False equivalency.

Demonetizing videos that make homophobic attacks on public figures (the "conservative" content in question) is not "the other side of the coin" to being positive about LGBTQ issues.

Perhaps, but if the criteria for "homophobic attacks" expands to include views that the majority of conservatives hold, then banning "homophobic attacks" just becomes a rebranded way of banning conservatives.

Fair, but on the flip side:

If the majority of conservatives hold (and try to post) homophobic views, then it seems that banning the majority of them is the right thing to do.

No, that's not the right thing to do. You'd be suppressing a great amount of people, whose opinions have to be reckoned with. Just because you think they hold the "wrong" opinion doesn't mean they actually do. It just differs from yours and you have to accept that (and can obviously try to convince them of your position). They have to live with your opinion as well, so that's just fair.

False equivalency? Yours is a non-existent equivalency.

While i think it is morally reprehensible to deny business to someone because of their sexuality, forcing someone to work for any reason is essentially just as bad. It's no different than forcing an employee to work overtime when no legal contract is in place.

If it were a doctor it would be different, but it's a non-essential baked item.

They don't want to work. Do not make them work. Let their business die and find another bakery.

The baker's business exists at the pleasure of the government that ratified its charter and as such is subject to rules around how they can run it. Some of those rules include how the business can filter potential customers. Sexual orientation is recognized as a protected class. Part of the baker's business is creating and selling wedding cakes. It is reasonable then to require that the baker, in their capacity of selling wedding cakes, to do so indiscriminately with respect to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or any other protected class _regardless_ of their religious beliefs. The supreme court opinion on this case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...) did not rule on the merits so it is an open question as to the legal standing of that.

Yes, and the baker was willing to sell them a cake. He was not willing to create a bespoke cake. This isn't about refusing service, but refusing compelled speech.

As I've expressed over and over, this isn't about refusing to conduct business.

Baker was willing to sell them a bespoke cake as well, he only refused to make a homosex themed cake.

For you to be consistent, you have to also defend the baker's right to refuse business to a black couple who requests a "bespoke cake". Do you agree with that?

> For you to be consistent, you have to also defend the baker's right to refuse business to a black couple who requests a "bespoke cake".

Entirely depends on the content of the cake, if a black couple comes along and asks for a cake with, say, Satan licking a giant black dick[0] on it the baker might reasonably demur.

It isn't about refusing a couple based on their immutable attributes, it is about the content of the cake they requested.

You don't have a right to force someone to create something they do not wish to create.

[0] - https://www.newsweek.com/colorado-baker-protagonist-satan-di...

Why do you feel that the person cited in the article below does not have the right to have their deeply held religious freedoms protected, while the rights of the cake baker involving the gay couple does?

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/9/3/20847943/mississippi...

See the final sentence of the comment to which you have replied:

> You don't have a right to force someone to create something they do not wish to create.

I responded to a comment painting this case as an example of conservatives refusing business to LGBT individuals, which it isn't. It is a case of refusing to be compelled to create content that expresses your views.

Of note, the baker in the referenced case offered to sell existing products. They simply refused the bespoke cake.

Yours is an example of discrimination of a rote service based not on content, but of immutable attribute. These are unrelated situations.

Good dodge!

Why is "creating a cake to be used by gay people" different from "hosting an event for gay people" in your mind? Why shouldn't you be able to skip out on doing either if you don't believe that they're morally correct?

If the cake is not inherently gay (ie, literally stating "I am a gay wedding cake" or some such similar wording) how is the creation itself any different because of the consumer? If 2 men ask for a pink cake with chocolate frosting and a straight couple ask for a pink cake with chocolate frosting, there's no inherent difference in the product, and thus in the production.

If it's "I will need to interact with and consult with gay people endeavoring to undertake what I believe is an amoral act (marriage)" then how is it different from hosting the wedding?

This whole area is arbitrary and nonsensical lines. We'll be better off when the same protective rights extended to visible minorities are extend to invisible minorities. You claim they're unrelated, I disagree. For now, the law agrees with you and I can concede that.

It's not just "creating a cake to be used by gay people", it's more of a "creating a bespoke piece of art communicating a certain message with your name signed on it".

Again, seems like the baker was totally okay to sell the couple any of the pre-baked cakes, which would qualify as "creating a cake to be used by gay people".

>>If 2 men ask for a pink cake with chocolate frosting and a straight couple ask for a pink cake with chocolate frosting, there's no inherent difference in the product, and thus in the production.

The only difference is who the consumer is. Also, the hollow difference between "I created this just for you" vs. "I created this, and you will be using it" of your pre-baked vs bespoke cake example seems extremely weak to me. Legally, this doesn't matter, but hey legally at one point black people couldn't vote because "reasons".

The point I'm getting at: Why was OP comfortable with half measures? Why is "black" a protected class, even against "deeply held religious beliefs" but "gay" isn't? Why is "use a product you created just for me" different from "use a product you created"? This difference feel arbitrary to me, and grounded more in homophobia than any sort of sound logic.

Put bluntly: If you think gay people shouldn't be allowed to request cakes, I don't see how you can logically hold the belief that black people should be allowed to request cakes.

Let's be clear, that was not the request. The baker refused to bake the cake because it was for a gay wedding, and such a cake would "promote gay marriage".

There are still many people out there who do not "believe" in interracial marriage. Do you support a baker refusing to make a cake for an interracial couple? Do they have the right to refuse business solely based on the race of their customers?

> Let's be clear, that is not the request.

Yes, it was the request. They wanted a custom cake celebrating a gay wedding, which was precluded by the baker's sincere religious belief.

If you read TFA I linked to, you would have read this as well as all the other insane requests refused, and that the baker was willing to sell otherwise made cakes.

This is a well litigated, well reported case and you have twice now insisted material elements of the case did not happen.

This is not about refusing someone based on their immutable attributes, but their requested content. Stop asking rhetorical questions regarding racism.

Sincere religious belief isn't a bulletproof defense on these matters though.

It is as relates to compelling someone to create custom content on your behalf, to express your views.

I can't use a religious belief to refuse a rote service, but I can to refuse bespoke work that expresses your views.

This case was never about refusing service to LGBT couples, it was about refusing bespoke work. To paint it as anything else, and in defense of your argument that "Conservatives are anti-LGBT" because of this case is wrong and nothing short of propaganda.

By your logic, business should be able to deny business involving bespoke imagery of interracial couples based on religious views. For instance, a cake depicting the couple.

Just like a baker can refuse to create a White Power cake covered in swastikas based on their sincerely held views!

This is another false equivalency.

White supremacy is on a lower tier of protection in America than things like race and sexual orientation.

"Bespoke work" that is colored by the nature of the customer requesting the work. Does the baker do wedding cakes? Yes. Now what if the customer requested a wedding cake, but the wedding is a gay wedding? Suddenly no.

Your argument that the baker was merely refusing to serve the customer because of the "content" does not hold up.

LGBTQ content being demonetized has been going on for ages, long before the more recent controversy around conservative content. This was a major concern going back to 2011. Youtube's justification at the time was that content that made references to LGBTQ matters may not be appropriate for all audiences.

Like the censorship of ISIS content, LGBTQ content censorship was celebrated by the same people now lamenting "conservative" demonetization.

> LGBTQ content censorship was celebrated by the same people now lamenting "conservative" demonetization.

The "same people?" All of them? Since when does "Conservative" equal "anti-LGBT?" You do know there exists LGBT conservatives, yes?

Peter Thiel is a log cabin conservative. He was outed by Gawkier and funded the Hogan lawsuit to get justice for it.

Just the aggregate of the conservative population. It would be similar to saying that black people suffer discrimination in the US, to which I suppose you'd incredulously reply, "All of them? All black people? But I have a black friend who has never felt prejudged on matters of race." I wonder of the conversational instincts of such a person.

Recall George Bush Jr's presidential candidacy when banning gay marriage in the nation's Constitutional was a get-out-to-vote issue. Or California's 8. Why are these issues energizing? What about care for the poor and focus on education? Are these not red-hot winning issues?

You might also refer to the GOP platform of various states, or the GOP national platform. Here's some verbatim text from the Texas GOP platform, the 2nd-largest state in the nation.

> Homosexual Behavior: We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations in Western civilization. We oppose homosexual marriage, regardless of state of origin. We urge the Texas Legislature to pass religious liberty protections for individuals, businesses, and government officials who believe marriage is between one man and one woman. We oppose the granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

> Definition of Marriage: We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal, and moral commitment only between one natural man and one natural woman.

> Overturn Unconstitutional Ruling: We believe this decision, overturning the Texas law prohibiting same-sex marriage in Texas, has no basis in the Constitution and should be reversed, returning jurisdiction over the definition of marriage to the states. The Governor and other elected officials of the State of Texas should assert our Tenth Amendment right and reject the Supreme Court ruling.

I would also argue that discussing American conservatism without a rich narrative on Christianity is obtusely blind.

> Religious Freedom: As America is “one nation under God,” founded on Judeo-Christian principles, we affirm the constitutional right of all individuals to worship as they choose.

If conservatives didn't care about gay marriage, then what political force would be left to oppose its legitimacy?

Since the conservative movement as a whole has been generally moving to deny LGBTQ people the right to marry (see: attempts to overturn Obergefell in conservative states), the right to serve in the military (see: transgender military ban) and the right to not be discriminated against (see: masterpiece cakeshop).

I'm not going to deny that there are LGBT conservatives. But the fact is that conservative politicians as a whole demonize LGBTQ people and have attempted multiple times to censor them [1] or bar them from aid.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19976398

> But the fact is that conservative politicians as a whole demonize LGBTQ

"As a whole" they do not. There exists many who do, to paint it part and parcel of conservatism is incorrect.

One could just as well claim it's not their conservatism, but religious beliefs.

I would argue "as a whole" describes the situation prudently. After all, the parent is pointing specifically at politicians even - not just all people. "In general", "overall", "on average", and "prominently" also all work I think.

Using weasel-words doesn't absolve ad hominem.

Conservatives like Obama in 2008?

I'm not particularly interested in demonetizing conservative content.

I am, however, willing to support a movement that results in conservative content being demonetized if American conservatism continues to pander to and fall back on its racist and reactionary cores. It isn't clear to me why social disapprobation and pressure on the whole to excise reactionaries is inappropriate in this context.

> if American conservatism continues to pander to and fall back on its racist and reactionary cores.

They don't.

> It isn't clear to me why social disapprobation and pressure on the whole to excise reactionaries is inappropriate in this context.

I consider the moral-fascism of modern illiberal progressive rhetoric to be rather abhorrent. Are you fine with being socially outcast?

Would you please stop using HN primarily for ideological battle? It's against the site guidelines, we ban accounts that do that (regardless of which ideology they're battling/for), and it seems you've been doing a lot of it.

> They don't.

This is counterfactual, and I'm not interested in debating facts.

> I consider the moral-fascism of modern illiberal progressive rhetoric to be rather abhorrent.

I'm sorry, but this is word salad. You don't know any of my concrete political positions.

> Are you fine with being socially outcast?

I am extremely comfortable with reactionaries being socially outcast. I belong to a few different groups that are traditionally (and violently) targeted when reactionary movements gain social and political power. Minimizing the ability of reactionaries to undermine systems of government and public discourse directly serves my end of continuing to exist in a liberal democracy. I'd quote Popper, but that's a little bit too cliche at this point.

>Wait until minecraft is declared a white supremacist game

what?

I think this is a reference to PewDiePie recently focusing a lot of his content on Minecraft and how the media has gone after him on a number of occations. The concern would be in trying to attack PewDiePie, the media would attack what he is doing and label that as bad (similar to how the OK hand gesture was labeled as a white supremacist sign by the ADL). This is just my assumption though.

>the OK hand gesture was labeled as a white supremacist sign by the ADL

I'm not 100% sure you're criticising that, so if you're not, please take this comment as directed at the many other times I have seen it criticized on HN and elsewhere:

It always surprises me to see fairly smart people throw this out there like it's obviously silly. Communication is based simply on actual usage of language and symbols. If a bunch of people want to associate a symbol (especially one that's still ubiquitously known but has somewhat fallen out of popular real-world usage) with something very controversial and offensive, then they can realistically do that by simply using the symbol that way, even if they're only doing it as a hilarious joke. Then it just means that sometimes (depending on context), until they stop using it that way. If people are, in practice, using a symbol to mean a certain thing, then it means that thing (with the likelihood of meaning being a function of context). I don't have to think about it or philosophize about it when I see it - it comes naturally based on context, because that's how language works. If I've seen 10 usages of <Mercury-symbol> to mean "Mercury" in the past 5 years, and 75 usages of it to mean "kill all the elderly" in the past year, then when I see somebody who seems antagonistic write <Mercury-symbol> with no planetary context in sight, I can reasonably assume he probably means the latter, and I would probably be correct. As another example, the "V" sign means different things in different places - but if I see it in the US, I don't fret at the idea that I might misinterpret it. The fact is, in practice, it's used here to mean "peace", therefore it means "peace" at that moment. Sort of like how money works. You can't just say "no" and make the social agreement go away.

*edit: I didn't know HN filtered some seemingly innocuous characters - I've replaced my usage of the Mercury symbol with <Mercury-symbol>.

I tried to write my comment such that I wasn't making a judgement call on it, just listing it as a recent event that is most likely on the minds of people thinking about this topic.

> It always surprises me to see fairly smart people throw this out there like it's obviously silly.

I don't think it's silly, but I do feel the media's coverage of it was irresponsible / clickbaity. The ADL website itself mentions that most uses are "entirely innocuous and harmless" but CNN's headline was "'OK' is now a hate symbol", which stigmatizes the gesture and feels like cultural vandalism. I understand your point about language usage, but far more people use the gesture in an innocuous way. It's not surpising to me that people would be upset when told it's a hate symobol (when it's not in most cases - documenting that it is in some cases is fine, but generalizing it as a hate symbol is what most people disagree with).

Not trying to derail, but I honestly just learned about the existence of Mercury-symbol from this comment and I'm pretty sure I've never seen it used anywhere before in my life. I've also never heard of "kill all the elderly" message in general.

Can you provide some context examples? Genuinely curious.

Yeah, it would be crazy to call minecraft white supremacist. Not at all like OK-signs and frog memes. I knew something was fishy about those things from day one.

Is his comment satire?

A lot of people are angry that Notch (the guy who made the game) isn't just another SV "progressive" and so use him as a scapegoat for everything that's "wrong" with gamers.

This is not happening.

What is happening, is notch tweeting reactionary opinion pieces on twitter and people are irritated by it. No one thinks he represents all gamers or their perceived 'wrongness', and no one expects him to fit into some imaginary SV mould.

I don't see this at all. He's rarely pointed at as some kind of proxy for gamers, and the responses to his statements have arguably been reasonable and direct. I don't know why you would think anybody expects random Swedes to be "just another SV 'progressive'", but it sounds like you're using that phrase to stand in as an insult.

Minecraft is in fact extremely alt-right. Borderline Nazi/kkk imo.

My four year old LOVES Pepe. We had to cancel our internet...

Thank God the older ones are more submissive. They let us fill out their absentee ballots for them!

I support Youtube demonetizing whatever content they want as long as they are transparent about it

But that's because I believe in private property and freedom of association as well as personal responsibility for one's actions while it seems "conservatives" in 2019 do not from the public stances they have adopted in their political efforts.

I think there are extremely few people (outside of specialist political groups whose horrible job is "winning") whose goal is to demonetize politically "conservative" content, even in their own minds. The very word implies inoffensive. I think there is simply a trend of attacking the extremist trends that identify themselves as conservative, and then there is an intermediary ring of conservatives somewhere in the middle who, in a misguided tactic to defend their political identity, will throw the idea of being conservative in front of the bullets and claim the idea of being conservative is under attack.

> I think there is simply a trend of attacking the extremist trends that identify themselves as conservative

1. Outlaw "extremism"

2. Label your political enemies as "extrmist."

3. ???

4. Eutopia

lol? no one cares if you think trickle-down economics works. but people would prefer that youtubers who use slurs should not be rewarded by monetization.

I can already see the "Meincraft" hoax screenshots from 4chan

"Mein Kraft" has a nice Hitlerian ring to it.

I can see the criticisms now:

"These racists are using Mein Kraft to achieve power through the joy of gaming!"

Classic