The ground works for debanking were laid when all of the mainstream press cheered on the debanking of Canadian truckers.
Now their opponents use it and it gets very little press coverage.
It needs to stop. I would not do well in this autistici.org group and they'd probably kick me out on some CoC grounds with their draconian rules and social pressure, but I still cannot get over the fact that you can just destroy a service provider with very little evidence.
Maybe we have different ideas of what the mainstream press is? These all seem pretty normal articles, most note what critics are saying of the measures.
Why do you think the "mainstream press" and "A/I" are in the same side? Because I don't see two parties here, but rather governments using the financial system to suppress opposition.
It may be apparent to some that some of us browse lots of news: we can say that the more powerful ones are not the most visible. You have to check carefully, to find the "historic milestones" ones.
they'd probably kick me out
Many of us know they would not accepted given some possible inerpretation of their rules, but we really do not know - who tried?
you can just destroy a service provider with very little evidence
The whole banking system of a State, and a State itself, some say.
But that's the challenge: a true belief in the principles of law must include defending "bad guys" when they are targeted with illegal or immoral means. Miranda was a bad guy; going all the way back, Cain was a bad guy. Presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial should apply to everyone, including people we don't like.
The purpose of the law is to apply shared societal values to individuals as impartially as possible. Bad people should be "hurt" only as much as it's necessary for society to peacefully uphold those values.
Imagining the law as punishment (or worse, vengeance) is what people did thousands of years ago, and it never ended well. An eye for an eye etc etc.
by saying things like terrorism is in the eye of the beholder
This is so trivially true that it's not worth bringing up in discussoon with anyone who can be taken seriously. It's true for any politically charged word, and terrorism is one of the most political words in the English language.
First if all, doing bad things should not be a reason for debanking.
Secondly, the truckers opposed forced vaccination despite the fact that they were solitary in their cabins while keeping the economy afloat so that bureaucrats like Trudeau could eat.
Thirdly, I find it worrisome that the GP is downvoted and an indication that autistici.org is a radical org that does not tolerate the slightest dissent. So I guess I have to live with the fact that we either have left wing or right wing nonsense and that autistici.org would also ban anyone if they had power.
Comments
The ground works for debanking were laid when all of the mainstream press cheered on the debanking of Canadian truckers.
Now their opponents use it and it gets very little press coverage.
It needs to stop. I would not do well in this autistici.org group and they'd probably kick me out on some CoC grounds with their draconian rules and social pressure, but I still cannot get over the fact that you can just destroy a service provider with very little evidence.
All parties need to stop this.
I often read things like this, and then I go look and don't quite see the cheering:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-banks-ottaw... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60383385 https://www.businessinsider.com/trudeau-canada-freeze-bank-a... https://www.newsweek.com/banks-have-begun-freezing-accounts-... https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/world/americas/canada-pro...
Maybe we have different ideas of what the mainstream press is? These all seem pretty normal articles, most note what critics are saying of the measures.
Why do you think the "mainstream press" and "A/I" are in the same side? Because I don't see two parties here, but rather governments using the financial system to suppress opposition.
It may be apparent to some that some of us browse lots of news: we can say that the more powerful ones are not the most visible. You have to check carefully, to find the "historic milestones" ones.
Many of us know they would not accepted given some possible inerpretation of their rules, but we really do not know - who tried?
The whole banking system of a State, and a State itself, some say.
The difference is that the Canadian truckers were doing bad things and A/I were doing good things, obviously, just in case anyone is confused here.
But that's the challenge: a true belief in the principles of law must include defending "bad guys" when they are targeted with illegal or immoral means. Miranda was a bad guy; going all the way back, Cain was a bad guy. Presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial should apply to everyone, including people we don't like.
If the purpose of law isn't to hurt bad guys without hurting good guys, then what is it?
The purpose of the law is to apply shared societal values to individuals as impartially as possible. Bad people should be "hurt" only as much as it's necessary for society to peacefully uphold those values.
Imagining the law as punishment (or worse, vengeance) is what people did thousands of years ago, and it never ended well. An eye for an eye etc etc.
That is such a platitude that I'm not sure if you're serious or you're just attempting Reddit humor.
But if you're serious, at least try to justify what A/I is doing by saying things like terrorism is in the eye of the beholder like Piker does.
This is so trivially true that it's not worth bringing up in discussoon with anyone who can be taken seriously. It's true for any politically charged word, and terrorism is one of the most political words in the English language.
I haven't seen A/I commit any terrorism. Which train station did they blow up?
First if all, doing bad things should not be a reason for debanking.
Secondly, the truckers opposed forced vaccination despite the fact that they were solitary in their cabins while keeping the economy afloat so that bureaucrats like Trudeau could eat.
Thirdly, I find it worrisome that the GP is downvoted and an indication that autistici.org is a radical org that does not tolerate the slightest dissent. So I guess I have to live with the fact that we either have left wing or right wing nonsense and that autistici.org would also ban anyone if they had power.
Thanks for the reality check.
This is this account's sole comment.