Twitter bans Milo, and Molyneux and Cernovich are on it:
Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
It is time we call on President Trump to add political ideological orientation to the list of human qualities which cannot be discriminated against under federal law.
Like sexual orientation and race, ideological orientation is biologically rooted, as has been demonstrated through both genetic studies and physical, volumetric MRI analyses of living ideologue’s brains. Ideological orientation is not a conscious decision, but rather a way we are born. Discriminating against us over our ideological orientation, the very personalities that define our nature and who we are as people, is wrong.
More over, I believe any court in the land, presented with this evidence, would have to rule in our favor, given the similarity in biological origins between protected qualities like sexual orientation, race, and political orientation. Indeed the evidence linking homosexuality to genetics is far weaker than the evidence linking ideological orientation to one’s underlying genetics. We have less choice over our ideological orientation, and the evidence for its biological roots is stronger.
As Milo’s Twitter ban shows, conservatives are being discriminated against by private sector businesses just as homosexuals were discriminated against by bakery owners who refused to do business with them. Liberals don’t like us because of the way we are born, they create caricatures of us, and then they discriminate against us just as blacks and gays were discriminated in the past. If a bakery can be forced to bake a cake for individuals who engage in behaviors they are repulsed by, I think Twitter should be subject to legal punishment for not doing business with Milo due to his biologically rooted political orientation – especially the negative effects such discrimination will have on Milo’s economic status.
If Twitter wishes to argue that they are denying service for some other reason, it should be taken to the courts, preferably in a conservative legal jurisdiction, with Milo’s attorney examining previous cases, such as #blacklivesmatter leaders calling for violence against police officers and not being treated similarly. If unequal treatment were proven, then Twitter should be subjected to the same legal treatment as any business which illegally discriminated against someone for reasons of race or sexual orientation.
In a court of law, the facts clearly support a case for discrimination based on physiological traits we are born with. I think the Supreme Court would have no choice but to rule for Milo.
This is the final frontier in civil rights and anti-discrimination law. We demand equality, and equal treatment under the law, and we are going to get it.
All we need now is the support of President Trump.
I’m queasy to disagree with the Big Brain here. It means I am probably wrong.
Freedom of association is the higher ideal.
I agree that in our current climate, where a pizzeria can be sued over a mythical gay wedding requests, that you are right. And I am totally with Milo on this issue, and I hate the political stances of FB, Twitter, Google et al, but I believe the moral position is freedom of association.
I don’t know. I could be wrong.
Never be uneasy, you are absolutely right, and as the Apocalypse remodels brains, I suspect that will be back on the table. But I am assuming that is off the table for now, so to make the left hate these types of rules, we should employ them to create cost to the left. Right now they have no reason to oppose these rules, because we never make them bad for the left. All they see are bakery owners screwing Christians, leftists screwing conservatives, and so on.
I think this might make them see themselves getting screwed, which is probably the best way to make them begin to espouse free association. Plus it sounds fun as hell to screw them with their own rules.
“Freedom of association is the higher ideal”.
Since we are talking ideals and not currently feasible realities anyway, I’d say the ideal is stabilizing a balanced K condition that allows progress while preserving the pillars of civilization that rabbits are wont to erode. In order to achieve that, one wonders if actually inhibiting association around r-selection values wouldn’t be more effective then granting freedom of association across the spectrum – though complete freedom of association would be an obvious step in the right direction from our present predicament.
We are currently forbidden to associate around strong K values (especially in Europe), and this has allowed them to march us straight towards annihilation for decades. Of course, this is largely due to the fact that Ks, by their own nature, tend to respect the rules. That would not apply to rabbits. But the idea here is establishing and enforcing rules that prevent humans to DEVELOP as rabbits in the first place, thereby solving the problem at its roots.
Obvious examples would be ending welfare and affirmative action, let alone teaching self-deprecation and even favoritism for out-groups in schools. A step up the ladder though would be forbidding any kind of organization that advocates for the culture and “rights” of an out-group. Studying, yes, promoting, no.
I mean, should freedom of association in our homelands be extended to groups that openly advocate for their own interests against our own? I don’t think so.
We must find a way to preserve and be true to the characteristically European sense of compassion and fairness, and at the same time foster a strong, uncompromisingly K standard. Ideally, we should craft the new rules with the explicit goal to stop or at least limit the wax-and-wane cycles of civilization altogether, aiming for a more stable progress.
Just think of where we could be even now, if hostile out-groups had not exploited the prevalence of r to hijack our societies.
[…] Milo Banned At Twitter – We Need To Demand Equality For Our Political Orientation […]
Wrong vid
only on the blog homepage, weird
Add it to the list of weirdness on this site.
Surely you jest. One of our last redoubts and finest pleasure is firing SJWs because they are SJWs.
In fact, you could make millions by patenting a test for amygdala. Some kind of byzantian Voight Kampff test. Corporations would pay you the big bucks:
“You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a refugee. He’s crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the refugee over on it’s back. The refugee lays on it’s back, it’s belly baking in the hot sun, beating it’s legs trying to turn itself over, but it cant, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?”
“It’s just a test, Leon.”
A rabbit test might be something, especially as society turns K. I don’t doubt it is coming at some point.
I am not familiar with US law, but if the US has signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, then article 26 prevents discrimination against someone because of their political opinions and so this could be ratified into American law congress so wished.
http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx
But then again, if Trump and the right gets power, this sort of law would prevent them from disempowering the left, i.e. by firing them from jobs etc for their political opinions.