Spotify and Squarespace are cracking down on alleged "hate groups" and "hate bands"

[Jito463]

9 minutes ago, Mihle said:

That isnt criminal

Not yet.  Give them time....

[Sauron]

11 hours ago, Vernw3 said:

someone needs to create a 100% open video and song maybe pornhub would be more accepting 

You can do that any time, let me know how you fare.

 

By the way, if someone wants to post their uncensored content to the internet on their own terms they can buy a domain and set up their own website.

11 hours ago, Mihle said:

So not accepting someone else's bigotry is bigotry?

That's an interesting question, but could bigotry itself be classified as an ideology? On a sidenote, I think people often misuse the word bigotry when someone disagrees with them. Not agreeing with someone is not the same as denying their right to an ideal and/or their right to exist.

11 hours ago, Majestic said:

So their free speech is to deny it for someone else? Who pays them to be moral arbiters? Was this a customer demand or mere pandering and the fact silicon valley is a giant echo chamber? I didn't see any polling taking place on whether this carried weight with their paying customers.

 

THis is the same type of logic that the antifa's have, they feel it's their right to free speech to crash events and deny other people a voice. The fact of the matter is, Spotify should not feel morally pressured into removing them, since they're not a government funded organisation nor are they meant to act as moral arbiters or hold any sense of political office. And this is a slippery slope. Now it's extremists, but what becomes the new extreme afterwards?

You believe spotify doesn't have enough data on their customers to know what their reaction to this would be? You severely underestimate their marketing department and their data farming. They don't need polls, they know.

 

As for comparing this to a violent riot, don't you think that's going a bit far? You could compare this to refusing to have said event in your backyard at most. So what if your backyard happens to be a popular concert hall? You have a right to have whomever you like play in it.

 

I don't think they feel morally pressured to do anything - I think they analyzed the market and decided this would result in more money for them in the long run. That's just my personal speculation, and whether their predictions are correct or not will have to be verified (probably not by either of us), however it seems more likely than a bunch of executives sitting at a table and saying "oh dear, if we don't do this they'll call us bigots and racist!" or "having 'hate music' on our website wouldn't bode well for our hypothetical and extremely unlikely political career!".

 

You see, free speech is your right to express your political thoughts without legal ripercussions. That doesn't mean anyone has to or wants to listen.

[goodtofufriday]

2 hours ago, AlwaysFSX said:

"I can't handle someone having an idea so I'm going to club them in the head because they don't know how to be tolerant. That'll teach em!"

 

You know the your own logic applies to yourself, right? Or are you in the clear because you think you think you're tolerant through your intolerance.

 

Practice what was preached and understand what it means to be American with an economy of ALL ideas.

and @LAwLz

 

I mean I think its pretty cut and dry man. A group of persons hate another group of persons for no largely mutually discernible and justifiable reason? That can't be tolerated.  I think the following picture sums up the thought without getting political. 

 

[Notional]

6 hours ago, goodtofufriday said:

We should  not tolerate the completely intolerant.  And that should apply to any group. 

 

We are all free to speak, but that doesnt mean we speak without consequence. 

Of course, we should. As stated before: free speech does not include encouragement of terrorism, murder or other illegal actions. The idiotic picture you link later on fails on that fundamentally. If you want to stop stupid ideologies, you bring them out to light so you can ridicule and debunk their nonsense. That way you kill it with sunlight, like all viruses. By silencing them, you not only victimize these groups, you also make them grow larger and more extremist in their own echo chamber. That is what is happening with the extreme left in the US right now. Everyone who tries to counter their points are banned, shamed, silenced, de-platformed, called racists, etc.That is not a healthy way for society and political discussion to work. And the result speaks for itself: it got you Trump as president.

5 hours ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Discrimination is only blocked against certain classes, of which political stance is not of those protected classes in the US. You're free to deny business to anyone as long as it's not due to being a member of a protected class.

Which is insane. It's the exact opposite of equal rights and general equality. People love to talk about equal rights when it comes to people who identify as different genders and what not, but when it comes down to it, most of them really don't support actual equality. As someone else stated in this thread: if you replace x with y, (e.g. white with black) is the sentence still acceptable?

[2FA]

37 minutes ago, Notional said:

Which is insane. It's the exact opposite of equal rights and general equality. People love to talk about equal rights when it comes to people who identify as different genders and what not, but when it comes down to it, most of them really don't support actual equality. As someone else stated in this thread: if you replace x with y, (e.g. white with black) is the sentence still acceptable?

First amendment of the US Constitution only applies to government discrimination because it says "Congress shall make no law" (that would be free speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition). Other laws apply to free enterprise such as the ADA and Civil Rights Act because they explicitly say so. Someone mentioned that one baker that denied business to a gay couple. That's different because the Civil Rights Act prohibits that due to sex (which includes orientation).

[Jito463]

2 hours ago, goodtofufriday said:

and @LAwLz

 

I mean I think its pretty cut and dry man. A group of persons hate another group of persons for no largely mutually discernible and justifiable reason? That can't be tolerated.  I think the following picture sums up the thought without getting political. 

 

 

Spoiler

 

First they came for the racists, and I didn't say anything because I wasn't a racist......

 

When you get to the point of banning any speech, simply because you find it distasteful, you may as well ban all speech.  You may be the arbiter of what's acceptable and what's not today, but who will the arbiter of what's acceptable tomorrow?  Or a month from now?  Or a year from now?  Or 10 years from now?  Who defines what is and is not acceptable speech?

 

The slippery slope argument may be a cliché, but that doesn't mean it's not real.

[Trik'Stari]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

They are denying the platform not the ability to speak. .

Denying the platform IS denying the ability to speak.

 

Also they don't do this to Communists, who are arguably more violent and hateworthy based on the fact that they killed or caused the deaths of at least 2 times as many people as the Nazi's did.

 

Believe it or not they do exist, what do you think Salon.com is? Watch a few Antifa rallies and look at the Hammer and Sickle flags flying.

[Trik'Stari]

2 hours ago, goodtofufriday said:

and @LAwLz

 

I mean I think its pretty cut and dry man. A group of persons hate another group of persons for no largely mutually discernible and justifiable reason? That can't be tolerated.  I think the following picture sums up the thought without getting political. 

-snip

One could make the argument that kicking them out ignites violence and causes destruction, whereas allowing them to exist and simply ignoring them, will likely just result in them going away because they realize no one gives a shit.

 

Also maybe trust that most people are good enough to realize they're a bunch of dickheads, and not vote in their favor?

 

And what do you say of the SJW's, who preach that all white people are inherently racist, and that they have to be held back to allow everyone to succeed, is that not hatred and intolerance?

[goodtofufriday]

6 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

 

And what do you say of the SJW's, who preach that all white people are inherently racist, and that they have to be held back to allow everyone to succeed, is that not hatred and intolerance?

It is. I feel that group is just as bad as any. 

[Trik'Stari]

6 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

It is. I feel that group is just as bad as any. 

To be honest, every time I look into them I find communists near the leadership. I honestly think they're just communists trying to destabilize the nation so they can hopefully gain more power as it destabilizes.

 

Tin-foil hatty I know, but still. You could argue that communism is fairly popular or at least held in a significantly higher regard among them, than nazi-ism or capitalism.

[Coaxialgamer]

16 hours ago, Notional said:

This is the biggest problem with tech companies becoming so large. They get way too much power. Even worse, most of them reside in the Bay Area, so the extremist ideology that flourishes there is now being forced upon the entire world. I guess that is the definition of bigotry: not accepting viewpoints and ideology of others.

 

This is a blatant attack on free speech. People don't seem to realize such a thing isn't a given, and all rights can be removed if they don't stand up for them. This is sickening.

What rights do you have exactly, and how are google, squarespace, Spotify etc infringing on them? 

[Mooshi]

I feel the people screeching "free speech" have never been discriminated before based off their race. Or made to feel like a second-class citizen for just existing as the "wrong" skin-tone.

 

When you scream "Bomb!" on public transportation, is that free speech? No. When you're making an ass of yourself at a venue of any sort and get kicked out, is that a free speech violation? No. People are under this mythical world view where freedom of speech = saying whatever you please without any recourse. When you advocate for the extermination of entire races, don't act so shocked when the vast majority of people respond with an F you.

 

Not even that, websites =/= government law. If a private company decides you're not welcome, you're not welcome. You can baww all you want or find a platform willing to put up with you. No governing body is taking your right away to be a sub-level piece of shit, it's a private company not wanting to be associated with that because most people are sensible to not hold those views. In America, there is this thing called entrepreneurship. If you wish to be hateful this badly, invest in your own network to spread that message under the 1st amendment. It's your right to be able to do so--this doesn't make you entitled to use someone else's platform to spread that message if they don't want you there. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

First they came for the racists, and I didn't say anything because I wasn't a racist......

 

When you get to the point of banning any speech, simply because you find it distasteful, you may as well ban all speech.  You may be the arbiter of what's acceptable and what's not today, but who will the arbiter of what's acceptable tomorrow?  Or a month from now?  Or a year from now?  Or 10 years from now?  Who defines what is and is not acceptable speech?

 

The slippery slope argument may be a cliché, but that doesn't mean it's not real.

First they came for the murderers, and I didn't say anything because I wasn't a murderer...

 

When you get to the point of imprisoning any person, simply because you find their actions distasteful, you may as well imprison all people.   You may be the arbiter of what's acceptable and what's not today, but who will the arbiter of what's acceptable tomorrow?  Or a month from now?  Or a year from now?  Or 10 years from now?  Who defines what is and is not acceptable behavior?

 

The slippery slope argument may be a cliché, but that doesn't mean it's not real.

 

---

(also, irrelevant since websites don't ban anything from society, and they may restrict themselves to be very narrow if they want. Spotify may eliminate all folk music if they decide their platform shouldn't cover that genre. They run on a catalogue,they're catalogue. It is their right to exclude music they don't feel like providing, just like classical radio won't play rock, or like apparel retailers have no obligation to sell every crap you happen to design.)

[Notional]

2 hours ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

First amendment of the US Constitution only applies to government discrimination because it says "Congress shall make no law" (that would be free speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition). Other laws apply to free enterprise such as the ADA and Civil Rights Act because they explicitly say so. Someone mentioned that one baker that denied business to a gay couple. That's different because the Civil Rights Act prohibits that due to sex (which includes orientation).

That's the entire issue here. Despite what the 'Murican's like to think, they aren't the center of the world, nor should they be. These companies are forcing american (fracked up) standards on to the entire world that depends on their services/tech. In Denmark we are very open about sex and nudity, but all the american stores (like Apple store, which is mandatory with Iphone) and social media like facebook, are now forcing american victorian morality onto all countries. That is extremely bigoted towards entire countries and cultures around the world.

38 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

What rights do you have exactly, and how are google, squarespace, Spotify etc infringing on them? 

Like I stated, they don't violate any laws per se, but it is dumbfounding that any company would limit their own consumer base, based on arbitrary morality standards, that companies should never have.

But like I stated above, laws differ in countries, and what is legal in the US might not be so in other countries, and vice versa. This is an ideological war from the extreme leftists, who have really grasped the power in the Bay area, where most tech companies live. As such this echo chamber is now forcing their ideologies onto everyone else. How is that acceptable or benefitial?

 

What's next?

[Jito463]

30 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

First they came for the murderers, and I didn't say anything because I wasn't a murderer...

 

When you get to the point of imprisoning any person, simply because you find their actions distasteful, you may as well imprison all people.   You may be the arbiter of what's acceptable and what's not today, but who will the arbiter of what's acceptable tomorrow?  Or a month from now?  Or a year from now?  Or 10 years from now?  Who defines what is and is not acceptable behavior?

 

The slippery slope argument may be a cliché, but that doesn't mean it's not real.

Complete and utter strawman, since murder deprives another of their right to live.  One of these things is not like the other.....

 

30 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

(also, irrelevant since websites don't ban anything from society, and they may restrict themselves to be very narrow if they want. Spotify may eliminate all folk music if they decide their platform shouldn't cover that genre. They run on a catalogue,they're catalogue. It is their right to exclude music they don't feel like providing, just like classical radio won't play rock, or like apparel retailers have no obligation to sell every crap you happen to design.)

If you had been following my posts, I've already made the point that these companies are allowed to choose who is and is not allowed on their platform, since doing otherwise would abridge their freedom of speech.  My comment was in a general sense, in response to the posted image (under the spoiler tag), not specifically regarding Spotify & Square Space's actions.

 

*EDIT*
I've even went back and found it for you.

 

14 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Companies should be free to deny service to whomever they choose, or that would violate their right to free speech.  However, it's a slippery road when we begin banning things simply because we disagree with them.

[captain_to_fire]

2 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

And what do you say of the SJW's, who preach that all white people are inherently racist, and that they have to be held back to allow everyone to succeed, is that not hatred and intolerance?

I think that would be "identity politics" when someone lump people into groups instead of judging an individual for their actions. 

 

So regardless where on the political spectrum a person belongs, identity politics is inherently bigoted and prejudiced because it hastily generalizes everyone in a particular group. 

1 hour ago, Mooshi said:

I feel the people screeching "free speech" have never been discriminated before based off their race. Or made to feel like a second-class citizen for just existing as the "wrong" skin-tone.

I have been discriminated and bullied when I was younger and I hated it. And yet here I am defending free speech. Just as I've said in the OP if you've read it, I don't think censorship is the solution. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

13 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Complete and utter strawman, since murder deprives another of their right to live.  One of these things is not like the other.....

No, actually illegal is illegal. You can discuss what is moral with lawmakers, but once it's passed it's the same. You state that "depriving others of rights" is the moral criterion to decide what is acceptable. It doesn't change that is your criterion, and there may be others, and others may get to make the laws. Hence, you start to deviate from the argument I translitwrated, which was that it is dangerous to set standards because ej gets to choose them, to a different discussion, which is "my standards are good because they are based on important stuff, while these others are silly". 

Hence, you proved my point with your reply: you had to discuss the content of the ban to make a difference in their validity. It was not possible to say there was anything wrong with my version without getting into the content (keeping the structure identical helped to make it obvious). So is not about "who gets to choose", it is about "what are we banning, and what is the rationale". 

Which is always the case: every society is built without delusions of perfect relativism. Any meaningful code of laws captures some values, inherently non-unanimous and volatile in time. That doesn't mean that we have to like every law someone ever made. But it does mean that we should not demand each law to be acceptable by every hypothetical set of values mankind may produce.

Even humam rights are a headache for people trying to find a justification for their universality, promoting Norberto Bobbio to say something like "the problem is not to justify them, but to protect them". 

 

(By the way, "strawmanning" is to misrepresent the views of another person. I didn't misrepresent your views, because I didn't even represent your views, fairly or otherwise. You are probably looking for a different word). 

 

 

13 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

 

If you had been following my posts

Not to hurt your ego or discourage your wiring, but I wasn't

 

13 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

  My comment was in a general sense, in response to the posted image (under the spoiler tag)

"the image" is a cartoonish, viral-ready attempt at condensing the actual argument of Karl Popper, which wasn't the kind of guy to say things lightly or be debunked in 5 minutes  on a tech forum  If what you understand from that argument doesn't seem right to you, I encourage you to look for the original piece and slowly digest it. Nothing feeds our thoughts as reading brilliant thinkers, especially those who disagree with us. 

[Mooshi]

3 hours ago, Notional said:

That's the entire issue here. Despite what the 'Murican's like to think, they aren't the center of the world, nor should they be. These companies are forcing american (fracked up) standards on to the entire world that depends on their services/tech. In Denmark we are very open about sex and nudity, but all the american stores (like Apple store, which is mandatory with Iphone) and social media like facebook, are now forcing american victorian morality onto all countries. That is extremely bigoted towards entire countries and cultures around the world.

Like I stated, they don't violate any laws per se, but it is dumbfounding that any company would limit their own consumer base, based on arbitrary morality standards, that companies should never have.

But like I stated above, laws differ in countries, and what is legal in the US might not be so in other countries, and vice versa. This is an ideological war from the extreme leftists, who have really grasped the power in the Bay area, where most tech companies live. As such this echo chamber is now forcing their ideologies onto everyone else. How is that acceptable or benefitial?

 

What's next?

If white supremacists want to meet white supremacists online *that* badly, you could set up "whitesforwhitesonly.com". No one is banning them from the web to create such a service if they truly wanted that type of service. It's almost as if actual censorship isn't being applied here, crazy right?

 

This is no different than a drunkard causing a scene at a bar and being banned. That isn't the only bar in the world and that above screencap isn't the only online dating service in the world either. If this were truly a violation of free speech, this person would be punished by the government and not banned from a site someone else is running.

 

Hell, if someone posted racist remarks on this very forum I highly doubt Linus and co are just going to casually shrug about it like "free speech, man." No, they would be banned. The argument of companies stomping free speech doesn't really hold. If anything, it's booting out someone they don't want to associate with and many sites before the rise of neo Nazis in Charlotte already had policies in place of not tolerating hate speech on their platform. This isn't something new. This is actually enforcing what was already there.

 

Simply put, don't like a business? Do business elsewhere or start your own instead of complaining about it. All complaining does is raise noise into the ether. Real censorship is what the people in China deal with. The US gov isn't forcing people to think a certain way.

[Taf the Ghost]

@Mooshi

 

Technically, no. A "White for Whites" would get shut down inside the States. See what happened with E-Harmony, and E-Harmony had the rather logical argument that their statistical analysis was one directional. (Men & Women valuing different things in each other.)  But, you better bake the cake, right?

 

What OkCupid did was utterly cheap theater. (Though let's ignore the fact that most Dating Sites/Apps are filled with paid fake accounts and are thus fraudulent businesses.) The important detail is this is the first instance of the Great Purge.

 

This event has been coming for a while. Silicon Valley is really controlled by a very small amount of people in ideological lockstep. No one is going to defend a Neo-Nazi, but that's only cover. They've already moved over to "hate speech" (which is utterly protected speech in the USA, btw) and different segments of the Valley have already hit groups with nothing to do with Cville.

 

I work in a world where I need a good idea of what is coming up, so I'm a little surprised by this one. Not that the Great Purge was applied, but the target. This was designed to attack "hateful" Religious organizations first. The election of Trump really threw a lot of plans into disarray. But, in this environment, they're going to overreach, as they always do. 

 

But, congrats to a bunch of the tech companies! You've opened yourselves up to some hilarious lawsuits in the future when you try to apply vague standards to other people. Because, remember, you have to bake the cake.

[dexT]

4 hours ago, Mooshi said:

I feel the people screeching "free speech" have never been discriminated before based off their race. Or made to feel like a second-class citizen for just existing as the "wrong" skin-tone.

I'm not screeching free speech but I've been put down in public multiple times for being a white male.  

 

I can't recall the last time I've heard discrimination on any other groups in public actually.

[suicidalfranco]

 

[Trik'Stari]

5 hours ago, hey_yo_ said:

I think that would be "identity politics" when someone lump people into groups instead of judging an individual for their actions. 

 

So regardless where on the political spectrum a person belongs, identity politics is inherently bigoted and prejudiced because it hastily generalizes everyone in a particular group. 

I have been discriminated and bullied when I was younger and I hated it. And yet here I am defending free speech. Just as I've said in the OP if you've read it, I don't think censorship is the solution. 

It's just racism.

 

A statement like "All white people are inherently racist or benefit from racism", is plain and simple racism. But go ahead, try explaining to someone that you've been bullied for being white (I know I was in High School. Physically accosted as well as harassed on a near daily basis)

 

The left just loves to switch to "I don't believe that's a thing" mode. Even though it's happened and is happening currently.

[Trik'Stari]

3 hours ago, Mooshi said:

If white supremacists want to meet white supremacists online *that* badly, you could set up "whitesforwhitesonly.com". No one is banning them from the web to create such a service if they truly wanted that type of service. It's almost as if actual censorship isn't being applied here, crazy right?

 

This is no different than a drunkard causing a scene at a bar and being banned. That isn't the only bar in the world and that above screencap isn't the only online dating service in the world either. If this were truly a violation of free speech, this person would be punished by the government and not banned from a site someone else is running.

 

Hell, if someone posted racist remarks on this very forum I highly doubt Linus and co are just going to casually shrug about it like "free speech, man." No, they would be banned. The argument of companies stomping free speech doesn't really hold. If anything, it's booting out someone they don't want to associate with and many sites before the rise of neo Nazis in Charlotte already had policies in place of not tolerating hate speech on their platform. This isn't something new. This is actually enforcing what was already there.

 

Simply put, don't like a business? Do business elsewhere or start your own instead of complaining about it. All complaining does is raise noise into the ether. Real censorship is what the people in China deal with. The US gov isn't forcing people to think a certain way.

It's not freedom of association, it's discrimination, no matter how you slice it.

 

If a white business owner put up a sign saying "No black panther rallies" or some such, how do you think people would react?

 

And please, don't quote XKCD at me. The argument that kicking someone out of a business for hate speech is like asking someone to leave your private home is so poorly thought out. There is a HUGE difference between a business and a private residence. The chief of which is that a private residence is not "open to the public" like a business is. Unless you're insane and want your things stolen I guess.

[Prysin]

15 hours ago, Brainless906 said:

As much as I agree with an echo chamber to be bad i'm not about to start consuming any information coming from a "news site" that put literal conspiracy theories next to something that can potentially be real news. If he (or anyone) wants to prove a decent point thats fine, but bring a backable reasonable source. Its called credibility and those sites have none.


And the protected classes are no where near perfect and as far as extremely flawed but the more fucked up part is if they didnt exist things like "no blacks, gays, trans, ect ect" business would exist. Anyone saying they wouldnt can easily be disproven by the fact that neo-nazi and white power groups still exists openly in the US today.

Username checks out

[Notional]

5 hours ago, Mooshi said:

If white supremacists want to meet white supremacists online *that* badly, you could set up "whitesforwhitesonly.com". No one is banning them from the web to create such a service if they truly wanted that type of service. It's almost as if actual censorship isn't being applied here, crazy right?

 

This is no different than a drunkard causing a scene at a bar and being banned. That isn't the only bar in the world and that above screencap isn't the only online dating service in the world either. If this were truly a violation of free speech, this person would be punished by the government and not banned from a site someone else is running.

 

Hell, if someone posted racist remarks on this very forum I highly doubt Linus and co are just going to casually shrug about it like "free speech, man." No, they would be banned. The argument of companies stomping free speech doesn't really hold. If anything, it's booting out someone they don't want to associate with and many sites before the rise of neo Nazis in Charlotte already had policies in place of not tolerating hate speech on their platform. This isn't something new. This is actually enforcing what was already there.

 

Simply put, don't like a business? Do business elsewhere or start your own instead of complaining about it. All complaining does is raise noise into the ether. Real censorship is what the people in China deal with. The US gov isn't forcing people to think a certain way.

How would they do that? OP says squarespace started to close down sites they politically disagreed with. So they moved to some of Googles services and they did the same thing. Ok, you might think, why not just rent a server and host their site themselves? Well, the private company can just annul their lease. Ok, so they can just buy their own server and host everything themselves right? Well, their private ISP can just shut down their internet connection, because they have a right to (also net neutrality in the US?LOL). Hardly anything is public anymore when it comes to technology and online services. 

 

I guess they can just make a closed private chat group. But wait, you can just use the privately owned

facebook (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/09/facebook-newsfeed-censor-conservative-news)

discord (http://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/news/discord-shuts-down-alt-right-server-after-charlottesville-w497856)

reddit (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/reddit-shuts-down-two-popular-alt-right-subreddits-a7558481.html)

 

Hmm... fine, but then you can just make your own platform specifically for free speech:

...oh.. hmm.

 

Well, at least they can still get financial support through Patreon and Paypal right?

http://patriotnewsagency.info/2017/07/21/breaking-patreon-paypal-blocks-right-wing-activists/

 

Ok, but those are privately owned companies so they have a right to shut it down. They can just make their own service then:

https://archive.fo/H4BeC (DigitalOcean goes "the Cloudflare way" and drops Hatreon)

I guess not.

 

Do you see the larger scope now? The bay area's ideological echo bubble is going on a purge on people they politically disagree with. Sure, few people have sympathy for neo nazis. They are idiots after all, but do you honestly think it will stop there? Once a line has been set it will only move to include more and more and more. Yesterday you couldn't say the n word. Today everything is micro aggressions and hate speech.

 

So where will you do your other business? How will you start your own business? Everything is privately owned and every company can ban you for arbitrary reasons including your political/ideological views.