Is there any argument here in Amazon’s defense? Or is my initial disgust at Amazon truly the appropriate response.
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 cannot fathom being the person at Amazon who makes that call. Do they sleep well at night? Do they feel good about themselves?
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.
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.
All empires collapse eventually but for now the West is still muddling on through.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.”
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).
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.
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.
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.
Well, no... I don't give a shit if Amazon sells porn. Whether or not they do doesn't really disproportionately harm a minority group.
> what are these differences?
One actively targets 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.
Are you really saying at someone who likes porn and isn't able to buy it is comparable to a gay man being indicted (or worse) for loving a man?...
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?
"There is no monopoly of common sense, on either side of the political fence."
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.
Cry more.
Shame is pride's cloak. Shaming people who aren't proud, isn't going to provoke revelation of their truth and meaning.
Most of the anti-gay arguments are derived from a 'natural law' and Platonic interpretations of sexual function.
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?
If we demand a better response hard enough we can pressure them into being better. So... yes?
Im not naive; I know they won’t. But I can still be disgusted that they won’t.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
- those who lack empathy?
- those who declare some lives less valuable than others?
- those who don’t care enough to stick their necks out to stand up for what’s right unless it affects them very directly?
People and organizations have been putting money ahead of enlightened ideals as long as there’s been money or ideals.
I’m not trying to let Amazon off the hook here per se, but a cursory reading of history shows that such calls are on average, basically everyone ever.
We venerate King and Milk and Ghandi and others because they stand out.
This is business as usual not for Amazon, it’s business as usual in recorded history.
Don't you think calling this LGBT craze an enlightened ideal is a bit overselling it ?
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.
Interesting intuition. Do you know of any research suggesting a causal link between plastics and more trans visibility?
Reducing the entire history of transgenderism down to a “craze” is a perfect culmination of your ignorance and fear.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/suffragistvssuffragette.htm
(As was the word “scientist“).
From my observation of the present: plenty of that still going around.
What makes suffrage or abolitionism any more or less worthy a case than the LGBT “craze”?
Seems to me all this prejudice is fucking unhappy shit.
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 feel good that I stood up for what I believed in and left rather than participate. Because in the end, the Government decided that Amazon was wrong on that particular call: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidjeans/2021/02/02/amazon-se...
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." ?