OK, so you need to reach a threshold of 5% of the population before you’re allowed to have rights, got it.

You’re just attacking me, not my argument

If if was just a matter of a handful of business owners being racists, then those racist businesses would be out-competed by non-racist businesses that appeal to everyone

You skipped the whole counter argument (comparing to scabs and unions) that this lacks the social structure to support that behavior. If you tried to open a business that wasn’t racist then the racist people would come and threaten you, this isn’t happening with the Uber situation.

Because it isn’t! The scenario you described is literally the exact sort of thing the Civil Rights Act exists to stop! You are literally advocating for allowing denial of service based on protected classes!

The thing is that Uber is not performing any discrimination, they are enabling other people to discriminate against each other and attempting to still provide service through it. Claiming that Uber is discriminating is functionally not true.

You’re being pedantic, they don’t care as it pertains to whether they will provide you with service. They do care so that they can match yours and other people’s requests.

The difference in what I am saying and what you are saying is scale and you are completely ignoring the rest of my argument. The scale at which you would have to be a minority for this to impact you significantly is somewhere in the 1-5% range (as in your minority is only this percentage of the local population) with the assumption that the other 95-99% are opposed to you. This is why Uber providing this as an option is different from the cases which the Civil Rights Act was based around. Hell, this is why scabs are effective against unions as well.

A diner not serving black people is impactful because a handful of people are the business owners and are effectively gating you out. Uber allowing those people to select only a specific preference means that anyone who doesn’t set restrictions will break that system and actually benefit from it (more business).

This also goes both ways and is potentially international, Japanese could choose not to serve non-Japanese, a black person could choose not to serve white people for comfort or security.

You’re fundamentally not understanding why Uber allowing people to make this decision is not the same as 1960’s segregation.

But that’s not how Uber works, Uber pairs drivers with riders and has no guarantee for service even now. If I open my app and there are not drivers available then no service will be provided, this isn’t Uber discriminating.

Uber doesn’t care what your race, gender, or political leaning is, they want to provide you the service you want. So long as the option goes both ways this only hurts the people who opt into the program, not everyone else. The only way this could hurt others would be if those who choose to opt in (as in they only want a certain thing) get priority in the scheduling or if you live somewhere where you are the overwhelming minority.

In the first example, if you say you only want female riders so the system sends you every woman that comes into the system instead of putting you in the same queue as everyone else but skipping you if the next client doesn’t match your preference. In this case you are being skipped in the allocation of riders and actually missing opportunities due to your preference.

In the second example, if you are still living in a sun down town then getting Uber rides is probably not your biggest problem.

Even now, Uber drivers are independent contractors and can cancel service whenever they want. If the driver pulls up and thinks you’re sketchy they can cancel the ride, there is no obligation.

I mean, as a company whose business is pairing riders with drivers, it begs the question why this isn’t already an option so long as drivers can also choose not to drive for people flagged as a certain way. If a MAGA person only wants white people driving for them then that will reduce the effectiveness of the app for them, provides service for someone who otherwise would be difficult as a customer, and it prevents them from harassing or bothering potential victims.

If I want to, as a driver or rider, I think I should be able to choose not to be driven or ride with someone who has been flagged by others as overly visible. That might mean someone who won’t shut up about MAGA while I or they drive, it might be someone who has 15 bumper stickers about their beliefs, or it might be someone who has their car wrapped with Hatsune Miku. The consequence of this decision might mean that I have to wait an extra 15 min for a ride or it might mean that because of my actions people no longer wish to ride with me.

Yes, I think that’s a good idea.

I don’t think it’s technically discrimination. Uber is a middle man business which pairs independent contractors with paying customers. If the customers or contractors have a preference then all it’s doing are matching those preferences.

More likely than not this will actually lead to those who use this option to have substandard service (either slower response or less available rides) than those who do not.

Men would only choose their riders gender for bigotry reasons

That’s not necessarily true though. Many men also feel more comfortable with another man in a variety of situations. Prostate exam, counseling, and barber are all good examples. Some guys are just super awkward with women and might not want to feel awkward while paying for a ride. Hell with the severity an accusation of wrong doing can have some men might not want to ride solo with a woman they don’t know.

The same goes for women, not all women choosing this setting are doing so for safety, sometimes people have a preference. Uber is organizing willing independent contractors to the preference of paying customers. If the customer states they want a specific gender as their driver I don’t see why that would be a problem so long as both parties are fine with that.

First of all, it’s NY State, not NYC, and Article 35.10 of the Penal Code says you are allowed to use physical force for self-defense or in the defense of others, but the very next clause is 35.15 which says that you have a duty to retreat unless there is immediate danger.

In a NY court of law you could argue that you were acting in the defense of others, but you would not be able to prove that there was imminent danger.

In no court in the world would you be able to say you were acting in self-defense while acting from 6000 km away.

I agree with the sentiment, but sadly can’t agree with the implementation. Laws exist in a neutral environment, you can’t bypass them just because the other party is someone society disagrees with. Even if they are committing crimes you can’t unilaterally exact justice against them due to vigilante laws.

This event took place in Germany, Crimical Code §§ 202a-d criminalizes unauthorized access, interception, and manipulation of data, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment, covering acts like phishing and data espionage. Within German law this should be a crime. Germany has laws against neo-nazis, but this would be vigilantism which Germany also prohibits.

It’s a slippery slope to ignore your own laws because they support the popular narrative.

Eh, I want to like this statement because I hate these people, but I can’t in good conscious call it something it isn’t. This sort of thing is the essence of debate because we have good people doing bad things to bad people and then have to justify why it’s ok despite it being bad. It’s justice vs righteousness, it’s lawful neutral vs lawful good. The only reason why this is acceptable is because it’s against people that we deem not worthy of legal protection, but as a precedent that’s dangerous territory. As soon as the definition of people not worthy of legal protection changes it suddenly becomes a problem.

At it’s core this person probably committed a crime, but people don’t care because it’s against a bad ideologue. It’s like if we said it’s ok to round up and execute neo-nazis, a lot of people would rejoice, but if you change that to most any other group they would cry about human rights. At the end of the day rounding up and killing anyone is a bad thing no matter who it’s against.

I mean, it is technically true, but in a trial with a jury of peers it wouldn’t matter. This reminds me of the old school outlaw definition. If you were declared an outlaw the laws of the land no longer applied to you. You could commit crimes, but it also meant anyone and everyone could commit crimes against you without repercussions. It was a bit of a given that you would commit crimes because if you were declared an outlaw you probably were already committing crimes, but now anyone could rob, harm, or even kill you and it wouldn’t be a crime.

I say fuck these neo-nazis but this is cyber terrorism technically.