For real, how can they compare that one Christian bakery with Twitter and Big Tech.
And on top of that, they use it like some ultimate "gotcha" moment.
The bakery was asked to create something from zero (with their hands, their name and brand).
Twitter was asked to host something (made by others, with other people's names and protected by Section 230).
I personally think it's not that hard to distinguish between the two, but whatever.
BTW, I'm not excusing the politicians that made life super easy for Big Tech and their friends - I still think they were dumb - but now we are experiencing unseen levels of doublethink.
The cake argument fails on a couple levels.
To build on your second point, IIRC didn’t the gay couple in question deliberately drive an hour+ out of their way to go to a specific Christian bakery to antagonize them?
Don't know about drive time but they did go around calling multiple bakeries until they found one that finally refused them, yes.
Can we bake the Trump Won cake though, or is that terrorism.
They were from Connecticut. So they not only went across the country, but they went to multiple bakeries to find one that would refuse.
Never forget... they are all like this. All of them.
In fact, that's where this argument should end. Even if said bakery was a monopoly or acted in collusion with other businesses to prevent you from eating their cakes, or even created nigh impossible cakes to recreate, the fact that it can't refuse to sell a cake to gay couple is all you need to state to ruin the stupid analogy.
Good point about the collusion- imagine the bakery not only refusing to see you a cake but talking with all the other bakeries to ban you from their stores, as well as colluding with the grocery stores to stop you from buying the ingredients to bake your own cake, and with the appliance retailers to prevent you from buying an oven (and the toy stores so you can't even buy an Easy Bake Oven) and with realtors so you can't buy your own bakery...
Yep that's a very apt comparison.
When phrased that way it sounds ridiculous and nightmarish, and people immediately are repulsed by the idea. Sadly, the left isn't willing to see it because they're too busy jerking themselves off about how evil "le drumpfh" is and how this is a win for them.
I think there's also a disconnect because there isn't really a physical object being exchanged, it's more access to something. So there might be less of an understanding that something is being denied in a way that has been agreed is wrong in comparable situations.
Saved locally, because it's a proper spelling out of what the true situation here is.
Make no mistake, i personally don't have issue with it even when put like this because i see long-term and understand that those actions will have consequences for big tech, but i'd like a leftie to try and pretend it's completely ok then, just for sheer hilarity.
Very good explanation, well said!
Commies are mentally defective, if they weren't they wouldn't be commies.
Stop trying to make sense of what they say, it will only make you head hurt. They don't care about logic or consistency and only see attempts at dialogue as a weakness they can exploit.
The goal of normal people when they communicate is to convey information. The goal of commies is to 1. signal their personal loyalty to the revolution, 2. identify who is with them and who is against them, 3. publicly forward the goals of the revolution. THATS IT. The CONTENTS of the communication is entirely irrelevant to a commie. In fact, the more nonsensical and illogical it is the better because supporting an illogical position requires MORE "commitment to the cause" than a logical one.
Once you understand the underlying "thought" process then you see that the "bakery argument" makes perfect sense. The sender is showing his loyalty by denouncing patriots, he is doing it in public to attempt to identify allies and enemies based on responses, he is forwarding the goals of the revolution by reinforcing the narrative that censorship against patriots is a good thing.
Agreed brother. I'm well past the stage of trying to rationalize the irrational as there's honestly only so much of it you can make sense of, the parts that you can't will drive you insane if you dwell on them. You genuinely have to look at them like animals who can't be rationalized with, because they simply don't have the capacity for reason. They function on instinct alone, and when I say instinct I don't mean it in the traditional sense, more in the ideological sense.
This is really what I feel when reading some twatter threads, the commies are really uncanny.
There is a reason the NPC meme fits so well.
The bakery never refused to sell a cake to the couples ( yes couples, at least two SJW couples went specifically to cause a scene and destroy the buisness by legal harassment ).
They refused to make a costum cake with a specific message they religiously object to.
"For some reason" this part is always left out by SJWs.
It's like demanding Twitter's owner writes and publishes the message you demand from him, rather than let you use his platform without demanding he writes the message you demand.
Then it's an even worse comparison, yet the vaush***ds keep spamming it all over twitter and reddit.
I much prefer the telephone argument: can a telecommunications provider deny phone service to people it does not like? The existing telecommunications laws say no, and they should be the model for how big tech social media companies are regulated.
I agree, but Big Tech got too many freebies from the politicians, it's time to regulate them as much if not more than the telephone companies.
They don't give a shit about honesty. Do you have the power to hold them accountable for their fuckery or not? That's all that matters.
I feel we no longer have that power. I don't know what's left to do.
I would offer a suggestion, but it would be qualified as fedposting. Is commenting that my post would be fedposting in itself fedposting? This is a conundrum.
Heck, the whole "protected class" argument falls flat since it's an admission that some people can be refused and some can't.
Yeah, especially since they now normalized being racist against white males.
Protected class my arse.
Twitter is the public square. Whether you agree or disagree, precedent says individuals or companies can't censor the public square, even if they own it. If Twitter wanted to have full control over who uses their portion of the public square...they can't just let people enter it. That's my understanding, at least. The more someone gives something access to the public, the more it is assumed that the public has a right to use it.
An individual business is not the public square. A multinational social media platform is.
Since they have been unchallenged for so long I can only assume that there's some legal mumbo-jumbo that prevents this.
The fact that other tech companies followed in their bans aggravates this even more and proves that they in fact control online speech.
The inverse is also true, of course, but they don't want to admit that.
These people think that the company should have been forced to bake that cake but its twitter's right as a private company to ban anyone. Which is it?
Yeah but since the bakery won, for the sake of argument I'll argue this directly
Conflating issues and intellectual dishonesty is the name of the game.
It's not about an argument, it's about a 10 second audio-clip that can just be put out there to invalidate any chance for real debate.
Can't play chess with a pigeon, eh?
Most of the arguments and ideas of the left are lacking in intellectual honesty. Everyone is the same and equal, except when they're not. Under socialism everyone does their share, which will be the bare minimum. You're absolutley free to say what you want, unless I disagree with it in which case you're not equal to me. It's all a feel good fantasy in which they're always the right side, and its a side that cant exist without creating a villain.
what do you mean?`the hypocrisy of forcing people to do their bidding is totally against them, not us.
True but it fails at an even lower level.