Book Burning in America (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Roofgardener

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Jan 7, 2021
    Messages
    465
    Reaction score
    149
    Location
    East Midlands, UK
    Offline
    Well, OK.. not really.. no books have actually been BURN.. yet. But.....

    Doctor Seuss Enterprises has withdrawn six Dr Seuss books from sale, on the grounds that they where 'racially insensitive imagery'.
    Yup.. the Cat in the Hat was a White Nationalist Trumpist Quanon supporter all along ! :p

    Well, they have the legal right to do that. However, what happened NEXT is VERY interesting.
    The value of those six books skyrocketed on Ebay. So Ebay finally responded by... delisting the books.
    It is no longer possible to list any of the six books for sale in the USA. If you try more than once, your account can be penalised.

    Now think about this. You can buy Mein Kampf, and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion on Ebay in the USA no problem.
    But you aren't ALLOWED to buy "If I ran the zoo".

    OK.. this is only six out of the many dozens of books by Dr Seuss.
    At the moment.

    Is it just me that finds this incredibly authoritarian ?
     
    I've lived in a socialist country and watched four young men go to jail because they wrote and sang an offensive song. Does anyone think its a good idea for government or a private company to decide what is offensive?

    Do you believe that the government should force businesses to carry certain content?
     
    What is the difference between this and whites only counters in the cafe?

    A whites only counter was found to violate equal protections by targeting a protected class. A private company choosing not to sell certain products couldn't be any more different.
     
    I've lived in a socialist country and watched four young men go to jail because they wrote and sang an offensive song. Does anyone think its a good idea for government or a private company to decide what is offensive?

    You are conflating two very different things.

    You decry socialism, but then get offended when a private business does not do what you want it to do. Do you see the contradiction there?

    Are you suggesting that the government should force businesses to sell things they don't want to sell?

    Where were you on the bakery that refused to make a cake for the gay couple? For the record, I was actually on the side of the bakers on that one, but only because I view baking a cake artistic expression and I don't think people should be forced to create art they deem offensive. I have a different opinion on selling pizzas. Anyway, the Supreme Court ruled that a business has first amendment rights to not be forced to do business they find offensive, which was the conservative opinion on the case.
     
    What is the difference between this and whites only counters in the cafe?

    Because this is about what business a company engages in, and the other is who they do business with. In this country, there are protected classes - race, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, veteran status, family status, and disability status. By federal law you are not allowed discriminate against anyone based on those conditions. Ebay deciding not to sell 6 of Geisel's books does not fall under that category.
     
    Please excuse my delay in response, some of us are not waiting for Biden to remember where he put his pen to sign the welfare checks.

    Explain to the class how this is not like the whites only lunch counter? I'll get the popcorn and cushion to break your fall when you are doing your flips.

    It's okay, you can come out from your mama's skirt and answer the question.

    Hmm.. another one.

    So, you back the tech companies banning books and dissent? Okay, I am all for capitalism as long as it is used properly. Banning books, politicians, my wife, and many others is not following the spirit of the 1 amendment.

    So I am going to go on a tangent here... eBay is not a "tech company". eBay is a marketplace that happens to do business on the internet. If I told you the name of the corporation I work for, you'd say "bank" or "financial institution". Yet, we are more dependent on tech, and have more tech, more complicated tech, than eBay would dream to have. Same with Amazon the marketplace (not AWS, which is a tech company). "Big Tech" is just another boogieman.

    As for capitalism used properly, what does that even mean? Capitalism at its core wants as free a market as possible. A corporation deciding not to carry a product or produce a product, being a book, a car, the G13 (still bitter about that one) for whatever reason they deem fit, is pure capitalism.

    The "spirit" of the 1st Amendment is "not make laws that infringe". eBay is not making any law. Every other book seller, big and/or small, is free to sell anything allowable under the law... because yes, we do exceptions to the 1st Amendment rule.

    Question, who said this:
    We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.
    Answer: JFK (democrat)

    Is he wrong?

    Ironic that you quoted JFK, and that particular snippet. I guess racism and discrimination do fall under "unpleasant facts", but definitely not under foreign ideas or alien philosophies. He wasn't talking about capitalism either.
     
    Ironic that you quoted JFK, and that particular snippet. I guess racism and discrimination do fall under "unpleasant facts", but definitely not under foreign ideas or alien philosophies. He wasn't talking about capitalism either.

    He was talking about the Voice of America and referring directly to the fact that the Soviet Union kept voices from America off of their airwaves so they didn't hear about freedom and capitalism. Trying to compare that to Dr. Seuss is almost as dumb as comparing Dr. Seuss to segregation.

    Almost.
     
    Private companies have the 1st amendment right to decide what they sell or don't sell. Nobody is stopping anyone from buying or selling these books.

    So you like the whites only lunch counter eh? We aren't talking about them selling the books, we're talking about someone else selling the book. Also, what's your stance on big tech kicking people off the sites?

    You're one of those [mod edit: do not be insulting]
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    Hello all - I have done some light editing on those posts which were veering toward being personally insulting. Please remember to seek a higher level in these discussions.
     
    Hmm.. another one.



    So I am going to go on a tangent here... eBay is not a "tech company". eBay is a marketplace that happens to do business on the internet. If I told you the name of the corporation I work for, you'd say "bank" or "financial institution". Yet, we are more dependent on tech, and have more tech, more complicated tech, than eBay would dream to have. Same with Amazon the marketplace (not AWS, which is a tech company). "Big Tech" is just another boogieman.

    As for capitalism used properly, what does that even mean? Capitalism at its core wants as free a market as possible. A corporation deciding not to carry a product or produce a product, being a book, a car, the G13 (still bitter about that one) for whatever reason they deem fit, is pure capitalism.

    The "spirit" of the 1st Amendment is "not make laws that infringe". eBay is not making any law. Every other book seller, big and/or small, is free to sell anything allowable under the law... because yes, we do exceptions to the 1st Amendment rule.



    Ironic that you quoted JFK, and that particular snippet. I guess racism and discrimination do fall under "unpleasant facts", but definitely not under foreign ideas or alien philosophies. He wasn't talking about capitalism either.

    Mind that cushion! Ebay is not selling anything, they are a platform for others to sell stuff, easy. Who are they to decide? I can't believe how the worm is turned in my lifetime. I remember you leftists being the people of freedom of speech, freedom to associate, freedom of religion, not this ridiculous word play. Hell, the protests at the capital for the Vietnam war was worse. Who's a bitterclinger now? Who's clutching her pearls? OPEN BIDEN!!!

    Again, how is this any different than a lunch counter? For ebay to target books or statements, for facebook or twitter to ban, for amazon to not host parler... well there amazon has a right, but the others are no different than the lunch counter. Those companies are a platform that whole business model is based on people using their freedom of speech, and they use favored business status with the US government to make money because they are immune to publisher accountibility. By your standards that is considered corporate welfare, now you like corp welfare? Shame... shame on you and shame this site for editing my words. JFK would be right of Ted Cruz today, ironic that Bumbling Biden has his brothers bust in the Oval office.
     
    Mind that cushion! Ebay is not selling anything, they are a platform for others to sell stuff, easy. Who are they to decide? I can't believe how the worm is turned in my lifetime. I remember you leftists being the people of freedom of speech, freedom to associate, freedom of religion, not this ridiculous word play. Hell, the protests at the capital for the Vietnam war was worse. Who's a bitterclinger now? Who's clutching her pearls? OPEN BIDEN!!!

    Again, how is this any different than a lunch counter? For ebay to target books or statements, for facebook or twitter to ban, for amazon to not host parler... well there amazon has a right, but the others are no different than the lunch counter. Those companies are a platform that whole business model is based on people using their freedom of speech, and they use favored business status with the US government to make money because they are immune to publisher accountibility. By your standards that is considered corporate welfare, now you like corp welfare? Shame... shame on you and shame this site for editing my words. JFK would be right of Ted Cruz today, ironic that Bumbling Biden has his brothers bust in the Oval office.

    Really scraping the bottom out of that barrel at this point.
     
    Answer the question please, how is this different than a whites only lunch counter?

    It's been answered by me and at least three other people. In this very thread. You choose to ignore it every time either because you're trolling or it conflicts with your worldview too much. We've been through half a dozen of you in the past month.
     
    It's been answered by me and at least three other people. In this very thread. You choose to ignore it every time either because you're trolling or it conflicts with your worldview too much. We've been through half a dozen of you in the past month.
    You say conflicts with my worldview but I say conflict with the Constitution. Perhaps you can copy/paste those explanations then.
     
    You say conflicts with my worldview but I say conflict with the Constitution. Perhaps you can copy/paste those explanations then.


    Ebay is a business just as Seuss Enterprise, with the same rights to chose which items they want to sell or not. And I really don't get your second point
    This is why I just can't take you seriously. You purposely conflate two completely different things.


    Businesses can choose what they sell and what they don't. That is their 1st amendment right.

    They are not obligated to sell something they do not want to.

    The government cannot force them to sell or not sell something.

    The 1st amendment applies to what THE GOVERNMENT can or cannot make someone do.

    The government cannot ban the sale of a book. Ebay is well within their rights to choose not to allow sale of a book on their platform.
    Do you think it should be required by the US government for eBay to sell items it doesn’t want to sell?

    Do you think Starbucks should be required to sell Dr. Seuss books?

    Do you believe eBay is an arm of the US government?

    Has the US government made any requirements that these books not be sold?

    If you answered no to all of these questions, then congratulations, you’ve proven this is not, in fact, a ban. It’s a private company deciding what they want to sell.
    No, it doesn't.

    Why?

    Because Ebay choosing not to allow sales on their platform doesn't stop Amazon from selling them. Or Barnes & Noble. Or Books-a-million. Or any other bookstore or library or anyone else. It doesn't stop me from selling a copy at a garage sale or on Craigslist. It's Ebay's choice alone.
    Corporations and other private entities aren't bound by the 1st amendment. Only the government is. This is basic day 1 high school civics class stuff.

    Now take that cushion and kindly sit down.
    Wait, books are a protected class? Race, religion, sex and... books?

    Are people really that stupid or has the trolling just become that poor?
    Private companies have the 1st amendment right to decide what they sell or don't sell. Nobody is stopping anyone from buying or selling these books.
    Do you believe that the government should force businesses to carry certain content?
    A whites only counter was found to violate equal protections by targeting a protected class. A private company choosing not to sell certain products couldn't be any more different.
    You are conflating two very different things.

    You decry socialism, but then get offended when a private business does not do what you want it to do. Do you see the contradiction there?

    Are you suggesting that the government should force businesses to sell things they don't want to sell?

    Where were you on the bakery that refused to make a cake for the gay couple? For the record, I was actually on the side of the bakers on that one, but only because I view baking a cake artistic expression and I don't think people should be forced to create art they deem offensive. I have a different opinion on selling pizzas. Anyway, the Supreme Court ruled that a business has first amendment rights to not be forced to do business they find offensive, which was the conservative opinion on the case.
    Because this is about what business a company engages in, and the other is who they do business with. In this country, there are protected classes - race, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, veteran status, family status, and disability status. By federal law you are not allowed discriminate against anyone based on those conditions. Ebay deciding not to sell 6 of Geisel's books does not fall under that category.

    There ya go, champ. Now please explain how a company or any private entity is required to put your or anyone else's 1st amendment rights ahead of their own.
     
    There ya go, champ. Now please explain how a company or any private entity is required to put your or anyone else's 1st amendment rights ahead of their own.

    Not sure how champ is not an insult, but flat earther is.

    First, I thank you for going through all that, but you proved why I disregarded it, they don't apply here. EBAY is a platform, twitter, facebook, and instagram are platforms, not publishers. If they were publishers, then legally they would possibly have rights to ban hammer people, but they are platforms and therefor cannot choose to ban hammer anyone for exercising what would be viewed in the courts as legal.

    If EBAY were buying then selling books then it would be different, but they are not. They are banning them because they don't like the color of their skin, or who they sleep with, or their gender. It's simple, ideology is protected, that's why the disease of socialism/communism has been able to grow.
     
    Not sure how champ is not an insult, but flat earther is.

    First, I thank you for going through all that, but you proved why I disregarded it, they don't apply here. EBAY is a platform, twitter, facebook, and instagram are platforms, not publishers. If they were publishers, then legally they would possibly have rights to ban hammer people, but they are platforms and therefor cannot choose to ban hammer anyone for exercising what would be viewed in the courts as legal.

    If EBAY were buying then selling books then it would be different, but they are not. They are banning them because they don't like the color of their skin, or who they sleep with, or their gender. It's simple, ideology is protected, that's why the disease of socialism/communism has been able to grow.

     
    Would be interesting to see if there is any correlation in the IP addresses of these posters that come in and flare out in a matter of days.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom