Can you phrase the attack you imagine they need defense from in a way that doesn't assume your worldview is the universal position (or that tries to achieve a universal position) everyone must adhere to?
> 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.
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?
> 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.
> 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).
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.
> 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.
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.”
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).
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.
> There are huge differences between Amazon not selling porn due to local laws and Amazon restricting LGBTQ searches due to local laws.
Except for the fact that you agree with one ('cos it's "a good thing") and disagree with the other ('cos it's "a bad thing"), what are these differences?
> some people made the call to continue making a buck by empowering a homophobic and dangerous group.
For an LGBT person, it's better to be in the US than in the UAE [0][1].
If you want that to change in the short run, you're out of luck — it's not realistic to assume it will change soon.
If you want that to change in the long run, the way to do that is to have more contact (including trade) with the UAE.
[0] Mind you, it's better still to be LGBT in the UAE than in Afghanistan or Iran!
[1] For a sick child from a poor family who needs lots and lots of healthcare, it's the opposite.
> Whether or not they do doesn't really disproportionately harm a minority group.
It does disproportionately harm a minority group of porn afficionados. If your point is that LGBT minority group has some rights that porn afficionados minority group does not have, you'd need to prove it.
> One actively targets a minority group.
The search results will equally be hidden from heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. It's not that Amazon is treating LGBT group in a different way — all the population is targeted the same.
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.
>If one’s worldview disagrees, then theirs is simply incorrect on this matter
Anti gay muslims in the UAE (and beyond) have the same exact attitude, so that reduces the whole problem to who has the bigger money\stick\media horn, and they happen to be the ones who have on their territory.
Are you implying that the US or the EU can simply threaten the gulf states militarily to make them tolerate LGBT rights? Why do you think it has never happened till now? From 1973 when the gulf states withheld oil and sent the west into a mini dark age till the murder of a US journalist in a foreign country? You realize that the majority of 9/11 perpetrators were Saudi nationals? Your hypotheses seems flawed.
> Can you phrase the attack you imagine they need defense from in a way that doesn't assume your worldview is the universal position (or that tries to achieve a universal position) everyone must adhere to?
Why not apply your same maxim to the UAE and see where you get? Why do gay people in the UAE have to submit to what the UAE requires to be universal?
I am not above UAE to apply anything to them, and when interacting I'll interact in common ground, if possible and necessary.
Are you above them? You both have humility when faced with whoever you consider inferior - LGBT people that are so oppressed people think Amazon should consider them in their decisions, and presumption against your superiors: UAE asserted themselves and you can't even admit you'd change them by force if you could. But you can't.
We may roll with it to the point of discussing why do schoolchildren in the UAE have to submit to laws restricting guns, and how their freedom to bring guns to schools is oppressed.
"There is no monopoly of common sense, on either side of the political fence."
I do not defend that LGBTQ should be executed, and nothing I said implies it.
I asked for the attack that one would make against Amazon. And you don't even dare to state that, yes, your worldview excludes UAE ahahahah should they be fixed?
> your worldview excludes UAE ahahahah should they be fixed?
They shouldn’t be supported in this aspect. The same way we get mad at our companies when they bribe foreign officials or take part in genocide or facilitate sex trafficking or pedophilia. Some things are plain wrong, and it’s not okay for our people and companies to be doing it anywhere.
And even that map overstates the situation, since, e.g., China's rule is essentially identical to Dobbs: individual provinces have the power to regulate.
It's also obviously false that the U.S. has the world view that "detention without trial and major human right abuses" are acceptable. And it's dishonest to compare waging an illegal war with being gay - I mean, seriously, are you saying gay people are literal terrorists? There's no difference in your mind between two men honeymooning on the Persian Gulf and KSM?
You smell of bias when you use terms like "there's no possible way that's true" and "it's also obviously false".
No, things you disagree with cannot be "obviously false", and there are things you think are false that can actually be true.
I don't know if you're being pedantic or using straw man arguments by bringing "7.75 billion people" or introducing race into this discussion. I won't be getting into this.
I'll just elaborate and rephrase.
Yes, most of the world, where people live without oppression and tyranny, have grown up with freedom to information, are not religiously prosecuted, value other people's lives, appreciate access to healthcare and respect human rights, would oppose prosecution and criminalisation of women who want to abort their pregnancy after being raped or to stop their babies suffering and wait for them to die inside or to die on birth.
> I mean, seriously, are you saying gay people are literal terrorists?
Lol. Yes, I am saying exactly that, that gay people are literal terrorists. /s
I have no clue how you got to that conclusion and why, along with race, you're now bringing terrorists to this conversation.
> It's also obviously false that the U.S. has the world view that "detention without trial and major human right abuses" are acceptable.
Yes, it's "obviously false" that Mohamedou Ould Slahi was tortured and imprisoned for 14 years without ever being charged until his release in 2016. And it's "obviously false" CIA was looking at options of how to assassinate a journalist (Julian Assange).
It feels you view some things in black and white. The world, especially governments, are far from that. We can understand that governments (made out of people and decisions) fuck up and be patriotic at the same time.
> Should the whole world now turn their backs on the USA because of recent Roe v Wade overturn which most of the world sees as step backwards, that abolishes women rights, endangers their lives and criminalises what's is acceptable pretty much everywhere else?
Yes, they should. Will they? Probably not, but these are two different things.
Do they feel good about themselves?...They don't have to do that...I bet most people don't even feel "good" about their corporate jobs.
Basically, Amazon had two options; Tell the UAE to pound sand and risk being kicked out of the country or cave in to their demands. Should we really expect another response from a soul-less, union-busting corporate overlord company like Amazon?
We peacefully disagree then. I don't expect a company that treats their warehouse workers like s*t to all of a sudden find a moral cause and stand on it, especially when that company has continually shown that it cares about money above all.
I don't think you actually disagree, I think you're both just using different (valid) definitions of expect. “to consider probable or certain” (you) vs “to consider bound in duty or obligated” (sweetheart)
They are probably sleeping in a 14 room mansion in an ultra king size bed being rubbed to sleep by three prostitutes. So yeah, they’re probably sleeping well.
But you expect anything different from a corporation? Their only purpose is to make profit. It’s just basic economics. They don’t care about politics or LGBTQ, they care about money. The only reason they ever seem to care about LGBTQ is because they saw the group as a market. A Market to exploit.
sure, it's a corporation but in the end a bunch of people have to make the call and implement these filters.
My guess is the blame gets dilluted and people are really good at rationalising their work by hiding behind the corporation image, or "someone else will do it anyway", or "yeah, but look at what happens in X", etc
If there is no guilt then there is no blame. The only concern they have is about the wording they should use when communicating the decision they've taken so it doesn't look bad. Here is a template: "we did all we can, but we have to comply with a greater force outside our reach".
Below certain paygrade of people taking those decisions, a kind of mental "Nuremberg defense"(1) rule applies.
People should learn that companies milk these kind of feelings just because they profit from them; it's good for business. The top earners (investors and managers) that probably are, in this very moment, partying in a Singapore KTV, they don't really care.
> sure, it's a corporation but in the end a bunch of people have to make the call and implement these filters.
Yes, people who work at the corporation, the people who will be fired from the corporation if they do not comply. Everyone who works at the Amazon earns money from the profit they make and they will pay the most to people who will make these sociopathic choices.
In Amazon's defense, it costs almost nothing to co-opt social movements and use them to fool people into parting with their money. Very cost effective marketing I would say.
So far as I can see, nobody is suggesting that the government should mandate that.
Amazon is a private organization with lots and lots of customers. Some of those customers (and potential customers) are upset with what Amazon is doing, and they're voicing that opinion. They can't force Amazon to do anything, unlike the government, but they can certainly persuade them.
Firms comply with the laws of the countries in which they operate. The Gulf states have evil and primitive laws on this and many other issues but everyone who operates there complies with them.
You know they plot to undermine unionization and going as far as coming up with ways to reduce social trust, skirt tax laws, find ways to pay workers less than a living wage and have the government cover the shortfall, etc.?
It's not that they dearly want to do the right thing but this horrible islamic theocracy is forcing their hand, they've just fooled you with their vapid rainbow-flag-wrapped virtue signaling.
> I cannot fathom being the person at Amazon who makes that call. Do they sleep well at night? Do they feel good about themselves?
I'm sure they sleep fine. It's not the role of a retailer to promote a particular political agenda. If we all only transacted with people we agreed with, we wouldn't have a society.
> It's not the role of a retailer to promote a particular political agenda.
Standing up to an authority that declares some lives less valuable than others (e.g. gays, women, having slaves) is maybe a political agenda but it is moreso a moral position, and that is the thing to emphasize.
The trouble is, ultimately people tend to not care enough to stick their necks out (lose money, lose a job) to stand up for what's right, unless it affects them very directly. And it is rational to not forego your own wellfare for the sake of some other group, I just wish the circle of empathy people have were larger.
In their time triple distilled water containing radium was sold as an energy drink, they thought bathing was unhealthy, and they ate mercury.
I will go out on a limb and say we can judge things a bit better now.
Sure, right now we accept plastic and plasticisers everywhere around us. Which is crazy. And quite probably contributes to the great hormonal disruption and the trans craze.
> Sure, right now we accept plastic and plasticisers everywhere around us. Which is crazy. And quite probably contributes to the great hormonal disruption and the trans craze.
Interesting intuition. Do you know of any research suggesting a causal link between plastics and more trans visibility?
You’ll get no argument from me that there’s a loud fringe left same as a loud fringe right.
But if you’re trying to make a stand on a hill that gay people don’t get discriminated against in substantially as nasty of ways as any other group that gets discriminated against? I’m going to have to politely bow out here. I strongly disagree and I’ll leave it at that.
I was in the middle of one of these ethically questionable decisions at Amazon many years ago. Let me explain.
Some people are simply sociopaths and do not care- whatever makes money and gets them promoted is fine by them. Some just ignore the problem and defer to those above them: if <senior leader> says it's okay, I guess we have to do it. And some will churn the entire problem in their head until they can justify it. They find some reason why this makes sense because 'if you think about it, really it's better this way'. Takes a lot of work, but they find a reason.
And that's human nature. People want to believe they are good people, they don't want to lose their job, and they want to find an excuse for taking part in unethical projects.
> I cannot fathom being the person at Amazon who makes that call. Do they sleep well at night? Do they feel good about themselves?
People in positions being able to make country wide or above decisions at entities like Amazon generally do not care about human life at all. They first and foremost care about being financially successful (and maybe having power) themselves, secondly about their company being financially successful and thirdly their companies public image.
Do you really think there is someone ready to say: "Dear Mr. Bezos, we are no longer allowed to sell in UAE because we didn't bow to their anti LGBTQ laws. Too bad." ?
I cannot fathom being the person at Amazon who makes that call. Do they sleep well at night? Do they feel good about themselves?