Borders Books: What a difference 5 years make

[lostnick3]

Borders is gonna kill more people selling: Natural cures "They" Don't want you to know about, by Kevin Trudeau, than any cartoon of a being that by any nature is indefinable. or did the cartoonists find the unknowable answer? a cartoon as been baned in major book stores in the US of A, whats next Hustler's Chester the Molester a cartoon so bad a nasty fleet sailor cant see it. something be wrong mate's. so boys and girls where is the line between writing and physical action.

 

[lostnick3]

just woo out the last posting. i'll try to self censor

 

[Whoracle]

This has nothing to do with protecting people. What would happen if they did carry this magazine and just one crazy decided to blow up a store? It would cause a lot of people to stop going to their stores and would hurt their bottomline. It's just silly to call this cowardice. Why should they do something stupid to appear brave to a bunch of inconsequential message board posters?

 

[Meadmaker]

Nobody's saying Border's doesn't have the right not to carry the magazine. Hell, they have a right to only carry Esperanto-language translations of Finnegans Wake if they so choose.

We're just saying they're cowards for doing it.

I can't imagine anything that would justify an Esperanto translation of Finnegan's Wake. Surely there are some things that are just too vile for anyone of any religion. Besides, since they don't stock the Klingon version of Hamlet,which is a real book by a real publisher, they could be accused of anti-Klingon discrimination. I can only imagine such things causing a ruckus that would make a plain old Jihad look tame.

But seriously, this was posted in response to:

MeadmakerThey might need just a little bit of help healing, though. The obvious way to provide the medication to this unwilling patient is to buy from smaller, independent bookstores, instead of Border's.

I wouldn't call for some sort of anti-Border's boycott because of some political position or decision, or whatever. My point is that if the marketplace is controlled by basically three bookstores, which right now means Amazon.com, Border's, and Barnes and Noble, then it's easy for terrorists to intimidate everyone in the marketplace. They are vulnerable to blackmail.

It's a lot easier to blackmail Border's, inc. than it is to blackmail 1000 independent one room booksellers. Border's has shown that they will be intimidated. So, buy from someone who isn't.


ETA: My mistake. Through their online partnership with amazon.com, they do stock the Klingon Hamlet. They need not fear having their stores blasted from the face of the Earth by disruptor bolts.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_5/103-9699411-1803033?v=glance&s=books

 

[Mephisto]

This has nothing to do with protecting people. What would happen if they did carry this magazine and just one crazy decided to blow up a store? It would cause a lot of people to stop going to their stores and would hurt their bottomline. It's just silly to call this cowardice. Why should they do something stupid to appear brave to a bunch of inconsequential message board posters?

As Cleon aptly pointed out in another thread, this is the Politics forum where rhetoric is more important than facts.

Why stop at calling Border's Bookstore or Barnes & Noble cowards? Aren't the local newstands and convenience stores just as cowardly for not selling this material? Maybe that's why the the major book stores all don't sell Aryan/White Supremicists B.S? Maybe that's why you just can't walk into any Border's bookstore for your Skinhead recruitment literature or books offensive to Jews, or Mexicans, or Asians, or . . .

Bunch of lowly cowards.

 

[Skeptic]

Maybe that's why you just can't walk into any Border's bookstore for your Skinhead recruitment literature or books offensive to Jews, or Mexicans, or Asians, or . . .

Sure, Border doesn't usually stock "How to Kill All Muslims" (or the equivalent) like it doesn't stock other hate literature. But "Free Inquiry" isn't hate literature, nor is reporting on the cartoon controversey. Not by a long shot. Or are you telling me that "Free Inquiry" is now the equivalent of "Nazi Supporter Weekly"... because the Islamist nut cases say so?

It is bad enough if Borders' refuse to sell the magazine merely because they're afraid of the Islamists' violence. If their motives are what you say they are, things are much worse, for it implies one of the two possiblities:

1). either they actualy AGREE with the Islamists that the Cartoons are intolerable "hate literature" which must be banned, or

2). they think that what determines if something is "hate literature" is not its content, but the extent of the protest against it, which means that the more violent you are, the more likely it is they'll ban anything you want.

I'm sorry if my outrage seems silly to your weary cynicism. But then again, you're good at being wearily cynical for the same reason midgets are good at being short.

 

[Checkmite]

If you don't see how this is a cowardly decision, I can't help you there. It is "reckless" to skydive, perhaps; to refuse to bow to Islamist thugs isn't "reckless". At most it's dangerous. But that's what being brave is for.

Being brave is a decision for the individual. You cannot decide for somebody else that they shall be brave (which is what you seem to want this corporation to do).

 

[bjb]

Sorry about my mistake about "The Satanic Verses". All I remember was that I saw the book in other bookstores and it didn't seem to be a problem. Or am I wrong again? Were there any problems at the bookstores that did carry "The Satanic Verses"?

 

[Skeptic]

Being brave is a decision for the individual. You cannot decide for somebody else that they shall be brave (which is what you seem to want this corporation to do).

If your argument worked, then virtually never is it morally permissible to be brave, and the "ethical" thing to do in 99.99% of all situations is to be a coward; for only very rarely does being brave, in real life, not effect other people in some way and make it more dangerous for them (in the short run, at least.)

This, incidentally, shows a well-known problem with Mill's "on liberty": one should be allowed to do anything unless it has an effect on others. But what does it mean, "an effect on others"? For Mill, one must be allowed to be a wretch, a pimp, a drunk, without any moral law forbidding this, since it does not directly enough effect others.

I hope you're not a Millian utilitarianist, for if you are, the logical conclusion from both these propositions would be that it is ethically permissible to be a wretch, drunkard, and pimp, but not permissible to be a hero.

Something's very wrong here, if that is your view.

 

[Mycroft]

Being brave is a decision for the individual. You cannot decide for somebody else that they shall be brave (which is what you seem to want this corporation to do).

I think it's worth pointing out there is no particular reason to suppose that in the US there would be any violence towards a bookstore that sold a magazine that had these cartoons in it.

 

[Mephisto]

I'm sorry if my outrage seems silly to your weary cynicism.

Well, since you apologized, I'm sorry for being so jaded.

But then again, you're good at being wearily cynical for the same reason midgets are good at being short.

Genetics?

Have you written the draft of your letter to Border Books? I'm sure they'll be equally pleased with your deft wit and gallant proposition.

 

[lostnick3]

it could just be a business decision now. its up to those who control the book store chains to decide.

 

[UserGoogol]

I think it's worth pointing out there is no particular reason to suppose that in the US there would be any violence towards a bookstore that sold a magazine that had these cartoons in it.

It's also worth pointing out that there is even less reason to suppose that there would be any violence towards the executives who run Borders Books. So I don't see why cowardice is being supposed as the explanation at all. It's a relatively silly decision, but cowardice doesn't seem like the word to explain it.

 

[Checkmite]

If your argument worked, then virtually never is it morally permissible to be brave, and the "ethical" thing to do in 99.99% of all situations is to be a coward; for only very rarely does being brave, in real life, not effect other people in some way and make it more dangerous for them (in the short run, at least.)

It is perfectly OK for an individual to show bravery - which, as you said, is acting without regard for one's own self-interest, usually for the benefit of others. If your actions are disregarding others' self-interest, then that is not bravery, but recklessness. And making personal decisions for other people from a standpoint of authority, whatever the reason, is something approaching abuse.

 

[Checkmite]

I think it's worth pointing out there is no particular reason to suppose that in the US there would be any violence towards a bookstore that sold a magazine that had these cartoons in it.

Then Borders' decision indeed has nothing to do with bravery or cowardice, but is instead just another typical business decision, designed as probably some sort of ill-conceived attempt to head off boycotts or protests or something like that (corporations - oy).

 

[Cylinder]

"I've got a book store to run and having you sic a bunch of bloggers on me and tell them to ride my a** because we're not shelving a pip-squeak magazine from those tools at the "Council for Secular Humanism" (Jesus wept!) is just not getting it done."

Gregory Josefowicz, Chairman, Borders Books

 

[lostnick3]

unseen inappropriate foreign cartoons then boondocks bites the dust, should we put the terrorists on hold for a while and find the real fiends, it seems a large group of stupid people are heading for the cliff. it would be pretty ironic to see the current civilization laid waste with the fuse lit by a cartoon. I'm going looking for the cartoon(s) now and they better be funny.

 

[Skeptic]

It is perfectly OK for an individual to show bravery - which, as you said, is acting without regard for one's own self-interest, usually for the benefit of others. If your actions are disregarding others' self-interest, then that is not bravery, but recklessness. And making personal decisions for other people from a standpoint of authority, whatever the reason, is something approaching abuse.

It has nothing to do with authority.

On your view, it's not only wrong for the Borders' CEO to stand up to the Islamists, it is wrong for ANYBODY in Borders', including the lowliest store clerk, to offer for sale the "offensive" material without permission from ALL THE OTHER WORKERS IN ALL THE OTHER STORES: since if the Islamists hear someone disobeyed them at Borders', they won't bother to track them down individually, but will bomb any Borders' store they can find.

Conclusion: If someone threathens only you, or a small group of people, then bravery might be permitted. But if someone (like the terrorists) threathen random or widespread violence, the only "non-reckless", "morally permissible", action in reply is cowardly capitulation.

Does this make any moral sense to you?

Let us take another example. There were jews in WWII who were hidden by Polish peasants, despite the fact that the Germans threathened to kill the families of those who hide jews. On your view, if the Germans had some limits on their behavior and only threathened only the person who actually hid the jews, hiding the jews would have been brave. But since they were ruthless enough to threathen to kill the families as well, the peasant hiding the jew in the cellar was no longer brave, but a morally reprehensible reckless fool.

Same goes with the reckless fools in the French resistance (the Germans theathened, and sometimes committed, mass reprisals against innocents in retaliation for their actions), the reckless fools in the American war of independence (many Americans were loyalists and didn't want war), the reckless fools in...

...well, you get the idea.

Does this make any moral sense to you?

 

[Checkmite]

Let us take another example. There were jews in WWII who were hidden by Polish peasants, despite the fact that the Germans threathened to kill the families of those who hide jews. On your view, if the Germans had some limits on their behavior and only threathened only the person who actually hid the jews, hiding the jews would have been brave. But since they were ruthless enough to threathen to kill the families as well, the peasant hiding the jew in the cellar was no longer brave, but a morally reprehensible reckless fool.

Same goes with the reckless fools in the French resistance (the Germans theathened, and sometimes committed, mass reprisals against innocents in retaliation for their actions), the reckless fools in the American war of independence (many Americans were loyalists and didn't want war), the reckless fools in...

...well, you get the idea.

Does this make any moral sense to you?

Your analogies are patently ridiculous. To compare deciding whether or not to shelve a magazine to hiding Jewish refugees from the Nazis is almost humorous. You're giving situations in which a tiny minority was under attack and threatened with extinction or perpetual persecution from a vast, overwhelming power, and therefore driven to desperation. I think somebody made a point that the Borders execs have no reason to be, and probably aren't, afraid of getting bombed, so this argument no longer has bearing anyway; but even if it did, the situation Borders faces vis-a-vis the alleged "terrorists" does not resemble your analogies at all. Your examples feature cases where the point of the "bravery" is to save lives on either a short term or long term basis, where it is at least imagined that the few lives which may be lost now is outweighed by the number of lives which will be saved later. That makes logical sense. In the Borders situation, you seem to think that the lives (theoretically) lost now is outweighed by the ability of patrons to read a magazine for a month. There's something of a difference.

I'm reminded of a story in Howard Stern's book Private Parts, which I read oh-so-long-ago in high school. Somebody in a prison wood shop or something wrote to Mr. Stern, explaining that the prisoner loves Stern's show and lives to listen to it, except that lately every morning he tries having it on, the other prisoners in the shop have been violent - beating him up and then changing the radio station. The prisoner said he didn't care - he liked the Howard Stern show and was willing to endure beatings to listen to it. He wrote, asking for Stern's approval - some kind of "attaboy" or something. Stern called him stupid. A radio show is not worth your life, he said. I tend to agree.

 

[Skeptic]

Your examples feature cases where the point of the "bravery" is to save lives on either a short term or long term basis, where it is at least imagined that the few lives which may be lost now is outweighed by the number of lives which will be saved later.

Are you kidding? If bravery depends solely on a numerical calculation-- numbers of live I might save vs. numbers of lives that I might lose--then bravery is virtually never justified.

Surely, the utility calculus the peasant was making--probability of saving lives by hiding a jew succesfully vs. probability of losing his family's lives by being discovered--made giving the jew to the Germans far more logical than hiding him, since the risk of discovery was high and the German punishment extremely severe. So the morally correct thing to do--if such a calculus determines when something is justified or not--was to give up the Jews.

Does this make any moral sense to you?

Also, once more, if only the Germans are ruthless or evil enough, and make the number of lives lost for every hidden Jew high enough, then (on your view) it becomes morally wrong to hide the Jews.

Again, does this make any moral sense to you?

In the Borders situation, you seem to think that the lives (theoretically) lost now is outweighed by the ability of patrons to read a magazine for a month. There's something of a difference.

No, there isn't a difference, since in both cases your calculus of utility-vs-harm has nothing to do with what bravery is.

On your utility calculus view, as long as someone is ruthless or evil enough to threathen disproportionate harm--"don't stock this magazine of I might kill you"; "don't hide the Jew or I'll kill your family"--then the utility calculus recommends cowardice, which means that your moral "logical sense" is not much more than cowardly surrender to anybody who'se a big enough bully.

But this is not surprising, since your utility calculus definition of "bravery" is actually a definition of "cowardice", since almost by definition being brave means ignoring a utility calculus of possible harm in favor of supporting a higher principle, such as the sanctity of life (in the case of the jews in WWII) or freedom of speech (in this case).

Stern called him stupid. A radio show is not worth your life, he said. I tend to agree.

Ah, yes. Well, if that moral beacon, Howard Stern, says so, it must be true!