Let's you and him be censored

A Facebook conversation I recently had with some longtime acquaintances goes horribly right.


Arianne - Do I really live in this state?!
Store reverses decision to hide Elton John magazine cover

Kimberly
 haha you should go buy the magazine in protest because the Elton John story in US Weekly this week is such a good interview (especially for a weekly gossip magazine lol) !!!

Natalie
 If they really want to "protect young Harps shoppers" then why don't they cover up the Cosmo cover with the lady hanging out of her dress and promising to show you "50 new ways to drive him wild?"
Blatant hypocrisy.

Rhology
 Natalie,
Yes, hypocrisy, but two wrongs don't make a right. One does not correct one wrong by erring the next time on the wrong side as well. I wish they'd cover all of the indecent mag covers tbh.

Arianne
 Seriously, they don't cover up the trashy tabloids with stories about alien babies and extreme dieting but this they decided to hide? At least they reversed the decision. Nothing indecent about two people who love each other having a baby.

Rhology
 I guess you know that we don't agree on that last, Arianne. :-)

Arianne
 Indeed we don't.
But you probably don't agree with me having a child out of wedlock either, and just as I am content with loving same sex couples having babies, I am also quite content with my planned, unmarried, fertility treatment-induced pregnancy.

Rhology
 Well, if you're content, you're content. It's just that contentment only goes so far.

Arianne
 I'll keep that in mind as I make my personal decisions.

Rhology
 OK. :-)
BTW, it's one thing to make personal decisions and another to publicise your opinion about controversial topics on a public Facebook wall. Which I'm sure you realise.

Arianne
 I guess for most of my FB friends, my opinion about Elton John's baby isn't controversial. But since I'm not ashamed of my position on gay couples having kids, I'm feeling okay about talking about it.

Bob
 I guess I missed where someone gave someone else the right to make tha call about what is controversial.

Rhology
 If large amounts of ppl on either side disagree about a certain issue, that makes it controversial by definition.

Bob
 ‎"large amounts of people did not make the decision in quesstion. Supermarket management apparently did. Oh, and you.

Anne
  In keeping with the above definitions of controversial, if the vast majority of Arianne's friends support gay rights, the topic is not controversial for this (her Facebook page) venue. Ergo, I do not find this to be a controversial topic.

Rhology
 Bob,
Oh, I was just talking about whether the issue is controversial.

Anne,
Are you aware of some recent survey of Arianne's FB friends on this issue that would tell you that?

Anne
 Rhology,
A. I did begin with the conditional "if."
B. If the current posts are any indication, you are part of a very small minority.
C. Did you?

I'm not trying to attack anyone, I'm only making the point that some definitions are problematic.

Rhology
 A. "If" - fair enough.
B. This is a pretty small sample size. :-)
C. No, but I didn't make the positive assertion.

Sonia
 I agree, the decision to hide the cover is gross. Too much censorship based on individuals' definitions of 'moral' or 'decent' only hurts the rest of us. The Supreme Court ruled years ago on what constitutes "indecent", and this magaine cover does not fit within those terms. Unfortuneately (or fortuneately for freedom), private enterprise has much discretion on matters like this. Definitely makes me feel grateful to live in a heavily populated, relatively tolerant urban area. Btw, I'm impressed with the baby decision and think its awesome! You're an amazing woman!

Rhology
 How does a private business deciding not to display sthg like that "hurt the rest of us"?

Bob
 Do you really want to go there? Make profit the arbiter of morality? Are there more comsumers in San Fran or Springdale, Ark?

Rhology
 Bob,
To be honest, I don't see how that is particularly relevant.

Sonia
 Rhology: Bob's is just one of many reasons why censorship is bad- censorship based on morailty or any number of other reasons. Tolerance comes from education. Education comes from information. And, why not give us lots of information, teach us to think, critically analyze, and let us make our own decisions about what we choose to read or look at. Most of us can handle it. I'm certainly not afraid of what a magazine cover is going to do. But then, I'd argue this is as much about fear as it is about 'morality'.

Rhology
 Hi Sonia!
Let's be clear, though - you also support censorship based on morality. Shall a newspaper run an ad from a neo-Nazi group calling for all whites to rampage thru black neighborhoods and skewer black babies?
Of course not. The question becomes: Whose morality shall we enforce?
Having thought that thru, I have come to realise that the Christian worldview is the most coherent and reasonable. Thus I conclude by commending the self-censorship of the business that didn't want to tacitly endorse perverse behavior of the sort in which Elton John is engaged.

I have zero problem with information, but the mag in question is hardly a source of information. It's celeb gossip, and perverse gossip.

Finally, I have to strenuously object to the "fear" comment. I'd like to ask you to clarify what you mean. Who here is afraid, and of what?

Sonia
 Hi Rhology- We're not in agreement. I do not favor censorship on any level except that which is provided for by law- that which incites immediate violence. See Brandenburg v. Ohio. (Your example *might* enter this realm depending on facts of the situation.) There's also a legal distinction between what a private and public enterprise may do. This, of course, is a legal discussion I don't have time for on FB.

What you don't like is that the cover offends your sensibilities, your religious worldview, etc. It doesn't offend mine. While we both may have theories on why that is let's just conclude by agreeing that it's cool we can argue and disagree in this country and neither of us will go to jail for it.

10-4. I'm out.

Rhology
 Yeah, I didn't want to discuss legal complexities either. Just moral. :-)

But as for the "offend my sensibilities", eh, kinda. I'm far from naive; I expect it, but I don't want society to accept such behavior.
And your comment is ironic as well - the store's initial "censorship" of the mag offended your sensibilities, clearly. So do be careful about the stones you chuck. On that note, you didn't answer any of my 3 challenges from last comment.

And yes, it is quite cool. As the Left grows in power in the US, voices such as mine will be progressively (pun fully intended) silenced, and you won't have as many debate partners. But perhaps Jesus will have mercy.

Sonia
 The cover, Rhology. The magazine cover offends you. It doesn't me. The censoring of the cover does offend me. No stones indireclty thrown. In fact, no stones thrown.

Have a good night, man.

Arianne
 After a long and busy day, I've had some time to reflect on all the postings. I have determined that I am still totally okay with a. gay couples, b. gay couples having/adopting children, and c. gay couples and their children on magazine covers at the check out aisle. Further, I have decided that a. I am glad gay people don't judge/condone my relationship choices (that I know of anyway) and that b. my tolerance for intolerance is waning which makes me scared that I am also becoming intolerant, which is something I more and more despise. Good night, everyone!

Rhology
 Sonia,
Well, really, I don't know if it's correct to say the cover **offends* me. More like it disgusts me, but I certainly understand why it might offend others.
And of course, I think a simple turnabout will demonstrate that you're not really interacting with the heart of the issue.

The hiding of the cover, Sonia. The hiding of the magazine cover offends you. It doesn't me. The censoring of the cover does not offend me. No stones indirectly thrown. In fact, no stones thrown.

What I'm trying to say is that it seems like you're taking the "we're objective and tolerant, while those fundies are easily-offended bigots" approach. I'd like you to either retract that position (b/c as we've seen, it's not true) or tell me that I mistook your position and explain what your position really is.

Arianne,
I commend you, b/c it's clear you're thinking this thru. And please don't mistake me - I'm not trying to say that I'm way ahead or superior or anything like that. OTOH I have thought about these issues in some detail and it's always gratifying to see others do so as well. I'd like to ask this of you: Does this drift towards intolerance of intolerance, thus becoming a self-contradiction, not lead you to think that perhaps the tolerant/intolerant issue is far less important than truth? And have you ever asked yourself how you know that homosexuality is morally acceptable?


Arianne
 Sorry Rhology, you missed the sarcasm in my last post. Rest assured, I've thought a lot about my position on such issues long before I posted this. I think what you define as truth and what I define as truth is likely quite different, and I long ago decided that I have absolutely no moral qualms with a man loving a man or a woman loving a woman. Perhaps because I am not as tied to a religion as you are, these decisions are easier for me to make, and frankly, I'm okay with that. Because in my mind, Jesus came from a place of love, not hate, and the hate filled crap people claim in "his name" disgusts me, just as my position on these issues disgust you. That is why tolerance is in fact very important to me. I am not of the opinion that I have it all figured out, and likewise, I do not think anyone probably has it all figured out. So we must coexist, and tolerance would make that much more pleasant. I am now done with this discussion. I'm not budging, you are not budging, and I don't find it all that stimulating. Not trying to be rude, just saying that the questions you pose are not questions I concern myself with the way that you do.

Rhology
 Oh, my apologies for missing the sarcasm.
But does that mean that you don't in fact see the irony and contradiction in being intolerant of intolerance? How that makes one into a constantly self-referential ideologue?
Most definitely we define truth definitely. It would seem you define moral truth in terms of what you happen to like at that moment. I derive my definitions from what Jesus said and did, and He has much better credentials than you or I. Sure, He loved. He loved sinners, and especially sinners **who repented of their sin**. When was the last time you repented of your sin? You've got some, you know, as does Elton John. I've got you both beat in terms of how bad a sinner I am, but Jesus' forgiveness extends to me too, thankfully. That doesn't mean you're off the hook - you are responsible to both repent of your sin and to stop thinking you have any idea or right to define morality for anyone (including yourself). And Jesus hated sin.
Also, just FYI, while it's true to say Jesus loves sinners, it's *also* true to say He hates them.
...for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." 13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." (Romans 9:11-13)
The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity. (Psalms 5:5)
The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked, And the one who loves violence His soul hates. (Psalms 11:5)
...do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (James 4:4)

Anyway, I don't mean to pile on, but you raised some important issues in your comment.
Thanks for the interaction!

Arianne
 Um, Rhology, please quit preaching at me now. And yes, my comment about intolerance for intolerance was in fact intended to be ironic and sarcastic. But perhaps you think folks aren't smart enough to know that? I think it is clear now and as I said in my earlier statement, I think this discussion has run its course.

Rhology
 No, the mistake was mine and mine alone. I meant to imply nothing about anyone else's intelligence.
And sorry you thought I was preaching at you. I meant simply a point of information (since you made an incorrect assertion about Jesus), and also I wanted you to know where I'm coming from. Unless you have some prejudicial bias against the Christian position...