He thinks that private companies shouldn't be forced to hire blacks and women for diversity and gender quotas

>he thinks that private companies shouldn't be forced to hire blacks and women for diversity and gender quotas
>he also thinks private companies like twitter can't ban people as they wish

Explain your hypocrisy user

I think that a private entity can do whatever it pleases as long as it doesn't hurt anyone

how is that hypocrisy?

I don't think a company should be able to categorically refuse to hire blacks or women though. They should give everyone a chance.

Pick one or the other and I'll be happy. The issue is that business is currently control to benefit the left, while given freedom where it benefits the left.

underrepresentation of women and blacks in leadership roles hurts them

>companies shouldn't be forced to do what lefties want
>companies should be forced to do what i want

Anyone using and taking serious twitter

First one actually breaks discrimination laws. If I apply for a job and they throw my resume out because I'm a white male and they need a diversity hire, that is breaking the law.

Both of these are cases of discrimination. In one, there is discrimination based on gender/skin color, in the other there is discrimination based on political/social/etc views. Why shouldn't I be against all forms of discrimination Russian user?

1. Twitter is a publicly traded corporation, not private.
2. That's not hypocrisy. Advocating certain things and being against others is just politics.
By your retarded definition everyone is a hypocrite by default.

facebook, twitter, should all have to conform to free speech if they want to operate in the usa. the usa is the largest consumer market. they would do what they were told. the government doesn't do this because they want eradicate free speech and every other right the people of the usa have

It doesn't

I don't think free enterprise should exist.

Twatter and faceberg act a lot like communication companies, and millions of people rely on them in that capacity. Once such companies get as large as these, they should be classified as "common carriers", just as a telephone companies are in the United States. Our telephone companies are not state-owned, and they are all for-profit businesses, but we as a people would find it unacceptable if they were allowed by law to pick and choose which people could make calls, and to whom, especially based on the political content of those calls. Again, twatter and faceberg are so large and indispensable to the way Americans communicate that they should be mandated by law to carry all messages equally to their intended audiences.

Are you really Canadian?

this is ironically a leftist argument

interesting

Private companies I dislike should be forced to hire blacks and women for diversity and gender quotas, while private companies I like should not be forced to hire blacks and women for diversity and gender quotas

Private companies I like should be able to ban people as they wish, while private companies I dislike should not be able to ban people as they wish

Not hard to understand

This is unironically a shitpost.

Smells bad.

>>he also thinks private companies like twitter can't ban people as they wish
Not while enjoying "safe harbor" government prosecution protection against potentially unlawful shit on their service.

Why use things that actively spy on you? Do you even RMS?

criticizing a company for doing a thing is not the same as advocating that thing being banned by law, though there's nary a difference between the two inside the leftist's mind so I can see why you're confused