Simon & Schuster cancels the publication of Sen. Josh Hawley's upcoming book "The Tyranny of Big Tech"

[Vicetrailia]

What's that? I didn't catch your reply.

Is that a No? You will not object to companies denying service to atheists or pro-abortion activists? You seem to be having some throat problems answering the question.

What you are asking isnt fucking realistic and doesn’t even mirror this situation. You’re asking some random ass shit, that won’t do you any good.

“if blamtifa says that 1+1=3 would you not object to companies denying services.”

You get it? It’s dumb to ask.

 

[B-universe]

What you are asking isnt fucking realistic and doesn’t even mirror this situation. You’re asking some random ass shit, that won’t do you any good.

“if blamtifa says that 1+1=3 would you not object to companies denying services.”

You get it?

You can't bring yourself to answer a basic Yes or No question?

It's called a hypothetical. Apparently you've never encountered a hypothetical question.

"A hypothetical question is based on supposition, opinion, personal belief, or conjecture," (source)

If a company, whose owners are extremely religious people, decide they will deny service to an atheist or a pro-abortion activist, would you object?

It's very simple.

Let's test the congruency of your principles.

It’s dumb to ask

No, it's not dumb to ask. It is a method routinely used in philosophy, which apparently you've never even come across. Your panic attack is noted. Your dodge and complete ignorance is acknowledged.

 

[Vicetrailia]

You can't bring yourself to answer a basic Yes or No question?

It's called an hypothetical. Apparently you've never encountered an hypothetical question.

"A hypothetical question is based on supposition, opinion, personal belief, or conjecture," (source)

If a company, whose owners are extremely religious people, decide they will deny service to an atheist or a pro-abortion activist, would you object?

It's very simple.

Let's test the congruency of your principles.

No, because extremely religious people already do that and generally have the right from what I understand. Hell even if you are gay they do.

Also I am a capitalist, I’m pro business centric so my principles will not pass purity tests.

 

[B-universe]

No, because extremely religious people already do that and generally have the right from what I understand. Hell even if you are gay they do.

Also I am a capitalist, I’m pro business centric so my principles will not pass purity tests.

So your answer to the question is that you would not object?

 

[HeresJohnny]

Being against private publishers being able to set their own standards sounds pretty Communist to me.

Oh spare me, lol. Your side tried to hold a gun to a baker’s head to force him to make a cake for a gay wedding that he objected to on religious grounds. This was an existing publishing deal that was quashed because of things that happened that had nothing to do with the author or the subject of the book. Hawley had the audacity to object to certifying an election that he felt was not proper and in many ways illegal. How does that correlate to or have anything to do with the riot? Hawley probably assumed, as most did, that it was just a “mostly peaceful protest.”

Regardless, I’m not saying any kind of legal authority should force S&S to publish Hawley’s book, only that their reasons for doing so proved his point, which they absolutely did. By banning people on social media and preventing those we disagree with from getting book deals, it eliminates the messy need to burn the books or squash the dissidents who dare speak out. It’s literally the abortion of thought, killing the ideas before they’re ever born. What a wonderful side of history to be on.

 

[belmarduk]

Oh spare me, lol. Your side tried to hold a gun to a baker’s head to force him to make a cake for a gay wedding that he objected to on religious grounds. This was an existing publishing deal that was quashed because of things that happened that had nothing to do with the author or the subject of the book. Hawley had the audacity to object to certifying an election that he felt was not proper and in many ways illegal. How does that correlate to or have anything to do with the riot? Hawley probably assumed, as most did, that it was just a “mostly peaceful protest.”

Regardless, I’m not saying any kind of legal authority should force S&S to publish Hawley’s book, only that their reasons for doing so proved his point, which they absolutely did. By banning people on social media and preventing those we disagree with from getting book deals, it eliminates the messy need to burn the books or squash the dissidents who dare speak out. It’s literally the abortion of thought, killing the ideas before they’re ever born. What a wonderful side of history to be on.

A gun to the head of bakers who refused to bake a cake for gay weddings? I remember lawsuits but nothing of that nature. Hawley had a book deal prior to this and I’m quite sure Simon & Schuster were well aware that Hawley was a conservative when they signed him. It was his dis disgusting actions such as giving thumbs up to the violent mob which lost him the book deal. Simon & Schuster were well within their rights to revoke it. I was always under the impression that conservatives had principles, which included freedom for private business. Without those principles, you will continue to hemorrhage votes and further retreat into your safe spaces likes parler and OANN.

 

[HeresJohnny]

A gun to the head of bakers who refused to bake a cake for gay weddings? I remember lawsuits but nothing of that nature. Hawley had a book deal prior to this and I’m quite sure Simon & Schuster were well aware that Hawley was a conservative when they signed him. It was his dis disgusting actions such as giving thumbs up to the violent mob which lost him the book deal. Simon & Schuster were well within their rights to revoke it. I was always under the impression that conservatives had principles, which included freedom for private business. Without those principles, you will continue to hemorrhage votes and further retreat into your safe spaces likes parler and OANN.

The lawsuit was an attempt to force the baker to make the cake, was it not?

Hawley gave a thumbs up to people while they were breaking in, or just the completely peaceful part of the protest? Conversely, you just voted for a Vice President who petitioned to allow violent rioters free -- one of which was freed by the fund she was advocating for kicked an innocent man so badly that he was brain damaged, so spare me your faux outrage and false moral indignation. Also spare me your lecture about principles seeing as your side just won all both houses and the presidency after openly advocating for riots. I think the Republicans will be just fine.

 

[belmarduk]

The lawsuit was an attempt to force the baker to make the cake, was it not?

Hawley gave a thumbs up to people while they were breaking in, or just the completely peaceful part of the protest? Conversely, you just voted for a Vice President who petitioned to allow violent rioters free -- one of which was freed by the fund she was advocating for kicked an innocent man so badly that he was brain damaged, so spare me your faux outrage and false moral indignation. Also spare me your lecture about principles seeing as your side just won all both houses and the presidency after openly advocating for riots. I think the Republicans will be just fine.

How did you manage to miss my point completely? Your lame “but both sides” argument has nothing to do with the issue at hand. If a publisher were to cancel a deal with Kamala Harris because of any of her actions that publisher would be well within its rights to do it.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

Hundreds gather in St. Louis calling for Hawley to resign

About 300 demonstrators gathered, spoke and concluded a protest by painting a sign, "Resign Hawley" in the middle of Broadway on Saturday, Jan. 9, 2021, outside the historic Old Courthouse

www.stltoday.com

About 300 demonstrators gathered, spoke and concluded a protest by painting a sign, "Resign Hawley" in the middle of Broadway on Saturday, Jan. 9, 2021, outside the historic Old Courthouse in downtown St. Louis. Speakers called for Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo), to resign following a seizure and occupation of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. by an angry Pro-Trump mob on Wednesday. Hawley was the first Senate Republican to announce he would raise objections to the Electoral College results.

 

[Robot Carnival]

SS is within their rights even if not going into any "woke"/"cancel culture" stuff. the arthur of this book had done harm in the eyes of a lot of people in the public after what happened on the 6th. publishing this book could damage the publisher's reputation and business, so they have the right to cancel that contract. let's be honest, this is more business than ethics.

 

[Cleared_Hot]

How ironic. And that books title became even more appropriate immediately after this decision. I definitely want to buy it now and I will.

 

[JSoup]

Getting the usual "I didn't read it but here's my review anyway" that things like these always attract:

The Tyranny of Big Tech

Missouri Senator Josh Hawley argues that big tech companies—Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple—represent the gravest threat to American ...

www.goodreads.com

Hmm. Bood was removed. The thread is gone, but there were people all in an uproar on both sides of the argument on Goodread's forums. Mods and administration tends to be very against taking a side, simply said it's standard to remove a book from their database when there is no publisher.

 

[Xenon]

That’s not censorship you quack!

Sure it is, it's just not government censorship.

 

[JSoup]

Since this book keeps getting shuffled around by tracking sites due to a lack of a publisher, I'll make a note to bump this thread if it's not already on the first page when the book is released.