More importantly he declined to make a cake because they were part of a legally protected class, which transphobic troll is not.
Back to the broader discussion, even if Amazon achieves 99% market share, it still wouldn’t represent less freedom of information exchange than we have experienced 90% of America’s history.
If back in the late sixties I published a comic titled “atheism, communism, and free love”. I would not be able to sell it in any mainstream bookstore or magazine stand across the country. But that wouldn’t represent censorship since I could still print up a bunch of copies on my mimiograph machine, and sell then at, headshops, greatful dead concerts and poetry slams.
These days if I have a pamphlet titled “Trans people are deviant fucks” I may not be able to get Amazon or Walmart or any other reputable publisher to handle them, but I can export it to a pdf, advertise on Parler, or a Christian message board, and sell downloads to anyone who wants one via paypal, reaching an audience I could only dream of 20 years ago.
So no, Amazon declining to sell your book does not mean it was censored.
What? Assuming your prose isn’t too over the top there are plenty of Christian and conservative publishers that would happily print it and get you on Fox and Friends to boot.
Channeling my inner Christian conservative - ‘Look there’s no real problem with you rewriting the Bible and putting words in Jesus’ mouth despite what those papists snuck into Revelations but does he have to say “fuck”?’
ISTM that you missed my point, namely: The argument for letting transgender people play on sports teams of their identified gender is not because we have expanded the definitions of the words “man” and “woman” to include transgender people.
Rather, the argument for both expanding the definitions of the words “man” and “woman”, and letting transgender people play on sports teams of their identified gender, is because we are recognizing transgender identity and supporting transgender rights. The sports decision is not “because of” the linguistics definition, or vice versa: both of them are because of the same general recognition of transgender rights. There is nothing at all dishonest in that argument.
You keep trying to slant this to make it sound as though trans rights advocates are arguing “Ha-ha, you let us get away with calling transgender women “women” so because of that you now have to let them play on women’s sports teams because they’re called women!”, which is just silly. AFAICT nobody but anti-trans-rights advocates is using this fallacious reasoning.
The terms “transgender women” and “cisgender women” are also accurate and not dehumanizing. Insisting on identifying people instead by their birth biological sex is strongly reminiscent of, e.g., anti-SSM advocates who insist on referring to same-sex spouses as “in a committed relationship” rather than “married”.
Sure, referring to same-sex spouses as “in a committed relationship” rather than “married” is also accurate and not dehumanizing. But it’s quite obvious that the real reason for that choice of words is to deny the same-sex spouses’ inclusion in the term “married”. Similarly, it’s quite obvious that the reason for using your preferred terminology is to deny transgender women’s inclusion in the term “women”. In both cases, that denial is an insult to the people being referred to.
You are apparently mixing me up with some other poster(s) (unless you’re being deliberately dishonest in your rhetoric, which of course you wouldn’t be, right?). While I am indeed fine with referring to people who have cervixes (including myself) as “people with cervixes”, I have never endorsed calling people who menstruate “bleeders”, and I don’t think I’ve ever used or referred to the term “birthing parent”. So be a little more careful in your accuracy with the remarks you’re ascribing to me, please.
My bad too, I responded in post #328 before seeing this post. I will defer to your request as OP and refrain from continuing to discuss DemonTree’s asshole opinions about trans women in this thread.
If anything, they’re denying Amazon their freedom of speech. Amazon should have a right to express their views, and if they find someone or something offensive, they shouldn’t have to do business with them.
Then I invite you to provide a counterargument to the arguments I made that led up to that claim.
I am unaware of any company that has ever been turned into a utility by the government. It’s always what they sell that would become a utility (e.g. phone service, water, electricity), and Amazon sells basically everything. You can’t make one single company a utility.
I have never understood the purpose of posts like these. All you did was make a naked claim, without backing it up. Why would that be convincing? How can it further discussion?
If I had just replied back “No, that’s wrong,” I would consider that a pointless post. And I just can’t see how your post was any less pointless.
Because I want you to think more about what you posted. This statement is just so blatantly false—one of those “so false it’s not even wrong.” It’s impossible to know where to start. And I don’t want to have to start on an entire lesson about the history of antitrust for starters. Just give some serious thought about that sentence. You’re a smart guy; I’ve seen it over the years. You usually do much, much better than this.
Or, you know, you post some proof. You’ve made an extraordinary claim. I haven’t.
