There's a point where this needs to stop and we've clearly passed it.
The danger of filtering financial transactions through what is effectively a political-correctness proxy is that it inhibits the only practical means we have for peaceful social change.
Can you use PayPal to raise money for pro-life causes? For a political candidate who supports restricting transgender surgery for children? What about a news outlet that publishes out-of-mainstream opinions?
When the balance of power shifts in the United States, there will be backlash against things like this, and it's not going to be pretty.
>Can you use PayPal to raise money for pro-life causes? For a political candidate who supports restricting transgender surgery for children? What about a news outlet that publishes out-of-mainstream opinions?
In case you're reading this and think that you don't have to worry about this because this would only affect the right, keep in mind that as recently as a few decades ago LGBT was considered taboo and talking about it would get you sanctioned in society. If something like this was enacted it would be even harder to change the status quo regardless of the side you're on, and most certainly in a way that hurts minorities.
This is what I try and bring up whenever there's talk from one party about ending the filibuster or packing the supreme court. Sure, it sounds good now while you're team is in power, but power is a fickle thing, and at some point you'll be on the receiving end of that stick.
Do you really think that if the GOP win the House, Senate, and Presidency, they won't scrap the filibuster to ban abortion nationwide in 2025?
You're right that setting new precedents is a dangerous strategy, but showing restraint against an opponent that doesn't follow the unwritten rules (and even some of the written ones) is just asking to be taken advantage of, like a losing player in the Prisoner's Dilemma.
I'm reluctant to risk my fake internet points, but I think you are being over-confident if you imagine there will be "zero attempts". I assume that to count as an "attempt" you would require there to be an actual vote, rather than just an informal canvassing of senators to gauge the level of support, and I further assume that you would concede I was right if the filibuster was "only" scrapped for a single vote (not necessarily related to abortion).
Anyway, to give more context, a bill to ban (some) abortions was introduced to the Senate[0] this year, and although Mitch McConnell has said he wouldn't scrap the filibuster for such a law if he had a majority[1], Biden has raised the stakes by saying he would support a carve-out to ensure the availability of abortions[2]. Senators are already discussing who should succeed McConnell[3], but his term ends in 2026, so perhaps I was hasty to suggest we'd see a change to the filibuster in 2025.
I totally agree with you - I don't really like this as a matter of policy. It's one thing to have Paypal close your account and just decline to work with you. That seems fair enough in an open economy. Fining people for something they do outside of their platform is just crazy. That actual "we're the police now" levels of absurdity.
I can think this is a bad move by Paypal and also think OP's implicit "and thus people working at Paypal should now be harmed for this" as being an insane escalation.
I'm trying to find where OP implied "and thus people working at Paypal should now be harmed for this" and I'm not finding it. Are you making crap up, or did I miss something?
> inhibits the only practical means we have for peaceful social change.
> there will be backlash against things like this, and it's not going to be pretty.
Both of those are certainly, to me, a "polite" implication that they see this action as being part of a path towards something other than "peaceful social change" that "will not be pretty" during the "backlash to things like this".
What sort of un-peaceful social change in backlash to this that you think will involve Paypal that won't be some sort of danger to the employees there? The direct implication is that this is removing a non-violent option for OP to cause change, and that their thus-violent backlash to this will not be pretty.
Sure, it's not naming specific people at Paypal who should be harmed, but this reads very much like the sort of vague pseudo-threats that are common these days that skirt the line of being an actual "threat" that is legally problematic, but still conveys intent to cause concern to those the poster disagrees with.
It's not much less blunt than "people who did this are going to be first against the wall in the revolution"
The danger of filtering financial transactions through what is effectively a political-correctness proxy is that it inhibits the only practical means we have for peaceful social change.
Can you use PayPal to raise money for pro-life causes? For a political candidate who supports restricting transgender surgery for children? What about a news outlet that publishes out-of-mainstream opinions?
When the balance of power shifts in the United States, there will be backlash against things like this, and it's not going to be pretty.