TheRPGSite

Fan Forums => The RPGPundit's Own Forum => Topic started by: KindaMeh on June 29, 2022, 11:38:41 AM

Title: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: KindaMeh on June 29, 2022, 11:38:41 AM
Can/Should change to these issues be effected through political, bureaucratic, or grass roots voter initiative means? If so, how to avoid innate problems with the bureaucracy, political system, and the like? How to avoid stepping on legitimate liberties or free market rights while doing so?
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: oggsmash on June 29, 2022, 04:03:41 PM
Can/Should change to these issues be effected through political, bureaucratic, or grass roots voter initiative means? If so, how to avoid innate problems with the bureaucracy, political system, and the like? How to avoid stepping on legitimate liberties or free market rights while doing so?

  Ever watch Fightclub and how they fixed "corporate" america?  That is probably a good way to get it done.
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: Shasarak on June 29, 2022, 06:06:55 PM
Luckily there is no such thing as cancel culture.
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: jhkim on June 29, 2022, 06:18:51 PM
Can/Should change to these issues be effected through political, bureaucratic, or grass roots voter initiative means? If so, how to avoid innate problems with the bureaucracy, political system, and the like? How to avoid stepping on legitimate liberties or free market rights while doing so?

Most of my left-leaning friends are all on board with limiting corporate power. So I would think the best way to approach this would be through grass-roots bipartisan effort to restrain all corporate power, regardless of whether it is woke or unwoke. Phrased as rights for employees and/or consumers against corporate power, there's potential for bipartisan support.

Democrats have introduced a number of bills to limit tech monopolies, including The American Choice and Innovation Online Act
; The Platform Competition and Opportunity Act of 2021; The Ending Platform Monopolies Act; The Augmenting Compatibility and Competition by Enabling Service Switching (ACCESS) Act of 2021; The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2021.

On the other hand, there are Republican state laws that narrowly try to force social media companies to host politicians -- notably Florida's SB 7072 and Texas' HB 20. However, those laws run directly afoul of the social media company's First Amendment right to control their own platform. The Texas law was just re-blocked by an unusual majority on the Supreme Court (John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer).

I think generally limiting corporate power is bipartisan - but trying to narrowly carve out limits only certain purposes is likely to be more partisan and harder to get support for.
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: GeekyBugle on June 29, 2022, 06:39:35 PM
Can/Should change to these issues be effected through political, bureaucratic, or grass roots voter initiative means? If so, how to avoid innate problems with the bureaucracy, political system, and the like? How to avoid stepping on legitimate liberties or free market rights while doing so?

Most of my left-leaning friends are all on board with limiting corporate power. So I would think the best way to approach this would be through grass-roots bipartisan effort to restrain all corporate power, regardless of whether it is woke or unwoke. Phrased as rights for employees and/or consumers against corporate power, there's potential for bipartisan support.

Democrats have introduced a number of bills to limit tech monopolies, including The American Choice and Innovation Online Act
; The Platform Competition and Opportunity Act of 2021; The Ending Platform Monopolies Act; The Augmenting Compatibility and Competition by Enabling Service Switching (ACCESS) Act of 2021; The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2021.

On the other hand, there are Republican state laws that narrowly try to force social media companies to host politicians -- notably Florida's SB 7072 and Texas' HB 20. However, those laws run directly afoul of the social media company's First Amendment right to control their own platform. The Texas law was just re-blocked by an unusual majority on the Supreme Court (John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer).

I think generally limiting corporate power is bipartisan - but trying to narrowly carve out limits only certain purposes is likely to be more partisan and harder to get support for.

And in the process giving even more power to the governments, because the governments have our best interests at heart and would never use those extended powers to fuck over the average Joe right?
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: jhkim on June 29, 2022, 08:11:26 PM
I think generally limiting corporate power is bipartisan - but trying to narrowly carve out limits only certain purposes is likely to be more partisan and harder to get support for.

And in the process giving even more power to the governments, because the governments have our best interests at heart and would never use those extended powers to fuck over the average Joe right?

This presumes an either/or choice. But the more usual choice, government currently is being used to support giant corporations -- and corporations in turn are supporting government. Monopolies and corruption mean more power for *both* corporations and corporation-supported government.

Pushing the government to stop supporting corporations is reform that gives more power to the average Joe. Obviously, we can't turn around corporate power instantly, but the more people push for it, the more we will get.
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: GeekyBugle on June 29, 2022, 09:05:24 PM
I think generally limiting corporate power is bipartisan - but trying to narrowly carve out limits only certain purposes is likely to be more partisan and harder to get support for.

And in the process giving even more power to the governments, because the governments have our best interests at heart and would never use those extended powers to fuck over the average Joe right?

This presumes an either/or choice. But the more usual choice, government currently is being used to support giant corporations -- and corporations in turn are supporting government. Monopolies and corruption mean more power for *both* corporations and corporation-supported government.

Pushing the government to stop supporting corporations is reform that gives more power to the average Joe. Obviously, we can't turn around corporate power instantly, but the more people push for it, the more we will get.

By giving the government MORE power to "stop supporting the corporations". Dude EVERY regulation is pushed by THE CORPORATIONS to stop the average Joe from ever competing with them.

Your ONLY hope would be to enact free speech laws that extend to the internet and bussines stoping them from punishing you for your speech. And making political affiliation protected like religion.

And for that to be done properly you'd need to throw out ALL the boomers in your legislatures and elect tech savvy people. Honest and principled tech savvy people. Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: Battlemaster on June 29, 2022, 09:12:55 PM
Yeah, I was just curious as to how all the anti woke, anti cancel culture, anti censorship, pro free speech types here felt about Kathy Griffin being canceled for her posing with the Trump mask, or Colin kapernick being canceled for taking a knee unlike time tebow, or when the dixie chicks were canceled for disagreeing with W, or....
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: KindaMeh on June 29, 2022, 09:29:41 PM
Yeah, I was just curious as to how all the anti woke, anti cancel culture, anti censorship, pro free speech types here felt about Kathy Griffin being canceled for her posing with the Trump mask, or Colin kapernick being canceled for taking a knee unlike time tebow, or when the dixie chicks were canceled for disagreeing with W, or....

So, I think the point of the thread is what if anything should be done via law or political/bureaucratic organizing regarding corporate political discrimination and woke censorship. Admittedly, as shown by the woke part, I was thinking that corporate political discrimination and censorship were mostly done by the left. That said, if you've got ideas on what to do about or how to ban and/or reduce censorship and political discrimination by corporations on both sides, and want to make your case, go for it. If you've got examples of either of these specific things on both sides, bring 'em up.

For me personally, I don't really like all the canceling back and forths that occur as a result of minor or individual instances and are then amplified to become allegedly the core of what a person or brand represents. Though I understand Conservatives wanting to fight back  in a culture war where they may feel they are just expected to lie down and take the pain. And also that capitalism to some extent allows mass desertion of a brand when it loses cultural value. (Much though I fear market capture may be trending up for ideologies, rather than efficiencies.) And corporate political discrimination against even the left like refusing key services because probable Biden supporter seems very, very sketch to me. Because first  they come for the Xs, then the Ys, and then me. And also because I believe in equal application of the law, and as noted previously I think Political Affiliation should maybe be made to some extent a protected class.

(It's probably not bad taste to post on one's own thread if partly clarifying, right?)
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: Zelen on June 30, 2022, 12:47:45 AM
Can/Should change to these issues be effected through political, bureaucratic, or grass roots voter initiative means? If so, how to avoid innate problems with the bureaucracy, political system, and the like? How to avoid stepping on legitimate liberties or free market rights while doing so?

  Ever watch Fightclub and how they fixed "corporate" america?  That is probably a good way to get it done.

Concur.
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: Shasarak on June 30, 2022, 01:05:48 AM
Yeah, I was just curious as to how all the anti woke, anti cancel culture, anti censorship, pro free speech types here felt about Kathy Griffin being canceled for her posing with the Trump mask, or Colin kapernick being canceled for taking a knee unlike time tebow, or when the dixie chicks were canceled for disagreeing with W, or....

Last I heard Colin kapernick was saying that playing professional football was like being on the slave plantation so...your welcome?
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: GeekyBugle on June 30, 2022, 02:25:36 AM
Yeah, I was just curious as to how all the anti woke, anti cancel culture, anti censorship, pro free speech types here felt about Kathy Griffin being canceled for her posing with the Trump mask, or Colin kapernick being canceled for taking a knee unlike time tebow, or when the dixie chicks were canceled for disagreeing with W, or....

Last I heard Colin kapernick was saying that playing professional football was like being on the slave plantation so...your welcome?

It's funny how he claims to be cancelled for taking a knee when all the other idiots that did/do the same don't get fired.

Dude is a washed up third rate QB. He knew his career was over and switched to a more profitable one, selling racism.
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: Battlemaster on June 30, 2022, 05:02:50 AM
Yeah, I was just curious as to how all the anti woke, anti cancel culture, anti censorship, pro free speech types here felt about Kathy Griffin being canceled for her posing with the Trump mask, or Colin kapernick being canceled for taking a knee unlike time tebow, or when the dixie chicks were canceled for disagreeing with W, or....

So, I think the point of the thread is what if anything should be done via law or political/bureaucratic organizing regarding corporate political discrimination and woke censorship. Admittedly, as shown by the woke part, I was thinking that corporate political discrimination and censorship were mostly done by the left. That said, if you've got ideas on what to do about or how to ban and/or reduce censorship and political discrimination by corporations on both sides, and want to make your case, go for it. If you've got examples of either of these specific things on both sides, bring 'em up.

For me personally, I don't really like all the canceling back and forths that occur as a result of minor or individual instances and are then amplified to become allegedly the core of what a person or brand represents. Though I understand Conservatives wanting to fight back  in a culture war where they may feel they are just expected to lie down and take the pain.

'Pain? '

What 'pain'?

The pain of finally being told they can't have everything their way all the time any more? The pain of no longer being allowed to criminalize other people's personal lives?  The pain on no longer getting to make their religion the law of the land?  The pain of other people having the same rights they do?

If that's painful to them, they need to secede from America. Take the old confed states,  hell take Utah too, and secede.  (I'd let them have utah just to watch the Baptist majority in their new country try persecuting the mormons and having a civil war. )

Now with the shit they're pulling thru the first stacked scotus, it may come to them being forced out of America  in a new civil war.
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: jeff37923 on June 30, 2022, 06:47:17 AM
Can/Should change to these issues be effected through political, bureaucratic, or grass roots voter initiative means? If so, how to avoid innate problems with the bureaucracy, political system, and the like? How to avoid stepping on legitimate liberties or free market rights while doing so?

Well, for starts, I think that we should identify and limit the efforts of billionaires to push for political ans social change by funding anti-American groups like how Soros and Zuckerberg have funded Antifa and BLM. A lot of the politically motivated violence of the last ten years can be traced back to their funding efforts.
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: Ghostmaker on June 30, 2022, 08:09:27 AM
Yeah, I was just curious as to how all the anti woke, anti cancel culture, anti censorship, pro free speech types here felt about Kathy Griffin being canceled for her posing with the Trump mask, or Colin kapernick being canceled for taking a knee unlike time tebow, or when the dixie chicks were canceled for disagreeing with W, or....

So, I think the point of the thread is what if anything should be done via law or political/bureaucratic organizing regarding corporate political discrimination and woke censorship. Admittedly, as shown by the woke part, I was thinking that corporate political discrimination and censorship were mostly done by the left. That said, if you've got ideas on what to do about or how to ban and/or reduce censorship and political discrimination by corporations on both sides, and want to make your case, go for it. If you've got examples of either of these specific things on both sides, bring 'em up.

For me personally, I don't really like all the canceling back and forths that occur as a result of minor or individual instances and are then amplified to become allegedly the core of what a person or brand represents. Though I understand Conservatives wanting to fight back  in a culture war where they may feel they are just expected to lie down and take the pain.

'Pain? '

What 'pain'?

The pain of finally being told they can't have everything their way all the time any more? The pain of no longer being allowed to criminalize other people's personal lives?  The pain on no longer getting to make their religion the law of the land?  The pain of other people having the same rights they do?

If that's painful to them, they need to secede from America. Take the old confed states,  hell take Utah too, and secede.  (I'd let them have utah just to watch the Baptist majority in their new country try persecuting the mormons and having a civil war. )

Now with the shit they're pulling thru the first stacked scotus, it may come to them being forced out of America  in a new civil war.
But enough about liberals and wokeists, what do you think of conservatives and libertarians?

(Seriously, -every one of those complaints you stated is one that can be leveled at the modern left-.)
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: Pat on June 30, 2022, 09:48:10 AM
On the other hand, there are Republican state laws that narrowly try to force social media companies to host politicians -- notably Florida's SB 7072 and Texas' HB 20. However, those laws run directly afoul of the social media company's First Amendment right to control their own platform. The Texas law was just re-blocked by an unusual majority on the Supreme Court (John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer).
It's about time they ruled franking unconstitutional!
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: Pat on June 30, 2022, 10:03:23 AM
Can/Should change to these issues be effected through political, bureaucratic, or grass roots voter initiative means? If so, how to avoid innate problems with the bureaucracy, political system, and the like? How to avoid stepping on legitimate liberties or free market rights while doing so?
Psaki literally admitted "[w]e are flagging problematic posts for Facebook". Why do the social media companies go along, when the government sends them blacklists? Because the government has the power to make the regulations and laws, enforce them with guns, and then adjudicate them. That power can be used to kill companies, or to help them by creating a walled garden that makes it hard for newcomers to enter the market. Also, don't silence them. We didn't learn about the extent of domestic spying until a certain expat in Russia, and a large part of it was gag orders that prevented the companies from even talking in general about many millions of Americans' information was being funneled to the government.

The only way to solve the problem is reduce the government's discretionary power to favor or fuck with companies. Have strong regulations, but keep them relatively few in number, and make them clear as glass. Because corruption occurs where technocrats can change the rules to help or hinder companies, when they can arbitrarily decide to enforce them or not, and and when they have broad latitude to decide when they apply. Also, get rid of the revolving door between business and government. If you're angling for a cushy job with Big Pharma in 5 years, you're not going to be a very good regulator of Big Pharma today. And if the regulatory boards/commission/etc are full of people who used to work in the industry, they're going to ensure their friends in the industry are in good shape, and help keep new competitors out (cf. the FTC).
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: Ghostmaker on June 30, 2022, 10:58:32 AM
Can/Should change to these issues be effected through political, bureaucratic, or grass roots voter initiative means? If so, how to avoid innate problems with the bureaucracy, political system, and the like? How to avoid stepping on legitimate liberties or free market rights while doing so?
Psaki literally admitted "[w]e are flagging problematic posts for Facebook". Why do the social media companies go along, when the government sends them blacklists? Because the government has the power to make the regulations and laws, enforce them with guns, and then adjudicate them. That power can be used to kill companies, or to help them by creating a walled garden that makes it hard for newcomers to enter the market. Also, don't silence them. We didn't learn about the extent of domestic spying until a certain expat in Russia, and a large part of it was gag orders that prevented the companies from even talking in general about many millions of Americans' information was being funneled to the government.

The only way to solve the problem is reduce the government's discretionary power to favor or fuck with companies. Have strong regulations, but keep them relatively few in number, and make them clear as glass. Because corruption occurs where technocrats can change the rules to help or hinder companies, when they can arbitrarily decide to enforce them or not, and and when they have broad latitude to decide when they apply. Also, get rid of the revolving door between business and government. If you're angling for a cushy job with Big Pharma in 5 years, you're not going to be a very good regulator of Big Pharma today. And if the regulatory boards/commission/etc are full of people who used to work in the industry, they're going to ensure their friends in the industry are in good shape, and help keep new competitors out (cf. the FTC).
I take back literally every bad thing I've said about you. That is the ONLY solution to this mess: limit government's power so that it is no longer feasible to throw money at it to get the power aimed at an opponent.
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: Zelen on June 30, 2022, 12:04:27 PM
It's literally impossible to write laws such that malicious people can't purposefully misinterpret them for their own nefarious goals. The solution is putting malicious people in jail, and prevent them from holding power.
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: Pat on June 30, 2022, 01:17:43 PM
It's literally impossible to write laws such that malicious people can't purposefully misinterpret them for their own nefarious goals. The solution is putting malicious people in jail, and prevent them from holding power.
The fallacy that all problems with the government are because somehow evil people got into power, and if just get rid of them and replace them with good people, then everything will be sunshine and roses and free abortions that live, is exactly why we're in this mess.

It's about incentives and institutions. People generally aren't malicious, but they will act in their own self-interest a lot of the time, and it's really easy to rationalize what's good for me as what's good for everyone. That leads to self-perpetuating bureaucracies that always need more resources. The only real solution is limit or remove the potential benefits for self-serving behavior, and to pare the whole system back.
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on June 30, 2022, 03:31:08 PM
It's about incentives and institutions. People generally aren't malicious, but they will act in their own self-interest a lot of the time, and it's really easy to rationalize what's good for me as what's good for everyone. That leads to self-perpetuating bureaucracies that always need more resources. The only real solution is limit or remove the potential benefits for self-serving behavior, and to pare the whole system back.

It becomes further complicated when short-term and long-term self-interest are in conflict, or self-interest in one sphere (economic, religious, status, legal, political) conflicts with self-interest in another sphere, or there is an irreconcilable clash of self-interest between individuals or groups.  To paraphrase the old saying, politics is the art of determining what you're willing to give up to get what you're willing to settle for.

One reason there has been such a bleedover of moral campaigning into corporate policy and public discourse is because the natural short-term incentive for a corporation is to cater to the more intransigent market demand when it costs nothing to do so (see Nicholas Nassim Taleb's article here (https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15).) About the only way to overcome this is to try to create equal intolerance in the other direction, which is the basic point of the "Don't give money to people who hate you" campaign.
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: Ratman_tf on June 30, 2022, 07:00:36 PM
It's literally impossible to write laws such that malicious people can't purposefully misinterpret them for their own nefarious goals. The solution is putting malicious people in jail, and prevent them from holding power.
The fallacy that all problems with the government are because somehow evil people got into power, and if just get rid of them and replace them with good people, then everything will be sunshine and roses and free abortions that live, is exactly why we're in this mess.

It's about incentives and institutions. People generally aren't malicious, but they will act in their own self-interest a lot of the time, and it's really easy to rationalize what's good for me as what's good for everyone. That leads to self-perpetuating bureaucracies that always need more resources. The only real solution is limit or remove the potential benefits for self-serving behavior, and to pare the whole system back.

CGP Grey did a video on the "unspoken" incentives for people in postions of power. Based on The Dictator's Handbook.



I think it helps to understand the politics behind politics.
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: Spinachcat on June 30, 2022, 10:04:48 PM
The best answer is civil war. Time for the angry men with guns to purge America of the soys crying over pronouns and microaggressions. This represents the best long term solution, but the Right has shown no willingness to use the 2A for offense.

The second best answer is Red State Secession. It can be achieved peacefully and as I've posted many times before - it's Retreat / Rebuild / Reconquer as a long term strategy. This is the most logical solution as the USA is now two opposing cultures with no common ground.

The okay answer is the creation of "parallel economies" where there are companies, venues and events which cater to one side of the culture vs the other. AKA, non-woketard versions of DriveThru, YouTube, Farcebook, Twatter, GenCon, etc. However, this is only kicking the can down the road.

Of course, the worst answer is continuing with the current situation which is only going to get worse and more difficult to deal with over time.





Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: Pat on June 30, 2022, 11:01:45 PM
The okay answer is the creation of "parallel economies" where there are companies, venues and events which cater to one side of the culture vs the other. AKA, non-woketard versions of DriveThru, YouTube, Farcebook, Twatter, GenCon, etc. However, this is only kicking the can down the road.
Solzhenitsyn and the Plastic People of the Universe would disagree.

(For those who don't catch the reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJr7awWGWAo)
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: Shasarak on June 30, 2022, 11:23:06 PM
It's literally impossible to write laws such that malicious people can't purposefully misinterpret them for their own nefarious goals. The solution is putting malicious people in jail, and prevent them from holding power.

Thats why there is an alignment just for them.
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: Jam The MF on July 17, 2022, 04:33:40 PM
How to fight evil, without becoming evil yourself?  Hmm......

That's a good question.
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: Valatar on July 18, 2022, 12:42:06 AM
The real issue at hand is that private corporations control the primary means for people to communicate in this day and age.  So while people can say, "Oh, free speech doesn't apply to private companies!", they have the de facto ability to stifle speech in the way that we engage in speech today.  Sure, they can't stop you from standing on a street corner and yelling at cars that pass by, but getting a message across to any number of people in this era requires digital communication, and the laws on the books do not acknowledge this fact.  They need to.
Title: Re: Corporate Political Discrimination and Woke Censorship: Systemic Legal Change
Post by: Ghostmaker on July 18, 2022, 08:14:01 AM
The real issue at hand is that private corporations control the primary means for people to communicate in this day and age.  So while people can say, "Oh, free speech doesn't apply to private companies!", they have the de facto ability to stifle speech in the way that we engage in speech today.  Sure, they can't stop you from standing on a street corner and yelling at cars that pass by, but getting a message across to any number of people in this era requires digital communication, and the laws on the books do not acknowledge this fact.  They need to.
While not really a good thing to start with, the problem becomes squared and cubed when:

(a) you have private corporations acting as the speech enforcers for the government, which is precisely what's been happening over the last few years. There's a funny word for that sort of thing, you know...

(b) government entities also use their influence with corporations to help block the rise of new systems. 'Build your own platform, bro!' becomes a hollow reply when you literally can't, because you're effectively blackballed (and in some cases, shamelessly defrauded).