Smashwords Succumbs to Censorship

[djulian]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

??? Exactly who did I attack? You obviously don't fall into the group I described. Rejoice.

You stated that most people's opposition to these types of books was based in bitterness over financial gain. You stereotyped people who were opposed to these books, presenting them as having no actual moral qualms, just financial jealousy.

I'm not trying to be a turd; I just read your comment and it rankled me, so I tried to address the substance of it. I often find your contributions to MR to be enjoyable and helpful.

[djulian]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

.....

You changed your original comment, so I'm editing my comment....

I don't think it's reasonable to assume that someone wants something banned for all people just because they don't want it to happen. I gave a fine example with smoking.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by djulian

You stated that most people's opposition to these types of books was based in bitterness over financial gain. You stereotyped people who were opposed to these books, presenting them as having no actual moral qualms, just financial jealousy.

I'm not trying to be a turd; I just read your comment and it rankled me, so I tried to address the substance of it. I often find your contributions to MR to be enjoyable and helpful.

If you don't favor banning the books, but instead merely dislike them, then someone's comments about those who wanted to ban the books shouldn't rankle you.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by djulian

You stated that most people's opposition to these types of books was based in bitterness over financial gain. You stereotyped people who were opposed to these books, presenting them as having no actual moral qualms, just financial jealousy.

I'm not trying to be a turd; I just read your comment and it rankled me, so I tried to address the substance of it. I often find your contributions to MR to be enjoyable and helpful.

Well, by all means then... lets write this off as an unfortunate mishap.

There's a reason I used words like "I think" and "most people's opposition," after all... and that's because I understand there are no hard and fast rules that apply across the board. I mean... isn't it at least slightly possible that you might not be representative of "most people who are opposed" to this sort of literature existing?

And for future reference... my disagreements with people online should never be construed as "I hate you, you suck." But rather a "I may disagree with your position, but still enjoy discussing it" sort of thing.

[djulian]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Well, by all means then... lets write this off as an unfortunate mishap.

There's a reason I used words like "I think" and "most people's opposition," after all... and that's because I understand there are no hard and fast rules that apply across the board. I mean... isn't it at least slightly possible that you might not be representative of "most people who are opposed" to this sort of literature existing?

And for future reference... my disagreements with people online should never be construed as "I hate you, you suck." But rather a "I may disagree with your position, but still enjoy discussing it" sort of thing.

You are the man--I will read them as such.

[anamardoll]

Yeah, I'm really NOT loving the "adults shouldn't be allowed to read things I think are icky" vibe I'm getting from some of the comments on this thread.

Hi, my name is Ana. I am physically incapable of bearing children, and I don't enjoy being around other people's children. I go weeks at a time without even seeing children. Quit justifying censorship on the grounds that your hypothetical children will somehow be hurt by me reading a gorram book.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

That's not nuance. If you say you are opposed to the existence of something, any reasonable person would think that you wanted it banned.

I can't agree more. You hit the nail on the head.

[Redcard]

Personally, for me, when I see people start to talk about what they want "society to do" or what they don't like seeing in "society" or when they talk about things being "acceptable to society", I put my head between my legs and kiss more of my rights goodbye.

Those are all codewords for morality control and thought control.

The funny thing is, I used to believe people who say those things are nuts.. but now we have a presidential candidate making SERIOUS headway who believes that the country is in the arms of an evil mythical being, and that pornography, nay, all sex before marriage, is part to blame for that. And he wants that outlawed. For society. For the children.

What happened to people just not partaking of those things they are not interested in (but that hurt no one?)

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Redcard

The funny thing is, I used to believe people who say those things are nuts.. but now we have a presidential candidate making SERIOUS headway who believes that the country is in the arms of an evil mythical being, and that pornography, nay, all sex before marriage, is part to blame for that. And he wants that outlawed. For society. For the children.

And there you have it. It's a mistake to dismiss censors as mentally ill. They aren't "nuts". They're careful, methodical, patient, and more than happy to undermine freedom in small steps in favor of the long term goal.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Redcard

Personally, for me, when I see people start to talk about what they want "society to do" or what they don't like seeing in "society" or when they talk about things being "acceptable to society", I put my head between my legs and kiss more of my rights goodbye.

Those are all codewords for morality control and thought control.

The funny thing is, I used to believe people who say those things are nuts.. but now we have a presidential candidate making SERIOUS headway who believes that the country is in the arms of an evil mythical being, and that pornography, nay, all sex before marriage, is part to blame for that. And he wants that outlawed. For society. For the children.

What happened to people just not partaking of those things they are not interested in (but that hurt no one?)

It's all for teh children.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

It's all for teh children.

Honestly, I'm waiting for a guy to go on a murderous rampage, and then be acquitted by a jury after his lawyer says, "But he did it to protect everyone's children from those evil people!"

[djulian]

Rather than respond to RedCard and MrsJoseph individually, I'll try this:

There is nothing wrong with having moral qualms or preferences. There is nothing wrong with stating one's moral qualms and preferences.

This happens all the time in every person's life. Some people have moral qualms about eating meat. Some people have moral qualms about pornography. Some people have moral qualms about deforestation. Some people have moral qualms about moral qualms. People always state this. You'll hear a person say, "I wish that person wouldn't drive like that." or "I wish my neighbor would mow their lawn at least once a month." or "I expect the shopkeeper to be honest with me."

To insist that no one ever express their moral opinion or their preferences is thought-control and morality control.

In fact, your responses indicate that you are less comfortable with personal moral freedom than I am. I was explicit in stating that I had no desire to enact any sort of ban--I simply don't want certain things to happen. You, on the other hand, have made it clear that you do not think this is possible--that a person can't wish something was not happening without also desiring to ban it from happening. I take this to mean that you would be comfortable enforcing your own moral standards on me--namely, that I would be required to accept and approve everything you think is worthy of approval, or at least to never express my opinions about it. At the same time, you are more than comfortable expressing your opinions about my statements.

I'm not asking you to agree with my moral opinions. I'm only expecting that I (and others) have the right to express those moral opinions, and I'm making an effort to do so kindly.

[djulian]

In any case, the original question was whether PayPal has the right to refuse service for any reason. They do. To say otherwise is to seek to enforce a compulsory ethical standard, and I (as I have stated) am not comfortable with that.

[Redcard]

Originally Posted by djulian

I'm not asking you to agree with my moral opinions. I'm only expecting that I (and others) have the right to express those moral opinions, and I'm making an effort to do so kindly.

Of course you have the right to your moral opinions, and you have the right to express them.

However, you have to understand that your expression of your moral opinions has repercussions. One of those consequences is that people who believe like you AND want to go a step further will take your words as tacit approval from you to do so. If you do not believe that, take a look at the current state of affairs with regards to our rights.

The statement that we " ... are less comfortable with personal moral freedom than I am. I was explicit in stating that I had no desire to enact any sort of ban--I simply don't want certain things to happen." is insulting to me. I am perfectly fine with you having moral opinions and choices. I'm okay with you voicing those opinions. I'm okay with you following your moral and ethical choices and insisting your children do the same.

Where I stop being okay was your SECOND sentence. "I simply don't want certain things to happen." That implies you want a ban. That implies you want control or force over other people. You don't want people to read those types of fiction. You don't want people to do things. That stops being a moral belief of yours and starts being a societal morality issue.

See what you're saying? You've stopped talking about YOUR choices and YOUR life and YOUR moral compass, and extended it to EVERYONE. In the history of religion and morality and laws and government.. the ONLY WAY this type of thing gets spread is by force. It may sound slippery slopish, but the exact same arguments are made every day by pastors fighting against gay marriage, or interacial marriage, or any number of other things.

If no one is getting hurt, then no one is getting hurt. Having moral viewpoints is fine, I have plenty. Do not imply that I am uncomfortable with your morals. I'm perfectly comfortable with your morals SO LONG AS THEY REMAIN YOURS and do not get spread about society in a manner that LIMITS my freedoms. When you stop talking about what YOU are doing to follow your morals, and start putting it on other people, the next step is a limitation of my choices.

[Redcard]

Originally Posted by djulian

In any case, the original question was whether PayPal has the right to refuse service for any reason. They do. To say otherwise is to seek to enforce a compulsory ethical standard, and I (as I have stated) am not comfortable with that.

Agreed.

All companies have a right to associate with who they choose to .