Is freedom of speech really that important? Why or why not?

Is freedom of speech really that important? Why or why not?

What is the history of the idea of freedom of speech? Why is it even a thing?

newsweek.com/2016/06/03/college-campus-free-speech-thought-police-463536.html

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=iY57ErBkFFE
youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Take a look at past societies that have silenced and regulated speech and you'll find your answer

Thank freedom of speech that you can ask these stupid questions with self-evident answers and can link to news articles that are not owned by the government.

you can openly & freely complain about the taste of the cum you gurgle everyday willingly.
It helps some people to convince them that they dont look like complete idiots to others.

But what is so important about it? What are the benefits? Apparently not everyone agrees that it's that important, according to this article. So how would you persuade them that it's important? Is it just a matter of taste, or is there more to it than that?

I couldn't give a flying fuck what they think
The constitution was written for a reason, and unless you want to abolish the basic principles of this country you can move to Somalia or the EU

What's with this namby pamby idea that free speech must be practised with restraint? Let's take the example of a man in a theatre shouting fire. OK. Do you have eyes? Do you see any flames, any smoke? Do have have a nose? Can you smell any smoke? Do you have ears? Do you hear the roar of flame, the crackle of burning timber? Do you feel searing heat on your flesh? No? Well, instead of behaving like a primitive fucking animal, maybe you should calmly and rationally try to ascertain what the situation is. Ask the man why he is shouting fire. Ask around, does anyone else detect a fire? Send people out to look for the fire. Nope, nothing? Well, here's what happens. The man who yelled fire is now branded a liar. He is now known to be untrustworthy. Ostracism is an incredibly powerful punishment against rule breakers. Why should anyone hire him? Why should anyone listen to what he says? Why should anyone form a relationship with him?

You see how this works? Instead of silencing him, expose him.

But WHY was freedom of speech included in the First Amendment? WHY is it a basic principle of this country? Was it just because people liked the idea of being able to say what they want, or is there more to it than that?

So retards like you can make shitty threads on a wapanese image forum asking simple questions with simple answers. So the government doesn't regulate everything, are you fucking stupid?

Why is it better if the government doesn't regulate speech than if it does? Is it just a matter of taste? What if the majority wants the government to control speech? What would be wrong with that?

And is it really just about government regulation? The history of freedom of speech has some stuff about the church in there too.

Why do so many people nowadays want to limit free speech? Why aren't they as convinced as you are that it's important?

>Is freedom of speech really that important?
Of course it is

>Why or why not?
Because a country that does not have free speech can never be truly free.

>Why do so many people nowadays want to limit free speech? Why aren't they as convinced as you are that it's important?
Because they've been raised by media and modern campuses that people's feelings are more important than their rights

With free speech, you can accuse a presidential candidate of criminal wrongdoing and if you have evidence to support that claim, you can change the course of history. If you do not have free speech, you'll wind up in six garbage bags.

It isn't just freedom to insult random citizens, it's freedom to teach, freedom to accuse, freedom to criticise.

>Because a country that does not have free speech can never be truly free.
So what? Why is freedom that important? Maybe it's just a luxury and isn't needed. And you can still be free to do lots of things even if you can't say certain things. Why do you need to be free to say every little thing that pops into your head?

>Because they've been raised by media and modern campuses that people's feelings are more important than their rights
Well maybe they are. Why should you be able to hurt someone's feelings? Because it hurts your feelings if you can't? Why are your feelings about freedom of speech more important than someone else's feelings about their self-worth?

And we're not talking about government restrictions on speech here. This is going on in universities, and it's largely voluntary. Students don't want to hear things, and so professors aren't saying them. What's wrong with that?

>It isn't just freedom to insult random citizens, it's freedom to teach, freedom to accuse, freedom to criticise.

What happens that is so bad if we don't have those freedoms? Maybe it would be OK.

And what if people are teaching false things, or making baseless criticisms? Why should people be allowed to do that?

if you don't understand the concept and importance of freedom, go read some thomas paine you fucking autist.

stop being a 5 year old responding to everything with "why?"

What if we prohibited people from asking why? Would that be OK?

And why can't you just explain it? Are we just supposed to accept it on faith that freedom of speech is important? Is it like a religion?

If so, lots of people are falling away from the religion of free speech. Apparently they do not understand why it is important, or they think other things are more important.

Forcing them to accept freedom of speech itself seems to be antithetical to freedom of speech. So we need to persuade them. Why are they not persuaded? The reasons must not be very good if so many people are not persuaded.

And nobody here can even give a coherent reason why it's important.

Maybe that's why freedom of speech is under attack, because they don't know why it's important. So that's why I'm asking.

If I don't have the freedom to teach, then people will end up believing dangerous nonsense like racial equality and communism. If I don't have the freedom to accuse, then some rich fuck can rape my wife and I can't say anything about it. If I don't have freedom to criticise, then how is anything supposed to change?

If someone is teaching falsities, then, ideally, you can teach the truth to counter it.

It's about control.

Are you okay with someone else controlling what you are or are not allowed to say?

I'll say why I think it's important. It's because we do not actually know anything. We have no kind of privileged access to the truth. And we can never really know if what we think is true is true. And yet, it is only by knowing the truth that we can solve our most important problems.

So, our best bet for knowing the truth is to allow all ideas to battle with each other, and whatever ideas can survive these battles will be accepted provisionally as true until defeated by another idea.

But if an idea is censored and not allowed into the battle, it might be true, and we would never know it. The only way to know is by letting it battle other ideas and be defeated. In fact, if we fear to allow an idea into the battle, it suggests that we are afraid it is true and will win the battle, and so it has to be kept out a priori so we cannot find this out.

youtube.com/watch?v=iY57ErBkFFE

But it's not one person doing the controlling. It's often a large group of people doing it. Maybe sometimes it's the majority. Isn't that OK?

And what does it matter if I don't like people controlling what I say? If the majority doesn't mind being controlled, they get to decide. And it appears that there are growing numbers of people who don't like freedom of speech.

OH I see you posted on Sup Forums, we are taking your family and everything you own away from you, putting you into a cell without question, we will probably murder you, put your family into camps or worse murder them for treason.

That, is the reason free speech is important.

Btw, trolling is good when you don't look like a moron ;)

Damn you are a pedantic little fuck
I take it you like the way the world is right now especially since you defend the current regime which now that it is happy where freedom of speech has been used to serve their interests they are happy to be rid of it
A majority of people also were happy with auto de fes and drowning witches
Also a majority of people are as dumb as you are so of course they want to get rid of freedom of speech because they think they are fine without it and that they would never be punished under these new laws only those "ebul nasty wascists"

>Forcing them to accept freedom of speech itself seems to be antithetical to freedom of speech
Please think before you type

limiting speech sounds all nice and good when its speech YOU personally disagree with

when you live in a "democratic" society, you can't always ensure that YOUR guy wins. ask the average libshit, would he be happy if a far right republican got into office and limited speech? of course not. the first amendment ensures that this precedent is never set. it's logically best for all sides that speech remains free.

But if I knew these rules ahead of time, I just wouldn't have posted on Sup Forums. So I wouldn't lose anything. And no one would have been exposed to my moronitude. We would be better off, wouldn't we?

>But if I knew these rules ahead of time, I just wouldn't have posted on Sup Forums.
Well that's too fucking bad user, because you don't decide the rules. The rules can change at any time for any reason, and you won't be able to do fucking shit.

Actually freedom of speech is my first principle. I think it is very important. But it appears to be at risk right now. And I think the reason it is at risk is because there are young people who do not know why freedom of speech is important, or they do not believe the reasons, or they think other things are more important.

And so the reason I ask why it is important is so that the reasons can be given, discussed, (re)developed, so that people will understand the importance and stop challenging it.

I'm reading a book right now about the history of the Enlightenment. That's where the idea of free speech came from.

Opponents of free speech believe only their speech is important. When asked "who should decide which speech should be forbidden and punished?" The answer is always some form of "people I agree with"

This is at best a massively selfish view.

Free expression is an integral extension of free thought - it is reasonable to consider both a natural right.

Anti-speech arguments tend to revolve around claiming that speech they don't like is a form of violence. This is clear false equivalence. Other arguments are that the "Wrong ideas" can lead to hurt feelings or inequality, or oppression.

Freedom from discomfort has never been understood as a natural right.

You already have, your history is here, you are already going to go to jail in the future user. are you prepared?

But almost everyone who is decent agrees that you should not hurt people's feelings, and so we could limit speech that hurt people's feelings or offended them without the worry that one side is silencing another, since almost everyone agrees on this. That would be fine, wouldn't it?

People REALLY need to comprehend that freedom of speech -- the ideal behind it -- is to protect speech that is found offensive; speech that is unpopular; speech that is disgusting.

Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.

Citation? I don't think I have ever heard anyone say anything like this ever.

People only care about those near to them, everyone else can die without remorse.

People really just need to grow up and realize that your feelings will be hurt, no matter what. That's just life. People say rude things. You can't change that.

"hurt feelings" is entirely objective and too vague apply to law - especially law that restricts a basic human right. who's to say this argument right now isn't hurting my feelings? i could have you put in jail for disagreeing with me. do you really want to dispute that? because that'll just hurt my feelings even more.

...

Most documents of human rights hold human dignity and respect as the highest principle and they oppose oppression.

If speech harms a person's dignity and respect and oppresses them, that speech should not be allowed. Almost everyone agrees with this, so there is no problem of some people silencing others. It would be the decent majority silencing the bigoted and ignorant minority. What's wrong with that?

What harm is there in allowing people to say what they want? If your beliefs are truly correct than you should be able to prove them in an open forum. If you restrict speech you're only limiting the conversation. If you can't prove your point in the face of criticism then your point is probably wrong.

Yes it is and for anthropic reasons.

What's so important about letting inferior people live?

>What if the majority wants the government to control speech?
Then the majority has been successfully propagandized down to a level of actual mental retardation.
>What would be wrong with that?
Well when the gov starts regulating what can and can't be said, they don't rely on the sjw college advisory teams who foolishly gave them that power to help decide what to regulate. And when they start making it a "crime of hate speech" for people to openly oppose things like the right to vote being taken away from certain people based on certain criteria, or their property and life savings being stolen out from under them when claimed by gov officials with no explanation, or forcibly separated from friends and family and relocated because reasons, or told who they're allowed to marry, or what they're allowed to study in school, or any number of things all these idiots lack the foresight to be wary of, nobody will be allowed to give a shit and try to help them without risking going to jail right along with them. Being stupid enough to relinquish your right to free speech isn't one of those mistakes you get the chance to undo once you realized how massively you fucked up because by that point it's far too late. "Hurt feelings" will be the least of your worries.

Fuck you, fucking kill yourself if you seriously think that way, you fucking nigger spic dogfucker.

The fundamental freedoms the country was founded on are set up that way, for very specific reasons, that you should have covered in your history classes.

>Why is it better if the government doesn't regulate speech than if it does?

Because the government cannot and should not be trusted with this power.

> What if the majority wants the government to control speech? What would be wrong with that?
Learn about the tyrany of the majority. If the majority of the people want to steal all your money, and make you a slave, does that suddenly make it right or a good idea?

Some rights should be so fundamental that even a majority should not be enough to take them away.

Simplified example. You can lose your freedom to be on the streets, but only if a jury of 12 people can be convinced that you broke a law and that you deserve it.

Because the majority cannot be trusted not to abuse the power, as there are numerous historical examples of.

If a mechanism for violating people is in place. Then it is merely a matter of time before it's used on you.

Hans, your country lacks any semblance of freedom of speech and has without a doubt gurgled the lions share of muslim semen in the last few years. Those that live in glass houses & etc.

What a pseudo-intellectual garbage thread, fuck off

Why shouldn't there be Freedom of Speech?

The idiocy of your post has hurt my feelings so deeply that I feel that you should be imprisoned.

There you go, that's why your argument is retarded. How do you prove "hurt feelings" in court and why should you provide anyone the kind of authority to subjectively determine what opinions should or should not be allowed.

Rights like free speech don't come from the government.

Natural rights - Unalienable Rights - are held by each person with or without government. Government cannot grant or take these away - as it is not government's to offer.

So if you were in a Democracy, and most people voted to create laws against speech - the democracy can bee seen as unjust. They have not taken the right away - as it cannot be separated from the person..

In this example, the majority simply has elected to use threat of violence if you choose to exercise the right of free speech.

This isn't the government limiting speech. This is people on college campuses doing it. So that's OK?

And apparently either those reasons are not being taught or they are not convincing. Otherwise, articles like the OP would not keep popping up.

There now actually seems to be a movement against free speech. How do you explain that? How do you stop it?

Because it undermines the dignity of people and allows people to disrespect others. Why would that be allowed?

When they take away the First Amendment, it's time to use the Second.

Those professors ought to have their teaching licenses revoked, their credentials rendered null and void, and every student who's paid for classes taught by them should receive a full refund and formal apology. Fucking madness.

Okay, now instead it's "HOLY SHIT THAT PEACEFUL MUSLIM HAS A BOMB!!!!!". Are you going to try and stick around and investigate, or are you going to gtfo the theater with your wife and kids as fast as possible?

You idiots that think in black and white give classical liberalism a bad name. There are almost always cases in which some freedoms should be abridged in very narrowly defined ways in very specific situations. The theater example is one of them.

Well maybe we could do something ahead of time to stop freedom of speech from being taken away, if we could explain to these people why it's important in a persuasive way.

In what way?

Are you not doing the same in this form of discussion?

Aren't you undermining the dignity of those who hold up free speech for your own agenda?

I wouldn't have to if freedom of speech was outlawed. See? It's as if freedom of speech creates problems that freedom of speech has to solve. If you just got rid of freedom of speech, maybe all the problems that you need free speech to solve would go away.

>those reasons are not being taught
That's what is taking place. You're a prime example.

>Because it undermines the dignity of people and allows people to disrespect others.

And limiting what a person can think, feel, or express because of a subjective standard that you can't clarify or adjudicate consistently doesn't undermine the dignity of the people who you would be silencing?

>Why would that be allowed?

Inalienable rights motherfucker. These are rights bestowed upon government, they are rights completely and irrevocably barred from censure by the government.

so what type of speech would you prohibit so that no one is disrespected?

Yet, you would need freedom of speech to do that in the first place.

What problems would go away?

What problems are there?

What solutions are there?

What are you doing to fix them?

Are they actual problems, or issues that two individuals could solve between themselves and don't require outside intervention?

It doesn't matter if I'm the only person who doesn't know the reasons freedom of speech is important. It only becomes a problem when large numbers of people don't know, and they start protesting on campuses and using force to shut down freedom of speech.

So, what can be done to explain to these people why freedom of speech is important in a way that is persuasive and will get them to stop what they are doing.

I have to say, right now, things seem to be going in the other direction. It's a movement against freedom of speech, and it is growing. It has grown fast in just the past few years.

So how do we stop it, other than explaining to people why freedom of speech is important?

Anything negative.

Free speech is important, but not all speech is created equally. You wouldn't take medical advice from a homeless guy off the street would you? He should be allowed to tell you that the government is sending radio waves into your brain that are causing the worms they implanted at birth to give you a cold and THAT is why you should be wearing a foil hat, but you should also reserve the right to acknowledge that he believes that and then call him bat-shit crazy.

>Inalienable rights motherfucker. These are NOT rights bestowed upon government, they are rights completely and irrevocably barred from censure by the government.
God I royally fucked up that sentence. Let's try again.

First - respect is not a right. I have no requirement to respect you. That is just made up.

Second, you equate "feelings" with "dignity" - a whopper of a fallacy. Then you expand "hurt feelings" to mean "oppression" - again fallacy.

Your rights end at, essentially, having freedom of thought/speech, association, life, self-defense, and playing by the same legal rules as everyone else.

Everybody is sick of SJW/PC culture just like we got sick of it in the nineties, and here and there before then. SJW/PC culture is a bubble and it always bursts. Yes, even progressives think SJWs are a joke. Its like how black people hate niggers because they most often have to deal directly with them.

One great movie from the nineties: PCU

>This is people on college campuses doing it. So that's OK?

First, if it's a college owned by the state, and the people calling for it are government employees, and the people deciding what is OK and what's not are government employees, then it's still part of the government.

Also, if the school is taking money for scholarships, they are still subject to certain rules regarding that money as well.

But if we're talking about private institutions, then all that stuff you went on about talking about "the majority" are completely irrelevant. "The majority" has nothing to do with deciding what's OK and what's not at the colleges.

Clean up your logic. WHO is seeking the restriction. WHY? Under WHAT authority? Who gets to decide about dignity? Are these people fair? What happens if someone unfair gets to be a decider? Is this actually about dignity or an attempt to suppress their ideological enemies?

What you are describing is how things used to be, but perhaps some people would like to progress so that respect is a right, and people are required to respect you and cannot say anything that undermines your dignity as a person.

This is the direction we are going, and unless you people can come up with some persuasive reasons to keep free speech, you're going to lose it.

(You) are the problem with America today. My feelings got hurt, boo hoo. In that case, breaking up with someone and telling them, "I don't love you or want to be with you anymore" would be considered criminal or hate speech. See how retarded you sound now?

>So how do we stop it, other than explaining to people why freedom of speech is important?
They're already finding that the real world is not willing to shelter them from opposing ideas and anyone that caters to their nonsense will never manage to satiate their endless need to be capitulated.

All we have to do is not bend to their will. They're so fragile by now that all you have to do is ask them to defend their position and they fold.

Freedom of speech is a natural law. Above political laws, it shouldnt be regulated by any entity nor political institution

This. This is solid, and the last section answers your questions at the end of this post >fear to allow
Phrase this as fear allowing. Fear to allow sounds clunky as fuck. Not being a dick, just giving you a heads up because I get a student vibe from you and education is important.

You're going to need to come up with some better reasons than that, or you are going to lose freedom of speech.

They will get into positions in the heirarchy so that they will decide what is accepted, and soon you will see the same things in the real world, where SJWs are monitoring everyone's speech and trying to get people fired for their opinions.

From whose frame of reference?

I call you a titty-fucker.
You say you are offended and want me put in jail
I say that I'm even more offended than you are because you didn't like my words and that you want me in jail - and that you should be put in jail.
A passerby observes this and says we are both being babies
We are BOTH offended and think he should be put in jail

BUT - Wild Card - He is black and cannot be offensive because we are white and oppression beats hurt feeling every time.

Perhaps there are some people who would like to progress into a civilization where people like you don't exist.

This is the direction we are going, and unless you can come up with some persuasive reasons to end free speech, you're not going to lose.

>What you are describing is how things used to be
False, they're still that way whether you're aware of it or not.

>perhaps some people would like to progress so that respect is a right

They would have to convince 3/4ths of the population and elect enough representatives to get a 2/3rds passing of an amendment to the constitution in order to changes these things.

Given how fucking incapable they are of arguing their position, this isn't going to happen.

>and people are required to respect you

By threat of what force or consequence?

>This is the direction we are going

It's the direction academia is going, not society as a whole. And the more that society as a whole is becoming aware of this, the more these institutions are starting to collapse. The victimhood economy isn't sustainable.

This video is probably the best collection of arguments for free speech and its utmost importance, even the right for people to offend and be offended

youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM

youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM

Every single argument against freespeech is debunked in this video

All it takes is a handful of students blowing whistles and shouting to shut down any free speech others have.

Also, many issues of freedom of speech have to do with offending minorities, which is discrimination, and that is not allowed in public universities.

Except they continuously find that their sudden position of power puts them at great scrutiny and start to behave more like the system wants and thus stops their charade because it is easier for them to be called out.

How inundated are you?

>What if the majority wants the government to control speech?
That's the point at which fully protected free speech is most important.

why are you being vague? tell me specifically what speech should be prohibited so that no one is disrespected

the dictionary definition of freedom of speech is you can criticize something without the fear of the state censoring or punishing you for it. if you can't understand why this is important then just kill yourself.

of course nowadays it's less about the state and more about the general public, called useful idiots for a reason, trying to silence you but same principle.

Not really, just call the cops, they are disrupting the peace. :)

That is correct, those who have a history of being oppressed will have more freedom of speech than those who have a history of being the oppressors.

So you think the only value freedom of speech has is as a law, but otherwise it's not important? Does the law give the principle importance, or does the principle give the law importance?

>They will get into positions in the heirarchy so that they will decide what is accepted
To do that they have to be influential and persuasive. This isn't a litmus test in academia where all you need is mere nepotism.

This is the chicken and egg problem of this discussion. The political wing that supports these ideas is pretty pacifist and indignant and has no strong capacity for debate. So not only can they not convince anyone other than the most malleable people, but they also don't have threat of force to strong arm their opponents into submitting to their ideas.

This is more of a problem in Europe because so many of those nations never felt it important to enumerate basic rights such as these and therefore don't have compunctions or reservations about surrendering them.

How did that work at DePaul University recently?

Is now afraid to reply to me because their arguments don't hold up. :)

AI will kill off people like this anyway, so pretty excited about that.

All we have to do is keep triggering them. Just keep triggering them and we win and everybody is entertained! Keep triggering them and the parody continues. TRIGGER THE FUCK OUT OF THEM.

Freedom of speech is needed for the same reason Sup Forums is so 'radical'. Ideas banished from public discourse don't go away, they enter into private discourse. Conspiracies and revolutions are never born in the open, bathed in blood. That's just where they end. No, they are born in dark smokey rooms, where people whose grievances are taboo wallow in each other's rage, and lacking any temperance or compromise, they lose more and more hope, till at the last the pressure spikes and bursts out into the open, and the long repressed urge is given its fullest and most dreadful expression.

If you call people bigots and racists and monsters just for expressing moderate viewpoints, eventually they will harbor extremist viewpoints, simply because your response is the same no matter what.

The entire error lies in tyrants believing that by controlling language they control thought. That is never the case.

Look at how corporations are moving right now. Google, eBay, Wal-Mart, Amazon, etc., all banned sales of the Confederate flag after the Roof shooting. The corporate world is already moving toward censorship. As more new graduates move into these companies, things will get worse.

To be honest it looks like two factions of nerds fighting against each other, when you look at it from the outside.

>The solution to oppression is more oppression

Do you not realize just how much of a hypocrite you are?

As for your OP. Free speech goes deeper than what I've seen anyone here mention. Free speech makes it so we have a market place of ideas. It means memes can compete with one another in an open and fair context. Bad memes lose and good memes win. This means our culture advances and grows. It's the natural selection of ideas. If you don't allow for this then your culture slowly becomes loaded with more and more false beliefs, which ultimately leads to it's self-destruction as reality does not give any care to your false beliefs, it only care about the truth. (Think Galileo fighting geocentric thought. You are arguing that the Church should have been allowed to protect a false belief that would hinder humanity's understanding of the cosmos)

And yet, Donald Trump, one of the most politically incorrect people alive, is about to become President. The masses are clearly sick of this shit. Things will get worse and worse, until they suddenly snap back, sharply and violently.

>Why is it even a thing?
Because our Founding Fathers were the greatest men to ever grace history and they didn't give a fuck what pieces of shit and detractors wanted

What was the context of their greatness, what were the ideas swirling at the time, what is the origin of the idea of free speech? We need to go back to the beginning to firm up our reasons.

>all banned sales of the Confederate flag
False, they simply stopped offering a product.

That isn't so much censorship as it is responding to a change in market forces. There was no central authority making that change beyond the customers themselves.

If the market forces change they would put those products right back on the shelves.

It's not censorship if the action is voluntary.

Also, if there is a demand for that product and those companies offer it there are still plenty of retailers that do sell that item.

It would be like argue that there is censorship of deck chairs because I can't buy one from a grocery store.

Flawed premise. 1) My words cannot impact another's dignity. That is not how dignity works, nor feelings. It's a deeply flawed understanding of the concept. 2) The only way to enforce such a doomed construct is for a government to apply rights unequally under threat of violence and imprisonment. Some group of leaders gets to pick (even arbitrarily) what thought and speech is "respectful" and what is "illegal" and imprison those who think or speak out of line. This act actually does infringe on one's dignity as well provides unequal protection under law.

I have no requirement to explain natural rights to petulant children who are so weak-minded that even the concept of hearing something they disagree with makes them enter fits of rage and fear. Their point of view is that persuasion, debate or discussion should be forbidden by law.

A person's feelings are the responsibility of that person, and that person alone. The risk of emotional injury being wrongly inflicted upon people is not worth prioritizing over the risk of physical injury being wrongly inflicted upon people.

First law of business, cater to the masses, inundate them as wage-slaves, take the majority of their money but treat them nice enough to make it look like they are winning but ultimately you are taking the cake.

So while it might look like you are "winning" guess who is profiting from the "win", you? Nope. The business. The SJWs will use Google, eBay, Walmart, Amazon, even though they don't actually care about you except to get more money from you, and the day that humans stop being profitable, guess what they will think about your wants and needs? They won't.

Pretty much setting up for failure relying on a business doing something from a movement if you think that's a "win" in today's society.

You think racism and hatred is a huge monster? Try looking at health care costs, or hunger in third-world countries, or what corporations do to third-world countries to sell products, look at Toms for god sake how they impoverish those countries on purpose to sell more toms.