5 ms·

If you're going to harass a group of people it's a lot more tasteful to target one that isn't already persecuted.

by ObieJazz 17y ago

tjic 17y ago
I second this - this guy definitely shouldn't have gone after Amazon stockholders.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  Nice one. But his blog announces that he was going after homosexuals.
comatose_kid 17y ago
Targeting a group like this makes it more believable. I mean, if Amazon was banning books about 'successful entrepreneurs', most people would have thought it was a bug in the site, not malicious intent.
clpimage 17y ago
/Offtopic /Rant /Flag Really? How are gays and lesbians persecuted? Gays now have more rights than most other people. I would rather be gay than be fat. And they have that universal excuse ("you're firing me because I am gay?") that they use in any situation (almost as good as the “you're <doing something that does not suit me> because I am black/a woman/Jewish/a vegetarian?). Why don't everybody just leave everybody else the f*ck alone? It is because gay people wants to force acceptance to all people that believe differently. If there is a church/religious institution that does not “accept” you, why don't you fucking start your own? Why do you have to whine about “homophobia” (a misnomer). And why do you have to whine especially on the Internet? (you are getting almost as irritating as the Atheist Army (e.g. www.reddit.com/r/atheism)). NRA supporters do not whine on national television about NRA-phobia. Hunters do not whine about hunting-phobia. Yet they will be treated worse in liberal areas as liberals will be treated in conservative areas. The most persecuted group is middle aged white males – they have to hear how bad they are from black people, feminists and gays. If they are successful in an area (such as engineering for example) it must be their fault for “disadvantaging” black people or women and that they are “overrepresented” (i.e. will not be promoted in favour of a “designated” group). I wonder when we will start seeing Gay Economic Empowerment!
- joubert 17y ago
  Not persecuted? Are you kidding me? Gays are SPECIFICALLY excluded from many legal rights heterosexuals enjoy.
  - clpimage 17y ago
    Like what? They can vote and they could have voted since Licoln. One of the few things that they whine about is "marraige". Well, uhm... start your own church and start marrying people - you don't need the government for that. (They do want the state to name it marraige instead of "civil unions" because that would force people to accept them).
    - joubert 17y ago
      Marriage is a legal union which is specifically denied to gays in the overwhelming majority of states in the US. The issue is not a religious one or a question of acceptance, it is a question of equality before the law. Marriage confers many benefits, including financial, guardianship (of children), visitation rights, control over partner's affairs when the latter is incapacitated, etc. At the Federal level, the US prohibits same-sex couples, even if they are married in another country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage) to sponsor each other for immigration. These are things heterosexuals can take for granted, but our gay friends cannot.
      - clpimage 17y ago
        > it is a question of equality before the law. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. Gay and straight are bound by the same laws - if a gay person ever wants to marry a woman he can (no questions asked). There is not two sets of laws - the tax law is the same (yet no one worries about that). I would personally like to see the state absolve marraige and leave everything at civil unions. The only reason why the state should even have that is to keep track of children. > Marriage confers many benefits, including financial Uhm... yeah. We should therefore discriminate against people who are not married? If there is a benefit provided it costs someone something (in this case the burden is on unmarried people). > control over partner's affairs when the latter is incapacitated Uhm.. tried having a signed letter to the appointed executor? This can be solved within 5 minutes with a printer and 5 signatures. > At the Federal level, the US prohibits same-sex couples, even if they are married in another country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage) to sponsor each other for immigration. So, this is nothing major. The USA also have quotas for certain countries. Does that mean that the USA is racist towards that country? The USA also have requirements for education levels. Some countries (esp. Australia) is fairly strict against people with transmittable diseases (e.g. AIDS). Does that mean that they discriminate against sick or stupid people?

If you're going to harass a group of people it's a lot more tasteful to target one that isn't already persecuted.

tjic 17y ago

I second this - this guy definitely shouldn't have gone after Amazon stockholders.

stcredzero 17y ago
Nice one. But his blog announces that he was going after homosexuals.

comatose_kid 17y ago

Targeting a group like this makes it more believable. I mean, if Amazon was banning books about 'successful entrepreneurs', most people would have thought it was a bug in the site, not malicious intent.

clpimage 17y ago

/Offtopic /Rant /Flag Really? How are gays and lesbians persecuted? Gays now have more rights than most other people. I would rather be gay than be fat. And they have that universal excuse ("you're firing me because I am gay?") that they use in any situation (almost as good as the “you're <doing something that does not suit me> because I am black/a woman/Jewish/a vegetarian?). Why don't everybody just leave everybody else the f*ck alone? It is because gay people wants to force acceptance to all people that believe differently. If there is a church/religious institution that does not “accept” you, why don't you fucking start your own? Why do you have to whine about “homophobia” (a misnomer). And why do you have to whine especially on the Internet? (you are getting almost as irritating as the Atheist Army (e.g. www.reddit.com/r/atheism)). NRA supporters do not whine on national television about NRA-phobia. Hunters do not whine about hunting-phobia. Yet they will be treated worse in liberal areas as liberals will be treated in conservative areas. The most persecuted group is middle aged white males – they have to hear how bad they are from black people, feminists and gays. If they are successful in an area (such as engineering for example) it must be their fault for “disadvantaging” black people or women and that they are “overrepresented” (i.e. will not be promoted in favour of a “designated” group). I wonder when we will start seeing Gay Economic Empowerment!

joubert 17y ago
Not persecuted? Are you kidding me? Gays are SPECIFICALLY excluded from many legal rights heterosexuals enjoy.
- clpimage 17y ago
  Like what? They can vote and they could have voted since Licoln. One of the few things that they whine about is "marraige". Well, uhm... start your own church and start marrying people - you don't need the government for that. (They do want the state to name it marraige instead of "civil unions" because that would force people to accept them).
  - joubert 17y ago
    Marriage is a legal union which is specifically denied to gays in the overwhelming majority of states in the US. The issue is not a religious one or a question of acceptance, it is a question of equality before the law. Marriage confers many benefits, including financial, guardianship (of children), visitation rights, control over partner's affairs when the latter is incapacitated, etc. At the Federal level, the US prohibits same-sex couples, even if they are married in another country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage) to sponsor each other for immigration. These are things heterosexuals can take for granted, but our gay friends cannot.
    - clpimage 17y ago
      > it is a question of equality before the law. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. Gay and straight are bound by the same laws - if a gay person ever wants to marry a woman he can (no questions asked). There is not two sets of laws - the tax law is the same (yet no one worries about that). I would personally like to see the state absolve marraige and leave everything at civil unions. The only reason why the state should even have that is to keep track of children. > Marriage confers many benefits, including financial Uhm... yeah. We should therefore discriminate against people who are not married? If there is a benefit provided it costs someone something (in this case the burden is on unmarried people). > control over partner's affairs when the latter is incapacitated Uhm.. tried having a signed letter to the appointed executor? This can be solved within 5 minutes with a printer and 5 signatures. > At the Federal level, the US prohibits same-sex couples, even if they are married in another country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage) to sponsor each other for immigration. So, this is nothing major. The USA also have quotas for certain countries. Does that mean that the USA is racist towards that country? The USA also have requirements for education levels. Some countries (esp. Australia) is fairly strict against people with transmittable diseases (e.g. AIDS). Does that mean that they discriminate against sick or stupid people?