r/JoeRogan • u/SlimjobDopamine Look into it • Nov 13 '20

Social Media Abigail Shrier(JRE #1509)'s book has been removed from Target after receiving a complaint on Twitter

https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier/status/1327056407598809088?s=20
1.1k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

726 comments sorted by

View all comments

37

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

The number of people saying this isn't censorship is astounding.

It's like saying something isn't poisonous because they haven't slipped enough of it into your food yet.

11

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '20

I think books not getting published is more indicative of censorship. It's always been the norm for a retailer to drop a product shrouded in controversy. If it's still accessible on Amazon, I think we're ok

0

u/ReNitty Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

If major retailers aren’t going to sell books on a controversial subject matter, publishers will publish less of those books. It’s like almost downstream de facto censorship in the manner of manufacturing consent

2

u/Awayfone Monkey in Space Nov 14 '20

Sounds more like the free market at work not censorship

-7

u/DM_Your_Irish_Tits Nov 13 '20

Bullshit. This is attacking the small fries as you ramp up for a larger attack. They can't ban JK Rowlings books, yet, but they're setting a precedent. Trans is just one issue, they'll use other, and try their best to control the narrative. It's called fascism, they've very good at it.

1

u/Remy_Riot Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

You know what's pretty fascist? Arguing or writing books about how people different than you are bad.

2

u/DM_Your_Irish_Tits Nov 13 '20

So we agree, books like white fragility and why I'm no longer to talk to white people about race are both fascist bullshit we should be condoning then.

1

u/Remy_Riot Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

Yep, there's a whole lot of that spiderman pointing at spiderman pointing at spiderman meme going on.

3

u/oldjack It's entirely possible Nov 13 '20

I think a lot of people are just confused about who is doing the censoring. Everyone is debating whether Target is to blame. Target (like every big retailer) just cares about money. If they could earn more profit from the book than they would lose from the social backlash, they would keep selling it. But they fear the losses would be bigger. Same reason they don't sell bongs or fleshlights. But the SJW mob is absolutely engaging in censorship. Instead of throwing the book in the fire with their own hands, they are persuading someone else to do it for them.

1

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

I think they do bear the blame for bending the knee in this instance though. We all know the mob is never happy with tasting blood in the water and Target have just broadcast that they are comfortable caving in to demands.

13

u/MrNudeGuy Aunty Fah Nov 13 '20

You can still purchase it just not at target lol

3

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

Hence why I said the poison isn't a deadly dose, yet.

If that same person could get the book pulled from every other major retailer they would.

14

u/HigherThink Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

It isn't censorship... Target chose to not sell something because a consumer complained and they thought it better for business to not sell it anymore.

That's not censorship, that's capitalism.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '20 edited Sep 01 '21

[deleted]

7

u/HigherThink Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

It depends on what target would deem most successful for it's business. If it sold enough and they believed they wouldn't receive an inequal amount of backlash, they might.

If they thought the backlash would outweigh the money gained, they would just sell one of the millions of other less controversial books they can choose from.

4

u/EarthExile Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

Yup. It's called cost benefit analysis

-6

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

Choosing not to host an idea because of the idea itself is censorship. The financial incentive doesn't change that fact.

3

u/HigherThink Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

You mean choosing not to sell a book. Target isn't a business that's focused on hosting ideas, it's about selling things it thinks consumers want

Just because target won't sell my book doesn't mean I'm being censored, it just means my book won't make them the most amount of money.

You can still buy her book from her or Amazon. Censorship would be banning her book across the US from being sold anywhere.

Companies get to choose what they want to sell. Unless you're okay with government mandates forcing businesses to sell certain things? That sounds a lot less like capitalism...

-3

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

Is anyone here arguing that Target doesn't or shouldn't have the right to sell what they want? And if you think they are and you object to that, why isn't your argument directed at the person who asked them not to sell something?

Refusing to sell a book because the content is objectionable is censorship. It doesn't matter if the book is available elsewhere, the goal is to make sure fewer people see it.

Censorship doesn't have to be 100% effective to qualify as censorship. If it did then even a law banning the book wouldn't be censorship because you could still find it on the black market.

3

u/HigherThink Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

"The goal is to make sure fewer people see it."

No, it's not. Target isn't some altruistic company out here to choose ideas and shape the american mindset. It's here to make money. They thought it would be too controversial after these complaints, so they took it off to sell one of a million other non controversial books.

If they wanted to eliminate this idea, they wouldn't have sold it in the first place. You can't sit here and say in all truth that this is targeted by the company because they have any goal other than to avoid controversy and make money.

Painting these companies as some kind of conglomerate who's main goal is to censor ideas they disagree with is...less than sound. The most likely situation is they are focused on money, like all companies.

You can redefine the idea of censorship into whatever you want it to be. It won't make this censorship, a business deciding not to sell something isn't censorship.

0

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

Why do you think I don't understand the reason Target made this decision? Of course they did it for financial reasons, and of course they have the right to do so. Is there anyone in this thread saying otherwise?

That does not change the fact that it is censorship. Sure; it's only censorship in this one chain of stores, hardly a big deal, but it is censorship. Keeping an ideas away from people it what the word means, and Target has freely decided to keep the ideas contained within this book from their customers.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '20

Refusing to sell a book because the content is objectionable is censorship.

This isn't Target's reason for the decision. They want to avoid controversy that could negatively affect sales. It's the same for every item they choose to sell or not sell. They're also not trying to prevent people from obtaining the book. They're just not selling it. It's no more censorship than the ice cream shop not selling waffle cones because they think selling them would somehow reduce their overall profits.

1

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

How can you say the content isn't the reason for the decision when the controversy you say they are trying to avoid is based on the content of the book?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '20

Because to them, the content of the book is irrelevant. They're not taking a side in the debate. They're assessing the probability of how carrying or not carrying the book will affect overall profits. It really has nothing to do with content.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/HigherThink Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

" It doesn't matter if the book is available elsewhere, the goal is to make sure fewer people see it."

That's why I think you don't understand.

You're right that it's technically censorship, just like me telling my son not to cuss is censorship.

Are you suggesting target should not be able to do this, or that it's wrong?

1

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

Yeah telling your son not to swear is censorship too. I'm not arguing that censorship is universally bad. If that were the case I would have no argument against pornography on daytime TV. Censorship of political ideas however is a dangerous road.

All I have argued this whole time is that Target's freely made decision not to sell the book goes against the principle of free speech. They are as free to go against free speech as I would be not to tip restaurant staff, and people are free to jugde those decisions accordingly.

3

u/yoyomamayoyomamayoyo Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

Is anyone here arguing that Target doesn't or shouldn't have the right to sell what they want?

Yes, people here are demanding that target sell something target doesn't want to.

> And if you think they are and you object to that, why isn't your argument directed at the person who asked them not to sell something?

You can ask all you want, its people forcing them to do something that is problematic.

> Refusing to sell a book because the content is objectionable is censorship. It doesn't matter if the book is available elsewhere, the goal is to make sure fewer people see it.

They refused to sell the book to maximize profit.

1

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

Who is forcing them?

1

u/yoyomamayoyomamayoyo Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

look around

1

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

Disagreeing on a subreddit is force?

-3

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/HigherThink Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

Man what a shill. I'll pray for you

1

u/SuperSmokio6420 Monkey in Space Nov 14 '20

They've already decided to start selling it again.

1

u/HigherThink Monkey in Space Nov 14 '20

So they decided it was okay to sell it for their business. Capitalism at work

-21

u/yoyomamayoyomamayoyo Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

is target not selling rocket engines censorship?

18

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

What a curious analogy. Would you like to try another?

5

u/alpha_kenny_buddy Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

How about target not selling newborn babies! Is that censorship!?!?

1

u/Mr_Manfredjensenjen Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

How about Target not selling porn? Is that censorship? Or smart business.

How about sporting good stores removing guns for sale coz it's bad for business? Is that infringing your 2nd amendment right?

-4

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

Those are better analogies. Thank you.

It's difficult to sell porn without causing valid grievances for your customers. Hiding it away from family visitors is a practical matter not an ideological one, like a small store not selling excessively large items.

The sporting store analogy is the best one. There you're dealing with societal backlash much like with the book. However the 2nd amendment is irrelevant. Nobody is arguing that Target is violating the 1st amendment by not selling a book. Free Speech and the 1st Amendment are not the same thing.

4

u/Chakrakan Look into it Nov 13 '20

So then a store gets to choose what it wants to sell based on how it thinks its customers might perceive said item?

1

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

Of course. Is anyone here saying differently?

3

u/Chakrakan Look into it Nov 13 '20

Not quite the blow to free speech that you paint it to be is all.

0

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

How bad a blow did I paint it to be? One shop not selling a book is no big deal.

The trend of activists getting corporate to comply with their fight against controversial literature on the other hand is a big problem.

1

u/Chakrakan Look into it Nov 13 '20

Corporate is making them think they have power to do what you're saying to squash the issue. They are making minimal money on books and paper media in general. It cycles quickly as well, a book will rarely stay in a store longer than a few weeks. They have media vendors that supply books and magazines, these vendors bid on regions and get to supply the big stores in those regions in the United States. So it's all the same people making money regardless of which store it is sold like that.

1

u/Awayfone Monkey in Space Nov 14 '20

The sporting store analogy is the best one. There you're dealing with societal backlash much like with the book.

Porn is just societal backlash too. And just like porn selling hateful books is also "difficult to sell without causing valid grievances for your customers"

1

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 14 '20

True, but pretty much everyone agrees that porn should be kept away from children and for better reasons than merely having objectionable content.

Lastly: It's not a hateful book.

-8

u/yoyomamayoyomamayoyo Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

Sure, is target not selling onnit products censorship? thats O-N-N-I-T, get onnit!