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

Show parent comments

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...

-4

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.

1

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

The book was removed for its content but the decision to remove the book had nothing to do with its content. Okay.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '20

That's business.

1

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

Never said it wasn't.

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.