3 ms·

> adapt to local laws and culture instead of pretending that a couple of thousand of unelected dudes in Silicon Valley should have any say I think we might bot

> adapt to local laws and culture instead of pretending that a couple of thousand of unelected dudes in Silicon Valley should have any say I think we might both agree there's a line beyond which even you would abandon this view. We may just disagree on where that line should exist. If the Indian state was forcing Twitter to delete the profiles of anyone who is a homosexual, would you agree that Twitter should just adapt to local laws and not at least say something? Probably not, right?

input_sh 5y ago
We don't have to play pretend, there are countries like Saudi Arabia where that's already a thing. Turns out Twitter happily complies. https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/twitter-not-safe-saudi-lgbt-citizens https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/twitter-not-safe-saudi... The only moral high ground I'm willing to accept is them leaving such a market, but that doesn't align with their pockets.
sinyug 5y ago
> If the Indian state was forcing Twitter to delete the profiles of anyone who is a homosexual, would you agree that Twitter should just adapt to local laws and not at least say something? You might want to pick another example to make your point. Persecution of homosexuals is a Christian (and, to an extent, Islamic) phenomenon. Historically, Hindus haven't really cared[1] about homosexual behavior till the British came in and brought their anti-buggery laws with them. Unlike animals in heat who do it in public, human sex in India has generally been a private affair. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_India
- ehvatum 5y ago
  What Christian theocracy will put you to death, today, for being homosexual? Numerous Islamic government examples exist, yes. I’m looking for Christian, since that’s where you say the focus must be.
  - sinyug 5y ago
    > since that’s where you say the focus must be. Not what I said. I simply asked him to pick an appropriate example instead of one that has no basis in reality.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      > no basis in reality. It's just a hypothetical that I put out there for rhetorical purposes. It doesn't have to be realistic. You can substitute India for another country (say, Saudi Arabia, like another poster did) if you think that realism is important. The argument will remain the same.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  > Persecution of homosexuals is a Christian (and, to an extent, Islamic) phenomenon. Can we please stop pretending that Christianity is worse than other religions? As already mentioned by another numerous well known examples of other groups of people exist who punish homosexuality by death today (leaving out names as I'm not trying to not continue a flame war here, I'm not out to criticize any other religion or culture here). On the other hand I'm not aware of any current Christian groups who kill or beat anyone for that. > Hindus haven't really cared[1] about homosexual behavior till the British came in and brought their anti-buggery laws with them. You know what else the English brought? They brought an end to burning young widows in their "husbands" funerals. History isn't black and white and while I know it is extremely trendy to blame white Christian guys for everything we should strive for a better standard here.
  - sinyug 5y ago
    > Can we please stop pretending that Christianity is worse than other religions? I think proselytising religions like Christianity and Islam, or at least their historical practitioners, need to answer for their activities in Africa and the Americas, to start with. Entire civilizations have been completely wiped out in a span of 1200 years in an extremely violent manner. > They brought an end to burning young widows in their "husbands" funerals. The practice of _sati_ was generally isolated to two parts of the country. In the west, it evolved (in the form of _jauhar_) as a means to escape rape and sexual violence at the hands of Islamic invaders. In the east, it was often used by male members of the family to break the line of inheritance from the dead husband to the wife. If the son wants to inherit, he has to get his mother out of the way. I have often wondered if witch hunts in Europe and early America when hundreds of thousands of men and women were murdered had similar, materialistic motives or was it really about the devil and devil-worship: it is not that you truly believed your neighbor is a witch, but that you coveted their property. Strangely, the practice continues in parts of India and Africa. > I know it is extremely trendy to blame white Christian guys for everything I absolutely loathe the modern cult of Wokism where the white guy is held responsible for every wrong in the universe and mobs go around destroying statues and burning books and buildings. But we cannot ignore history either. India was invaded and conquered first by Islamic invaders and then by European powers because infighting among Indian states and deep divisions within Hindu society allowed them to. But it is naive to believe that the English came here for the good of India and Indians. They came here to plunder the country and extract as much as they could. Any good that came out of their rule is a secondary effect at best. At the fag end of the British Raj, when the British were fighting Nazi Germany, they _manufactured_ a famine in Bengal (1943) that killed three million people. The whole world condemns Hitler for the six million Jews he killed and observes Holocaust Remembrance Day. Does anyone do something similar for the British treatment of the Bengalis? No. Clearly, some lives were more valuable than others.

input_sh 5y ago

We don't have to play pretend, there are countries like Saudi Arabia where that's already a thing. Turns out Twitter happily complies. https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/twitter-not-safe-saudi-lgbt-citizens https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/twitter-not-safe-saudi... The only moral high ground I'm willing to accept is them leaving such a market, but that doesn't align with their pockets.

sinyug 5y ago

> If the Indian state was forcing Twitter to delete the profiles of anyone who is a homosexual, would you agree that Twitter should just adapt to local laws and not at least say something? You might want to pick another example to make your point. Persecution of homosexuals is a Christian (and, to an extent, Islamic) phenomenon. Historically, Hindus haven't really cared[1] about homosexual behavior till the British came in and brought their anti-buggery laws with them. Unlike animals in heat who do it in public, human sex in India has generally been a private affair. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_India

ehvatum 5y ago
What Christian theocracy will put you to death, today, for being homosexual? Numerous Islamic government examples exist, yes. I’m looking for Christian, since that’s where you say the focus must be.
- sinyug 5y ago
  > since that’s where you say the focus must be. Not what I said. I simply asked him to pick an appropriate example instead of one that has no basis in reality.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    > no basis in reality. It's just a hypothetical that I put out there for rhetorical purposes. It doesn't have to be realistic. You can substitute India for another country (say, Saudi Arabia, like another poster did) if you think that realism is important. The argument will remain the same.
skinkestek 5y ago
> Persecution of homosexuals is a Christian (and, to an extent, Islamic) phenomenon. Can we please stop pretending that Christianity is worse than other religions? As already mentioned by another numerous well known examples of other groups of people exist who punish homosexuality by death today (leaving out names as I'm not trying to not continue a flame war here, I'm not out to criticize any other religion or culture here). On the other hand I'm not aware of any current Christian groups who kill or beat anyone for that. > Hindus haven't really cared[1] about homosexual behavior till the British came in and brought their anti-buggery laws with them. You know what else the English brought? They brought an end to burning young widows in their "husbands" funerals. History isn't black and white and while I know it is extremely trendy to blame white Christian guys for everything we should strive for a better standard here.
- sinyug 5y ago
  > Can we please stop pretending that Christianity is worse than other religions? I think proselytising religions like Christianity and Islam, or at least their historical practitioners, need to answer for their activities in Africa and the Americas, to start with. Entire civilizations have been completely wiped out in a span of 1200 years in an extremely violent manner. > They brought an end to burning young widows in their "husbands" funerals. The practice of _sati_ was generally isolated to two parts of the country. In the west, it evolved (in the form of _jauhar_) as a means to escape rape and sexual violence at the hands of Islamic invaders. In the east, it was often used by male members of the family to break the line of inheritance from the dead husband to the wife. If the son wants to inherit, he has to get his mother out of the way. I have often wondered if witch hunts in Europe and early America when hundreds of thousands of men and women were murdered had similar, materialistic motives or was it really about the devil and devil-worship: it is not that you truly believed your neighbor is a witch, but that you coveted their property. Strangely, the practice continues in parts of India and Africa. > I know it is extremely trendy to blame white Christian guys for everything I absolutely loathe the modern cult of Wokism where the white guy is held responsible for every wrong in the universe and mobs go around destroying statues and burning books and buildings. But we cannot ignore history either. India was invaded and conquered first by Islamic invaders and then by European powers because infighting among Indian states and deep divisions within Hindu society allowed them to. But it is naive to believe that the English came here for the good of India and Indians. They came here to plunder the country and extract as much as they could. Any good that came out of their rule is a secondary effect at best. At the fag end of the British Raj, when the British were fighting Nazi Germany, they _manufactured_ a famine in Bengal (1943) that killed three million people. The whole world condemns Hitler for the six million Jews he killed and observes Holocaust Remembrance Day. Does anyone do something similar for the British treatment of the Bengalis? No. Clearly, some lives were more valuable than others.