Amazon 451

.
The online mega merchant's business model has been recently revised to
exclude books from its inventory that contain what it deems as
"inappropriate or offensive" content. In other words not what is universally
deemed inappropriate or offensive, rather, what Amazon deems; which is an
entirely arbitrary deeming; and quite possibly politically biased too.

The Bible contains quite of bit of material that Amazon could deem as
inappropriate or offensive so I expect it's only a matter of time before
Christianity's holy book ends up thrown atop Mr. Jeff Bezos' commercial
bonfire.
_

I do not Facebook.
I do not Twitter.
I do not Amazon.

Pretty much, I am here on CC, do some emailing, and some "search"ing for materials I need for information.
Once in a while I do YouTube, but not nearly as much as I once did. YouTube is one of the main providers for "Cookies." And most of those cookies are the bad kind IMO.

.

This is my primary concern because Amazon was in on the cancel culture
during the 2020 election; which was, and is, a movement by Big Tech to
suppress the flow of information and/or discussion that exposes, and
opposes, its political ideology.

In a nutshell; it is Big Tech's ambition to do all in their power to assure that
the public hear only one side of the coin rather than both.

As for me:

I prefer to decide for myself which books to read and/or which books not to
read.

I prefer to decide for myself which books are appropriate and/or which
books are inappropriate.

I prefer to decide for myself which books contain objectionable content
and/or which contain acceptable content.

I prefer to decide for myself which side of the coin is true, i.e. I prefer to
hear and weigh dissent as well as consent, criticism as well as approval, and
fact as well as fantasy.

I do not agree to a band of book sellers and social media moguls banning,
censoring, suppressing, and deleting any and all publications and/or
discussions that aren't in line with their own personal agendas.

Thus far the US Constitution has prevented Washington from controlling
the free flow of information and public discussion in America, but if the
current wave of political discrimination is left unchecked, and allowed to
become a powerful force in the public sector, then I fear it's only a matter of
time before it'll have enough influence in Washington to steer Congress into
amending the Constitution in order to allow our country to forge its own
version of China's cultural revolution into law.
_

.
• 1Cor 5:6a . .Your boasting is not good.

The Corinthian church was liberal in its attitudes about intimacy. That's no
surprise considering that particular city's culture in their day and age.

Then, as now, liberals tend to think of themselves as sophisticated and
progressive; and vastly superior to stodgy, inflexible conservatives.

A recent article in the Epoch Times shared some of the secrets of a former
KGB agent whose standard plan for moving countries towards communism
includes demoralization. He said that Americans make the task easy because
they were, and are, corrupting themselves on their own; and actually
accomplishing the task much quicker than the KGB could even dream.

America's moral decadence began gaining momentum with the counter
culture back in the 1960s-- it continues to this day in our schools and
universities, in our entertainment, in our business practices, in our work
ethic, in our government and, sort of like the expansion of the cosmos, is
picking up speed instead of slowing down as might be expected.

That's good news for the left because if they are ever to succeed in turning
America into a version of George Orwell's 1984 and/or Ray Bradburys
Fahrenheit 451; they will first have to suppress and/or eradicate any and all
religions that promote traditional, old time moral values; honesty and
tolerance are especially detrimental to the left's agenda.

Conservative Christianity is one of those kinds of religions. We neither teach
nor support a flexible morality that adjusts to evolving social mores. We do
not believe the end justifies the means so long as it benefits the so-called
greater good; and we encourage the publication and the distribution of
books and discussions that examine both the pluses and the minuses of
things like non-binary gender identification, LGBT, transgender, abortion,
human rights, patriotism, dissent, capitalism, property ownership, and
capital punishment, etc. and of course Machiavellian ethics, and oligarchy,
communism, socialism, and totalitarianism.
_

.
While active on another Christian forum some years ago, one of my posts
pointed out that the Bible teaches that gays and lesbians are in just as much
danger of ending up in Hell as murderers. Well; one of the moderators
deleted my comment as "hate speech".

NOTE: The United States does not have codified hate speech laws; since the
U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech
violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

To my knowledge, and in my experience, neither the US Supreme Court nor
the US Constitution have jurisdiction in cyberspace; which is quite likely why
human rights abuses are common on the internet.
_

.
This comment is based upon *spark notes related to Ray Bradbury's novel:
Fahrenheit 451

In explaining how books came to be burned in the first place, the main
character's supervisor explains:

"Special interest groups and other "minorities" objected to books that
offended them. Soon, books all began to look the same as writers tried to
avoid offending anybody.

. . .This was not enough, however, and society as a whole decided to simply
burn books rather than permit conflicting opinions."

That so reminds me of some lyrics in QUEEN's song titled: One Vision.

One man, one goal,
One mission.
One heart, one soul,
Just one solution.

I had a dream when I was young,
A dream of sweet illusion:
A glimpse of hope and unity,
And visions of one sweet union.

So give me your hands,
Give me your hearts.
I'm ready.
There's only one direction.
One world, one nation,
One vision.

You see; by selectively banning books, we make the world a nice safe little
haven for only one ideology, one perspective, and one morality; which of
course everyone must accept on penalty of being branded an insurrectionist,
a traitor, and/or deplorable, non patriotic, an enemy of unity, toxic, and/or a
tumor.

Later in the novel, the main character meets a former English professor who
laments;

"The current state of society is due to the cowardice of people like himself
who would not speak out against book burning when it was still possible to
stop it."
_