Airbnb deletes accounts of those attending "Unite the Right"

>>165802
>white supremacist rally
the commies won

Airbnb is turning into a literal cuck service

>>165822
Sounds like they're cucking the white supremacists in this situation.

Even so, their company, their rules. White supremacists are not a protected class. They're free to take their business to other sites.

>>165828
Wouldn't this fall under discrimination based on political belief? People don't seem so quick to say "their business, their rules" when it comes to baking a cake.

>>165832
Most places don't have laws for discriminating based on political beliefs.

And the difference is that being gay is not a political belief, it's a sexual orientation. One which was protected by law in the state where that bakery was located.

>>165822
>doesn't agree with my political belief
>"literal cuck"
Christ you guys are repetitive

free market :^)

>>165926
Yeah, honestly. They're free to do this if they want. It's their business.

>>165832
good. fuck supremacists.
back to your trailer parks

>>165822
i guess i agree.
rest of us should stop pussyfooting with these mongoloids and get together and lynch all the supremacists once and for all.
.

>>165833
why should the rest of us be concerned with the rights of folks who want to take away our rights.
if they lived in another country we would declare war on them.
they shouldn't have any rights if they try to infringe on the human rights of others.

>>165958
That attitude just creates more supremacists, have you learned nothing from the last couple of years?

>>165967
if they have it in 'em to advocate for taking away human rights form others, then let them make themselves known.
All innocent people in the US deserve to live without fear of their human rights being taken by others. If you want a homeland for your race go back to where it comes from.

>have you learned nothing from the last couple of years?
guess not. why should the rest of us live among folks that threaten us for exercising human rights?

>>165969
I think you're making a generalization when it comes to the ideology of those attending. A quote from the article says: "You see this thing going that's going on with Airbnb," he said in a video. "Anybody who is not just in the alt-right, but who is conservative, right-wing or cares about civil liberties should start boycotting Airbnb. Airbnb are cancelling people's reservations to stay in Charlottesville ... based on political ideology."

>>165972
if you're going to knowingly buddy up with folks who wanna rob others of basic human rights then you're defending their efforts. Same in my book. Claiming the rally is for racial supremacists but also some other groups is convenient but unconvincing.

>>165973
that will hold water as soon as they want to suspend the service of communists, anti-white racists, anarchists, etc. etc.

until then it can only really be defended disingenuously and in a self-serving manner.

>>165973
Do you have knowledge that the rally is a self-proclaimed white supremacist rally? It's common in the media nowadays and among many leftists to label people on the right as nazis or white supremacists.

>>165974
I basically agree, although right wing terrorism is twice as more common than islamic terrorism in this country so there's more of a threat.

In general, i don't care about white supremacists or supremacists of any kind because people have the right to believe that. It's not until they demonstrate some coordination and willingness to violently act on their ideology.that it becomes a question of whether giving them a platform will put the rights of others under threat. Same with Al Quaeda

But yeah, if liberals wanna hold a rally in which they explicitly endorse the attendance of anarchists or supremacists of other races, and then they start getting together with the plan to act on their ideology through violence, I totally agree they should be deplatformed too.

>>165977
I agree with you, but I don't believe in the idea that "giving someone a platform leading to violence" is a likely threat, nor do I believe it is grounds for censorship.

>>165977
if right-wing terrorism is more common than islamic terrorism, it's because the right has succeeded in barring muslims from entering the country in large numbers.

i would be extraordinarily surprised if it were different- genuine right-wing violence is essentially unheard of in the west.

unless you are in south american or SE asia and are counting government repression, i suppose.

>White Suproes BTFO by a hotel service

You can't male this shit up lmao

>>165997
I'd need a map to follow that logic

>>165997
>genuine right-wing violence is essentially unheard of in the west.
almost all hate crimes are right wing violence.

>>165988
if it's hate speech, I think it is. I get that we have to set a precedent for protecting expression of all ideas.
But I also think we need to keep it real. We wouldn't allow a terrorist to own weapons even though there exists a right to bear arms. There are always going to be grey areas on every issue. If we had a second chance we would murder hitler and stalin before they could gain power to carry out their agenda if we knew there was a real threat of that happening.

>>166007
>if it's hate speech, I think it is. I get that we have to set a precedent for protecting expression of all ideas.
Sorry, I am very ideologically opposed to the idea of "hate speech". I don't believe you can reasonably say "we believe in free speech, but not that free". Furthermore, giving the government the power to ban speech based on the ideas within the speech sets a dangerous precedent for censorship.
>inb4 "what about calls to violence?"

>But I also think we need to keep it real. We wouldn't allow a terrorist to own weapons even though there exists a right to bear arms.
Are you speaking of a convicted terrorist, or are you referring to the proposed ban based on the no-fly list? If it's the latter, again I disagree, on the basis that being put on the no-fly list can be done without a trial.

>There are always going to be grey areas on any issue.
Apologies if this comes across as rude, but this sounds like something of a cop-out.

>>166003
There's no such thing as a hate crime

>>166009
>Sorry, I am very ideologically opposed to the idea of "hate speech".
I'm not. If you're convincing impressionable people who are liable to commit violence that liberals are out to get you and your family and it's time to kill the muslims and kick the blacks out, you're knowingly contributing to robbing the rights of others. Your right to extend your fist ends at my face. There is a speech analog to that.

>Furthermore, giving the government the power to ban speech based on the ideas within the speech sets a dangerous precedent for censorship.
I agree but many of these groups exist to coopt government to carry out their anti-human-rights agenda. It's a grey area at best.

My comparison to the terrorist was just an analogy I was using to explain that we recognize that all rights have limitations because we live in a society with limited space and resources and no single person or group can be allowed complete freedom. All of our rights are limited.

As far as government policy is concerned, it's just a matter of figuring out the optimal balance that protects the most freedom for everyone. If you had a rising Nazi party or Bolsheviks and knew better than we did in the past, you'd seriously consider stamping that shit out before they trample all over the rights of others.

>>166011
The purpose of criminal justice is to deter crime. We have limited resources to invest in our penal system, we have to figure out how to divvy it up for optimal reduction.

To this effect, crimes committed with particular intentions are more difficult to deter and thus deserve stronger punishments to effectively deter.

Crimes committed with more serious consequences deserve stronger punishments as well.

Hate crimes are unique in the level of damage they do to families and communities as a whole. Crimes driven by ideology, that they are killing someone in service to a greater good, are also typically more difficult to deter.

>>166016
>I'm not. If you're convincing impressionable people who are liable to commit violence that liberals are out to get you and your family and it's time to kill the muslims and kick the blacks out, you're knowingly contributing to robbing the rights of others.
There's a lot to talk about here. First, you're doing the thing that a lot of leftists do - conflating people giving their political opinion with calls to violence. That's not to say that some people don't call for violence, but here you must see where I'm coming from when I say that restricting speech is a slippery slope - conservatives, regardless of their beliefs, are called nazis without regard to their actual beliefs.

Furthermore, a simple but important truth is that people aren't responsible for the actions of other individuals. If you speak your mind and someone else gets it in their head that they should do something horrible after hearing you, regardless of what you said that person is the one responsible.

>Your right to extend your fist ends at my face. There is a speech analog to that.
No, there's not. No matter how much you try to conflate the two, it is not possible to harm someone with your words alive.

>we recognize that all rights have limitations because we live in a society with limited space and resources and no single person or group can be allowed complete freedom. All of our rights are limited.
What do you believe a right is? There are caveats to our system of rights, yes, but to say simply that "all rights have limitations" is no justification at all. The state of our rights being limited may be our current situation, but that doesn't mean it's the way it's meant to be.

>As far as government policy is concerned, it's just a matter of figuring out the optimal balance that protects the most freedom for everyone.
I'm not a utilitarian. People have rights. No matter how much you disagree with them, you cannot take them away.

>>166026
I have nothing against conservatives, even ethnic nationalists sometimes have tolerable platforms, but i do against supremacists. It's core to supremacist ideology that others should live with fewer or no rights.

I get that there's a slippery slope in restricting speech, but there's also a slippery slope to allowing supremacist ideology to be represented in government.
At some point we have to be reasonable and say neither extreme is the right answer.

>Furthermore, a simple but important truth is that people aren't responsible for the actions of other individuals. If you speak your mind and someone else gets it in their head that they should do something horrible after hearing you, regardless of what you said that person is the one responsible.
Of course they are. If I pay someone to carry out a hit, I've broken the law. If I convince an impressionable retard to kill someone, I'm responsible. That person is also responsible, but so am I. I directly and intentionally contributed to that outcome. There was recently a case where a girl was convicted for convincing her boyfriend to commit suicide.

>No, there's not. No matter how much you try to conflate the two, it is not possible to harm someone with your words alive.
Not with the words themsleves but words have consequences.

>What do you believe a right is? There are caveats to our system of rights, yes, but to say simply that "all rights have limitations" is no justification at all. The state of our rights being limited may be our current situation, but that doesn't mean it's the way it's meant to be.
Rights are limited to where they infringe upon rights of others. If people vote someone into power on the promise of genocide, that's the exercise of a right, but it's logical there should a consideration for the rights of those who will then likely be killed. It's a difficult question, determining where government should intervene on behalf of protecting vulnerable; both extremes are fraught with risk.

>>165802
How do they know why these people are visiting Virginia? Seems kind of heavy handed to just ban everyone trying to find lodging there and really sucks for the people who want to make money renting their homes out.

>>165802
once again, a retarded move from a company. limiting itself

>>166020

1. If you can't enter a man's mind, you'll never truly know the intentions of a crime - you can only infer based on evidence, but in the end you can only really punish the crime itself.

2. Judging the motive as more or less moral is ajudicial and not within the legal scope of a judge or jury

3. Hatred as a motive does not make a crime more or less heinous within the framework of common law, because it implies some sort of partial and subjective determination in it's judgment which erodes common law precedent rulings

4. Hate crimes are too broad in their definition and have been shown to be too easily misguided by social justice and "fairness rulings" ie. Giving historically oppressed groups their due, and giving privledged groups their "comoupance".

>>165964
What rights are you talking about? The right to book a place on Airbnb? Or are you just virtue signaling to fellow anti-progressives.

Like I said before, the laws of most places treat sexual orientation as protected, whereas political beliefs are not. If someone doesn't want to serve you because you're a loudmouth partisan, I don't see the issue.

Nevermind that white supremacists literally want to take away others rights lol

>>166016
>I'm not.
That's because you are stupid. In the first place, it's impossible to even define "hate speech" in a legal sense. What even is it? Speech that offends. In its broadest sense, you can even make it mean speech you disagree with or don't like. It's completely contrary to the concept of free speech. It's also nothing more than a lawyers playground to get people in jail for non-crimes because its not possible to define it fairly.

You can't say you support free speech but don't support "hate speech". Free speech implies the right to hate as well. The concept of "hate speech" is backwards and dumb as shit.

Really? It's natural human behavior....MK showing it's face once again. It's not a pure human bloodline race doing this stuff, it's another race....the blind leading the blind...typical. WAKE UP! maybe not... it might give you a hangover.

>>166000
...

>>165802
They can impossibly know legally.

>>165802
they're white supremacists, this is fine. Why does the right choose the most retarded hills to die on?

>>165967

So what? Bend over backwards for supremacists and let them walk all over you? No, fuck that.

Glad Airbnb said fuck you to white trash racists.

>>165977
>although right wing terrorism is twice as more common than islamic terrorism
VERY FAKE NEWS

>>166020
"Hate crimes" do not exist in the United States Constitution or laws.

>>166225
Anyone you dislike is a "white supremacist". Come up with something new for a change, no one buys it anymore.

>>166228
The left: they love to deny services to people they disagree with, and bitch when the right doesn't want to serve them.

Why? Because they think everyone else is evil. Key aspect to ideological thinking is giving the opposing argument no weight and making it as weak as possible in your mind.

>>165977
>Right wing terrorism

The MSM likes to talk about this mysterious right wing terrorism. For the life of me I can't recall it ever happening.

>>166235
Because it never happens, it's a made-up boogeyman. That's yellow press for you.

I'm getting real sick of everyfucking thing being a political statement. Companies used to just provide service. People didn't used to get butthurt and organize mass boycotts. I'm not defending the left or the right here...I'm sick to death of all the butthurt whining from both sides.

>>165958
Fuck off lefty, We are the majority and we are in charge. You can't snuff us out and we'll kill you if you try.

>>165977
>although right wing terrorism is twice as more common than islamic terrorism in this country so there's more of a threat.
A total lie.

>>166003
Hate crimes are a stupid metric. All crime is "hate crime".

>>166225
White supremacy is a good thing, we are better.

>>166235
>>166238
Dylann roof
The DC snipers
KKK
Tim McVeigh
Eric Rudolph
ISIS
Al quaeda

There's plenty more right wing terrorism. I don't know what you two are talking about.

>>166289
>ISIS
You could at least try.

>>166289
>Niggers shooting people from a car
>Right-Wing terrorists

>>166289
>ISIS
>Al quaeda
Islamic terrorism is not "right wing american terrorist" You idiot.

>The DC snipers
Again more Muslims

>Tim McVeigh
>Eric Rudolph
Yeah we know you've got 2 now

>KKK
Not a terrorist group.

>Dylann roof
Mentally ill Mass shooter not a terrorist.

>>166289
>>166289
>KKK
Jesus LOL

THEY WERE TERRORISTS BACK WHEN THEY WERE DEMOCRATS IDIOT

look at them now. Right wing and they don't do SHIT.

It has been well documented that the majority of terrorism comes from leftists.

>>166297
>Niggers nigging is the same thing as all of the above examples killing in the name of traditionally conservative or fundamentalist ideals

>>166303
>right wing american terrorist
He didn't use the words American in there, but to address all of your other mental gymnastics.

>Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

KKK - racially charged acts of terrorism that included lynching until 1910, cross burnings from 1910 to now, and verbal vigils to harass minorities from 1910 to now. Every major Christian denomination in the country has denounced them. But it's cool that you think a group calling for extermination in the name of racial purity isn't terrorism. Thanks for your valuable opinion.

>Dylann roof
>Mentally ill Mass shooter not a terrorist.
Yeah mental illness is definitely a contributing factor to terrorism. It doesn't negate the terrorism itself. He developed TWO racially charged manifestos calling for the extermination of niggers in the country.

>>166312
>majority of terrorism comes from leftists
Gonna need some sources on that, as the vast majority of terrorism comes from muzzies, and muzzie extremists are among the most conservative groups on the planet, literally sharing almost every American viewpoint on conservatism, only actually acting on them.

I wish you cucks could experience some proper leftist terrorism, but exterminating you brainlets from the gene pool in the name of eugenics is generally looked down upon in polite society :^)

>>166318
Literal Nazi right here. It figures, Nazis are left-wing.

1/2
>>166031
>It's core to supremacist ideology that others should live with fewer or no rights.
Ironic then, considering your support for taking away other's rights.

>I get that there's a slippery slope in restricting speech, but there's also a slippery slope to allowing supremacist ideology to be represented in government.
You don't get to be the one who decides what is and isn't supremacist, nor can you bar someone from office simply because of their beliefs. The government can't either.

>Of course they are. If I pay someone to carry out a hit, I've broken the law. If I convince an impressionable retard to kill someone, I'm responsible. That person is also responsible, but so am I. I directly and intentionally contributed to that outcome.
There's a difference in those two scenarios, and also a misrepresentation. Convincing someone isn't some spell you cast on people - that guy was still the one who, as an adult of sound body and mind, made the decision. Censoring speech also leads to people misrepresenting others to get them silenced. It'd be easy to say that someone was advocating for violence to get them shut down (it's been done before)

>>166031
2/2
>There was recently a case where a girl was convicted for convincing her boyfriend to commit suicide.
The ACLU protested that case's outcome. I don't agree with it either.

>Not with the words themsleves but words have consequences.
Jesus, you sound like a soccer mom. I'm gonna link the Hays code - read it and think of how much you sound like it.
http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html

>Rights are limited to where they infringe upon rights of others.
Right, but the simple act of speech or voting cannot in itself violate someone else's rights. You're trying to jump the gun, and it'll only lead to disastrous consequences. Don't get me wrong here - if anyone ever attempted to, say, lynch people or perform a genocide - I would be utterly against that. I just don't believe that the discussion of ANYTHING should be banned. It's a problem you run into often, defending free speech or anybody's rights - people associate you with the group you're defending.

You should read this - http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

>>166289
So a white kid, historical anecdotes and Muslims

>>166234
>The right: they love to deny services to people they disagree with, and bitch when the left doesn't want to serve them.
>
>Why? Because they think everyone else is evil. Key aspect to ideological thinking is giving the opposing argument no weight and making it as weak as possible in your mind.

>>166318
>KKK
Not a terrorist group anymore then. Move on.
>Dylann roof
Not terrorism, just psychosis.

BLM is a terrorist group,
Anti-fa
The few mass shooters have all been liberal democrats.

>Business denies gays, lesbians and trans people
>BUSINESSES CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT!
>Business deletes the accounts of people attending a white supremacist rally
>THIS IS DISCRIMINATION. MUH FREEDOM OF SPEECH! REEEE!! FUCKING SJW CUCKS.

Cool

>>166423
Discriminating based on sexual orientation is against the law, discriminating based on political beliefs is not.

Soz dawg

>>166455
The right would have had us believe that sexual orientation -is- political belief until Milo Yiannopolis started rattling off their favorite talking points. Not for lack of trying after, though. Just don't mention him and you can compartmentalize your voter groups safely away from one another.

Fraud is against the law and hurts others. If somebody commits fraud and you put up a wholehearted defense for them, you're still an asshole.

If they would just call them "white pride" rallies, they'd avoid much of the backlash.

>No they wouldn't. They're white.

>>166413
I've never read such a concise non-argument in my life before. This is the most beautiful "I'm right, you're wrong" I've ever seen. Bravo, anon.

>>165802
>background checks on those that engages in what it deems as innappropriate behaviour.

More corporate control-freak behaviour. Bad enough that government entities do this.

>>166351
>>There was recently a case where a girl was convicted for convincing her boyfriend to commit suicide.
>The ACLU protested that case's outcome. I don't agree with it either.
There was actually nothing wrong with its outcome. The reason she was convicted by the judge wasn't because she convinced him to kill himself, but rather because when he got out of the car she told him to get the fuck back in and to not pussy out.

White Supremacy is a cancer! History has proven this time and time again. Plain and Simple!

>>165969
being a disgusting faggot that gets free government handouts isn't a right you cuck. the bill of rights extends to freaks of all shapes and sizes. kys.

>>166560
>being a disgusting faggot that gets free government handouts isn't a right you cuck
lolwut

>the bill of rights extends to freaks of all shapes and sizes. kys.
i know but it shouldn't extend to supremacists working with the intention to take away the human rights of others. treat 'em like al quaeda i say. off to a secret detention center with these freaks.

>>166506
>There was actually nothing wrong with its outcome. The reason she was convicted by the judge wasn't because she convinced him to kill himself, but rather because when he got out of the car she told him to get the fuck back in and to not pussy out.
What about that situation makes it "nothing wrong"? He was still the one in control of his actions. Is telling someone "kys" now a crime?

>>166571
>i know but it shouldn't extend to supremacists working with the intention to take away the human rights of others. treat 'em like al quaeda i say. off to a secret detention center with these freaks.
This is antithetical to the idea of rights. If you believe in rights or in liberty you must believe in rights and liberty for all. Imprisoning someone for their beliefs (no matter how disagreeable) is tyrannical.

>>166575
>This is antithetical to the idea of rights. If you believe in rights or in liberty you must believe in rights and liberty for all. Imprisoning someone for their beliefs (no matter how disagreeable) is tyrannical.

we shouldn't just imprison terrorists for their belief, but for their avowed intention to act on them, and the fact that they have an opportunity to make good on that intention, which would result in the loss of human rights of others.

I love the irony of how this shit company says hosts can't refuse minorities but then they refuse whites

>>166585
nice deflection
who am i kidding, conservatives are dumb enough to fall for it.

>>166586

How mad are you that cuckolding isn't an official sport

>>165997
Dylan Roof

>>166580
Nobody is imprisoned for "avowed intention". Terrorists are imprisoned for their actions or for their attempts that create a clear and imminent danger, not for their words.

>>166351
If you don't agree with the outcome of that texting case then you didn't read the transcripts. No reasonable person could come to the conclusion that that girl bore no responsibility for that young man's death.

>>165822
Haha! In this day and age you should just presume every service is run by cucks until proven otherwise.

>>166232
These people are actually white supremacists tho

>>166607
no, terrorists are imprisoned because they plan on taking away other peoples' human rights and take actions to bring that to fruition.

>not for their words
words have consequences.
convincing someone to kill themselves or others is illegal
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texting-suicide-case-michelle-carter-sentencing-hearing/
>Texting suicide case: Michelle Carter sentenced to serve at least 15 months

Every right has limitations to protect the rights of others. No one person has complete freedom. No right can be or was ever limitless in the US.

>>166603
You sit down with a black family and look them in the eyes and tell them Dylann Roof wasn't a terrorist. I want to know how that goes for you.

>>166621
Just kill them niggers desu.

>>166621
I want you to sit down with a black family, look them in the eyes and tell them they were not eqyption royalty. I want to know how that goes for you.

>>166631
WE

>>166633

WUZ

>>166640
KANGZ

>>166645

N

>>166647
SHIET

>>166617
>Every right has limitations to protect the rights of others.
You can't violate someone else's rights just by talking. It's not possible.

>>165818
>>believes whites should be a protected class in the US
>>believes blacks are more prone to violence or lower intelligence

Gee golly, it's almost like they're fucking white supremacists

>>166274
>hate crime
Hate crime = crime committed purely based on race, gender, etc.

>>166011
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249

>>166231
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249

For fucks sake where do you people even come from?

>>166707
Did you just forget that SCOTUS is a thing?

>>166710

What are you talking about?

>>166706
the second one is literally true.

it is evidence of the existence of blinders that you can assert otherwise- care to explain the absurd tendency of increasing black population to increase crime?

everywhere governed by blacks on this planet is in various stages of complete destruction. it is because their natural tendencies are incapable of maintaining civilization.

>>166575
>What about that situation makes it "nothing wrong"?
Intent. This situation is different to every other and you are an idiot for trying to play it in extremes and skew it. The judge himself noted that her telling him to get back in was what really got her convicted. Judge didn't give a shit about her going kys, he cared about the fact she clearly showed in her actions she was trying to kill someone when she told him to get the fuck back in.

You are trying to simplify the situation and that's not how it works. Laws in the first place aren't absolutes, that's why we have courtrooms. If laws were absolutes, you could walk into a airport and threaten to blow the cunt up with a bomb. You have the right to free speech and to hate, but in this situation with her actions(yes, words ARE actions) she was trying to fucking kill someone. Telling him to get back in and not be a giant fucking pussy showed her clear murderous intent.

>>166575
I guess it's a good thing that getting a reservation on AirBNB isn't a right then, ya mook.

>>166805
>Various empires in the past that even the Portuguese praised
>history recorded with scrolls and preserved in argitechure destroyed and burned to the ground
>numerous African countries doing fine and have steady growth
>others still recovering from proxy wars, civil war, drug war, and radical Islam

"dey din does shit" - Kletus

>>165975
When you carry around a Nazi flag what are people supposed to think?

>>167649
nothing?
they dont think anything of people that carry commie flags in lefty protests.

>>165822
no
you are the one getting cucked
fucking stupid term

>>165802
>Airbnb said it is permanently deactivating the accounts of people who are attempting to use the website's service to find lodging to attend an upcoming white supremacist rally in Virginia.
I don't agree with them discriminating based on political thought but it's their property they're letting you use with, I assume, a agreement you have to electronically sign so they can tell people to fuck off for whatever dumbass reason they want.

>>167805
>I don't agree with them discriminating based on political thought, but

olol, every time. You commies deserve everything that is coming your way.

>>167806
If anything that's a libertarian viewpoint. They signed a contract by being on that site when they clicked "I Agree".

>>167805
It's all well and good to "refuse to provide service..." until you remember the baker that did the same thing regarding a gay wedding...then was fined for it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. AirBnb can fuck right off and take the ass-reaming lawsuit that's coming...

>>167822
You don't seem to understand.

Mass banning people from your hotel service because you don't like who they voted for is perfectly fine and not discrimination whatsoever.
But refusing to create a wedding cake shaped like a ruined bloody asshole with cum leaking out of it is a vile hate crime.

>>167822
That was wrong though. Which is also why what Airbnb is doing is fine. I'm not sure what you're not getting here.

>and take the ass-reaming lawsuit that's coming
No, no they won't see again the difference is that to make an account on the site you need to agree to the terms of service which very likely include a section essentially saying "we will ban your ass if we feel like it".

>>167824
You're also strawmanning the fuck out of what I said. I mean, you get why forcing the baker to do things he didn't like was bad and should not happen right? Well in this case the baker is Airbnb and you're upset because now the shoe is on the other foot so to speak. Airbnb should not ban people because of their political views but they are and should be within their rights to do so in the same way that baker should have been within his rights to refuse service to people on any grounds.

>>166069
It's not at all you delusional retard. Have a spec of decency and not sperg out to kill another person.

>>167825
So if you sign a contract with a company which has a clause that says they can essentially tear up at any point if the mood strikes them, and they do because they believe you are an extremist, that is perfectly fine. But if another company refuses to enter into a contract with you because you are gay, then that is not fine. Did I get the gist of what you were saying correct?

>>167833
Yeah, because political thought is not protected, and sexual orientation is. Not sure how many times you have to be told that.

politics is a meme

>>165802
I work for Airbnb. Well, one of the company they outsource their call center jobs to. Meaning, I'm one of the hundreds of folks you'll get on the phone when you call in to customer support.

I can literally re-activate accounts if I want to. We have that ability. Not joking here.

Does anyone of a list of names whose accounts got deleted? Write it here and I'll get them back on.

First and last name will do just fine.

>>167833
>>167891
You're both retarded. Unless you're samefagging in which case you're a retard.

>>167895
and Trump is the God of memes

>>167964
This is a dox request.

>>167978
lol no shit, but let 'em try anyway

>>165802
i have a cosco membership. can cosco do the same thing?

>>167648
>African countries doing fine
>african countries
>DOING FINE
What the actual fuck are you smoking?

>>168634
Namibia and Botswana are actually doing fine. The most of the dirt poor are tribal people who choose to live a traditional lifestyle. Seychelles and Mauritius are also doing great with multicultural societies. A lot of these countries have major problems due to the continent being so in stable, but the standard of living is better than a lot of European towns or countries.

>>167807
except they're not going to delete the people on the left there to riot

>>168642
Mauritius doing great? Are you retarded?

How they distinguish left libtard antifa from dumbass right nazis?

>>168812
They'll call to Soros and ask if these are the retards he funded or not.

Unite the revolutionaries.

>>166003
You literal stupid fuck

>>165828
I kind of doubt they would have done the same if it were Black Lives Matter. Sure sounds like discrimination to me.