Yes, we now live in a world where a Dr. Seuss book is contraband. All the disingenuous people who ridicule that sort of prediction as a slippery slope fallacy were right. There was no slippery slope there was a cliff.
Saying Christian bookstores “ban” books is ridiculous. Of course their not going to carry books that piss off the kind of people who shop at these types of stores.
You really are going off the rails here. It’s like a car wreck, where I simply can’t not look.
But it is carnage, regardless.
Well, at least you know you have bad arguments. I didn’t think you were that self-aware. Your mind reading still needs work, though.
The same thing happens in the US. Because shelter is a pretty basic need for humans. Are you honestly trying to equate that with Amazon selling a book? Seriously?
Jesus Christ! Get a grip! The publisher decided not to publish certain Dr. Seuss books. They are not “contraband.” Do you even understand what contraband means?
It was banned by the people who fought against the Sandinistas.
Keep up.
Well, yeah. That’s the point. Replace “Christian bookstores” with “Amazon,” and you have the counterargument to @DemonTree’s post that this thread is mocking.
Or try replacing “Christian bookstores” with “Dr. Seuss’s estate” and “shop at these types of stores” with “reads their books” to refute @octopus.
Octopus hasn’t been within sight of the rails in years.
Let’s not also discount that companies are also made up of people, a lot of whom also probably dislike these toxic viewpoints personally.
It would be a first…
I’m saying it isn’t extreme socialism or crossing some kind of line to say the government can regulate what companies do, including compelling them to provide some kind of service they wouldn’t otherwise. And I do think free exchange of ideas is pretty damn important for a democratic society. Whether it’s a reasonable demand in this particular case is a different question. Probably it isn’t. But it’s not strange or unreasonable; it’s one possible response if the problems escalate.
You folks are foolishly naive if you think you can control the monstrous ideology that is exploiting wokeness.
Are you going to keep on making that mistake?
It’s probably better to have that discussion of strategy in snarkland.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I think this one is particularly worthy of a moment’s attention.
The baker wouldn’t sell the same cake that he sold to everybody else to a couple, simply because the couple was same-sex.
Which people said was the functional equivalent of “forcing a Jewish delicatessen to sell pork chops.”
Except it wasn’t, and those people are idiots.
Nobody banned Dr. Seuss’s books, and nobody was trying to get Masterpiece Bakery to do anything except abide by the laws it agreed to abide by when it [wait for it] opened its doors to the public.
Amazon didn’t refuse to sell this COVID book to a customer because that customer was Asian. Their move/glitch/business decision (was temporary, and reversed) simply took a pork chop off the menu.
In the very strictest sense, I do understand your concern: will we all feel this way when the book yanked from the platform of the 800# gorilla of booksellers is written by Barack Obama ?
Maybe.
And if an LGBTQ baker refuses to sell a stock wedding cake to a straight couple, will I pitch a bitch ? Probably.
But this ain’t that.
Christian bookstores don’t have quite the overwhelming international dominance of Amazon. Your government has far too much control of the internet for comfort. Especially given the notable… erraticness of US voters.
I’m commenting on What_Exit’s own post. Although I see Miller made a subsequent mode note.
Also - stop trying to make BoardWar happen, Gretchen.
One of the many reasons that that is not really comparable is because people actually do need a place to live. They don’t need Amazon to distribute their books.
Another reason that that is not really comparable is that the govt, as part of that deal, usually subsidizes that affordable housing, ensuring that the developer makes a profit off of it.
And I would agree that it would be more efficient for the govt to simply take care of housing directly, but it is actually those on the right that oppose that most strongly.