5 ms·

> Some things are simply wrong. This is one of those things. If one’s worldview disagrees, then theirs is simply incorrect on this matter. The GP said, "in a w

by maratc 4y ago

> Some things are simply wrong. This is one of those things. If one’s worldview disagrees, then theirs is simply incorrect on this matter. The GP said, "in a way that doesn't assume your worldview is the universal position ... everyone must adhere to". Your response still assumes that universality.

andsoitis 4y ago
They said: "Some things are simply wrong. This is one of those things. If one’s worldview disagrees, then theirs is simply incorrect on this matter." Similar concept but different issue: Do you think women should have equal rights as men? Do you think that should be universal? Or do you think it is OK for some jurisdictions to declare them the property of their husbands?
- maratc 4y ago
  > Do you think women should have equal rights as men? What I think is irrelevant. The question why the US hasn't yet ratified the Equal Rights Amendment that would guarantee that "women have equal rights" is also irrelevant (hint: women opposed that). The relevant question is, whether a powerful state is right to impose its values (which it, undoubtedly, holds in high esteem) on other states.
  - andsoitis 4y ago
    > The relevant question is, whether a powerful state is right to impose its values (which it, undoubtedly, holds in high esteem) on other states. I thought we were talking about Amazon, not a state. But let's say we were talking about a state, I think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be the North Star that we hold states accountable to (incl. the United States of America). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...
    - maratc 4y ago
      First, UAE hasn't signed that declaration. Do we hold UAE accountable to a declaration they never signed just because we've signed it and hold it a "North Star"? Second, the Declaration has nothing on LGBT rights, and it's not by mistake, but rather by the agreement of the signing parties at the time.
      - andsoitis 4y ago
        > First, UAE hasn't signed that declaration. Do we hold UAE accountable to a declaration they never signed just because we've signed it and hold it a "North Star"? Yes, we should. Pressure so they increase human rights is the moral thing to do. > Second, the Declaration has nothing on LGBT rights, and it's not by mistake, but rather by the agreement of the signing parties at the time. Yep, the fight must continue because we're still second class in most places and hunted down in many.
Spivak 4y ago
If the standard you're going to hold the parent to would include "assume as a premise that it's totally fine that a country decides to commit genocide and there's no possible justification for why that's bad outside cultural norms" then what's even the point? Do you want an economic argument or something? I mean the argument is “homosexuality and being trans are real observable phenomena in the human species across history and cultures and bringing harm to groups of people based on factors they cannot change is morally wrong.”
- maratc 4y ago
  People who bring the "genocide" argument to the discussion are like people who bring pepper spray to a party: they are not interested in a discussion (the others are not interested in a party). Skipping that, Amazon is not taking part in any genocide - they agreed to "restrict LGBT search results" in accordance with the local laws (however backward these may seem to you — and me). In the US, Amazon is not selling Mein Kampf (in accordance with the local laws). In China, Amazon wouldn't sell Tiananmen square memorabilia (in accordance with the local laws). In Europe, Amazon wouldn't sell pornography (in accordance with the local laws).
  - Spivak 4y ago
    I bring it up because the reasoning I’m arguing against is not scale dependent so if you up the stakes and apply the same reasoning it suddenly is a lot less palatable. So you amend the rule to be “you follow local laws that harm vulnerable classes of people as long as it’s just a little harm … as a treat” and it sounds ridiculous.
  - sweetheart 4y ago
    There are huge differences between Amazon not selling porn due to local laws and Amazon restricting LGBTQ searches due to local laws. Just because there is precedent doesn’t suddenly mean it’s a good thing to do. People in this thread think I’m surprised by this news, or they try to explain why we should expect this from Amazon. I don’t care about any of that. At the end of the day, someone or some people made the call to continue making a buck by empowering a homophobic and dangerous group. That’s fucked up.

by maratc 4y ago

andsoitis 4y ago

They said: "Some things are simply wrong. This is one of those things. If one’s worldview disagrees, then theirs is simply incorrect on this matter." Similar concept but different issue: Do you think women should have equal rights as men? Do you think that should be universal? Or do you think it is OK for some jurisdictions to declare them the property of their husbands?

maratc 4y ago
> Do you think women should have equal rights as men? What I think is irrelevant. The question why the US hasn't yet ratified the Equal Rights Amendment that would guarantee that "women have equal rights" is also irrelevant (hint: women opposed that). The relevant question is, whether a powerful state is right to impose its values (which it, undoubtedly, holds in high esteem) on other states.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  > The relevant question is, whether a powerful state is right to impose its values (which it, undoubtedly, holds in high esteem) on other states. I thought we were talking about Amazon, not a state. But let's say we were talking about a state, I think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be the North Star that we hold states accountable to (incl. the United States of America). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...
  - maratc 4y ago
    First, UAE hasn't signed that declaration. Do we hold UAE accountable to a declaration they never signed just because we've signed it and hold it a "North Star"? Second, the Declaration has nothing on LGBT rights, and it's not by mistake, but rather by the agreement of the signing parties at the time.
    - andsoitis 4y ago
      > First, UAE hasn't signed that declaration. Do we hold UAE accountable to a declaration they never signed just because we've signed it and hold it a "North Star"? Yes, we should. Pressure so they increase human rights is the moral thing to do. > Second, the Declaration has nothing on LGBT rights, and it's not by mistake, but rather by the agreement of the signing parties at the time. Yep, the fight must continue because we're still second class in most places and hunted down in many.

Spivak 4y ago

If the standard you're going to hold the parent to would include "assume as a premise that it's totally fine that a country decides to commit genocide and there's no possible justification for why that's bad outside cultural norms" then what's even the point? Do you want an economic argument or something? I mean the argument is “homosexuality and being trans are real observable phenomena in the human species across history and cultures and bringing harm to groups of people based on factors they cannot change is morally wrong.”

maratc 4y ago
People who bring the "genocide" argument to the discussion are like people who bring pepper spray to a party: they are not interested in a discussion (the others are not interested in a party). Skipping that, Amazon is not taking part in any genocide - they agreed to "restrict LGBT search results" in accordance with the local laws (however backward these may seem to you — and me). In the US, Amazon is not selling Mein Kampf (in accordance with the local laws). In China, Amazon wouldn't sell Tiananmen square memorabilia (in accordance with the local laws). In Europe, Amazon wouldn't sell pornography (in accordance with the local laws).
- Spivak 4y ago
  I bring it up because the reasoning I’m arguing against is not scale dependent so if you up the stakes and apply the same reasoning it suddenly is a lot less palatable. So you amend the rule to be “you follow local laws that harm vulnerable classes of people as long as it’s just a little harm … as a treat” and it sounds ridiculous.
- sweetheart 4y ago
  There are huge differences between Amazon not selling porn due to local laws and Amazon restricting LGBTQ searches due to local laws. Just because there is precedent doesn’t suddenly mean it’s a good thing to do. People in this thread think I’m surprised by this news, or they try to explain why we should expect this from Amazon. I don’t care about any of that. At the end of the day, someone or some people made the call to continue making a buck by empowering a homophobic and dangerous group. That’s fucked up.