Well, at least the pretense of pro liberty, pro classical liberal thought with the nutty woke is left is finally gone.
Well, how would you recommend that evangelical Protestant to have a discussion about Christianity with a Catholic, for example? Is it okay for the Protestant to simply declare “Catholics aren’t Christians” and expect the Catholic not to be insulted?
If you as an evangelical Protestant can’t discuss the definition of Christianity with a Catholic without asserting “Catholics aren’t Christians”, because that’s what you sincerely believe, then okay, I guess you can’t really have that discussion.
But the Protestant doesn’t get to assert “Because I sincerely believe this insulting statement, you have to have this discussion with me and ignore the fact that I’m insulting you.” The Catholic doesn’t have to put up with being insulted just because the insult is something that the Protestant sincerely believes.
Same thing for people who want to discuss same-sex marriage while asserting that same-sex marriage isn’t really marriage, or who want to discuss transgender rights while asserting that transgender women aren’t women or transgender men aren’t men.
If you can’t refrain from contradicting somebody else’s fundamental assertion of their identity, then you can’t have a civil discussion with them about the meaning of the concepts involved in their identity. And that failure’s not on them, it’s on you. Nobody is ethically obligated to put up with being insulted just because you hold that your sincere beliefs require you to insult them.
Rachel Dolezal says “hi!”
It’s not a pretense. Liberals as a group have always supported liberty and civil rights, but we have never interpreted that to mean that anybody must always be able to say whatever they want in any circumstances at any time with no repercussions of any kind.
The category “nutty woke left” is just more of your ill-defined word salad, so it’s pointless trying to figure out how a rational person might reasonably relate it to the category “liberals as a group”. The phrase “nutty woke left” will take on whatever inconsistent definitions you choose to give it at different times for different rhetorical purposes.
Then the answer is still yes, but with caveats that are different than the caveats you wish there were.
Firstly, if the OS wanted to censor the data that a separate messaging system is sending down its wires, that would be damn near impossible, because it would be difficult to determine which transmissions were messages at all, much less ones with illicit content. A broadbased attack on your data would almost certainly corrupt myriad licit transmissions as well. For this censoring to work Apple would have to target it to specific messaging systems, who could bypass it by changing or encrypting their transmission structure.
Secondly, if Apple somehow did figure out a way to implement systemwide censorship over everything on it (that didn’t destroy everything on it), then they would call it “child-safe” and it would sell like gangbusters, to people like you. And people who do want to swear would use their normal OS, or some different OS.
And thirdly, if the OS somehow is censoring everything, that means it’s also reading everything. That’s a far graver concern than the censorship.
Yes, Amazon and Apple can censor those using their services if they like. That would probably be a terrible business decision, and they’d lose tons of business to their competitors. But companies are free to make bad business decisions, and free to decide what speech to allow on their platforms.
Did someone think this was a gotcha? Companies can do this legally. They always have been able to. Blocking them from doing this would be blocking the first amendment rights of those companies.
How should I know? I’ve never been either and I have never been obliged to pretend to believe in god in order to have a discussion with religious people. It’s accepted that people have different views. I can chose not to mention my beliefs, but if people demand to know my opinion (and they do), do you expect me to lie as a prerequisite for having the discussion?
Maybe you see it differently because you have been obliged to lie about your religious beliefs? I know a lot of Americans are religious.
If you’re referring to how I’m not required to agree to perform your racist singing telegram at a child’s birthday party, then nothing has changed except in your hallucinations.
Speaking of muh word salads.
Speak for yourself. I support an open and tolerant society where multiple viewpoints are valued.
A tiny bakery refuse a cake and it’s the end of the world. Giant corporations with more wealth than most nations censor? Not a problem.
And once again you demonstrate that you’re too stupid to understand the cake situation, or too dishonest to stop lying about it. Yawn.
When you have such a discussion, do you say, “I don’t believe in god.”, or do you simply assert over and over, “There is no god.”
Of course no inconsistency. It’s muh contexts!
Dunno about DemonTree, but I repeatedly assert “There is no god”. No reason not to tell the truth.
Admittedly there are lots of conversations where there’s no point in asserting that truth, much the same way that there’s little point in repeating “Frodo is fictional” while discussing Lord of the Rings. But when the situation merits it? Sure.
Can anybody who’s been here longer than me help me understand what’s going on ? Have the meds just worn off or have they just kicked in.
Should we call somebody ??
Yikes.
He’s trolling. Badly.
They didn’t refuse to make wedding cakes, what the fuck are you on about?
They refused to make a wedding cake for a specific couple because they didn’t approve of their lifestyle.
If Amazon ever starts refusing to sell books in their catalogue to people they don’t think should have those books, then we can talk.
Pointing out ‘liberal’ hypocrisy is not trolling no matter how badly you wish it were.
Okay then, how would you recommend that anti-SSM conservative to have a discussion about same-sex marriage with a same-sex couple? Maybe you’ve never been either of those any more than you’ve ever been a Protestant or a Catholic, but perhaps the hypothetical is an easier reach in this case?