[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.

[andsoitis]

> 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]

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.

[sweetheart]

> 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"),

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.

[maratc]

> 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.

[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.