[ominous]

> Is there any argument here in Amazon’s defense?

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?

[sweetheart]

I feel as though homophobia is never an acceptable worldview, so if you want me to reword what I said in a way that doesn’t imply that, I won’t.

Some things are simply wrong. This is one of those things. If one’s worldview disagrees, then theirs is simply incorrect on this matter.

[maratc]

> 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]

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]

> 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]

> 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...

[maratc]

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.

[Spivak]

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]

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).

[sweetheart]

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.

[maratc]

> 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.

[Spivak]

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.

[Banana699]

>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.

[MomoXenosaga]

They really don't. I always like to remind people it was an American expedition that discovered oil in Saudi Arabia.

All empires collapse eventually but for now the West is still muddling on through.

[Banana699]

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.

[schuyler2d]

> 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?

[ominous]

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.

Cry more.

[maratc]

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."