On the other hand, if Hitler wrote a self-help book, I would understand objecting to publishing it.
No. It’s “X” is good, unless people are exploiting “x” for a purpose that is bad and not good for the people “x” is suppose to help.
But Civis Bigge, I didn’t say it was about me until you said you didn’t accuse me of making strawman arguments.
Whatever. It’s hard to hear sometimes with so many people talking at once.
That would be interesting book 
So, if straight marriage were illegal, and people wanted to legalize it, but some radical group you didn’t like supported the legalization because they thought it could further their evil agenda, it would be worth keeping it illegal? 
It would depend on what their agenda would be.
If there was no laws on it, I would be against straight marriage being legal, for the reason that the government shouldn’t have anything to do with marriage and my deepest personal relationships.
I understand now that when you posted something along the lines of “Look who’s the strawman now” you were referring to another poster. It read to me like you were complaining that I had accused you of making strawman arguments and I didn’t understand why you would do that.
EDIT:
Now who’s doing strawmen?
So you’re using a broad definition of censorship that includes de facto as well as de jure. Okay. But…
What case? It’s not a legal case. The company is choosing to listen to the employees. They’re free to express their opinions, and the company is free to accept or reject anything they suggest. Same with market research, or dial-a-psychic, or anything else they want to base their decision on.
So while the employees don’t have a (legal) case against the book, no-one has a (legal) case against the company either, and it stands to reason that JP is not ultimately being censored unless he can’t figure out how to get his book to market without the help of this one company. And considering his rise to superstardom in the last few years, I think it’s clear he doesn’t need them.
He may feel he needs the endorsement of a respectable (i.e. well established) publisher in order for him to be taken seriously, but… that’s his problem, not the publisher’s.
Is there a chilling effect? Yes, if your definition of chilling effect is broad enough, but then the world of fashion is just one chilling effect after another.
Oh yeah, and I totally forgot: the company is publishing the book anyway, so all this commotion is much ado about nothing. 
Thanks for your response. I was responding directly to another poster, and you might find that half of the conversation useful in understanding the context of my posts in the future.
However, since you have taken the time to comment I am happy to rely to you as well:
I was actually paraphrasing the Google definition in response to what the other person had written.
No, not a legal case. By which I meant, an argument for why the publisher should do something besides publish the book, and what that thing should be.
Yes, no disagreement here.
I’m not sure if this is somehow a response to something I have said, looks like penguin logic to me…
Indeed, if the publisher does yield to the curious demands of their employees there would be no shortage of publishers willing to step in.
This is sort of how publishing works, isn’t it? I would prefer to be published in Nature than Forumosa for the same reason. Anyways, I don’t disagree with you. I’ll even take the corollary, that the publisher may feel the need of a best-seller in order to make money, but that is their problem and not JPs.
I’m considering this for the first time, since you’ve brought it to me, and don’t have a working definition or connection to the Guardian article (which I only skimmed). I don’t work in fashion. Really I’m not sure if you meant all of this writing for my attention…
My second post, which you are replying to here, meant to clarify the first. What’s the commotion you are talking about?
That doesn’t really answer the question.
If there was no laws on it,
My hypothetical scenario for you simply flips around the status quo that existed before legalization: marriage type A yes, marriage type B no.
Meaning, there were laws on it, with effects on taxation, succession, medical care, leave from employment for family care or bereavement, your ability to adopt children, etc. (varying by jurisdiction of course). And claiming to be married (census, tax return, visa application, etc.) while you’re legally not married – that would be fraud. 
If there were no ban on the type of marriage you wanted, there would be no campaign to legalize it either.
It does. It depends, meaning in some cases yes and in some cases no. And I gave you a scenario where I would reject legalization of straight marriage.
I was just responding to your comment that the employees don’t “have much of a case”.
Well, it’s for anyone reading this. And I don’t work in fashion either, but it’s the concept: if a certain style comes back into fashion for a while, that’s great, or maybe it’s terrible, but either way the fashion companies are generally going to sell whatever they think people want to buy. Publishing is different, but not that different. 
The commotion about the book hypothetically being censored. I suppose it started more as commotion about the book (not hypothetically) being published, but here we (I mean we in general) are, talking about people talking about people talking about it…
Should we excommunicate @TT?
@discobot fortune
My sources say no
Hi! To find out what I can do, say @discobot display help.
Your scenario was if there were no laws on it, you wouldn’t want laws to be created in the first place.
But there are laws, and in the scenario I gave you, those laws would be flipped around, so you could relate to the people who were campaigning for legalization for reasons that had nothing to do with CM.
So, if you could go to jail for claiming to be married, and you wanted that law changed, but some obscure ultra-minority radical group most people had never heard of (and wouldn’t care about if they had) also supported legalization, would you still oppose it?
Or to generalize it more, you may recall that a (formerly obscure) radical ultra-minority guy famously endorsed Trump in 2016 but turned around and endorsed Biden in 2020. Same guy, same radical (and racist) ideology, very different endorsements.
If all it takes to discredit an electoral choice is the support of some obscure radical lunatic somewhere, then as long as you have a big enough supply of those people (in different flavors), everything is going to get discredited anyway – every candidate, every choice in a referendum or plebiscite. But most of it is just a distraction from the issues that really matter.
So why focus on one obscure, unnamed radical group’s endorsement of an electoral choice at the expense of every other side of the debate, unless you want to endorse the association between that electoral choice and the radical group? Which is what JP did.
Dude…he answered one question in a hypothetical way of what he would do if something was happening. He did not say he is against gay marriage because of neo Marxists like the way you’re trying to say. You’re making it into something way too complicated.
I gave you a scenario, I made my point. You just don’t like it because it’s not the answer you want.
He was asked about that comment specifically later, he said a bit more, FWIW
