I find it rather concerning how quickly and gleefully some people throw away basic precepts of our civilisation just because they don't like someone. I thought we figured out that individuals should be treated as individuals, and not by any personal attributes they may have, such as family.

Should the parents of Jeffery Dahmer be banned from AirBnB? Or the parents of a convicted murderer or rapist who has since been released? That seems silly.

> just because they don't like someone

Way to diminish the hatred she has made a living propagating.

While I don't agree with any of the trash she peddles, I fail to see how any of it justifies banning her let alone her parents from an accomodation booking platform.

I mean in this sense lauren isnt the one being punished, it literally is that they dont like her parents by merit of association. But ironically they have no choice by virtue of who they are.

Her parents haven't.

This doesn't engage with anything I said at all: it just repeats "I don't like her" except stronger, and tries to dismiss things just because I didn't condemn this Lauren Southern person strong enough – whether she is good or bad or literally Hitler is completely irrelevant here.

Wait until the tables turn.

I can see it now.

"Whoopi Goldberg denied AirBnB access for insinuiating assault against White people [1]"

How far we have fallen as a society.

1 - https://www.foxnews.com/media/whoopi-goldberg-asks-if-we-nee...

> I find it rather concerning how quickly and gleefully some people throw away basic precepts of our civilisation just because they don't like someone. I thought we figured out that individuals should be treated as individuals, and not by any personal attributes they may have, such as family.

This is a private business doing what it pleases. This is nothing like throwing away civilization. That could be said however about the hate and dog whistling she perpetuates.

There are consequences of being a pile of shit, and those consequences reach past oneself. To refuse that reality seems pretty naive to me.

"Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation." (Exodus 34:7)

"In those days they shall no longer say: ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ But everyone shall die for his own iniquity. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge." (Jeremiah 31:29)

This line of thinking was already old-fashioned by the time of the New Testament. Punishing people based solely on familial relations over which they have no choice – rather based on what they have done themselves – is throwing away the basic principles of humanism and liberalism, and by extension the basic principles of modern western society. If you do that simply because it's convenient or gratifying in the moment then you're not really in favour of these principles at all.

There are countless people with far greater crimes and parents; why not not block those millions of parents too? Being the parent of some loudmouth internet troll? These fries are microscopically small in comparison.

That's it a private business is a weak comeback. What "Laura Southern says is allowed within the law, therefore why criticize her actions?" I can play that game too.

If your stance on this is "private businesses can decide who they do business with" then that's fine.

But do so in a consistent manner without approving of the legally required carve outs whose sole purpose is to enforce a world view you find acceptable

They are the modern version of puritanical fundamentalists.

What has she done exactly?

Wrongthink