Wokeism of the day *Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users*

AdrianBalboa

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

A non-violent protest succeeds what the threat of violence could not. A victory for freedom of speech. The system works.

No it does not, the banning of a book is suppression of freedom of speech!

AdrianBalboa

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No it does not, the banning of a book is suppression of freedom of speech!

It’s not banned, though, you can still buy it legally from other retailers.

biko

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

A non-violent protest succeeds what the threat of violence could not. A victory for freedom of speech. The system works.

Lovely crowd. News of that the shop had to evacuate customers through the back made it all the way to Australia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CegccR1dbUc

Abel Ruiz

Abel Ruiz wrote: »

Seems like you want everything on boards your way?
I notice some threads you and your "dudes" dislike, get locked, deleted or moved.

Hunting in packs to attack undesirable opinions contrary to "their" own, rinse and repeat ad nauseum. It has become sacrosanct not to point out the blindingly obvious.

AdrianBalboa

biko wrote: »

Lovely crowd. News of that the shop had to evacuate customers through the back made it all the way to Australia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CegccR1dbUc

Yeah the Murdochs made sure they saw it in Australia alright. It’s in their best interests.

biko

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

Yeah the Murdochs made sure they saw it in Australia alright. It’s in their best interests.

Err, "in their best interests"?
Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. Is that what you're on about?

AdrianBalboa

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hunting in packs to attack undesirable opinions contrary to "their" own, rinse and repeat ad nauseum. It has become sacrosanct not to point out the blindingly obvious.

“Attacking undesirable opinions?” This is a discussion forum.

As for the rest of it, you have accused me of this rubbish before and I’m not interested.

AdrianBalboa

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

It’s not banned, though, you can still buy it legally from other retailers.

Forcing a retailer to stop selling a product is tantamount to banning, as for casual consumers, it's "disappeared" from them, they now have to seek it out.

I often (well, used to) walk around bookshops to see what's on the shelves.
I can't see it if the shop has been forced to remove it.

biko

biko wrote: »

Err, "in their best interests"?
Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. Is that what you're on about?

Interesting, I thought the poster was pro Antifa, how can he be anti Jewish at the same time???
Maybe this is a classic case of the extreme left overlapping the extreme right on the other side.

AdrianBalboa

biko wrote: »

Err, "in their best interests"?
Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. Is that what you're on about?

No. Yuck. Rupert Murdoch is well known for his stranglehold on the Australian media and his efforts to manipulate the hearts and minds of Australians for his own interests.

AdrianBalboa

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Forcing a retailer to stop selling a product is tantamount to banning, as for casual consumers, it's "disappeared" from them, they now have to seek it out.

I often (well, used to) walk around bookshops to see what's on the shelves.
I can't see it if the shop has been forced to remove it.

So a shop needs to stock every single book every printed in your eyes in order not to “ban” anything?

Sometimes some bookshops need to make the retailing equivalent of editing and choose which books to sell. In this case the market told them it wouldn’t be welcome.

Cordell

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

I’m not. I was being succinct but sincere. Picketing and threats of murder aren’t equatable.

OK then, you're just celebrating a suppression of a political opinion that you don't like as a victory for the free speech, which if it's not trolling may be the other thing
And inb4, it doesn't matter that said suppression is just partial and was obtained through non violent legal means, it's still the opposite of free speech and definitely shouldn't be celebrated.

AdrianBalboa

Cordell wrote: »

OK then, you're just celebrating a suppression of a political opinion that you don't like as a victory for the free speech, which if it's not trolling may be the other thing
And inb4, it doesn't matter that said suppression is just partial and was obtained through non violent legal means, it's still the opposite of free speech and definitely shouldn't be celebrated.

Well it does matter in this case because comparisons were made between this and the Salman Rushdie case.

And the book wasn’t suppressed, it can be purchased through other means. This was simply the consumers of this town saying that they weren’t interested in buying it. That’s capitalism for you.

RandRuns

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

Sometimes some bookshops need to make the retailing equivalent of editing and choose which books to sell. In this case the market told them it wouldn’t be welcome.

“German public libraries are to have a selection of books that will promote the martial spirit of the nation. Writers of authentic quality, that is to say, writers who are not degenerate in tendency and do not represent a spirit of racial impurity, are to co-operate in the spiritual mobilisation of the German people.”

- Liste des schädlichen und unerwünschten Schrifttums (List of damaging and undesirable writing), Germany, 1938

Cordell

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

This was simply the consumers of this town saying that they weren’t interested in buying it.

I don't know about you, but myself when I'm not interested in something I just don't buy it, and I never think about demanding the store to remove the stuff I'm not interested in.
In other words, I have the decency to allow everyone to make their own choice, and not assume that they delegated their choice making to me.

EmmetSpiceland

biko wrote: »

Err, "in their best interests"?
Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. Is that what you're on about?

Rupert Murdoch is not Jewish.

AdrianBalboa

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

So a shop needs to stock every single book every printed in your eyes in order not to “ban” anything?

Now you're misdirecting the discussion. It's pretty obvious. The book was listed, your group protested and sought it being banned, it was removed from within the store.

You're being awfully disingenuous.

Sometimes some bookshops need to make the retailing equivalent of editing and choose which books to sell. In this case the market told them it wouldn’t be welcome.

The market>?

"A full three weeks before its Feb. 2 release, his Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy spent much of this week on Amazon as the No. 1 bestseller, a rarity for books not written by longtime authors and presidents."

"Unmasked held the No. 1 spot on Amazon for much of the week, before slipping to No. 2 Friday."

The market didn't say any such thing. A group known to be associated with violence and threats caused the change. It's bullying, pure and simple.

AdrianBalboa

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

So a shop needs to stock every single book every printed in your eyes in order not to “ban” anything?

Sometimes some bookshops need to make the retailing equivalent of editing and choose which books to sell. In this case the market told them it wouldn’t be welcome.

First stop the strawman argument! physical shops will only stock what sells or is requested.
The "market" did not say the book was not welcome, it was a small vocal minority that "made a lot of noise" that made normal trading difficult, so for the safety of staff and customers they decided (possibly under duress) to stop stocking the book.
If you think that this type of action is acceptable, then that says a lot about you.
BTW, I have no interest in reading such a book, but I defend the rights of others to read it.

AdrianBalboa

Cordell wrote: »

I don't know about you, but myself when I'm not interested in something I just don't buy it, and I never think about demanding the store to remove the stuff I'm not interested in.
In other words, I have the decency to allow everyone to make their own choice, and not assume that they delegated their choice making to me.

Everyone can make their own choice in this instance. It was the shop’s own choice to take the book down off the shelves after a protest from potential customers. Violence wasn’t committed or threatened.

AdrianBalboa

RandRuns wrote: »

“German public libraries are to have a selection of books that will promote the martial spirit of the nation. Writers of authentic quality, that is to say, writers who are not degenerate in tendency and do not represent a spirit of racial impurity, are to co-operate in the spiritual mobilisation of the German people.”

- Liste des schädlichen und unerwünschten Schrifttums (List of damaging and undesirable writing), Germany, 1938

13 years after the publication of Mein Kampf. If only someone had protested peacefully about that in 1925.

AdrianBalboa

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

13 years after the publication of Mein Kampf. If only someone had protested peacefully about that in 1925.

Sorry... but no... that's an utterly retarded comparison, completely ignorant of the way the world was like then, or the attitudes of people in general.

In any case, Andy Ngo's book criticises Antifa.. and you're comparing that with the promotion of hate of various races? You really have lost all sense of scale. Which actually does suggest that you are a supporter of Antifa. Fits the profile.

(Disclaimer: retarded comparison, refers to your post, not you. Just in case, you don't notice the difference.)

AdrianBalboa

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sorry... but no... that's an utterly retarded comparison, completely ignorant of the way the world was like then, or the attitudes of people in general.

In any case, Andy Ngo's book criticises Antifa.. and you're comparing that with the promotion of hate of various races? You really have lost all sense of scale. Which actually does suggest that you are a supporter of Antifa. Fits the profile.

You need to calm down. I’m pointing out that Antifa protesting a book being sold in one shop isn’t akin to Nazi Germany’s mass censorship by making a similarly absurd comparison between this book and Mein Kampf. Neither of them are comparable is my point.

RandRuns

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

13 years after the publication of Mein Kampf. If only someone had protested peacefully about that in 1925.

:D:D

Like all the opinions I've seen you express, you've this one @rse over elbow.

Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in prison. He became the "celebrity" he did after the publication of Mein Kampf because the German state supressed his opinions, and therefore built him into a folk hero.

Opinions you disagree with should be debated, not supressed. Supressing contrary opinions never works. History is littered with dictators who used the early suppression of their opinions as the springboard that propelled them to power - both Hitler and Stalin used it very effectively.

Supression is the tool of the weak intellect.

EmmetSpiceland

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Rupert Murdoch is not Jewish.

Correct, but he does have Jewish contacts, but their religion is not really important, their business interests however are quite important as it shapes how he runs his business.

AdrianBalboa

RandRuns wrote: »

:D:D

Like all the opinions I've seen you express, you've this one @rse over elbow.

Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in prison. He became the "celebrity" he did after the publication of Mein Kampf because the German state supressed his opinions, and therefore built him into a folk hero.

Opinions you disagree with should be debated, not supressed. Supressing contrary opinions never works. History is littered with dictators who used the early suppression of their opinions as the springboard that propelled them to power - both Hitler and Stalin used it very effectively.

Supression is the tool of the weak intellect.

Hitler was imprisoned for being the leader of a failed coup that killed 20 people, not for "his opinions."

Curse These Metal Hands

I wouldn't bother engaging. Dragging the thread way off topic and turning it into a mess of tit for tat bickering is their tactic to get the thread locked. That's why these types always post in packs.

RandRuns

RandRuns wrote: »

:D:D

Like all the opinions I've seen you express, you've this one @rse over elbow.

Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in prison. He became the "celebrity" he did after the publication of Mein Kampf because the German state supressed his opinions, and therefore built him into a folk hero.

Opinions you disagree with should be debated, not supressed. Supressing contrary opinions never works. History is littered with dictators who used the early suppression of their opinions as the springboard that propelled them to power - both Hitler and Stalin used it very effectively.

Supression is the tool of the weak intellect.

Also called the Barbra Streisand effect, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Curse These Metal Hands

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

I wouldn't bother engaging. Dragging the thread way off topic and turning it into a mess of tit for tat bickering is their tactic to get the thread locked. That's why these types always post in packs.

Best to continue the discussion without them, they hate that.

AdrianBalboa

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

I wouldn't bother engaging. Dragging the thread way off topic and turning it into a mess of tit for tat bickering is their tactic to get the thread locked. That's why these types always post in packs.

Playing the victim again. Conspiracy theories. "They're posting in packs to get this thread locked."

I hope this thread never gets locked. It brings me immense joy to see the right-wing apologists moaning like grandads impotently about rainbow shoe laces and comparing everything "the left" does to Nazi Germany. It's absolutely hilarious.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

So a shop needs to stock every single book every printed in your eyes in order not to “ban” anything?

Sometimes some bookshops need to make the retailing equivalent of editing and choose which books to sell. In this case the market told them it wouldn’t be welcome.

Did the market tell them that? A picket isn’t indicative. Anyway, these protests are often counter-productive, resulting in more people being aware of the book than if the protest hadn’t occurred.