Are Credit Card Companies Working to Censor Conservatives?

[iceberg]

Conservative Host Ben Shapiro Target of Death Threats, FBI Makes Arrest

now death threats. i would call this hate. but does this mean he should no longer be able to use a credit card, maybe electricity cut off if the power company decides to get in on this "anti-hate-a-thon"...all this after he gets out of prison to be sure.

we're crossing lines that open up pandoras box. but we do it time and again and wonder why the only thing that makes sense anymore is HONK HONK.

 

[iceberg]

Using the left as a straw man argument doesn't even address my question.

No straw man involved and my comment specifically addressed your comment... "the article clearly states they might possibly ban white supremacists and anti-Islam activists from using their payment services. You seem to be equating conservatives with these extremist groups. Why?"

Leftists, by and large, equate conservatives with these extremist groups. Activists want a "human rights commission"
to ban racists and Islamophobes from using the services of Master Card. If that's not wide open to interpretation and
an invitation to activists to decide who is to be banned and not then you surely are not honestly looking at the facts.

and this is my point. right now we have THE LEFT defining who these hate groups are and it's not for altruistic reasons, but political and emotional.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

now death threats. i would call this hate. but does this mean he should no longer be able to use a credit card, maybe electricity cut off if the power company decides to get in on this "anti-hate-a-thon"...all this after he gets out of prison to be sure.

we're crossing lines that open up pandoras box. but we do it time and again and wonder why the only thing that makes sense anymore is HONK HONK.

Leftists have called Ben Sharpiro a Nazi. A Nazi! Ben Shapiro!
Clearly they cannot be called rational and they have lost their minds. And we are supposed to trust the judgement of their "human rights commission"? Fuck no.

 

[iceberg]

now death threats. i would call this hate. but does this mean he should no longer be able to use a credit card, maybe electricity cut off if the power company decides to get in on this "anti-hate-a-thon"...all this after he gets out of prison to be sure.

we're crossing lines that open up pandoras box. but we do it time and again and wonder why the only thing that makes sense anymore is HONK HONK.

Leftists have called Ben Sharpiro a Nazi. A Nazi! Ben Shapiro!
Clearly they cannot be called rational and they have lost their minds. And we are supposed to trust the judgement of their "human rights commission"? Fuck no.

yep. they don't know the meaning of the word. they just know it's extreme evil in nature so they borrow the image to fit their need.

 

[OldLady]

It is up to the shareholders, of course, but I'd be glad to see them do that. If we had been able to do some more of this when Hitler and Mussolini, et al, were rising to power, the 20th century might have been a little less evil.

trouble is - defining that isn't easy but *is* easily abused.

look around today at the times people are called NAZIs because they are not liberal. the potential for abuse far outweighs to me, the potential to stop evil. defining "evil" is hit or miss and usually emotionally based these days.

Well, fortunately, USMB'ers are not being asked to clarify MC's policy. Obviously, we are not the group to ask. LOL

hard to say what is going on until the vote i suppose. i just hope they vote "go away". we're out of control on what we do to each other for ultimately simply disagreeing on things.

The free market is getting into "economic sanctions," in a way. Investment firms getting rid of its investments in firearms manufacturers, for instance, or department store chains deciding not to sell AR's anymore. Like I said, discouraging hate groups is a good thing.

to many, those on the left are "hate groups". my issue isn't with discouraging hate, my issue is with who gets to define it. SPLC? they *hate* the right but that seems to be ok.

anti-fa is left based to be sure and they'r not classified as "hate" much less more or stopped from this "free market" of who gets to play in the new world. demonizing an emotion can have some seriously adverse affects.

Well, I would like to stay focused on the particular problem instead of getting into hypothetical arguments. MC is a profit making company and I somehow doubt if they will err on the side of too many banned groups as opposed to too few. They don't WANT to lose a bunch of customers.
They just might use the SPLC as a starting point and then do their own research, or they might only include heinous abusers of free speech that no one has to even look up. I think it is strange so many posters here are so upset about this. Why would they encourage hate groups to do business and flourish?

 

[iceberg]

trouble is - defining that isn't easy but *is* easily abused.

look around today at the times people are called NAZIs because they are not liberal. the potential for abuse far outweighs to me, the potential to stop evil. defining "evil" is hit or miss and usually emotionally based these days.

Well, fortunately, USMB'ers are not being asked to clarify MC's policy. Obviously, we are not the group to ask. LOL

hard to say what is going on until the vote i suppose. i just hope they vote "go away". we're out of control on what we do to each other for ultimately simply disagreeing on things.

The free market is getting into "economic sanctions," in a way. Investment firms getting rid of its investments in firearms manufacturers, for instance, or department store chains deciding not to sell AR's anymore. Like I said, discouraging hate groups is a good thing.

to many, those on the left are "hate groups". my issue isn't with discouraging hate, my issue is with who gets to define it. SPLC? they *hate* the right but that seems to be ok.

anti-fa is left based to be sure and they'r not classified as "hate" much less more or stopped from this "free market" of who gets to play in the new world. demonizing an emotion can have some seriously adverse affects.

Well, I would like to stay focused on the particular problem instead of getting into hypothetical arguments. MC is a profit making company and I somehow doubt if they will err on the side of too many banned groups as opposed to too few. They don't WANT to lose a bunch of customers.
They just might use the SPLC as a starting point and then do their own research, or they might only include heinous abusers of free speech that no one has to even look up. I think it is strange so many posters here are so upset about this. Why would they encourage hate groups to do business and flourish?

because it's not about the hate group.

when an organization take out a gun like this and shoots a "known enemy" and we ok it, it will *not* be limited to said known enemy. sooner or later you will fall on the bad side, then what? we've already given them the green light to do this to one group. since we have to change definitions of words to allow this to happen, well we just allowed that to be "ok" also.

again - lets see what MC does with this. but the fact a "far left group" is pushing mastercard to do this speaks volumes to me. how come their *hate* is ok?

we're criminalizing emotions and that simply won't end well.

 

[mdk]

No, but voting with your wallet is. Cancel your account with MasterCard in protest and let them know why. Shareholders and the Board of Directors will take notice if accounts/profits drops.

you're going to be hard pressed to do standard business however w/o one. if VISA follows suit now what?

again - before we start throwing people out and making silly demands / decisions, lets see how this finishes up.

That’s for Visa and its shareholders to decide.

you keep going around my point to drop snark it seems.

MC/VISA are the top dogs. Bobs MC for example can't allow payments MC says NO to can they?

lets just stop there.

That’s not snark, mate. That is the crux of the matter: it is for them to decide whom they wish to do business with.

then simply answer the question - can bobs mastercard approve purchases that master card does not?

Beats me. I don’t really care either. My problem is forcing people to business with another when they don’t is a violation of their right to associate.

 

[iceberg]

you're going to be hard pressed to do standard business however w/o one. if VISA follows suit now what?

again - before we start throwing people out and making silly demands / decisions, lets see how this finishes up.

That’s for Visa and its shareholders to decide.

you keep going around my point to drop snark it seems.

MC/VISA are the top dogs. Bobs MC for example can't allow payments MC says NO to can they?

lets just stop there.

That’s not snark, mate. That is the crux of the matter: it is for them to decide whom they wish to do business with.

then simply answer the question - can bobs mastercard approve purchases that master card does not?

Beats me. I don’t really care either. My problem is forcing people to business with another when they don’t is a violation of their right to associate.

well you are consistent in that which is fine. my bigger issue are those who cry foul on the baker but support the person who wouldn't make melaina a dress, or crap like this.

when said business becomes necessary in our day to day lives, however, it's not the same to me. if the electric company decides you're a hater, can they turn off your electricity?

 

[Correll]

could be a few doing it and it dies quickly. but it's troublesome to a degree people think this is ok. i don't agree with you so you must suffer. sad mentality many have fallen into these days.

ANYWAY -

Mastercard Has Been Forced By Activists To Hold A Shareholder Vote That Could Cut Off Payments To The Far-Right

"Activists have successfully forced Mastercard to hold a vote by shareholders on a proposal which, if passed, could see the company monitoring payments to global far-right political leaders and white supremacist groups.

The proposal aims to see Mastercard establish an internal “human rights committee” that would stop designated white supremacist groups and anti-Islam activists, such as Tommy Robinson, from getting access to money sent from donors using the company’s card payment services.

It’s been conceived by US-based political activists SumOfUs, who want to escalate the battle against white supremacists and far-right groups from tech platforms like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Patreon, and PayPal to one of the biggest companies in world finance, in an attempt to choke off donations."

-----
we revert back to, why is it the lefts job to determine who gets classified where and then force companies to hold votes on whether or not they should go along with their "suggested" actions?

the headline i just realized isn't "dead on" - if it can be corrected to be the headline of the story i'd appreciate it.

I've said it before. You can't trust liberals to run a lemonade stand. They will abuse any power or responsibility they are given.

 

[iceberg]

could be a few doing it and it dies quickly. but it's troublesome to a degree people think this is ok. i don't agree with you so you must suffer. sad mentality many have fallen into these days.

ANYWAY -

Mastercard Has Been Forced By Activists To Hold A Shareholder Vote That Could Cut Off Payments To The Far-Right

"Activists have successfully forced Mastercard to hold a vote by shareholders on a proposal which, if passed, could see the company monitoring payments to global far-right political leaders and white supremacist groups.

The proposal aims to see Mastercard establish an internal “human rights committee” that would stop designated white supremacist groups and anti-Islam activists, such as Tommy Robinson, from getting access to money sent from donors using the company’s card payment services.

It’s been conceived by US-based political activists SumOfUs, who want to escalate the battle against white supremacists and far-right groups from tech platforms like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Patreon, and PayPal to one of the biggest companies in world finance, in an attempt to choke off donations."

-----
we revert back to, why is it the lefts job to determine who gets classified where and then force companies to hold votes on whether or not they should go along with their "suggested" actions?

the headline i just realized isn't "dead on" - if it can be corrected to be the headline of the story i'd appreciate it.

I've said it before. You can't trust liberals to run a lemonade stand. They will abuse any power or responsibility they are given.

i agree - this does seem to be an abuse or at least an attempt to "force" MC to do their bidding. in the end it's MC's call and i can only hope the voters have more sense than to do this.

 

[OldLady]

Well, fortunately, USMB'ers are not being asked to clarify MC's policy. Obviously, we are not the group to ask. LOL

hard to say what is going on until the vote i suppose. i just hope they vote "go away". we're out of control on what we do to each other for ultimately simply disagreeing on things.

The free market is getting into "economic sanctions," in a way. Investment firms getting rid of its investments in firearms manufacturers, for instance, or department store chains deciding not to sell AR's anymore. Like I said, discouraging hate groups is a good thing.

to many, those on the left are "hate groups". my issue isn't with discouraging hate, my issue is with who gets to define it. SPLC? they *hate* the right but that seems to be ok.

anti-fa is left based to be sure and they'r not classified as "hate" much less more or stopped from this "free market" of who gets to play in the new world. demonizing an emotion can have some seriously adverse affects.

Well, I would like to stay focused on the particular problem instead of getting into hypothetical arguments. MC is a profit making company and I somehow doubt if they will err on the side of too many banned groups as opposed to too few. They don't WANT to lose a bunch of customers.
They just might use the SPLC as a starting point and then do their own research, or they might only include heinous abusers of free speech that no one has to even look up. I think it is strange so many posters here are so upset about this. Why would they encourage hate groups to do business and flourish?

because it's not about the hate group.

when an organization take out a gun like this and shoots a "known enemy" and we ok it, it will *not* be limited to said known enemy. sooner or later you will fall on the bad side, then what? we've already given them the green light to do this to one group. since we have to change definitions of words to allow this to happen, well we just allowed that to be "ok" also.

again - lets see what MC does with this. but the fact a "far left group" is pushing mastercard to do this speaks volumes to me. how come their *hate* is ok?

we're criminalizing emotions and that simply won't end well.

"How come their hate is okay?" Because it isn't hate. It is concern for our society/our world. MC is an international company, so the groups they are looking at may not even have anything to do with us. It might be organizations on the terrorist list made by the UN or something.

No one is saying they can't sit in their corner hating everyone. It is simply saying that MC won't do business with them.

 

[mdk]

That’s for Visa and its shareholders to decide.

you keep going around my point to drop snark it seems.

MC/VISA are the top dogs. Bobs MC for example can't allow payments MC says NO to can they?

lets just stop there.

That’s not snark, mate. That is the crux of the matter: it is for them to decide whom they wish to do business with.

then simply answer the question - can bobs mastercard approve purchases that master card does not?

Beats me. I don’t really care either. My problem is forcing people to business with another when they don’t is a violation of their right to associate.

well you are consistent in that which is fine. my bigger issue are those who cry foul on the baker but support the person who wouldn't make melaina a dress, or crap like this.

when said business becomes necessary in our day to day lives, however, it's not the same to me. if the electric company decides you're a hater, can they turn off your electricity?

Aforementioned are clearly hypocrites.

An electric company is classified as a utility and therefore are not provide the same rights as other businesses. One subject to much more government oversight than the other. Ma Bell and Ma’s Bakery are two totally different animals. With that said, until MasterCard or PayPal becomes classified as such they should have right to associate with whomever they wish.

 

[OldLady]

Well, fortunately, USMB'ers are not being asked to clarify MC's policy. Obviously, we are not the group to ask. LOL

hard to say what is going on until the vote i suppose. i just hope they vote "go away". we're out of control on what we do to each other for ultimately simply disagreeing on things.

The free market is getting into "economic sanctions," in a way. Investment firms getting rid of its investments in firearms manufacturers, for instance, or department store chains deciding not to sell AR's anymore. Like I said, discouraging hate groups is a good thing.

to many, those on the left are "hate groups". my issue isn't with discouraging hate, my issue is with who gets to define it. SPLC? they *hate* the right but that seems to be ok.

anti-fa is left based to be sure and they'r not classified as "hate" much less more or stopped from this "free market" of who gets to play in the new world. demonizing an emotion can have some seriously adverse affects.

Well, I would like to stay focused on the particular problem instead of getting into hypothetical arguments. MC is a profit making company and I somehow doubt if they will err on the side of too many banned groups as opposed to too few. They don't WANT to lose a bunch of customers.
They just might use the SPLC as a starting point and then do their own research, or they might only include heinous abusers of free speech that no one has to even look up. I think it is strange so many posters here are so upset about this. Why would they encourage hate groups to do business and flourish?

because it's not about the hate group.

when an organization take out a gun like this and shoots a "known enemy" and we ok it, it will *not* be limited to said known enemy. sooner or later you will fall on the bad side, then what? we've already given them the green light to do this to one group. since we have to change definitions of words to allow this to happen, well we just allowed that to be "ok" also.

again - lets see what MC does with this. but the fact a "far left group" is pushing mastercard to do this speaks volumes to me. how come their *hate* is ok?

we're criminalizing emotions and that simply won't end well.

when an organization take out a gun like this and shoots a "known enemy" and we ok it, it will *not* be limited to said known enemy. sooner or later you will fall on the bad side, then what?
Oh, Ice, that's baloney. Suddenly this is a "gun" and MC is "shooting" an "enemy?" C'mon. Who is blowing this out of proportion?

Let's see, first, if the shareholders (who I assure you are not being "forced" to do anything against their own conscience) vote for it. If they do, let's see what groups MC bans.

Until then, everyone seems to be letting this whole thing turn into a "the sky is falling" argument.

 

[Correll]

hard to say what is going on until the vote i suppose. i just hope they vote "go away". we're out of control on what we do to each other for ultimately simply disagreeing on things.

The free market is getting into "economic sanctions," in a way. Investment firms getting rid of its investments in firearms manufacturers, for instance, or department store chains deciding not to sell AR's anymore. Like I said, discouraging hate groups is a good thing.

to many, those on the left are "hate groups". my issue isn't with discouraging hate, my issue is with who gets to define it. SPLC? they *hate* the right but that seems to be ok.

anti-fa is left based to be sure and they'r not classified as "hate" much less more or stopped from this "free market" of who gets to play in the new world. demonizing an emotion can have some seriously adverse affects.

Well, I would like to stay focused on the particular problem instead of getting into hypothetical arguments. MC is a profit making company and I somehow doubt if they will err on the side of too many banned groups as opposed to too few. They don't WANT to lose a bunch of customers.
They just might use the SPLC as a starting point and then do their own research, or they might only include heinous abusers of free speech that no one has to even look up. I think it is strange so many posters here are so upset about this. Why would they encourage hate groups to do business and flourish?

because it's not about the hate group.

when an organization take out a gun like this and shoots a "known enemy" and we ok it, it will *not* be limited to said known enemy. sooner or later you will fall on the bad side, then what? we've already given them the green light to do this to one group. since we have to change definitions of words to allow this to happen, well we just allowed that to be "ok" also.

again - lets see what MC does with this. but the fact a "far left group" is pushing mastercard to do this speaks volumes to me. how come their *hate* is ok?

we're criminalizing emotions and that simply won't end well.

"How come their hate is okay?" Because it isn't hate. It is concern for our society/our world. MC is an international company, so the groups they are looking at may not even have anything to do with us. It might be organizations on the terrorist list made by the UN or something.

No one is saying they can't sit in their corner hating everyone. It is simply saying that MC won't do business with them.

You people see "hate" where and when it is useful for your political agenda.

 

[OldLady]

The free market is getting into "economic sanctions," in a way. Investment firms getting rid of its investments in firearms manufacturers, for instance, or department store chains deciding not to sell AR's anymore. Like I said, discouraging hate groups is a good thing.

to many, those on the left are "hate groups". my issue isn't with discouraging hate, my issue is with who gets to define it. SPLC? they *hate* the right but that seems to be ok.

anti-fa is left based to be sure and they'r not classified as "hate" much less more or stopped from this "free market" of who gets to play in the new world. demonizing an emotion can have some seriously adverse affects.

Well, I would like to stay focused on the particular problem instead of getting into hypothetical arguments. MC is a profit making company and I somehow doubt if they will err on the side of too many banned groups as opposed to too few. They don't WANT to lose a bunch of customers.
They just might use the SPLC as a starting point and then do their own research, or they might only include heinous abusers of free speech that no one has to even look up. I think it is strange so many posters here are so upset about this. Why would they encourage hate groups to do business and flourish?

because it's not about the hate group.

when an organization take out a gun like this and shoots a "known enemy" and we ok it, it will *not* be limited to said known enemy. sooner or later you will fall on the bad side, then what? we've already given them the green light to do this to one group. since we have to change definitions of words to allow this to happen, well we just allowed that to be "ok" also.

again - lets see what MC does with this. but the fact a "far left group" is pushing mastercard to do this speaks volumes to me. how come their *hate* is ok?

we're criminalizing emotions and that simply won't end well.

"How come their hate is okay?" Because it isn't hate. It is concern for our society/our world. MC is an international company, so the groups they are looking at may not even have anything to do with us. It might be organizations on the terrorist list made by the UN or something.

No one is saying they can't sit in their corner hating everyone. It is simply saying that MC won't do business with them.

You people see "hate" where and when it is useful for your political agenda.

I read this before I looked at who wrote it, and I thought it was a lib writing against right wingers. Would have been appropriate.

I see hate where there is hate.

 

[Correll]

to many, those on the left are "hate groups". my issue isn't with discouraging hate, my issue is with who gets to define it. SPLC? they *hate* the right but that seems to be ok.

anti-fa is left based to be sure and they'r not classified as "hate" much less more or stopped from this "free market" of who gets to play in the new world. demonizing an emotion can have some seriously adverse affects.

Well, I would like to stay focused on the particular problem instead of getting into hypothetical arguments. MC is a profit making company and I somehow doubt if they will err on the side of too many banned groups as opposed to too few. They don't WANT to lose a bunch of customers.
They just might use the SPLC as a starting point and then do their own research, or they might only include heinous abusers of free speech that no one has to even look up. I think it is strange so many posters here are so upset about this. Why would they encourage hate groups to do business and flourish?

because it's not about the hate group.

when an organization take out a gun like this and shoots a "known enemy" and we ok it, it will *not* be limited to said known enemy. sooner or later you will fall on the bad side, then what? we've already given them the green light to do this to one group. since we have to change definitions of words to allow this to happen, well we just allowed that to be "ok" also.

again - lets see what MC does with this. but the fact a "far left group" is pushing mastercard to do this speaks volumes to me. how come their *hate* is ok?

we're criminalizing emotions and that simply won't end well.

"How come their hate is okay?" Because it isn't hate. It is concern for our society/our world. MC is an international company, so the groups they are looking at may not even have anything to do with us. It might be organizations on the terrorist list made by the UN or something.

No one is saying they can't sit in their corner hating everyone. It is simply saying that MC won't do business with them.

You people see "hate" where and when it is useful for your political agenda.

I read this before I looked at who wrote it, and I thought it was a lib writing against right wingers. Would have been appropriate.

I see hate where there is hate.

You won't be making the call will you? It will be other liberal political activists, and they will see "hate" where it serves their political agenda to see hate.

 

[iceberg]

hard to say what is going on until the vote i suppose. i just hope they vote "go away". we're out of control on what we do to each other for ultimately simply disagreeing on things.

The free market is getting into "economic sanctions," in a way. Investment firms getting rid of its investments in firearms manufacturers, for instance, or department store chains deciding not to sell AR's anymore. Like I said, discouraging hate groups is a good thing.

to many, those on the left are "hate groups". my issue isn't with discouraging hate, my issue is with who gets to define it. SPLC? they *hate* the right but that seems to be ok.

anti-fa is left based to be sure and they'r not classified as "hate" much less more or stopped from this "free market" of who gets to play in the new world. demonizing an emotion can have some seriously adverse affects.

Well, I would like to stay focused on the particular problem instead of getting into hypothetical arguments. MC is a profit making company and I somehow doubt if they will err on the side of too many banned groups as opposed to too few. They don't WANT to lose a bunch of customers.
They just might use the SPLC as a starting point and then do their own research, or they might only include heinous abusers of free speech that no one has to even look up. I think it is strange so many posters here are so upset about this. Why would they encourage hate groups to do business and flourish?

because it's not about the hate group.

when an organization take out a gun like this and shoots a "known enemy" and we ok it, it will *not* be limited to said known enemy. sooner or later you will fall on the bad side, then what? we've already given them the green light to do this to one group. since we have to change definitions of words to allow this to happen, well we just allowed that to be "ok" also.

again - lets see what MC does with this. but the fact a "far left group" is pushing mastercard to do this speaks volumes to me. how come their *hate* is ok?

we're criminalizing emotions and that simply won't end well.

"How come their hate is okay?" Because it isn't hate. It is concern for our society/our world. MC is an international company, so the groups they are looking at may not even have anything to do with us. It might be organizations on the terrorist list made by the UN or something.

No one is saying they can't sit in their corner hating everyone. It is simply saying that MC won't do business with them.

it seems like hate to me. i don't see the "evil people" trying to stop anyone from day to day activities. at least not in bulk. i see the left claiming this is a HATE GROUP and must be stopped but SPLC brands many known good religions orgs as hate.

how do they get this power to determine what is right and wrong? you don't see or have an issue with one mindset having this "power"?

 

[iceberg]

you keep going around my point to drop snark it seems.

MC/VISA are the top dogs. Bobs MC for example can't allow payments MC says NO to can they?

lets just stop there.

That’s not snark, mate. That is the crux of the matter: it is for them to decide whom they wish to do business with.

then simply answer the question - can bobs mastercard approve purchases that master card does not?

Beats me. I don’t really care either. My problem is forcing people to business with another when they don’t is a violation of their right to associate.

well you are consistent in that which is fine. my bigger issue are those who cry foul on the baker but support the person who wouldn't make melaina a dress, or crap like this.

when said business becomes necessary in our day to day lives, however, it's not the same to me. if the electric company decides you're a hater, can they turn off your electricity?

Aforementioned are clearly hypocrites.

An electric company is classified as a utility and therefore are not provide the same rights as other businesses. One subject to much more government oversight than the other. Ma Bell and Ma’s Bakery are two totally different animals. With that said, until MasterCard or PayPal becomes classified as such they should have right to associate with whomever they wish.

so that's my point. try to buy something these days without our credit card. i don't have a lot of choices in credit cards much because again, MC, VISA, AMEX and Discovery. if one does this i have to think this rabid group will go to the next and demand the same thing, freezing out the other side due to their perception of right and wrong being the one they feel everyone should adopt.

so - go a week w/o using your credit cards. let me know if we've become dependant on them over time or if you can still use cash. then try to get cash out of the bank w/o a card. possible but not as convenient to be sure.

 

[iceberg]

hard to say what is going on until the vote i suppose. i just hope they vote "go away". we're out of control on what we do to each other for ultimately simply disagreeing on things.

The free market is getting into "economic sanctions," in a way. Investment firms getting rid of its investments in firearms manufacturers, for instance, or department store chains deciding not to sell AR's anymore. Like I said, discouraging hate groups is a good thing.

to many, those on the left are "hate groups". my issue isn't with discouraging hate, my issue is with who gets to define it. SPLC? they *hate* the right but that seems to be ok.

anti-fa is left based to be sure and they'r not classified as "hate" much less more or stopped from this "free market" of who gets to play in the new world. demonizing an emotion can have some seriously adverse affects.

Well, I would like to stay focused on the particular problem instead of getting into hypothetical arguments. MC is a profit making company and I somehow doubt if they will err on the side of too many banned groups as opposed to too few. They don't WANT to lose a bunch of customers.
They just might use the SPLC as a starting point and then do their own research, or they might only include heinous abusers of free speech that no one has to even look up. I think it is strange so many posters here are so upset about this. Why would they encourage hate groups to do business and flourish?

because it's not about the hate group.

when an organization take out a gun like this and shoots a "known enemy" and we ok it, it will *not* be limited to said known enemy. sooner or later you will fall on the bad side, then what? we've already given them the green light to do this to one group. since we have to change definitions of words to allow this to happen, well we just allowed that to be "ok" also.

again - lets see what MC does with this. but the fact a "far left group" is pushing mastercard to do this speaks volumes to me. how come their *hate* is ok?

we're criminalizing emotions and that simply won't end well.

when an organization take out a gun like this and shoots a "known enemy" and we ok it, it will *not* be limited to said known enemy. sooner or later you will fall on the bad side, then what?
Oh, Ice, that's baloney. Suddenly this is a "gun" and MC is "shooting" an "enemy?" C'mon. Who is blowing this out of proportion?

Let's see, first, if the shareholders (who I assure you are not being "forced" to do anything against their own conscience) vote for it. If they do, let's see what groups MC bans.

Until then, everyone seems to be letting this whole thing turn into a "the sky is falling" argument.

not at all - just discussing things. i've also said *many times* we need to wait on the vote from MC before we really worry about it.

banning people from a credit card because of their politics, to me, IS extreme. it's also not the call of this group going after MC to determine what hate is and be the judge of that.

we're far beyond *this issue* and i'm trying to illustrate where this road goes.

also my use of GUN is not GUN bang bang but using their emotional state as a weapon. why do they have the right / power to determine how i conduct my life?

do you *really* want any 1 mindset having that control? they scream everyone is fascist then go to limit anyone not of their mindset. ironic as hell.

 

[iceberg]

to many, those on the left are "hate groups". my issue isn't with discouraging hate, my issue is with who gets to define it. SPLC? they *hate* the right but that seems to be ok.

anti-fa is left based to be sure and they'r not classified as "hate" much less more or stopped from this "free market" of who gets to play in the new world. demonizing an emotion can have some seriously adverse affects.

Well, I would like to stay focused on the particular problem instead of getting into hypothetical arguments. MC is a profit making company and I somehow doubt if they will err on the side of too many banned groups as opposed to too few. They don't WANT to lose a bunch of customers.
They just might use the SPLC as a starting point and then do their own research, or they might only include heinous abusers of free speech that no one has to even look up. I think it is strange so many posters here are so upset about this. Why would they encourage hate groups to do business and flourish?

because it's not about the hate group.

when an organization take out a gun like this and shoots a "known enemy" and we ok it, it will *not* be limited to said known enemy. sooner or later you will fall on the bad side, then what? we've already given them the green light to do this to one group. since we have to change definitions of words to allow this to happen, well we just allowed that to be "ok" also.

again - lets see what MC does with this. but the fact a "far left group" is pushing mastercard to do this speaks volumes to me. how come their *hate* is ok?

we're criminalizing emotions and that simply won't end well.

"How come their hate is okay?" Because it isn't hate. It is concern for our society/our world. MC is an international company, so the groups they are looking at may not even have anything to do with us. It might be organizations on the terrorist list made by the UN or something.

No one is saying they can't sit in their corner hating everyone. It is simply saying that MC won't do business with them.

You people see "hate" where and when it is useful for your political agenda.

I read this before I looked at who wrote it, and I thought it was a lib writing against right wingers. Would have been appropriate.

I see hate where there is hate.

we all do, oldlady. that's my point. what you and i see is obviously different, ergo what we view as hate would be different.

why does 1 set of views get to override everyone else? it's not a matter of agreeing with them on THIS POSITION. thats pointless. but on the ability to give someone this power - that is my issue.

i have zero place telling you what to hate and how people should deal with you if i hate what you are doing. or should i have that power if i deem what you do as "hate"?