First Amazon isn't a person. People at Amazon chose to remove these books and would be doing so in your example. It is important to put the blame and credit on the people involved and remember we aren't angry at Amazon we are angry at a person or group of people who are responsible (if not accountable) for these acts.
If the statement were true, no, it wouldn't be censorship. Whether someone would believe that was the real reason is another issue.
There is a distinction there though. Whether the decision is impacting their bottom or they think it will has nothing to do with censorship. Google officers censored search results in China thinking it would improve their bottom line, it was still censorship.
If Amazon officials removed Christian titles because they don't sell they wouldn't be doing it because they find the material objectionable (or want Amazon to appear to, which amounts to the same thing). If the world were filled with atheists and they remove Christian titles because they believe openly suppressing that message and appearing to find it objectionable will increase Amazon sales that is censorship.
Amazon is an entity and official is a person. The official would be the person at Amazon who had the authority to order this censorship.
That official 'actively engaged (in) suppression' because they chose something they didn't like people saying and removed it to the best of their ability. It would be censorship if it was a small local bookshop selling a book a year, ineffective, but censorship. In this case it is very effective, by removing the material from Amazon the official has prevented 90% of the market from being able to purchase the material he tried to suppress.
"Help, I'm being supressed/censored, because Walmart doesn't stock the short story I wrote in 5th grade"
Walmart can't do anything. Officials at Walmart can censor a story. That requires them to examine the story and not merely exclude it, but exclude it because they find it objectionable. It is doubtful anyone at walmart has examined your story but since walmart is well known for censorship of material its officials find morally objectionable it is quite possible they WOULD censor it if they did examine it. Then again, they might not censor it at all they might decide it wouldn't sell.
See, choosing to exclude a product because it won't sell isn't examining it and finding it objectionable and engaging in censorship because you think it will make you money is still censorship.
"They're not censoring, since they're not attempting to restrict anyone's free speech, nor to limit anyone's access to that speech."
They are attempting to restrict the free speech of the books' authors and limit 90% of the book markets (that is amazon's marketshare) access to that speech.
They are examining the message and refusing to spread that message based on its content. That they are performing censorship because they thinking censoring material will make them more money is irrelevant.
To restate the GP's example.
"What if tomorrow, Amazon announced that it would no longer sell any books that portrayed Christianity in a good light or promoted "Christian themes". Would you call that censorship? I would."
If they thought this would increase sales it wouldn't magically stop it from being censorship. Censorship can be a business decision, one does not preclude the other. For example, Google choose to censor search results in China. This was purely a business decision but that doesn't absolve Google of engaging in censorship.
"Is Borders guilty of censorship because they don't carry the "Big Busted Shemales" magazine holiday edition?"
It isn't censorship simply not to carry it. It becomes censorship when they decide not to carry it because they don't want the message contained in it spread.
'In this case it isn't censorship at all. Amazon just doesn't want to carry that book.'
And Amazon not wanting to 'carry that book' can be safely extended to Amazon deciding I'm not permitted to 'carry that book' on my kindle either? They pulled the already sold copies from customer devices as well.
Besides which, Amazon not wanting to 'carry that book' means that book has been silenced from 90% of the market.
"There are 2 Walmarts within 3 miles of my house in opposite directions. I rarely visit them and there are plenty of other stores to purchase things from. If i need a cheap poorly made item, or it's 2am i can run to them to grab it. I see that as a good thing."
If anyone else did it might be something that would continue. But you are in a statistically insignificant minority who are willing to pay more for the same good. Your plenty of other stores will become more and more expensive as time goes on and eventually will all go under.
Just because the Walmart effect hasn't completely run its course in your neighborhood yet doesn't mean the conclusion isn't inevitable.
Even libel needs to be narrowed. It shouldn't matter if my opinion hurts your reputation or your business I'm entitled to have one and express it. Right now truth is usually a defense, anything short of demonstrable falsification should be proof against libel.
"Exactly. How is it that people who are so afraid of "censorship" are also the ones that want the government to control everybody else's actions?"
That is how the two party system is rigged. It doesn't matter which one you pick or which one is in power. Only the portions of their agenda which are bad for the people are going to happen.
What if I am opposed to censorship, support the right to bear arms and believe in it as a way to counteract the power of the police and government, am opposed to liability shelters such as corporations, believe in a return to state rights, believe in a return to jury nullification, believe in a return to the constitution including the part that says that all powers that weren't explicitly granted to government stay in the hands of the people, and don't believe in nanny laws including the audacity of government to claim it has the authority to tell citizens who aren't endangering others which medications/drugs they can have or use and when. Oh and lets not forget, believes that police and other officials should be subject to the law and have to answer to the same courts and the same charges the rest of us do when they break it.
In other words, where is the party that wants to weaken government, check the wealthy, and empower the people?
"If the constitution was enforced the US Congress would not have the power to bailout AIG."
Enforced by whom? Which branch of government benefits by having its powers checked by the constitution? The congress which makes unconstitutional laws and refuses to appoint any supreme court judge unless they swear continuously for hours, days, or weeks that they won't 'legislate from the bench' aka nullify or weaken laws which infringe on the rights of the people. The executive branch who converted a collection of largely independent states with their own citizens and independent citizen militias into a federal army and federal citizens? Or perhaps its the judicial branch who decided they were better at interpreting what is just and unjust than the people and unilaterally gave themselves the authority to override the people's voice in the peoples only direct check against unjust laws and government, jury verdicts and jury nullification?
It is impossible to reform the system from within the system. To even begin to do this you would have to try to accumulate the power to effect change and it is people doing just that which resulted in our present state.
The only way anything is going to change in this country is via revolution. In this nation of weak stomached individuals who think that a few unstable children who can't handle 'cyber bullying' is a reasonable justification for eliminating free speech (aka anonymous speech) I'm not holding my breath.
"There are tons of other bookstores where I can shop"
Not for long, the major brick and mortar chains are going out of business. They used to offer the advantage of providing instant gratification when you wanted a book but thanks to digital book readers they don't even have that anyone. You can buy the book in your bathrobe and have it this instant. Now all they have left are publishers who don't offer digital versions at the same time as print and non-fiction volumes where one might want a hard copy for easy reference.
Thanks to used book poachers who buy all the worthwhile titles from used book shops and resell them on amazon those will soon have no selection and die off (these usually offer credit, so readers would bring back the good titles and keep the selection healthy).
That's like claiming Walmart isn't a monopoly because there are a few stores selling some of the same products that aren't out of business yet.
Their only major competitor, K-Mart only exists because walmart chooses to leave it with just enough territory to exist... so they won't be considered a monopoly. For instance, Wal-mart has deliberately chosen not to put up stores in the metropolitan areas of Miami and has instead left that territory to K-mart. There are k-marts in areas with Wal-marts but their decline is obvious.
"during this last month I gradually excised google from my browsers to use other search engines (like bing, yahoo, hotbot, lycos, etc)"
And had to intentionally choose to use inferior options to do it. The portion of consumers who are willing to accept an inferior choice consistently to make a point are statistically irrelevant. You may vote with your dollar but you are just pissing in the wind and the McDonalds and the Wal-marts of the world exist because of it.
Look at the paypal, where google has the 'do no evil' motto Paypal works on the opposite principle. How many people agree with their practices? I've never met one. Hell if you get a paypal rep on the phone even they don't agree with the shit paypal does (not that they can fix it). Yet the number of people actually boycotting paypal is so tiny they aren't even a buzz in paypal's ears.
"Bottom Line: Corporations have power but it must be shared with other competitors. Consumers hold the power of choice to make a corporation succeed or go bankrupt (Circuit city, wards, GM). In contrast the government holds the monopoly on the power to jail, take, or kill. That is far, far, far more dangerous than pissant little amazon."
That presents a false dichotomy. The potential abuse of government doesn't make the abuse of mega corps and monopolies insignificant or otherwise okay. We don't have to choose. We can desire both be declawed. And that isn't even considering that government is actually run by and doing its censorship at the behest of said mega corps.
"Hint: in general, "bloodthirsty dictators" aren't "[supported]" or "[empowered]" by the people they rule over."
ALL leaders are ultimately supported and empowered by the people they rule over. You can't be a bloodthirsty dictator if nobody listens to you (thereby empowering and supporting you), at best you can achieve serial killer.
"Values may vary from culture to culture, but some things are absolute... murder and rape are the first that come to mind"
Those are only absolute according to your value system. There have been numerous cultures throughout history that didn't share those values. Some even incorporate ritual murder as a state function.
Way to try to end a discussion. Mentioning Nazi's and Hitler.
In any case. The point would have (and did) apply to Germany as well. It wasn't until the Germans attempted to conquer the rest of the world that this was an issue.
People are entitled to have different values, even drastically different values like cannibalism and genocide. Even Hitler could not take and maintain power without the support of the people.
'More bluntly: you're a moron.'
I think that summarized the sophistication of your comments nicely.
Whether it is a mess or not is something they can decide for themselves and resolve themselves.
They have every right to support and empower a bloodthirsty dictator and the west has no right to push them toward values the west believes to be more right.
"The idea behind the sanctions is to get the people to vote a different way"
It doesn't particularly matter whether you are manipulating the people to something non-violent or violent. It is still manipulation. Foreign governments shouldn't be interfering in the business of the people of Zimbabwe. They are perfectly capable to deciding how to vote (via ballot or force) without external manipulation.
"if the only voice of reform is painted as a western puppet and a traitor"
If the shoe fits. Are you saying it was wrong of wikileaks to expose a western attempt to manipulate a people into overthrowing their leader?
The people of Zimbabwe are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves if they want to live under a dictator there is no need for western govs to manipulate them.
Some of us don't give two shits about another country regardless of whether they have oil or other readily exploitable resources. At least as far as our government is concerned.
Its just you. Baseball is all about running fast, hitting hard, and throwing fast. It's pretty much entirely athletic.
Unless you have some weird personal definition where sports != athletics when the two are actually synonyms. See the definition below, specifically def number 3.
[ath-let-ik] Show IPA –adjective 1. physically active and strong; good at athletics or sports: an athletic child. 2. of, like, or befitting an athlete. 3. of or pertaining to athletes; involving the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or stamina: athletic sports; athletic training. 4. for athletics: an athletic field. 5. Psychology . (of a physical type) having a sturdy build or well-proportioned body structure. Compare asthenic ( def. 2 ) , pyknic ( def. 1 ) .
You mean other than not having notable resource limitations (beyond recruitment), lacking anything resembling a front, not making any sacrifices, and there being faints, deceptions, or the use a point system rather than annihilating opposition?
Dunno. Baseball is about a blunt and direct as you get. Don't get me wrong, there is a great deal of skill involved and there are important judgments. They just aren't of the same variety for the most part. There is a certain amount of tactics in any sport devised and played by men. They all exist as a sort of training for actual warfare. Baseball is just pretty far from that root as sports go.
"The consequences of chess are fuck all - ditto the collateral damage. Where's the commitment in a board game? "
That is entirely dependent on the players. People have died over virtual objects in World of Warcraft, the consequence and the commitment is entirely one of perspective.
"The "defend your turf" area -- dorsal premammillary nucleus -- is larger in the male brain and contains special circuits to detect territorial challenges by other males. And his amygdala, the alarm system for threats, fear and danger is also larger in men. These brain differences make men more alert than women to potential turf threats."
Chess includes attack, defense, and territory. Your opponents pieces threaten your own pieces. As a male you sense this threat, fear the danger it represents to your fronts, and the massive flood of testerone in your system flood the aggresive retaliation and attack in turn.
None of that means much to a computer which is simply calculating every possible move but it certainly matters when playing a human. The hands are more complex in Chess than poker but you are still playing against your opponent, not merely his position.
Baseball is an athletic competition, the only thing it has in common with combat is running.
Chess is a tactical competition where two opposing sides must utilize resources with different strengths and weakness, protect multiple fronts, and make strategic sacrifices, including faints and deceptions to attempt to annihilate one another. Just like actual warfare.
Unlike baseball chess was designed for the express purpose of being a high level warfare simulation.
If you'd said football you could have at least made an argument. You'd be wrong, but at least there'd be an argument there.
The underlying concepts of the games you listed, including chess, are pretty much the same. What is your basis for saying chess is not a war simulation? Lack of explosions?
Slashdot Mirror
First Amazon isn't a person. People at Amazon chose to remove these books and would be doing so in your example. It is important to put the blame and credit on the people involved and remember we aren't angry at Amazon we are angry at a person or group of people who are responsible (if not accountable) for these acts.
If the statement were true, no, it wouldn't be censorship. Whether someone would believe that was the real reason is another issue.
There is a distinction there though. Whether the decision is impacting their bottom or they think it will has nothing to do with censorship. Google officers censored search results in China thinking it would improve their bottom line, it was still censorship.
If Amazon officials removed Christian titles because they don't sell they wouldn't be doing it because they find the material objectionable (or want Amazon to appear to, which amounts to the same thing). If the world were filled with atheists and they remove Christian titles because they believe openly suppressing that message and appearing to find it objectionable will increase Amazon sales that is censorship.
Amazon is an entity and official is a person. The official would be the person at Amazon who had the authority to order this censorship.
That official 'actively engaged (in) suppression' because they chose something they didn't like people saying and removed it to the best of their ability. It would be censorship if it was a small local bookshop selling a book a year, ineffective, but censorship. In this case it is very effective, by removing the material from Amazon the official has prevented 90% of the market from being able to purchase the material he tried to suppress.
"Help, I'm being supressed/censored, because Walmart doesn't stock the short story I wrote in 5th grade"
Walmart can't do anything. Officials at Walmart can censor a story. That requires them to examine the story and not merely exclude it, but exclude it because they find it objectionable. It is doubtful anyone at walmart has examined your story but since walmart is well known for censorship of material its officials find morally objectionable it is quite possible they WOULD censor it if they did examine it. Then again, they might not censor it at all they might decide it wouldn't sell.
See, choosing to exclude a product because it won't sell isn't examining it and finding it objectionable and engaging in censorship because you think it will make you money is still censorship.
"They're not censoring, since they're not attempting to restrict anyone's free speech, nor to limit anyone's access to that speech."
They are attempting to restrict the free speech of the books' authors and limit 90% of the book markets (that is amazon's marketshare) access to that speech.
They are examining the message and refusing to spread that message based on its content. That they are performing censorship because they thinking censoring material will make them more money is irrelevant.
To restate the GP's example.
"What if tomorrow, Amazon announced that it would no longer sell any books that portrayed Christianity in a good light or promoted "Christian themes". Would you call that censorship? I would."
If they thought this would increase sales it wouldn't magically stop it from being censorship. Censorship can be a business decision, one does not preclude the other. For example, Google choose to censor search results in China. This was purely a business decision but that doesn't absolve Google of engaging in censorship.
"Is Borders guilty of censorship because they don't carry the "Big Busted Shemales" magazine holiday edition?"
It isn't censorship simply not to carry it. It becomes censorship when they decide not to carry it because they don't want the message contained in it spread.
'In this case it isn't censorship at all. Amazon just doesn't want to carry that book.'
And Amazon not wanting to 'carry that book' can be safely extended to Amazon deciding I'm not permitted to 'carry that book' on my kindle either? They pulled the already sold copies from customer devices as well.
Besides which, Amazon not wanting to 'carry that book' means that book has been silenced from 90% of the market.
"There are 2 Walmarts within 3 miles of my house in opposite directions. I rarely visit them and there are plenty of other stores to purchase things from. If i need a cheap poorly made item, or it's 2am i can run to them to grab it. I see that as a good thing."
If anyone else did it might be something that would continue. But you are in a statistically insignificant minority who are willing to pay more for the same good. Your plenty of other stores will become more and more expensive as time goes on and eventually will all go under.
Just because the Walmart effect hasn't completely run its course in your neighborhood yet doesn't mean the conclusion isn't inevitable.
Even libel needs to be narrowed. It shouldn't matter if my opinion hurts your reputation or your business I'm entitled to have one and express it. Right now truth is usually a defense, anything short of demonstrable falsification should be proof against libel.
"Exactly. How is it that people who are so afraid of "censorship" are also the ones that want the government to control everybody else's actions?"
That is how the two party system is rigged. It doesn't matter which one you pick or which one is in power. Only the portions of their agenda which are bad for the people are going to happen.
What if I am opposed to censorship, support the right to bear arms and believe in it as a way to counteract the power of the police and government, am opposed to liability shelters such as corporations, believe in a return to state rights, believe in a return to jury nullification, believe in a return to the constitution including the part that says that all powers that weren't explicitly granted to government stay in the hands of the people, and don't believe in nanny laws including the audacity of government to claim it has the authority to tell citizens who aren't endangering others which medications/drugs they can have or use and when. Oh and lets not forget, believes that police and other officials should be subject to the law and have to answer to the same courts and the same charges the rest of us do when they break it.
In other words, where is the party that wants to weaken government, check the wealthy, and empower the people?
"If the constitution was enforced the US Congress would not have the power to bailout AIG."
Enforced by whom? Which branch of government benefits by having its powers checked by the constitution? The congress which makes unconstitutional laws and refuses to appoint any supreme court judge unless they swear continuously for hours, days, or weeks that they won't 'legislate from the bench' aka nullify or weaken laws which infringe on the rights of the people. The executive branch who converted a collection of largely independent states with their own citizens and independent citizen militias into a federal army and federal citizens? Or perhaps its the judicial branch who decided they were better at interpreting what is just and unjust than the people and unilaterally gave themselves the authority to override the people's voice in the peoples only direct check against unjust laws and government, jury verdicts and jury nullification?
It is impossible to reform the system from within the system. To even begin to do this you would have to try to accumulate the power to effect change and it is people doing just that which resulted in our present state.
The only way anything is going to change in this country is via revolution. In this nation of weak stomached individuals who think that a few unstable children who can't handle 'cyber bullying' is a reasonable justification for eliminating free speech (aka anonymous speech) I'm not holding my breath.
"There are tons of other bookstores where I can shop"
Not for long, the major brick and mortar chains are going out of business. They used to offer the advantage of providing instant gratification when you wanted a book but thanks to digital book readers they don't even have that anyone. You can buy the book in your bathrobe and have it this instant. Now all they have left are publishers who don't offer digital versions at the same time as print and non-fiction volumes where one might want a hard copy for easy reference.
Thanks to used book poachers who buy all the worthwhile titles from used book shops and resell them on amazon those will soon have no selection and die off (these usually offer credit, so readers would bring back the good titles and keep the selection healthy).
That's like claiming Walmart isn't a monopoly because there are a few stores selling some of the same products that aren't out of business yet.
Their only major competitor, K-Mart only exists because walmart chooses to leave it with just enough territory to exist... so they won't be considered a monopoly. For instance, Wal-mart has deliberately chosen not to put up stores in the metropolitan areas of Miami and has instead left that territory to K-mart. There are k-marts in areas with Wal-marts but their decline is obvious.
"during this last month I gradually excised google from my browsers to use other search engines (like bing, yahoo, hotbot, lycos, etc)"
And had to intentionally choose to use inferior options to do it. The portion of consumers who are willing to accept an inferior choice consistently to make a point are statistically irrelevant. You may vote with your dollar but you are just pissing in the wind and the McDonalds and the Wal-marts of the world exist because of it.
Look at the paypal, where google has the 'do no evil' motto Paypal works on the opposite principle. How many people agree with their practices? I've never met one. Hell if you get a paypal rep on the phone even they don't agree with the shit paypal does (not that they can fix it). Yet the number of people actually boycotting paypal is so tiny they aren't even a buzz in paypal's ears.
"Bottom Line: Corporations have power but it must be shared with other competitors. Consumers hold the power of choice to make a corporation succeed or go bankrupt (Circuit city, wards, GM). In contrast the government holds the monopoly on the power to jail, take, or kill. That is far, far, far more dangerous than pissant little amazon."
That presents a false dichotomy. The potential abuse of government doesn't make the abuse of mega corps and monopolies insignificant or otherwise okay. We don't have to choose. We can desire both be declawed. And that isn't even considering that government is actually run by and doing its censorship at the behest of said mega corps.
That's how us in the US should spin our conquest of Mexico!
Just because a group of individuals want to rebel doesn't make it the 'the people'. If 'the people' rebel there wouldn't be a union army to the fight.
"Hint: in general, "bloodthirsty dictators" aren't "[supported]" or "[empowered]" by the people they rule over."
ALL leaders are ultimately supported and empowered by the people they rule over. You can't be a bloodthirsty dictator if nobody listens to you (thereby empowering and supporting you), at best you can achieve serial killer.
"Values may vary from culture to culture, but some things are absolute... murder and rape are the first that come to mind"
Those are only absolute according to your value system. There have been numerous cultures throughout history that didn't share those values. Some even incorporate ritual murder as a state function.
Way to try to end a discussion. Mentioning Nazi's and Hitler.
In any case. The point would have (and did) apply to Germany as well. It wasn't until the Germans attempted to conquer the rest of the world that this was an issue.
People are entitled to have different values, even drastically different values like cannibalism and genocide. Even Hitler could not take and maintain power without the support of the people.
'More bluntly: you're a moron.'
I think that summarized the sophistication of your comments nicely.
Whether it is a mess or not is something they can decide for themselves and resolve themselves.
They have every right to support and empower a bloodthirsty dictator and the west has no right to push them toward values the west believes to be more right.
"The idea behind the sanctions is to get the people to vote a different way"
It doesn't particularly matter whether you are manipulating the people to something non-violent or violent. It is still manipulation. Foreign governments shouldn't be interfering in the business of the people of Zimbabwe. They are perfectly capable to deciding how to vote (via ballot or force) without external manipulation.
The people of Zimbabwe can rebel anytime they wish.
"if the only voice of reform is painted as a western puppet and a traitor"
If the shoe fits. Are you saying it was wrong of wikileaks to expose a western attempt to manipulate a people into overthrowing their leader?
The people of Zimbabwe are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves if they want to live under a dictator there is no need for western govs to manipulate them.
Some of us don't give two shits about another country regardless of whether they have oil or other readily exploitable resources. At least as far as our government is concerned.
Its just you. Baseball is all about running fast, hitting hard, and throwing fast. It's pretty much entirely athletic.
Unless you have some weird personal definition where sports != athletics when the two are actually synonyms. See the definition below, specifically def number 3.
[ath-let-ik] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
physically active and strong; good at athletics or sports: an athletic child.
2.
of, like, or befitting an athlete.
3.
of or pertaining to athletes; involving the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or stamina: athletic sports; athletic training.
4.
for athletics: an athletic field.
5.
Psychology . (of a physical type) having a sturdy build or well-proportioned body structure. Compare asthenic ( def. 2 ) , pyknic ( def. 1 ) .
You mean other than not having notable resource limitations (beyond recruitment), lacking anything resembling a front, not making any sacrifices, and there being faints, deceptions, or the use a point system rather than annihilating opposition?
Dunno. Baseball is about a blunt and direct as you get. Don't get me wrong, there is a great deal of skill involved and there are important judgments. They just aren't of the same variety for the most part. There is a certain amount of tactics in any sport devised and played by men. They all exist as a sort of training for actual warfare. Baseball is just pretty far from that root as sports go.
"The consequences of chess are fuck all - ditto the collateral damage. Where's the commitment in a board game? "
That is entirely dependent on the players. People have died over virtual objects in World of Warcraft, the consequence and the commitment is entirely one of perspective.
To expand on my other comment. What do you think matters (with regard to differences in males and females) in warfare that is missing in chess?
From a recent CNN article ( http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-23/opinion/brizendine.male.brain_1_male-brain-mate-early-feminists?_s=PM:OPINION ):
"The "defend your turf" area -- dorsal premammillary nucleus -- is larger in the male brain and contains special circuits to detect territorial challenges by other males. And his amygdala, the alarm system for threats, fear and danger is also larger in men. These brain differences make men more alert than women to potential turf threats."
Chess includes attack, defense, and territory. Your opponents pieces threaten your own pieces. As a male you sense this threat, fear the danger it represents to your fronts, and the massive flood of testerone in your system flood the aggresive retaliation and attack in turn.
None of that means much to a computer which is simply calculating every possible move but it certainly matters when playing a human. The hands are more complex in Chess than poker but you are still playing against your opponent, not merely his position.
Baseball is an athletic competition, the only thing it has in common with combat is running.
Chess is a tactical competition where two opposing sides must utilize resources with different strengths and weakness, protect multiple fronts, and make strategic sacrifices, including faints and deceptions to attempt to annihilate one another. Just like actual warfare.
Unlike baseball chess was designed for the express purpose of being a high level warfare simulation.
If you'd said football you could have at least made an argument. You'd be wrong, but at least there'd be an argument there.
The underlying concepts of the games you listed, including chess, are pretty much the same. What is your basis for saying chess is not a war simulation? Lack of explosions?