Wal-Mart Stands Behind Offensive Substance

[Lavie Enrose]

To protest a Flagstaff, Arizona ballot proposal that would restrict giant grocery stores, Wal-Mart ran a newspaper ad featuring a famous Nazi book-burning photo and the following text: "Should we let government tell us what we can read? Of course not....So why should we allow local government to limit where we shop?"

FULL STORY (http://www.wonkette.com/politics/culture-war/walmart-stands-behind-offensive-substance-103705.php)

[Psi Baba]

But obviously Wal-Mart feels it's okay if Wal-Mart tells us what we can read. Not only that, as huge fincancial backers of the Bush administration, any policies they disagree with, they are in fact supporting financially. So actually, the photo is quite apropos, but not in the way Wal-Mart intended it to be.

[Ed]

Wal-Mart refused to sell Howard Stern's book "Private Parts".

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Psi Baba
But obviously Wal-Mart feels it's okay if Wal-Mart tells us what we can read.

I don't think that's an apt comparison. Wal-Mart is entitled to carry whatever books they want to carry. You are entitled to shop elsewhere if you don't like their selection. Their boycott of certain books in no way "tells us what we can read."

[crimresearch]

"...Wal-Mart says it didn't even realize the ad depicted Nazis. When people complained, the retailer apologized "for the use of the imagery.".."

So these people would have been happy to let Walmart build in their backyard, if they had only depicted Muslims burning books?
:p

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Psi Baba
But obviously Wal-Mart feels it's okay if Wal-Mart tells us what we can read.

Amen, brother! Let's all boycott Wal-Mart until they carry every book ever published, and makes space available to crappy authors who couldn't get published. What could be more fair than that?

Tell me, oh reactionary one, does your public library carry every book in existence? No? Then aren't they telling you what to read, and being publicly funded, isn't that tantamount to state-controlled censorship, the thought police and herpes simplex 10?

They carry what sells. It's called capitalism. Deal with it.

Not only that, as huge fincancial backers of the Bush administration, any policies they disagree with, they are in fact supporting financially.

I agree, only unwahsed hippies with more ire than brains should be allowed the right to political speech or support a candidate. After all, they're the right-thinkers, not the evil corporations that make modern society possible.

So actually, the photo is quite apropos, but not in the way Wal-Mart intended it to be.

Your post is quite humorous, though not the way you intended.

[davefoc]

Oh good another bash Wal-Mart thread.

Why stop there? Let's bash the people who shop there because they are so greedy that they are willing to shop any place that carries the stuff they want to buy at the prices they are willing to pay.

Let's especially bash every evil captitalist enterprise that is so successful at selling products that the public wants that they take business away from other companies.

But let's praise good companies like K-Mart that lose market share to the point of bankruptcy. These must be run by the good capitalists not like the evil successful capitalists that run Wal-Mart.

Let's get on the union band wagon and excoriate Wal-Mart for their sub-union wages. Think how much worse off the Wal-Mart workers are than the Eastern Airlines workers who don't have to go to work at all since they bankrupted their company.

[Snide]

I used to hate Walmart.

They didn't sell Titleist Pro-V1s.

Now the one in my town does.

But they're still cheaper elsewhere.

So I can't hate them for the same reason most do (cheap quality) and I can't love them for the same reason most do (lowest prices).

So you're all wrong on this one!! :p ;)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Their boycott of certain books in no way "tells us what we can read."

Doesn't it do exactly that? I don't expect them to carry every book, but if they are boycotting certain popular books aren't they telling us what they think we can/should read?

[Cleon]

I'm far from a WalMart fan. In fact, I hate their anti-union tactics (insert snide comment from davefoc here), I hate their need to dominate everything in sight (insert snide comment from davefoc here), and I hate their crappy products. And oddly enough, I don't really give a rodent's rear end what davefoc has to say about it.

But who the hell buys books at WalMart to begin with? The only books I've ever seen in a Walmart were various bible stories, bibles, Christian fiction, Christian nonfiction, and a platry collection of best sellers. If I want a book, I'll go to a bookstore.

[Brown]

I live in "Target country." There are a few Wal-Marts about, but they are far less numerous than Target stores.

To the best of my recollection, I have never purchased a book from Wal-Mart. In the Wal-Marts around here, there always seems to be a plentiful selection of "advice" books, "self-help" books, and "religious" books, with considerable overlap among these categories. Typically, the advice and help that these books offer is to become more religious, to exercise less independent thought, and to make wishes for things (this is called "praying"). To my way of thinking, this sort of "advice" and "help" is more obscene than anything George Carlin has ever said, but you can probably guess whose books Wal-Mart won't sell.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Ipecac
I don't think that's an apt comparison. Wal-Mart is entitled to carry whatever books they want to carry. You are entitled to shop elsewhere if you don't like their selection. Their boycott of certain books in no way "tells us what we can read."

NOTE: The definition of 'boycott' is in line with the above 'shop elsewhere'.

"to refuse to buy (a product) or take part in (an activity) as a way of expressing strong disapproval"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=boycott*1+0&dict=A


Quote Tony
" ...but if they are boycotting certain popular books aren't they telling us what they think we can/should read? "

Riiight....

When I refuse to go to Taco Bell, I am telling other people what they can/should eat.


In fact, everytime someone makes a free choice, they are infringing on Tony's fantasy liberties.
:rolleyes:

[Tony]

Originally posted by crimresearch


Quote Tony
" ...but if they are boycotting certain popular books aren't they telling us what they think we can/should read? "

Riiight....

When I refuse to go to Taco Bell, I am telling other people what they can/should eat.


In fact, everytime someone makes a free choice, they are infringing on Tony's fantasy liberties.
:rolleyes:


Anymore strawmen?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Tony
Doesn't it do exactly that? I don't expect them to carry every book, but if they are boycotting certain popular books aren't they telling us what they think we can/should read?

No. They're merely deciding what books *they* would like to sell. They have the right to sell whatever they wish to sell.

Are you offended that they might not carry Dove soap but do carry Jergen's?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ipecac
No. They're merely deciding what books *they* would like to sell.

Doesn't that also mean they, through their power and right to decide what books to sell, are telling their shoppers what they (walmart) think their shoppers should be reading?

Are you offended that they might not carry Dove soap but do carry Jergen's?

No, and I'm not offended they refuse to carry certain books.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony
Doesn't that also mean they, through their power and right to decide what books to sell, are telling their shoppers what they (walmart) think their shoppers should be reading?

No, and I'm not offended they refuse to carry certain books.

Actually it's more like Wal-Mart shoppers telling Wal-Mart what books they can or can't sell. Because if Wal-Mart tries to sell certain books they might lose their core shoppers. So they turn some shoppers away in order to cater to their core shoppers.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Actually it's more like Wal-Mart shoppers telling Wal-Mart what books they can or can't sell. Because if Wal-Mart tries to sell certain books they might lose their core shoppers. So they turn some shoppers away in order to cater to their core shoppers.

Core shoppers? Who would those be? And why would they stop shopping at WalMart if they sold certain books? I thought WalMart was successful because they sold stuff at cheap prices.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony
Core shoppers? Who would those be? And why would they stop shopping at WalMart if they sold certain books? I thought WalMart was successful because they sold stuff at cheap prices.

I don't know who they are, obviously they are people who get offended by "naughty" stuff.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Tony
Doesn't that also mean they, through their power and right to decide what books to sell, are telling their shoppers what they (walmart) think their shoppers should be reading?


Actually, I think it's more that Wal-Mart is telling their shoppers what they think the shoppers WANT to read. If Wal-Mart is wrong, their sales will reflect that.

[Kopji]

The votes are being tallied this evening.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56910&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Actually, I think it's more that Wal-Mart is telling their shoppers what they think the shoppers WANT to read. If Wal-Mart is wrong, their sales will reflect that.

Um, not really. Not unless the dissatisfied shoppers report to Walmart on the books they bought elsewhere because Walmart didn't have them. If you want to buy three particular books, and the store carries two of them, you buy the two there and go elsewhere for the third. Unless you have a coupon for buy 2 get 1 free or something.

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by Jocko
Amen, brother! Let's all boycott Wal-Mart until they carry every book ever published, and makes space available to crappy authors who couldn't get published. What could be more fair than that?

Tell me, oh reactionary one, does your public library carry every book in existence? No? Then aren't they telling you what to read, and being publicly funded, isn't that tantamount to state-controlled censorship, the thought police and herpes simplex 10?

They carry what sells. It's called capitalism. Deal with it.
I have in the past (and still do) defended Wal-Mart's right to sell or not to sell whatever they choose. I understand capitalism. (I admit my phrasing ("...tells us what we can read") was poorly worded as Ipecac correctly pointed out, but I never suggested boycotting and I never said only certain groups should be allowed the right to politcal speech--don't attribute things to me I haven't said). My point was that the attitude reflected in their ad campaign is hypocritcal in light of some decisions they've made. Let me ask you this: please show me the logical connection in Wal-Mart's equating government regulation of commercial development (and one that's up for referendum at that) to government censorship. It's a scare tactic, plain and simple. They might as well have just said, "If you don't get your Wal-Mart, then the terrorists win."

And BTW, if you request a book from a library that they don't have they will try to locate a copy for you. Try ordering Stern's Private Parts or Jon Stewart's America at Wal-Mart. I think you set a new record for the number of strawmen used in one post.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Tony
Anymore strawmen?

Quoting your exact words is a strawman? or is it the dictionary definition of boycott that bothers you?

Perhaps you should refer to your own words in the smoking thread, about employers who won't hire unqualified employees being criminals who should be dragged into court?

Oh wait a minute, you also claim that you never posted those words either.

Denial much?

[crimresearch]

...

[Tony]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Quoting your exact words is a strawman? or is it the dictionary definition of boycott that bothers you?

Perhaps you should refer to your own words in the smoking thread, about employers who won't hire unqualified employees being criminals who should be dragged into court?

Oh wait a minute, you also claim that you never posted those words either.

Denial much?

I don't have time to waste on trash like you, so I won't.

[davefoc]

Cleon wrote:And oddly enough, I don't really give a rodent's rear end what davefoc has to say about it.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that, but you did call my comments snide and I was really only going for sarcastic. I will take that as a compliment.