[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

The only way I can understand you using this analogy is if you (a) don't understand my argument or (b) don't understand the concept of discrimination.

Or if I was being facetious and you completely missed my point in your rush to wave the flag of righteousness.

The idea that the only discrimination on earth is illegal discrimination boggles my mind.

I didn't say that, but feel free to continue to be boggled.

According to your argument (that any discussion of "discrimination" must be a legal argument or it's a non-issue and no more discrimination than 5-year-old dress decisions), people in New Mexico can't call this behavior "discrimination" because, legally-in-their-area, it's not.

Nor did I say that.

Please re-read what I wrote and do not extrapolate extreme positions for me in your flights of moral outrage.

There are differing degrees of discrimination, ranging from the legal definition to my sparkly shoes example. A company deciding not to sell a certain type of what might be considered pornographic material is not comparable in degree to a broad class of people being denied their right to housing or to vote or to marry, to people being threatened with job loss because of their weight, etc. To try to raise it to that level winds up making "discrimination" a throw-away term, to be used in any instance ranging from a fit of pique to a racially-motivated murder.

My point is, and has been, that Amazon removing a certain type of yaoi is insignificant and not worth the sturm-und-drang that some seem to be trying to foment by labeling it "discrimination" and attempting to give it greater gravitas than it merits. My point is, and has been, that there are certain people who will always rush to condemn Amazon as the Big Bad and will use any action by them as a reason for it. (There are also, to be fair, the Amazon apologists, but they seem to be avoiding this thread .)