not because of everyday conservatives who feel duped. It's because of the conservatives who came together to enact violence and disrupt the democratic process. And those 75M voters are not able to receive communication from a person they voted for and want to hear speak. They can't buy things from stores that are selling ordinary, run of the mill political apparel. The servers and apps providing social media--…

Post by thepasswordis » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 2:06 AM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #356

joshuamorton wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've subtly avoided answering the question I asked. As far as I know, there was one (abandoned) police precinct burned. Was the burning of an abandoned building avocation for violence against police officers?

You've gotten a distorted version of the story. The Minneapolis Third Precinct was abandoned at the time of burning only because police could no longer defend it against the rioters who were trying to break in and hurt them.