[1A] The Free Speech Thread

[KLB]

NY is a really big market to have to stay out of. I think your solution is a practical solution on a certain scale. But when things reach the scale where it becomes a proposition of "take it or leave it", where leaving it is more costly than taking it. They do the thing that costs less. It's sort of using Capitalism's shortcomings against it to have power over these companies to get them to capitulate.

So when things become of the scale of NY, probably only way to defeat it is for an association of merchants to all leave. But it takes nearly all of them to do it in a way that hurts NY enough to pressure them to stop. And that's hard to do.

Companies like Prada will never have the leverage to do anything.

It wouldn't take all companies to abandon them, just some really big important ones, for instance Procter Gamble or Pepsi. Things that regular people would miss right away. They could run ads on TV telling the people that they had to pull out because the government there is bat**** crazy, and they can not do business under the current law.

 

[jamil]

Companies like Prada will never have the leverage to do anything.

It wouldn't take all companies to abandon them, just some really big important ones, for instance Procter Gamble or Pepsi. Things that regular people would miss right away. They could run ads on TV telling the people that they had to pull out because the government there is bat**** crazy, and they can not do business under the current law.

Only in an association of 1000's of Prada's. It's unlikely that publicly traded companies would take such a stand in a market like NY. That's just walking away from money on the table. Execs are under constant pressure to show earnings and growth from quarter to quarter. They're incentivized to take the path of most profit. And it's a lot less expensive to hire a diversity exec and play the game than it is to pull out and leave that market to its competitors.

And like I said, that's a problem with capitalism that makes it susceptible to such manipulations. Now, INGO, please don't misunderstand, like you've tended to do recently. I'm not going commie here. I'm just admitting the legitimate faults with capitalism. People like to think that laissez faire free markets can correct for everything, eventually. In a healthy balanced market, that's theoretically true. But we live in the real, practical world, in which that kind of market is impractical and unlikely ever to be achieved. In reality, when some players get really big, they can create take-it-or-leave-it propositions.

Markets work on suppliers and "demanders" making individual decisions in their own interest. But they don't always have choices on the table which are good for business; just least bad. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The choice is about which outcome is least damaging. We don't have a practical mechanism for the free market to deal with Hobson's choices: take it or leave it. You can say, well, they have the tools already; they can just choose not to. But every choice has a consequence, even saying no.

For this situation, companies would have to act not in their own best interests, to beat it. Maybe saying "**** off" to the mob would have a foreseeable long term gain. That would take some extreme courage to make that choice though, in a world where you miss an earnings call really big because you pulled out of a big market, not to mention the brand hit you'd take because the mob would say you're a racist company for fighting against social justice. This is a problem bigger than capitalism can solve.

The Chick-fil-a thing is a fair example where they were left with a Hobson's choice. Either capitulate to the mob so that they could continue doing business, or stand up for their principles, and risk removing themselves from an important market, AND alienating themselves from the people who share their ideological principles. And they're a privately held company. Proctor and Gamble and big companies like it, are not going to fight it. Even if their CEO's and boards of directors aren't SJW's, and they all think it's nonsense, they will take the path of least resistance to stay out of hot water with investors who are also self-interested. I don't see a workable solution to this problem. Maybe if enough of them believed it was in their long term interest to stop this, they could, through their trade associations, fight this.

 

[Ingomike]

Would a customer denied the specific product have standing to sue against the law?

It likely would need to be a small shop with an owner that wanted to win coupled with an ideological legal group, like the Colorado baker situation, that takes it to SCOTUS...

 

[KLB]

Only in an association of 1000's of Prada's. It's unlikely that publicly traded companies would take such a stand in a market like NY. That's just walking away from money on the table. Execs are under constant pressure to show earnings and growth from quarter to quarter. They're incentivized to take the path of most profit. And it's a lot less expensive to hire a diversity exec and play the game than it is to pull out and leave that market to its competitors.

And like I said, that's a problem with capitalism that makes it susceptible to such manipulations. Now, INGO, please don't misunderstand, like you've tended to do recently. I'm not going commie here. I'm just admitting the legitimate faults with capitalism. People like to think that laissez faire free markets can correct for everything, eventually. In a healthy balanced market, that's theoretically true. But we live in the real, practical world, in which that kind of market is impractical and unlikely ever to be achieved. In reality, when some players get really big, they can create take-it-or-leave-it propositions.

Markets work on suppliers and "demanders" making individual decisions in their own interest. But they don't always have choices on the table which are good for business; just least bad. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The choice is about which outcome is least damaging. We don't have a practical mechanism for the free market to deal with Hobson's choices: take it or leave it. You can say, well, they have the tools already; they can just choose not to. But every choice has a consequence, even saying no.

For this situation, companies would have to act not in their own best interests, to beat it. Maybe saying "**** off" to the mob would have a foreseeable long term gain. That would take some extreme courage to make that choice though, in a world where you miss an earnings call really big because you pulled out of a big market, not to mention the brand hit you'd take because the mob would say you're a racist company for fighting against social justice. This is a problem bigger than capitalism can solve.

The Chick-fil-a thing is a fair example where they were left with a Hobson's choice. Either capitulate to the mob so that they could continue doing business, or stand up for their principles, and risk removing themselves from an important market, AND alienating themselves from the people who share their ideological principles. And they're a privately held company. Proctor and Gamble and big companies like it, are not going to fight it. Even if their CEO's and boards of directors aren't SJW's, and they all think it's nonsense, they will take the path of least resistance to stay out of hot water with investors who are also self-interested. I don't see a workable solution to this problem. Maybe if enough of them believed it was in their long term interest to stop this, they could, through their trade associations, fight this.

I'm not so sure. Like anything else there is a breaking point. As NY and even more so California try to force their views on corporations, eventually those that can fight back, will. The more likely battle ground will be in the courts, but using their products as leverage could be very persuasive.

 

[jamil]

I'm not so sure. Like anything else there is a breaking point. As NY and even more so California try to force their views on corporations, eventually those that can fight back, will. The more likely battle ground will be in the courts, but using their products as leverage could be very persuasive.

Which companies have left California markets? If this thing gets beaten, I think it’s not in the board room but at the ballot box. Society will have to decide that the world the social justice warriors propose is unlivable and take their power away. As unlikely as that is, I think it’s even less likely that companies can fight it as long as the mob has power.

 

[KLB]

Which companies have left California markets? If this thing gets beaten, I think it’s not in the board room but at the ballot box. Society will have to decide that the world the social justice warriors propose is unlivable and take their power away. As unlikely as that is, I think it’s even less likely that companies can fight it as long as the mob has power.

We will have to see where things go. They seem to want to get more and more involved in how companies run themselves.

 

[2A_Tom]

 

[actaeon277]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/billionaire-george-soros-says-mark-151123613.html
Billionaire George Soros says Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg should be removed from their leadership positions at Facebook


Writing to the Financial Times, Soros said that Facebook should "err on the side of caution and refuse to publish" political ads on its platform.

 

[jamil]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/billionaire-george-soros-says-mark-151123613.html
Billionaire George Soros says Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg should be removed from their leadership positions at Facebook


Writing to the Financial Times, Soros said that Facebook should "err on the side of caution and refuse to publish" political ads on its platform.

“should be removed.” By whom?

 

[actaeon277]

Probably Facebook.
And if they don't, then the .gov.

 

[chipbennett]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/billionaire-george-soros-says-mark-151123613.html
Billionaire George Soros says Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg should be removed from their leadership positions at Facebook


Writing to the Financial Times, Soros said that Facebook should "err on the side of caution and refuse to publish" political ads on its platform.

Well, George Soros does have plenty of experience helping the State remove people that the State wants removed.

 

[2A_Tom]

Yeah, he says it was just a job and he has no remorse.

 

[MCgrease08]

If you had any doubt that the mask is completely off for the totalitarian leftists, the kooks at The Atlantic just tossed the mask of classical liberalism into the trash bin.

Atlantic Mag Hopes Coronavirus Leads America to China-Style Speech Censorship

As surprising as it may sound, digital surveillance and speech control in the United States already show many similarities to what one finds in authoritarian states such as China. Constitutional and cultural differences mean that the private sector, rather than the federal and state governments, currently takes the lead in these practices, which further values and address threats different from those in China. But the trend toward greater surveillance and speech control here, and toward the growing involvement of government, is undeniable and likely inexorable.

In the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong. Significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a society’s norms and values.

 

[jamil]

If you had any doubt that the mask is completely off for the totalitarian leftists, the kooks at The Atlantic just tossed the mask of classical liberalism into the trash bin.

Atlantic Mag Hopes Coronavirus Leads America to China-Style Speech Censorship

The Atlantic leans left, yes. But this is an opinion piece from a couple of lefty **********s. This is not new. Of course they want censorship. Of course they want to control what information people get. Control is the only way that traditional media can be a player in an age of digital freedom.

The internet reflects society's actual norms and values now. Maybe it's not the values some people want. Who gets to say what values should be most valuable to individuals in a society? If you want to control information, the answer to that is obvious.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

The Atlantic leans left, yes. But this is an opinion piece from a couple of lefty **********s. This is not new. Of course they want censorship. Of course they want to control what information people get. Control is the only way that traditional media can be a player in an age of digital freedom.

The internet reflects some parts of society's actual norms and values now. Maybe it's not the values some people want. Who gets to say what values should be most valuable to individuals in a society? If you want to control information, the answer to that is obvious.

FIFY

 

[jamil]

FIFY

"Society" is a plural of individuals. It's obvious that individually, people differ widely. But as society is an aggregate term, I think what the internet has become and the rules that are enforced, pretty much take the aggregate reality.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

"Society" is a plural of individuals. It's obvious that individually, people differ widely. But as society is an aggregate term, I think what the internet has become and the rules that are enforced, pretty much take the aggregate reality.

That's what the DNC, Hillary and MSM thought in 2016.

 

[jamil]

That's what the DNC, Hillary and MSM thought in 2016.

No it's not. They misjudged the individuals actually voting. They thought Michigan and Ohio and those other states were safe for them. They didn't consider that the Bernie bros wouldn't show up for them, and that as many as 12% of the Bernie bros would actually vote for Trump.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

No it's not. They misjudged the individuals actually voting. They thought Michigan and Ohio and those other states were safe for them. They didn't consider that the Bernie bros wouldn't show up for them, and that as many as 12% of the Bernie bros would actually vote for Trump.

Eh, yes and no. I don't think rural America has as large of an internet presence as the blue state urban areas. Most "deplorables" kept their mouths shut on the internet and just voted.

 

[Phase2]

If you had any doubt that the mask is completely off for the totalitarian leftists, the kooks at The Atlantic just tossed the mask of classical liberalism into the trash bin.

Atlantic Mag Hopes Coronavirus Leads America to China-Style Speech Censorship

Trump should announce that he is beginning to agree with the Atlantic and is looking at starting to close down liberal news organizations as a first step.