Amazon 451

[Odë:hgöd]

.
The online mega merchant recently revised its business model to exclude books
that contain what it deems as "inappropriate or offensive" content. In other words
not what is universally deemed inappropriate or offensive, rather, what Amazon
deems; which is an entirely arbitrary deeming; and quite possibly politically biased
too.

The Bible contains quite of bit of material that Amazon could deem as inappropriate or
offensive so I expect it's only a matter of time before Christianity's holy book ends up
thrown atop Mr. Jeff Bezos' commercial bonfire.
_

 

[tango]

Maybe this is the signal people need to start shopping elsewhere. At least for now we have other places we can buy stuff.

 

[NewCreation435]

that's interesting. I wonder what books have made that list so far or if there is a way to find out what books are excluded?

 

[tango]

For now they are probably going to do little more than fuss over Dr Seuss being racist or Mr Potato Head being transphobic or some garbage. Once people have got used to that they can cut deeper.

As an aside, it's another good reason to maintain physical books rather than keeping everything on a Kindle.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.

quite possibly politically biased

This is my primary concern because Big Tech is on the move to suppress the flow of
information and/or discussion that exposes, and opposes, its political ideology.

In a nutshell; it is Big Tech's ambition to do all in their power to assure that the
public hear only one side of the coin rather than both.

As for me:

I prefer to decide for myself which books to read and/or which books not to read.

I prefer to decide for myself which books are appropriate and/or which books are
inappropriate.

I prefer to decide for myself which books contain objectionable content and/or
which contain acceptable content.

I prefer to decide for myself which side of the coin is true, i.e. I prefer to hear and
weigh dissent as well as consent, criticism as well as approval, and fact as well as
fantasy.

I do not agree to a band of book sellers and social media moguls banning,
censoring, suppressing, and deleting any and all publications and/or discussions
that aren't in line with their own personal agendas.

Thus far the US Constitution has prevented Washington from controlling the free
flow of information and public discussion in America, but if the current wave of
political discrimination is left unchecked, and allowed to become a powerful force in
public life, then I fear it's only a matter of time till it has enough influence in
Washington to steer Congress into amending the Constitution in order to allow our
country to forge into law its own version of China's cultural revolution; along with
something similar to North Korea's system of gulags for dissidents.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

..[
• 1Cor 5:6a . .Your boasting is not good.

The Corinthian church was liberal in its attitudes about intimacy. That's no surprise
considering that particular city's culture in their day and age.

Then, as now, liberals tend to think of themselves as sophisticated and progressive;
and vastly superior to stodgy, inflexible conservatives.

A recent article in the Epoch Times shared some of the secrets of a former KGB
agent whose standard plan for moving countries towards communism includes
demoralization. He said that Americans make the task easy because they were, and
are, corrupting themselves on their own; and actually accomplishing the task much
quicker than the KGB could even dream.

America's moral decadence began gaining momentum with the counter culture back
in the 1960s -- it continues to this day in our schools and universities, in our
entertainment, in our business practices, in our work ethic, in our government and,
sort of like the expansion of the cosmos, is picking up speed instead of slowing
down as might be expected.

That's good news for the left because if they are ever to succeed in turning America
into a version of George Orwell's 1984 and/or Ray Bradburys Fahrenheit 451; they
will first have to suppress and/or eradicate any and all religions that promote
traditional, old time moral values; honesty and tolerance are especially detrimental
to the left's agenda.

Conservative Christianity is one of those kinds of religions. We neither teach nor
support a flexible morality that adjusts to evolving social mores. We do not believe
the end justifies the means so long as it benefits the so-called greater good; and
we encourage the publication and the distribution of books and discussions that
examine both the pluses and the minuses of things like non-binary gender
identification, LGBT, transgender, abortion, human rights, patriotism, dissent,
capitalism, property ownership, and capital punishment, etc. and of course
Machiavellian ethics, and oligarchy, communism, socialism, and totalitarianism.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
While active on another Christian forum some years ago, one of my posts pointed
out that the Bible teaches that gays and lesbians are in just as much danger of
ending up in Hell as murderers. Well; one of the moderators deleted my comment
as "hate speech".

NOTE: The United States does not have codified hate speech laws; since the U.S.
Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the
guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.

To my knowledge, and in my experience, neither the US Supreme Court nor the US
Constitution have jurisdiction in cyberspace; which is quite likely why human rights
abuses are common on the internet.
_

 

[tango]

.
While active on another Christian forum some years ago, one of my posts pointed
out that the Bible teaches that gays and lesbians are in just as much danger of
ending up in Hell as murderers. Well; one of the moderators deleted my comment
as "hate speech".

NOTE: The United States does not have codified hate speech laws; since the U.S.
Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the
guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.

To my knowledge, and in my experience, neither the US Supreme Court nor the US
Constitution have jurisdiction in cyberspace; which is quite likely why human rights
abuses are common on the internet.
_

Not sure what your point is here. I thought it was pretty well known that the First Amendment prevents the government from restricting freedom of speech. It doesn't prevent a private company telling you're not allowed to use their premises to spread a message that the company sucks, or that you can go onto a privately owned internet forum and break all their rules. On a private forum they can define "hate speech" however they want.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.

On a private forum they can define "hate speech" however they want.

It is nigh unto impossible for users of social platforms to comply with a rule that
forbids "inappropriate and/or offensive" content because opinions about what
constitutes that kind of content varies from person to person, and culture to
culture.

It would be very helpful if platform managers would precisely define and/or
describe inappropriate and/or offensive content so people don't have to guess at it.

Precise definitions and descriptions would help to curb abuses too because without
them, platform managers can ban just about anything they want by arbitrarily
deeming it inappropriate and/or offensive; not only comments and discussions
related to the 2020 election; but even Betty Crocker cake recipes.
_

 

[tango]

True, but at the end of the day the site owners can interpret it how they choose, even if they aren't consistent. It might upset users, it might cause users to leave, but if you don't like the forum rules nobody is forcing you to post.

In theory a nightclub could change the dress code every day and deny people entry even though they were allowed in last night wearing the exact same outfit. Arguably not great business sense but up to them.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
This comment is based upon *spark notes related to Ray Bradbury's novel:
Fahrenheit 451

In explaining how books came to be burned in the first place, the main character's
supervisor explains:

"Special interest groups and other "minorities" objected to books that offended
them. Soon, books all began to look the same as writers tried to avoid offending
anybody.

. . .This was not enough, however, and society as a whole decided to simply burn
books rather than permit conflicting opinions."

That so reminds me of some lyrics in QUEEN's song titled: One Vision.

One man, one goal,
One mission.
One heart, one soul,
Just one solution.

I had a dream when I was young,
A dream of sweet illusion:
A glimpse of hope and unity,
And visions of one sweet union.

So give me your hands,
Give me your hearts.
I'm ready.
There's only one direction.
One world, one nation,
One vision.

You see; by selectively banning books, we make the world a nice safe little haven
for only one ideology, one perspective, and one morality; which of course everyone
must accept on penalty of being branded an insurrectionist, a traitor, and/or
deplorable, non patriotic, an enemy of unity, toxic, and/or a tumor.

Later in the novel, the main character meets a former English professor who
laments;

"The current state of society is due to the cowardice of people like himself who
would not speak out against book burning when it was still possible to stop it."
_