Wal-Mart Stands Behind Offensive Substance

[TragicMonkey]

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]

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]

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]

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.