The Political & Philosophy Thread

[Einherjar86]

Individuals are prone to boundary-setting; capitalism merely introduces a new platform for territorialization.

The axiomatic of capitalism involves a feedback loop of deterritorialization and reterritorialization. You cannot have one without the other, and you cannot limit your definition of capitalism to only one aspect of the loop.

 

[Dak]

Individuals are prone to boundary-setting; capitalism merely introduces a new platform for territorialization.

The axiomatic of capitalism involves a feedback loop of deterritorialization and reterritorialization. You cannot have one without the other, and you cannot limit your definition of capitalism to only one aspect of the loop.

I agree with all of this. I just still don't think bringing up the no-gay-wedding-cake bakers was relevant to complaints about social media/user content sites censorship.

 

[Einherjar86]

Maybe not in the context of their proposed explanation then, if I'm being agreeable...

But I still contend that if we consider their reason as being that they don't want to risk losing their religious clientele, then it is comparable to media sites censoring particular political content so as not to risk alienating their target audience.

Obviously, this reason could absolutely still line up with said media site's political identity and motivations.

 

[Dak]

But I still contend that if we consider their reason as being that they don't want to risk losing their religious clientele, then it is comparable to media sites censoring particular political content so as not to risk alienating their target audience.

Obviously, this reason could absolutely still line up with said media site's political identity and motivations.

But Google/Youtube doesn't present itself as partisan, the censorship is done secretly. Neither does Facebook (in fact after recent charges of censorship Zuckerburg did the whole "who us?? No we ain't about that!" bit. If it were "Huffpostube" or "MSNBCbook" I'd understand.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not following why it's important that the censorship is done secretly. Most people don't like to actively know the information they're receiving is being manipulated, and the revelation that it is could potentially have as damaging an effect as not censoring anything. But so far, most people aren't complaining, which I think is telling.

For the most part, younger audiences use Google, Facebook and YouTube, and younger audiences tend to be more liberal. I don't think either site has to promote partisan interests in order to see how censoring could still be an economically beneficial move.

 

[Dak]

I'm not following why it's important that the censorship is done secretly. Most people don't like to actively know the information they're receiving is being manipulated, and the revelation that it is could potentially have as damaging an effect as not censoring anything. But so far, most people aren't complaining, which I think is telling.

This is an amusing paragraph. How do you know "most people aren't complaining"? Maybe from censorship? OTOH, the majority of people don't bother complaining about things they don't like. That's why there's a known multiplier on actual complaints that make it through to businesses about X. Also, if in the case of censorship, users suspect bias, they are less likely to bother to complain. It's like complaining about a superior in the military. It's almost always pointless at best, if not counterproductive.

Secondly, how could knowing about the liberal censorship hurt if most people aren't complaining because they like it?

For the most part, younger audiences use Google, Facebook and YouTube, and younger audiences tend to be more liberal. I don't think either site has to promote partisan interests in order to see how censoring could still be an economically beneficial move.

Maybe younger audiences tend to be more liberal because of the complete bubble of Cathedral censorship, from K-Youtube.

 

[CiG]

Capitalism =/= forcing people to do business with people. This should be obvious.

This may sound cynical but I wouldn't expect someone with a worldview like yours to find religious belief a convincible reason to refuse catering a gay wedding (yes I know it's a real case, not sure what about my response lead you to believe I had misunderstood you).

Should a vegan catering company be forced to cater food for say, a monthly hunters club meeting? What if the cake asked for had to have a hunting trophy drawn on it's face? What if a gay-owned bakery were asked to do services for a Christian wedding?

I don't think you understand how freedom of association works, as you seem to be treating the cake incident as if a gay couple came in and was denied a loaf of bread because they're gay.

Also, since we're talking about what we find ironic, I find it very ironic that the gay wedding cake vs Christian bakery incident is every left-winger's favourite incident to bring up, yet never any talk of Islamic bakeries doing the exact same things? Weird.

 

[Dak]

If Trump grabs a pussy "because when you're famous, they [consent]", it's sexual assault. If a refugee rapes an ethnic European, obviously the European was just racist for not saying yes.

 

[Einherjar86]

This is an amusing paragraph.

Good, I'm glad.

How do you know "most people aren't complaining"? Maybe from censorship? OTOH, the majority of people don't bother complaining about things they don't like. That's why there's a known multiplier on actual complaints that make it through to businesses about X. Also, if in the case of censorship, users suspect bias, they are less likely to bother to complain. It's like complaining about a superior in the military. It's almost always pointless at best, if not counterproductive.

I should clarify. I mean that people are still using Google, Facebook, YouTube, etc. By "not complaining" I mean "not boycotting." But I also agree that many people probably don't care, because...

Secondly, how could knowing about the liberal censorship hurt if most people aren't complaining because they like it?

Well, then there you go! Apparently the business model is working.

Maybe younger audiences tend to be more liberal because of the complete bubble of Cathedral censorship, from K-Youtube.

Chicken or the egg, I guess.

Capitalism =/= forcing people to do business with people. This should be obvious.

Indeed, and I'm not saying that the cake company should be forced to do business. I am saying that if it can be construed as a capitalist position to refuse service to someone based on a particular religious belief or sexual orientation, then censorship of certain political views can also be construed as a capitalist position.

This may sound cynical but I wouldn't expect someone with a worldview like yours to find religious belief a convincible reason to refuse catering a gay wedding (yes I know it's a real case, not sure what about my response lead you to believe I had misunderstood you).

Should a vegan catering company be forced to cater food for say, a monthly hunters club meeting? What if the cake asked for had to have a hunting trophy drawn on it's face? What if a gay-owned bakery were asked to do services for a Christian wedding?

I don't think you understand how freedom of association works, as you seem to be treating the cake incident as if a gay couple came in and was denied a loaf of bread because they're gay.

They were denied a wedding cake because they were having a gay wedding. And again, I'm not arguing that the company should be forced to serve them (although I may have felt this way in the past, not going to deny that). Similarly, why should online websites be made to tolerate certain pieces or opinions if they think it might drive down user traffic? This doesn't seem like a controversial comparison to me.

Also, since we're talking about what we find ironic, I find it very ironic that the gay wedding cake vs Christian bakery incident is every left-winger's favourite incident to bring up, yet never any talk of Islamic bakeries doing the exact same things? Weird.

The response to the cake company wasn't that they should be forced to serve anyone. It was "boycott this cake company because they won't serve a gay couple." That's not the same thing as forcing the company to do business with anyone.

 

[CiG]

Indeed, and I'm not saying that the cake company should be forced to do business. I am saying that if it can be construed as a capitalist position to refuse service to someone based on a particular religious belief or sexual orientation, then censorship of certain political views can also be construed as a capitalist position.

It's only you claiming their refusal to cater the gay wedding was a capitalist position. It wasn't, it was a classical liberal position or a libertarian position.

They were denied a wedding cake because they were having a gay wedding. And again, I'm not arguing that the company should be forced to serve them (although I may have felt this way in the past, not going to deny that). Similarly, why should online websites be made to tolerate certain pieces or opinions if they think it might drive down user traffic? This doesn't seem like a controversial comparison to me.

But is there any proof that they think this? Because I've not seen it. Left-wingers and right-wingers rarely overlap in the political media they consume, so all they seem to be doing is shooting themselves in the foot by driving right-wing media demand elsewhere, which could simply morph into competition.

The response to the cake company wasn't that they should be forced to serve anyone. It was "boycott this cake company because they won't serve a gay couple." That's not the same thing as forcing the company to do business with anyone.

No. That should have been the response but it wasn't. They were destroyed in a court and the owner apparently had to remortgage their home and I believe went bankrupt.

And it should be stated, the overwhelming problem with social media's suppression of the right/conservative people and content is that these places aren't open about their biases.

Facebook isn't called Marxbook, they're not contacting the content providers before they remove the content and letting them know that, because their content goes against the moderators' and owners' politics, they're going to have theirs deleted or rejected before it's up much like the Christian baker who is upfront and even recommended the bakery across the road for that specific cake, instead they not only do it under the radar but they also deny it ever happened when asked.

This is blatantly different to the cake situation.

 

[Dak]

I should clarify. I mean that people are still using Google, Facebook, YouTube, etc. By "not complaining" I mean "not boycotting." But I also agree that many people probably don't care, because...

Well, then there you go! Apparently the business model is working.

I use a variety of blogs to maintain my preferred political bubble . I don't rely on Google/social media generally speaking for that. But Trump is in fact polling at 40+% even in the "biased" polls, and Johnson is polling at 4 or 5 or whatever. Maybe that 40+% is like me and know that complaining won't do anything and/or work around it.

Chicken or the egg, I guess.

How do 5 year olds who can't read act as the Chicken?

The response to the cake company wasn't that they should be forced to serve anyone. It was "boycott this cake company because they won't serve a gay couple." That's not the same thing as forcing the company to do business with anyone.

Incorrect (postjumped).

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/u...er-who-refused-to-serve-same-sex-couples.html

A state appeals court in Colorado ruled Thursday that a baker could not cite religious beliefs in refusing to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

Whether photographers, florists, bakers and other vendors who are Christians should have a right to refuse services for same-sex marriages has emerged as a major cultural and legal battle, one that has intensified since the Supreme Court decision in June establishing same-sex marriage as a constitutional right.

In the Colorado case, “the court squarely said that this is discrimination based on sexual orientation and it’s not to be tolerated, even if it’s motivated by faith,” said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the gay couple. “Religious liberty gives you the right to your beliefs but not the right to harm others.”

Last month, a state agency in Oregon ordered a Christian-owned bakery to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake. That case is under appeal, as is another in the state of Washington, where a florist was fined $1,000 in March for refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's right, I was wrong about the cake company. The court did rule against them. That said, good riddance (and that's not me being a good capitalist, I know).

So I'm going to admit that it was a bad example. I apologize - should have thought it through.

None of that changes the fact that I'm correct about there being economic incentive to censor content on the internet.

 

[CiG]

If a gay owned bakery refused service to a Christian wedding, would you also be in favour of law-suiting them out of existence? What about the original situation but instead of Christian, the bakery is Islamic?

(and that's not me being a good capitalist, I know).

Forget capitalism, it's you not valuing freedom. I don't see how you could support one freedom of association but not the other, maybe people on the right should attempt to sue these media sites into bankruptcy? Obviously that could never happen because they're too huge but I'd be against it anyway, because I'm genuinely pro-freedom (as opposed to a vapid muh freedomz slogan).

Anyway don't wanna become a bore on this, suffice to say if social media is doing this simply for business reasons I don't see why they're so cloak and dagger about it, with weird loopholes and obscure ToS actions.

Seems like they want to maintain the liberal reputation of being pro-all ideas allowed/freedom of speech/expression/ideas while they do the complete opposite via indirect means as a way to flex their influences and go about it uncriticised. The way they do these things specifically lends to complaints sounding like looney conspiracy theories.

I doubt it's by accident and for money.

 

[Dak]

I'm pro Free Association when it's applied equally. The problem when it isn't is that things get ugly in different directions depending on where you happen to be. In the US a baker might be forced to make a cake but Blankfein also gets to do "Gods work" (which probably indirectly kills way more gays than cakes are baked for gays, on top of any other damage). Even if it doesn't, while gays are getting a few extra cakes and giggles at the expense of a few religious folks, Duterte is running death squads. Good ol' lack of free association.

 

[CiG]

(which probably indirectly kills way more gays than cakes are baked for gays, on top of any other damage)

Could you elucidate? I'm not up on all things America lol.

 

[Einherjar86]

If a gay owned bakery refused service to a Christian wedding, would you also be in favour of law-suiting them out of existence? What about the original situation but instead of Christian, the bakery is Islamic?

To be honest, I wouldn't have been for law-suiting the Christian bakery out of existence; I said "good riddance" because at least it's one more step toward a world in which religious belief doesn't preclude queer sexuality. That kind of fanaticism annoys me, but of course I have serious concerns about political mandates.

But I also have ethical priorities, and when politics supports those ethics, well... then I don't care. I know that you and Dak probably see this as hypocrisy and inconsistency, but the truth is that no one can claim to have a logical and completely rational system of though. We all fall back on inconsistencies. I'm aware of mine.

Forget capitalism, it's you not valuing freedom. I don't see how you could support one freedom of association but not the other, maybe people on the right should attempt to sue these media sites into bankruptcy? Obviously that could never happen because they're too huge but I'd be against it anyway, because I'm genuinely pro-freedom (as opposed to a vapid muh freedomz slogan).

I don't value freedom because I don't believe in it.

Anyway don't wanna become a bore on this, suffice to say if social media is doing this simply for business reasons I don't see why they're so cloak and dagger about it, with weird loopholes and obscure ToS actions.

Seems like they want to maintain the liberal reputation of being pro-all ideas allowed/freedom of speech/expression/ideas while they do the complete opposite via indirect means as a way to flex their influences and go about it uncriticised. The way they do these things specifically lends to complaints sounding like looney conspiracy theories.

I doubt it's by accident and for money.

That's fine then, but I still don't see why the secrecy is such an issue. I explained why above.

 

[Dak]

Could you elucidate? I'm not up on all things America lol.

It's not an American thing, other than Goldman Sachs being US based. Muslim/African countries are quite anti-gay, and capital flows/western military/clandestine operations have maintained this for years (I was using Blankfein as an example of the system).

 

[rms]

None of that changes the fact that I'm correct about there being economic incentive to censor content on the internet.

isn't it your position that it's not just incentive but rather the 'correct' move as in profits would increase more with censorship than without?

 

[CiG]

To be honest, I wouldn't have been for law-suiting the Christian bakery out of existence; I said "good riddance" because at least it's one more step toward a world in which religious belief doesn't preclude queer sexuality. That kind of fanaticism annoys me, but of course I have serious concerns about political mandates.

But I also have ethical priorities, and when politics supports those ethics, well... then I don't care. I know that you and Dak probably see this as hypocrisy and inconsistency, but the truth is that no one can claim to have a logical and completely rational system of though. We all fall back on inconsistencies. I'm aware of mine.

I see your position as a sort of fanaticism too though, I see no difference between gay people forcing those that don't agree with their lifestyle (ie gay marriage) to join in and religious people forcing gay people to remain hidden and oppressed.

I don't value freedom because I don't believe in it.

There you go, inconsistently elevating belief when it suites you.

That's fine then, but I still don't see why the secrecy is such an issue. I explained why above.

I didn't find your explanation to be convincing.

(Edit: in that, I don't just think the right/conservatives are negatively impacted with the secret suppression, but the left are denied the opportunity to come across differeing views which are essential to strengthening your own and also they simply might not like what's happening, considering the true definition of liberalism. It should be said that it's less about the freedom to speak but moreso the freedom to listen and that's being denied just as much.)

It's not an American thing, other than Goldman Sachs being US based. Muslim/African countries are quite anti-gay, and capital flows/western military/clandestine operations have maintained this for years (I was using Blankfein as an example of the system).

Oh okay I'm with you now. That was kind of obvious but I can be fucking dense.

 

[Talos of Atmora]

The biggest offender when it comes to covering any political issue in regards to Islam or the Middle East has to be Al Jazeera. By far. The reason I bring them up is due to seeing how some leftists use their rhetoric.