71–80 of 119 posts
Being liberal doesn't mean that you block everything that the other side is doing. It's also about being open and accepting to others and their views. Shopify did the right thing here.
Being liberal does not require accepting Nazis. I will defend their right to hold their views and say what they want, but they have no right to do business with a particular e-commerce site.
Being liberal doesn't mean that you block everything that the other side is doing. It's also about being open and accepting to others and their views. Shopify did the right thing here.
Nobody has the obligation to help fundraise for hate speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being a Nazi is a priori violent. They have declared an intent to commit genocide by subscribing to that ideology. They ought to be excluded from society at every turn, because their goal is the destruction of our society and the mass murder of our peers.
The problem with this argument is that everybody can be called a Nazi. The only people who're using the word "Nazi" to describe "Breitbart" seriously are those who completely disrespect the millions of actual victims of the Nazi regime.
However, there are far more clear examples of Nazis, like Richard Spencer, who writes pieces on the best way to genocide the black race and things like that. You do a disservice to the people they are harming by refusing to acknowledge that actual Nazis exist, are recently emboldened, and are gaining state power in some cases.
In general, I support Shopify not dropping Breitbart. But this line I don't think works: > When we kick off a merchant, we’re asserting our own moral code as the superior one. But who gets to define that moral code? Well, who do you want to define your moral code? Do you want to define your own moral code, or do you want Breitbart to define your moral code?
Should _companies_ define moral code or _people?_
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Nazis are the folks calling for censorship. The Ctrl-left folks better do some introspection or they will be next. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/317248-dnc-boots-candid...
What I see is a bigot being censured. Arguably someone that islamophobic has no place in a civilized debate.
The headline is offensively misleading. A boycott, or severance of commercial relationship, is not censorship. It's people using commerce to express their values, which is also a form of free speech. Unlike true censorship, which comes from the government, both parties are free to seek other partners in promoting their products or messages. Lütke's attempt to paint this as a defense of free speech is disingenuous, an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being liberal does not require accepting Nazis. I will defend their right to hold their views and say what they want, but they have no right to do business with a particular e-commerce site.
By comparing Breitbart with Nazi you're being incredibly disrespectful to the actual Nazi victims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I consider throwing bricks as speaking through action: http://www.npr.org/2016/07/11/485593473/black-lives-matter-p...
+ Dallas police shooting by BLM and endless amounts of online racism. Just google "BLM + racism" and start reading.
This showed up in the results, and is more informative: https://www.splcenter.org/news/2016/07/19/black-lives-matter...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I see is a bigot being censured. Arguably someone that islamophobic has no place in a civilized debate.
Why do you think it's OK to shun Nazis, but not OK to shun Muslims? Both are opinions/belief systems, hence a choice, and both are, in their extreme versions, quite brutal.
If you legitimately can't tell the difference between a genocidal ideology and a religion then I cannot continue this conversation.
The decision to continue to work with Breitbart aside, this post shows the failure of civics education in this country. > Products are a form of speech, and free speech must be fiercely protected, even if we disagree with some of the voices. The right to free speech that's protected in our constitution refers to speech being protected from the government . Nowhere in our constitution does it state that other individu…
Not once does Lütke mention the First Amendment. You did that all on your own. More to the point, he isn't wrong in what he's saying. You're having a difficult time agreeing with him because your civics education prevents you from thinking beyond what was written on a nearly 300 year old document and you probably believe that Breitbart is the next Stormfront. Perhaps you should read something more modern, like Captain America #275 pg. 20.
