modronsson.bsky.social
18 posts
11 followers
90 following
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
If the rules are discriminatory against a particular group, or unreasonable in terms of denying a service, then I think that is a matter for the state to consider.
comment in response to
post
I don't think I've said that? I've said that a) I think it is illiberal for the state to apply a law on such a matter b) I don't think it's illiberal for an organisation to apply rules to the use of their service, regardless of whether I approve or not with those rules.
comment in response to
post
There is also the Durian fruit ban in Singpore, historyandmystery.org/interesting-...
comment in response to
post
This is a vague memory of mine of being on a subway somewhere where there were signs saying no hot food. Can't remember where now, although a bit of googling suggests it happens in some US cities at least. www.standard.co.uk/news/transpo...
comment in response to
post
It may be that I think of liberalism, free speech etc as very much a state versus the individual concept, so don't define organisations as being illiberal in that way. Would probably describe them as 'discriminatory' or similar if they are unfairly denying provision to an individual.
comment in response to
post
But if a train company enforced a 'conditions of carriage' by removing a persistent music offender off the train, I don't think that would be illiberal, and I suspect if someone took the case to the EHCR they wouldn't rule against the train company.
comment in response to
post
I think we're probably aligned on the view that the state shouldn't be enforcing conformity through the law at this level of 'annoyance', that to do so would be 'illiberal', but can legitimately enforce conformity through the law in other scenarios so users aren't deprived unfairly of the service
comment in response to
post
Theatres have rules about not using mobile phones, are they illiberal?
I understand the argument of the state enforcing laws being different to an organisation enforcing rules, hence why the question of whether the illiberality stated by Ian was purely because of it being state mandated
comment in response to
post
But transport organisations already have loads of conditions of travel e.g. you can't drink alcohol on various private bus companies, so should we be fighting those as being illiberal? Other countries have rules about not eating hot food, are they being illiberal?
comment in response to
post
If the privately owned train companies included a ban in their 'conditions of carriage' and enforced it (somehow...), would that be illiberal? Or is this very much a 'the state should not do it' viewpoint?
comment in response to
post
If you get a chance, go to a baseball game, tickets are reasonable, it's a great way to see normal life in Japan.
comment in response to
post
Yes, visited all four, lived in two.
comment in response to
post
Wouldn't it be fun to run the election with AV 1st/2nd choice options on the ballot paper, and a 'Do you want AV or FPTP' referendum question, then apply the referendum outcome to the election result. Would completely blow the minds of all party strategists and pollsters.
comment in response to
post
Syniad da
comment in response to
post
So Labour people like something that's been around for a long time and had a rebrand in the 90s. Although some people will still tell you it was better before.
comment in response to
post
Except of course, did it after his team mate got his century, so putting him above the team briefly, just not himself. Great leadership.
comment in response to
post
Footballer James McAteer once said this in all seriousness, www.theguardian.com/sport/2005/m...