« Civilian casualties | Main | Does Obama really want Gadaffi to go? »

March 23, 2011

Comments

"A few months ago, Google punished me by removing the ads from my blog."

Now that you mention it, I haven't seen the hijab wearing woman in the ad for "Muslim Singles" (or whatever their name was) on your site in some time now.

Well… I’m a great fan of your blog, but I think you’re focusing on the wrong thing here. This is self-censorship that is the result of a public hue and cry over bad behavior. In short, Apple got caught in the act of being itself, and the picture wasn’t particularly pretty. The “Christian organization which has some sort of politically incorrect take on homosexuality” is part of a concerted effort to keep gay American citizens and tax payers in a perpetual state of second class citizenry. It’s a cultural meme that is losing its potency as more and more young people see if for the simple, exploitive bigotry that it is. The lesson of Apple is not that the country is lurching into some kind of scary form of censorship, but that more and more Americans don’t want to support organizations that demonize their own families.

"The lesson of Apple is not that the country is lurching into some kind of scary form of censorship, but that more and more Americans don’t want to support organizations that demonize their own families."

If that was the case Bob then Apple would have kept the app in the app store and no-one would have bought it. Rather what happened is a lot of activists screamed 'bigotry' to Apple and Apple caved to avoid being labeled as 'bigots'. Your comment is just the usual dreary defence of censorship.

I had some sympathy for gay rights until little tinpot fascists like you and Apple tried to characterise any dissent from the gay rights agenda as 'bigotry' and 'demonizing'. Not any more.

Oh boy, we have another homo lover here. Tell you what Bob, I certainly don't have any queers in my family.

This sort of corporate censorship is nothing new. Business organizations have always been at pains to avoid offending the wrong sort of people, as it impacts their bottom line.

The difference is that today Christian-patriotic morality has been replaced (among most elites, especially young ones) by SWPL (ie, cultural Marxism) morality.

In the past, a business enterprise absolutely did not want to be seen promoting vice, racial integration, or communism. Some went so far as to police the moral rectitude of their own employees (e.g. Ford Motor).

The reason this is scary today is not because of censorship per se, but because it censors us.

Bob, I don't care what consenting adults do in their bedroom but Podsnap is correct. This is not self-censorship, it's the PC police trying to silence any view other than their own.

"If that was the case Bob then Apple would have kept the app in the app store and no-one would have bought it. Rather what happened is a lot of activists screamed 'bigotry' to Apple and Apple caved to avoid being labeled as 'bigots'. Your comment is just the usual dreary defence of censorship."

Not true. I am against censorship. However, it is a fallacy to believe that free speech carries no cost. If yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is not protected speech; then neither should advocacy for demoting some Americans to second class citizenship.

I certainly don't have any queers in my family.

---------------------

Sig, do you really want to be on the same side as these types of mouth breathing, fly-over rubes?

I certainly don't have any queers in my family.

---------------------

Sig, do you really want to be on the same side as these types of mouth breathing, fly-over rubes?

I wish that commenters would keep their comments more civil, and state their points of view without personal insults.

...and Mark Sanchez was fired from CNN...but I bet you like where that's headed.

Exodus International simply needs to make a "Muslim App", explaining traditional Islamic views on Homosexuality. They won't censure that.

The answer to exploitive bigotry is speech, not an effort to silence that creates the impression maybe the bigot is on to something you don't want the public to know about.

I share the gay rights movement's view that Exodus' basic premise is, as demonstrated repeatedly by the organization's own leadership, probably wrong, though I suspect a bisexual can be convinced to go one way or the other exclusively and don't see why that's so controversial. The idea that what they're doing is equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theater is to risible to argue about.

The real issue here is whether Apple should be able to restrict the availability of any iPhone app.

It seems not American to engage in the type of censorship that Apple is engaging. I know gay people that have stayed gay (most of them). I have also met at least four that have gone straight. So now people are allowed to switch from straight to gay but not vice versa?

Apparently, taking about switching teams is now become hate speech and self appointed PC-police have taken up arms.

Weird.

"I certainly don't have any queers in my family"

That you know of. One of these days you might be in for a big surprise.

When is Bob going to admit that the whole 1980's-1990's "everyone is at risk for AIDS" thing was a fraud? Hey Bob, remember when CDC announced that by 1995 1/3 of Americans would be infected? Turns out it's .2%

"Apparently, taking about switching teams is now become hate speech and self appointed PC-police have taken up arms."

It's one of the more annoying things about modern Leftists. People who disagree with them are labeled "bigots" and are silenced whenever possible.

What's the problem exactly? This is how things are supposed to work in a free market. People don't like what company X is doing, company X makes a calculation as to whether such protests are likely to impact its business, and acts accordingly. Apple acted purely in self interest, as it should.

I simply don't understand the insecurity of some people with respect to gays.

The 'mouth breathing, fly-over rubes' will, one day, 'inherit the earth'. You can look it up.

"When is Bob going to admit that the whole 1980's-1990's "everyone is at risk for AIDS" thing was a fraud? Hey Bob, remember when CDC announced that by 1995 1/3 of Americans would be infected? Turns out it's .2%"

During the mid-1980's there were some fears that everyone was at risk, but before long these fears were dispelled. Certainly by the beginning of the 1990's we had a pretty good idea of where the risks actually existed.

The growing importance of Asia will probably save us from this the liberal's beloved "politically correctness".

In no country in Asia there is a legislation that punishes you for "discrimination" or "racist insults" and there is no concept of being politically correct in statements.

In Chinese newspapers statements appeared saying that black people are lazy and stupid and no one ever thought about complaining. In China You can say in TV that being gay is a mental disturbance/ disease and no one would try to prosecute you.

Not allowing black people in upscale clubs or bars is common practice in Japan. In some places there is even a sign at the entrance saying "No foriegners - Japanese people only" (in general applies only to black people). Doing this allows them to avoid problems related to drunk fighting and girls being molested (as Japanese would rarely do something like that). Guess what? Nobody ever complained.

As the number of Asian immigrants increases in the Western world, the diffusion of Asian moral values will also increase, and this includes the acceptance of discrimination.

"What's the problem exactly? This is how things are supposed to work in a free market. "

As HS says, the problem is that a few big companies have a de facto oligopoly. Besides, I kinda doubt that you really believe in the "free market" argument. If Domino's Pizza makes a business decision not to deliver pizza to NAM areas, will you say "hey, that's just the free market!"

If Denny's decides that it will no longer serve black customers, will you say "hey, that's just the free market!"?

hey, why did they remove their ads? is it because you keep saying that immigrants are dumb?

***
Exodus International simply needs to make a "Muslim App", explaining traditional Islamic views on Homosexuality. They won't censure that.

Posted by: gymquiz | March 23, 2011 at 04:21 PM***

Classic.

USG and Google are working together to protect us from nasty thoughts. I have it on good authority that there is a DOJ inquiry into bringing an anti-trust suit against google books. Perhaps a few too many downloads of stuff like this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ECdb7EjiBnEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=cannibals+all&hl=en&ei=XTKLTcakMYPYgQef5cjGDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

"What's the problem exactly? This is how things are supposed to work in a free market. "

Threats of boycott and the scarlet letter of political correctness are not market forces.

OT, but not really pc. Apparently criminals look different to noncriminals.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201103/criminals-look-different-noncriminals

Tim Cook,the acting CEO of apple,is gay.

«"What's the problem exactly? This is how things are supposed to work in a free market. "

Threats of boycott and the scarlet letter of political correctness are not market forces.»

Yes, they are (like private discrimination of, lets say, gay people is also a market force - the mechaniscs is the same: "I not aprove what you are doing, and because that, I will not make bussiness with you")

"A few months ago, Google punished me by removing the ads from my blog."

Can't you just call them and tell them you're Jewish? ;)

You're right.

The future of censorship is not government thugs, but corporations responding to whatever special interest group is "outraged."

It's more effective that way, because it is no one's fault. Who can you blame? Just go back to trying to earn enough money to buy the non-radioactive food.

The comments to this entry are closed.