Tolerance is complicated(!)

Progressives have an uncanny way of supporting freedom of association all of a sudden when it happens to fit into their narrative. From AirBnB banning right-wing attendees of the “Unite the Right” protest in Charlottesville to Google‘s firing of James Damore – the left is firmly on the side of the free market idea that they fought so vehemently against when it was about a Christian bakery refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding.

The same thing happened when German companies refused to sell razor wire to Hungary for its border fence. Progressives from all angles celebrate these companies’ decisions not to do business with people because they have a problem with their politics, their way of life, their choices, their opinions. Facebook, Google and Twitter all have a strong political bias in the way they uphold their own terms of service. When conservatives or right-wingers are banned on flimsy arguments, while far more extreme left-wingers are left alone, the left erupts with joy over the freedom of private companies to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason.

Except when the store owner is not left-wing, or when the excluded party happens to be in one of the favored victim groups of the progressives. Then, suddenly, discrimination is a thing we should all be worried about again and “how could this still be happening in the 21st century?”

Tolerance is complicated(!)

Freedom of association is not for everyone – it is only for the left and the people that matter to them. But of course, there is no freedom at all if it does not apply equally to everyone. It seems then that it is not about freedom in the first place for the progressives, but rather about getting their way. It’s mostly amazing that so many people still fall for that narrative, although that is probably because we are being truly bombarded by their “correct” way of thinking whenever the chance arrives.

It is shallow and hypocritcal to support the right of companies to refuse service to people for belonging to a political group while rejecting the right of companies to refuse service to people for their sexuality, ethnicity, religion or, to be honest, for whatever reason the company chooses. To be clear: refusing service to people based on prejudice over any of these things is reprehensible (and bad business), but it should be dealt with peacefully in the free market – by the customers.

The lesson is: Google is no friend of freedom. Alternatives to Google, Facebook, Twitter, Patreon, etc. are starting to pop up. It is a matter of time before the right – from mild conservatives to the radicals – have created a parallel economy and will be able to do almost all their business within their own circle. This segregation of ideas is not a positive development by any means, but the after years of dominance in the public domain the left is ruly starting to force their political opponents into a situation where they have no other choice.

2 comments

Leave a Reply

Het e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Vereiste velden zijn gemarkeerd met *