Ebay offensive material policy - Just the beginning of censorship, already happening? Whats the scoop? 3 3

[Bird]

 

[Prince Namor]

8 hours ago, Bookery said:

I think you are too quick to be so dismissive of people's concerns.  It's not about one "silly book".  There is barely a week goes by now where some book or movie or song isn't being pilloried for being un-PC.

Barely a week goes by? You're going to start your defense with that hyperbolic of a statement?

8 hours ago, Bookery said:

As a bookstore owner I have very real and substantial concerns over where this is heading.  (A) I like to know history, warts and all. 

I agree. And in the case of 'If I Ran the Zoo', I can simply google it and read all about it on Wikipedia. 

8 hours ago, Bookery said:

I don't want it "disappeared".  (B)  As a retailer, it becomes nearly impossible to keep up with it all.  Even were I so inclined to pull everything from the shelves that has been outed as offensive, sooner or later I will miss something and get into trouble.

It hasn't been erased from history, but rather discontinued from its pathetically small press run. Dr. Seuss' pocketbook won't notice as he's been dead for 30 years. You can still read it online for Free if you have Amazon Kindle. Though really... who'd want to?

8 hours ago, Bookery said:

And for those that say you can still sell these things at shops or at shows, I ask, is that really true?  It will depend, of course, on the degree of outrage that is ultimately generated.  But how long before someone sees a display at a show they find offensive and complain to the show-runners, who will almost certainly cave out of fear and ban the items or vendor?  If someone snaps a picture of an "offensive" item in my display case and circulates it to the right people, will I find my shop being trashed online, or the local media outside my door inquiring as to why I'm supporting hate?

To be quite honest, I wouldn't even have known about it if someone hadn't started this thread. The degree of outrage wouldn't have generated a single notice to me. It has absolutely no bearing upon my life whatsoever. In fact I'd never even heard of the book. I read Dr, Suess as a little kid, but am completely at a loss to remember this. 

Despite that... it probably hurts... well.... I can't think of a single person this actually hurts. We as a society will completely survive without it. It seems beyond insignificant. 

8 hours ago, Bookery said:

I've written books on pulps.  There's hardly an issue of a pulp out there that isn't offensive by today's standards.  Dr. Seuss is nowhere near as offensive as the racism prevalent throughout the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs, or the sexism in nearly all of Robert E. Howard's output.  CGC and the major auction houses will hardly be immune from criticism... slabbing and promoting the sale of golden-age comics could easily be seen as insensitive, for instance.  So jokes aside about the silliness of it all, and I've done it myself... but there are very real concerns for retailers and collectors out there if this trend is anything more than a temporary aberration... which is why this thread is actually one of the most important ones to appear hear in quite awhile. 

And yet... none of this has happened. eBay just decided they didn't want to deal with it. If in 6 months they change their mind, no one will probably even remember or much care. Sort of how 'Baby it's Cold Outside' seems to be forgotten about and moved on from and available on eBay and on Spotify, etc. 

I'm pro-art. I'm non-censorship.

This is neither.

[snitzer]

Apologists for censorship and book banning on a comic forum - Wertham would adopt you all  

[Buzzetta]

2 hours ago, F For Fake said:

Hope it works out for you, recreating those listings is a pain. I know in most of the Joe groups I'm in, they refer to the guns as "pews" because if they use the word "gun", it may get pulled. Heck, last year I put up a bunch of postings selling MASK figures, and FB yanked them because they thought I was selling unlicensed covid masks! Requested a review, they still denied it. Seems like there's a big difference in a homemade mouth covering and a plastic car that converts from a Trans Am into a plane, but what do I know? All bow to the algorithm!

Ha - I cut and pasted the text and saved it.  I’m listing GI Joe stuff today actually - 

 

just realized something I’m listing you might want - you can have it for cost... PM forthcoming 

[ThothAmon]

30 minutes ago, Bird said:

 

Fun for awhile. 

[thunsicker]

24 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

To be quite honest, I wouldn't even have known about it if someone hadn't started this thread. The degree of outrage wouldn't have generated a single notice to me. It has absolutely no bearing upon my life whatsoever. In fact I'd never even heard of the book. I read Dr, Suess as a little kid, but am completely at a loss to remember this. 

This is the long and the short of the whole matter.  No one would have even noticed if it weren't for a certain political action committee deciding to make this the centerpiece of their convention this year.  No one would have cared and no one would have noticed that a rights owner decided not to keep publishing a few low selling books that had questionable stereotypes in them.  But the pac decided that this was what was important to them (not the pandemic, not the resultant unemployment, not the fact that the country is becoming more and more polarized, etc.).  And so here we are arguing about 'censorship' on a comic book board.

[porcupine48]

Look at the banned books,leave with some cat in the hat.

Maybe at least some kids will get a Hop on Pop or 1 fish 2 fish out of all this.

Jimmers,positivity since 2016

[porcupine48]

27 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

Ha - I cut and pasted the text and saved it.  I’m listing GI Joe stuff today actually - 

 

just realized something I’m listing you might want - you can have it for cost... PM forthcoming 

Doe you think the ragin bonerajun is coming back to yell at you or what?

I mean,you said I and stuff..

[Buzzetta]

14 minutes ago, porcupine48 said:

Doe you think the ragin bonerajun is coming back to yell at you or what?

I mean,you said I and stuff..

If certain people did not "like" me or could not stand me, I would be honestly unnerved by that.  Then there are people that if they did not "like" me I would shrug and say, "It is what it is" and "That's a shame it didn't turn out differently" and in some cases I would try to make things better.  Then there are people like him who do not "like" me.  I am proud of that.  

I'm all smiles. 

 

All smiles. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Buzzetta

[porcupine48]

5 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

If certain people did not "like" me or could not stand me, I would be honestly unnerved by that.  Then there are people that if they did not "like" me I would shrug and say, "It is what it is" and "That's a shame it didn't turn out differently" and in some cases I would try to make things better.  Then there are people like him who do not "like" me.  I am proud of that.  

I'm all smiles. 

 

All smiles. 

Maybe not if I show you all my bootleg lego stuff 

I'm about to build a MAX build more dragon and ninja.

Our dollarama has some sweet kiddy toys 100+ pieces for three bux?Oh yeah

[Bird]

36 minutes ago, ThothAmon said:

Fun for awhile. 

 mom always said don't play ball in the house!

thanks for listening at least. And not just the video.

 

[Dylan.]

This has something to do with managed payments. I don't agree with it but just sell that stuff somewhere else. You don't make the rules, and it's not your playground. Maybe we can make a boards section to sell that stuff, maybe that violates a rule, I have no idea

[Bookery]

48 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

Barely a week goes by? You're going to start your defense with that hyperbolic of a statement?

I agree. And in the case of 'If I Ran the Zoo', I can simply google it and read all about it on Wikipedia. 

It hasn't been erased from history, but rather discontinued from its pathetically small press run. Dr. Seuss' pocketbook won't notice as he's been dead for 30 years. You can still read it online for Free if you have Amazon Kindle. Though really... who'd want to?

To be quite honest, I wouldn't even have known about it if someone hadn't started this thread. The degree of outrage wouldn't have generated a single notice to me. It has absolutely no bearing upon my life whatsoever. In fact I'd never even heard of the book. I read Dr, Suess as a little kid, but am completely at a loss to remember this. 

Despite that... it probably hurts... well.... I can't think of a single person this actually hurts. We as a society will completely survive without it. It seems beyond insignificant. 

And yet... none of this has happened. eBay just decided they didn't want to deal with it. If in 6 months they change their mind, no one will probably even remember or much care. Sort of how 'Baby it's Cold Outside' seems to be forgotten about and moved on from and available on eBay and on Spotify, etc. 

I'm pro-art. I'm non-censorship.

This is neither.

Well, my entire statement was that the issue I'm addressing is not about "one book"... and yet you keep going on about one book (and btw, the Dr. Seuss issue involves 6 books, so I'm sensing you really aren't doing any research on this before posting).  AND... I have never once in this thread... not once... said anything about the publisher deciding not to keep the books in print.  And I'm not sure anyone else has either.  The concern was that eBay was cancelling listings of them.  It was eBay (and Amazon) that put most small bookstores out of business, and having forced many sellers online having lost their brick and mortars, now starts censoring what they can sell.  And YES... it is censorship... look up the definition... it's legal censorship (unlike government censorship which is unconstitutional) but that doesn't change what it is.  And again... it's not an issue of these 6 books.  We are having a discussion of whether this opens a Pandora's box.  You say no.  Fine.  

There is a big difference between people criticizing material, and making calls for it to be dropped from major means of distribution.  I criticize books and films I don't like all the time.  I have never once suggested said material should be banned, or dropped from Netflix or Amazon or eBay or whatever.  TCM has just announced 18 "problematic" film classics that it will be discussing.  And frankly, I think they're doing it right... presenting the material along with discussion groups.  But one wonders if Amazon or someone else will take the list and use it to drop these items from availability.  They probably won't... but are you claiming it's not worthy of discussion?  And I think why people are making such a big deal is because it IS something as silly as Dr. Seuss... if a book can be... let's not call it banned... maybe blacklisted? because of a school of fish wearing fur coats, then seriously, one does indeed wonder what is sitting on my shelf right now that is going to offend someone tomorrow, or the next day?

I have been consistent my whole life on this issue.  I have even been on the news as leading an effort to keep videos from being banned from stores many long years ago (how serious can things get?  Several video stores were put out of business in a neighboring county when they banned the rental of even R-rated movies!).  We fought the group that did it as they came to our county, and we won.  I've argued against it from the right and from the left.  Comic books... all of them... the Disneys along with the ECs, were banned for awhile in a neighboring state back in the '50s.  I'm pretty sure many said then, as now, who cares?  They are just silly books.  No one will miss them.

 

[Rip]

This morning I read a fictional article today from Vox. Trying to Claim "The Cat in the Hat Comes Back" was racist.

The author claimed

"(I would, though, suggest that this context makes that plot line in the sequel where the Cat smears black ink all over the house and then the kids yell at him to kill the stains kind of uncomfortable, in light of the racial history of the way Black people, dirt, and ink are associated in American pop culture.)"

Sadly the author doesn't seem to have read the book at all. The "Black ink" was pink.
(When confronted, The author later made a small change removing the word "black" from the article)

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Rip

[Prince Namor]

42 minutes ago, Bookery said:

Well, my entire statement was that the issue I'm addressing is not about "one book"... and yet you keep going on about one book (and btw, the Dr. Seuss issue involves 6 books, so I'm sensing you really aren't doing any research on this before posting).  AND... I have never once in this thread... not once... said anything about the publisher deciding not to keep the books in print.  And I'm not sure anyone else has either.  The concern was that eBay was cancelling listings of them.  It was eBay (and Amazon) that put most small bookstores out of business, and having forced many sellers online having lost their brick and mortars, now starts censoring what they can sell.  And YES... it is censorship... look up the definition... it's legal censorship (unlike government censorship which is unconstitutional) but that doesn't change what it is.  And again... it's not an issue of these 6 books.  We are having a discussion of whether this opens a Pandora's box.  You say no.  Fine.  

It’s not censorship. They can refuse service to anyone (or any item) they choose as long as it isn’t based on race, religion, sex, etc. 

You can still sell the item elsewhere. 

Quote

There is a big difference between people criticizing material, and making calls for it to be dropped from major means of distribution.  I criticize books and films I don't like all the time.  I have never once suggested said material should be banned, or dropped from Netflix or Amazon or eBay or whatever.  TCM has just announced 18 "problematic" film classics that it will be discussing.  And frankly, I think they're doing it right... presenting the material along with discussion groups.  But one wonders if Amazon or someone else will take the list and use it to drop these items from availability.  They probably won't... but are you claiming it's not worthy of discussion? 
 

I’m up for the discussion until it leads into hyperbole. 

Quote

And I think why people are making such a big deal is because it IS something as silly as Dr. Seuss... if a book can be... let's not call it banned... maybe blacklisted? because of a school of fish wearing fur coats, then seriously, one does indeed wonder what is sitting on my shelf right now that is going to offend someone tomorrow, or the next day?

It’s not just a school of fish wearing coats. It’s many unflattering images such as the one below. 
 

Do you think we should continue to put these images in children’s faces - in public schools?

With all the different books we could have in schools is THIS one really necessary?

Quote

I have been consistent my whole life on this issue.  I have even been on the news as leading an effort to keep videos from being banned from stores many long years ago (how serious can things get?  Several video stores were put out of business in a neighboring county when they banned the rental of even R-rated movies!).  We fought the group that did it as they came to our county, and we won.  I've argued against it from the right and from the left.  Comic books... all of them... the Disneys along with the ECs, were banned for awhile in a neighboring state back in the '50s.  I'm pretty sure many said then, as now, who cares?  They are just silly books.  No one will miss them.

EC Comics weren’t banned by the government. The Senate hearings produced no regulation. A group of the biggest publishers conspired to put their biggest competition out of business based upon the opportunity. 
 

Rock n Roll didn’t cave in. Booze was sold despite regulation. Movies adapted and thrived despite regulation. 
 

Publishers and Bookworms just need better representation and a backbone. 
 

Dr. Seuss’ publisher made the right decision though. 

[Prince Namor]

1 hour ago, thunsicker said:

This is the long and the short of the whole matter.  No one would have even noticed if it weren't for a certain political action committee deciding to make this the centerpiece of their convention this year.  No one would have cared and no one would have noticed that a rights owner decided not to keep publishing a few low selling books that had questionable stereotypes in them.  But the pac decided that this was what was important to them (not the pandemic, not the resultant unemployment, not the fact that the country is becoming more and more polarized, etc.).  And so here we are arguing about 'censorship' on a comic book board.

Well I don’t listen or pay attention to any of that. My philosophy is that anyone that spends time listening to politicians and people who support politicians are wasting their time. 
 

Life is worth living and nothing that makes people so miserable as politics has any place in my life. 
 

Ultimately all the scare tactics that Politicians have used throughout the years has all come to naught, and the world has continued to rotate. The less I pay attention to those nitwits the happier a place the world seems. 

[WesW]

2 hours ago, Bookery said:

Well, my entire statement was that the issue I'm addressing is not about "one book"... and yet you keep going on about one book (and btw, the Dr. Seuss issue involves 6 books, so I'm sensing you really aren't doing any research on this before posting).  AND... I have never once in this thread... not once... said anything about the publisher deciding not to keep the books in print.  And I'm not sure anyone else has either.  The concern was that eBay was cancelling listings of them.  It was eBay (and Amazon) that put most small bookstores out of business, and having forced many sellers online having lost their brick and mortars, now starts censoring what they can sell.  And YES... it is censorship... look up the definition... it's legal censorship (unlike government censorship which is unconstitutional) but that doesn't change what it is.  And again... it's not an issue of these 6 books.  We are having a discussion of whether this opens a Pandora's box.  You say no.  Fine.  

There is a big difference between people criticizing material, and making calls for it to be dropped from major means of distribution.  I criticize books and films I don't like all the time.  I have never once suggested said material should be banned, or dropped from Netflix or Amazon or eBay or whatever.  TCM has just announced 18 "problematic" film classics that it will be discussing.  And frankly, I think they're doing it right... presenting the material along with discussion groups.  But one wonders if Amazon or someone else will take the list and use it to drop these items from availability.  They probably won't... but are you claiming it's not worthy of discussion?  And I think why people are making such a big deal is because it IS something as silly as Dr. Seuss... if a book can be... let's not call it banned... maybe blacklisted? because of a school of fish wearing fur coats, then seriously, one does indeed wonder what is sitting on my shelf right now that is going to offend someone tomorrow, or the next day?

I have been consistent my whole life on this issue.  I have even been on the news as leading an effort to keep videos from being banned from stores many long years ago (how serious can things get?  Several video stores were put out of business in a neighboring county when they banned the rental of even R-rated movies!).  We fought the group that did it as they came to our county, and we won.  I've argued against it from the right and from the left.  Comic books... all of them... the Disneys along with the ECs, were banned for awhile in a neighboring state back in the '50s.  I'm pretty sure many said then, as now, who cares?  They are just silly books.  No one will miss them.

 

Superheroes are next , Netflix stopping DD and the rest was the foot across the line

[theCapraAegagrus]

13 hours ago, dylanthekid said:

This has something to do with managed payments. I don't agree with it but just sell that stuff somewhere else. You don't make the rules, and it's not your playground. Maybe we can make a boards section to sell that stuff, maybe that violates a rule, I have no idea

[Bookery]

12 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

It’s not censorship. They can refuse service to anyone (or any item) they choose as long as it isn’t based on race, religion, sex, etc. You can still sell the item elsewhere. 

It is censorship, by definition, just not by federal government (which has the power of armed force to enact its restrictions, which is why full-out government censorship is unconstitutional).  Censoring something doesn't mean it isn't legal.  We all censor what can be said or displayed in the workplace, what can be brought into our homes, what we allow to be used in education.  And no, of course the image you used shouldn't be used in lower-grade classrooms (in high school, however, it could be a useful learning device).  Limited, contextual censorship is not a bad thing of itself.  What concerns people (not panics them, as you keep saying) is the extent to which large-scale market-dominant platforms will cave to very small groups telling very large groups (i.e., consumers) what, as adults, they can (or should) transact between themselves.  

12 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

I’m up for the discussion until it leads into hyperbole. 

Hyperbole seems to be anything you disagree with.

12 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

It’s not just a school of fish wearing coats. It’s many unflattering images such as the one below.  

Again with the "one book" thingy.  I've stated previously that a couple of the 6 books in question did indeed have unequivocally offensive images.  But some others did not.

12 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

 

Do you think we should continue to put these images in children’s faces - in public schools?

Yes.  You have certainly grasped what I was going for.  I thought you said something earlier about hyperbole?  Hm.

12 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

With all the different books we could have in schools is THIS one really necessary?

Again with the "one book".  My discussion has never been about one book (I'm not even sure which one you are referring to), nor has my discussion been specifically about Dr. Seuss.  I have merely employed them as the current contextual examples.

12 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

EC Comics weren’t banned by the government. The Senate hearings produced no regulation. A group of the biggest publishers conspired to put their biggest competition out of business based upon the opportunity. 

None of this is accurate, except that the comics weren't technically banned by the government.  However, it was the threat of an imminent ban that sent the publishers scrambling to come up with a Code to appease the government.  And I used EC as just an example.  The Comic Code affected ALL comics, not just EC (which wouldn't have been seen as competition for DC or Dell, as they didn't even work in the same genres).  The Senate hearings (and Wertham) were actually more fixated on the Lev Gleason publications than EC (the primary focus was on crime comics).  What happened to the comic industry affected ALL publishers for nearly 20 years, and is closest to what happened with the McCarthy hearings.  Contrary to popular thought, McCarthy didn't ban or fire anybody from their jobs.  He merely pointed fingers.  Hollywood threw their own colleagues under the bus to appease the pc-mob of its day.  Hollywood fired people and banned them.  Not the government.  And to this day people deem even the said pointing of fingers in this era as a dark period.  Probably even you.  Yet those people still continued to work... they just had to find alternative venues, and had to use aliases, and had to work underground.  So by your arguments above, it was all okay then.

12 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

 

Rock n Roll didn’t cave in. Booze was sold despite regulation. Movies adapted and thrived despite regulation. 

Well... yes... booze was sold if you were willing to go to jail for it (or even get killed).  Again, all okay then?  All sorts of movies were banned in all sorts of places over the years.  By federal government, no.  By state and local governments, yes.  But if you lived in those areas they were banned nonetheless.  My brother's video store had adult film rentals banned back in the 80s.  It cut into revenue, but it wasn't the end of his business by any means.  But the group that got several counties to ban them tasted blood, and went after R-rated movies in the next county and had those banned as well.  That was the end of rental stores there... with big money-makers like Aliens and Predator (and pretty much ALL horror movies effectively banned, as well as many big-budget comedies, you couldn't succeed as a video shop).

12 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

 

Publishers and Bookworms just need better representation and a backbone. 
 

Dr. Seuss’ publisher made the right decision though. 

 

We do finally agree on the backbone part.  But for the umpteenth time, I don't have a problem with what the publisher did.  I'm not sure any posts in this thread have, yet you keep bringing it up.  Frankly, I'd have done the same thing... if my brand were established as a family-friendly children's-learning entity, I would certainly cease publishing a handful of items that threatened that brand.  Nobody's arguing that.  The debate has been about whether eBay (or any other semi-monopoly like Amazon) should start getting into the business of restricting items based on minority-mob fixations of the moment (they of course have the right to, again... not the point).  And the debate isn't even about Dr. Seuss.  If it begins and ends with these 6 books, history will little notice it.  But precedents have consequences.

When the counties I mentioned above caved to a small fundamentalist group (only about 20 people if I recall) and banned X-rated films,  most people in those communities didn't think it was much of a big deal, or even championed the decision by local prosecutors.  After all, did anybody really "need" those films?  They generally appealed only to a relatively small audience.  But then the group was empowered and went after "mainstream" movies next.  They didn't stop until I, and others, stood up and stopped it.  The fear is that the constant hand-wringing going on today over an ever-increasing list of historical artifacts might get out of hand, if it hasn't already.  Instead of embracing history for the fascinating morass that it is, we want to keep pretending it didn't happen.  Or we want to apply today's standards to people of entirely different times (and cultures) as if any of us can be anything but the product of our times.

[Prince Namor]

55 minutes ago, Bookery said:

It is censorship, by definition, just not by federal government (which has the power of armed force to enact its restrictions, which is why full-out government censorship is unconstitutional).  Censoring something doesn't mean it isn't legal.  We all censor what can be said or displayed in the workplace, what can be brought into our homes, what we allow to be used in education. 

It's NOT censorship. EBay ISN'T an authority, they're a private business. And NO, me deciding to NOT play rap or country music in my bar ISN'T censorship - it's a business decision based upon market. Other bars can still play it - it isn't suppressed - you can buy your own bar or sit at home and play it all day long. 

Quote

And no, of course the image you used shouldn't be used in lower-grade classrooms (in high school, however, it could be a useful learning device).  Limited, contextual censorship is not a bad thing of itself.  What concerns people (not panics them, as you keep saying) is the extent to which large-scale market-dominant platforms will cave to very small groups telling very large groups (i.e., consumers) what, as adults, they can (or should) transact between themselves.

Large scale market dominate platforms can sell whatever they choose - I'll go elsewhere and make my voice heard with my pocketbook. You can find anything you want - somewhere on the internet. I've barely used eBay in the last 5 years - hasn't caused me to miss out on a dang thing. Censorship ELIMINATES your options - with the World Wide Web, NOTHING is much censored anymore. 

Quote

Hyperbole seems to be anything you disagree with.

No, Hyperbole is turning a business decision by eBay into the 2nd coming of book burning.

Quote

Again with the "one book" thingy.  I've stated previously that a couple of the 6 books in question did indeed have unequivocally offensive images.  But some others did not.

Yes.  You have certainly grasped what I was going for.  I thought you said something earlier about hyperbole?  Hm.

Again with the "one book".  My discussion has never been about one book (I'm not even sure which one you are referring to), nor has my discussion been specifically about Dr. Seuss.  I have merely employed them as the current contextual examples.

Right, making it seem as if some hand of government has wiped from existence a children's book that no one is even reading. 

Quote

None of this is accurate, except that the comics weren't technically banned by the government. 

Wait, which part?

"EC Comics weren’t banned by the government."  TRUE

"The Senate hearings produced no regulation." TRUE 

"A group of the biggest publishers conspired to put their biggest competition out of business based upon the opportunity."  TRUE  

Quote

However, it was the threat of an imminent ban that sent the publishers scrambling to come up with a Code to appease the government.  And I used EC as just an example.  The Comic Code affected ALL comics, not just EC (which wouldn't have been seen as competition for DC or Dell, as they didn't even work in the same genres).

They were outselling them. Estimates say by a lot. You like comic book history, so here's one I recommend on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Ten-Cent-Plague-Comic-Book-Changed-America-ebook/dp/B00139XT6Y/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=ten+cent+plague&qid=1615297532&sr=8-1

Quote

The Senate hearings (and Wertham) were actually more fixated on the Lev Gleason publications than EC (the primary focus was on crime comics). 

Have you actually read the Comics Code? It is specifically aimed at EC Comics and the titles on their books - and HORROR is a huge part of it. Banning the words 'Crime' (that's one) and 'Horror' and 'Terror' (that's TWO for the horror line, though ALL apply to EC) and banning the use of vampires, werewolves, zombies etc. - certainly is aimed at the horror line and EC specifically.

Quote

What happened to the comic industry affected ALL publishers for nearly 20 years, and is closest to what happened with the McCarthy hearings.  Contrary to popular thought, McCarthy didn't ban or fire anybody from their jobs.  He merely pointed fingers. 

'merely pointed fingers'??? You mean pointed fingers, used smear tactics, told lies, made unsubstantiated accusations, exaggerated facts and aimed them SPECIFICALLY at people. He had the power of the Senate and United States government behind him to put immense public and government pressure on people who did nothing wrong.

Quote

Hollywood threw their own colleagues under the bus to appease the pc-mob of its day.  Hollywood fired people and banned them.  Not the government.  And to this day people deem even the said pointing of fingers in this era as a dark period.  Probably even you.  Yet those people still continued to work... they just had to find alternative venues, and had to use aliases, and had to work underground.  So by your arguments above, it was all okay then.

Yeah. It's still not even close to eBay deciding not let people sell this silly book. That's why I used the word Hyperbole. With a capital H.

And I'm still not buying the 'It could happen again" bit.

Quote

Well... yes... booze was sold if you were willing to go to jail for it (or even get killed).  Again, all okay then?  All sorts of movies were banned in all sorts of places over the years.  By federal government, no.  By state and local governments, yes.  But if you lived in those areas they were banned nonetheless.  My brother's video store had adult film rentals banned back in the 80s.  It cut into revenue, but it wasn't the end of his business by any means.  But the group that got several counties to ban them tasted blood, and went after R-rated movies in the next county and had those banned as well.  That was the end of rental stores there... with big money-makers like Aliens and Predator (and pretty much ALL horror movies effectively banned, as well as many big-budget comedies, you couldn't succeed as a video shop).

Yeah. It's still not even close to eBay deciding not let people sell this silly book. That's why I used the word Hyperbole. With a capital H.

And I'm still not buying the 'It could happen again" bit.

Quote

We do finally agree on the backbone part.  But for the umpteenth time, I don't have a problem with what the publisher did.  I'm not sure any posts in this thread have, yet you keep bringing it up.  Frankly, I'd have done the same thing... if my brand were established as a family-friendly children's-learning entity, I would certainly cease publishing a handful of items that threatened that brand.  Nobody's arguing that.  The debate has been about whether eBay (or any other semi-monopoly like Amazon) should start getting into the business of restricting items based on minority-mob fixations of the moment (they of course have the right to, again... not the point).  And the debate isn't even about Dr. Seuss.  If it begins and ends with these 6 books, history will little notice it. 

You don't get to decide how eBay does business. If my local fish market doesn't want to sell halibut, they don't have to. I can't make them. If eBay doesn't want to allow this book to be sold they don't have to. It's a private business. For THEM, the cost of allowing it, right now doesn't add up. In 6 months that may change.

See for a lot of people here - this is ALL about idealism and politics. For eBay, it's a business decision. And as soon as the hoopla dies down, they'll suddenly not notice the copies showing up on their listings. It'll be back to business as usual. But by then it won't be worth as much, so there won't be any entitled crybabies bellyaching about it. And no one will care. 

Quote

But precedents have consequences.

And so does art.

Quote

When the counties I mentioned above caved to a small fundamentalist group (only about 20 people if I recall) and banned X-rated films,  most people in those communities didn't think it was much of a big deal, or even championed the decision by local prosecutors.  After all, did anybody really "need" those films?  They generally appealed only to a relatively small audience.  But then the group was empowered and went after "mainstream" movies next.  They didn't stop until I, and others, stood up and stopped it.  The fear is that the constant hand-wringing going on today over an ever-increasing list of historical artifacts might get out of hand, if it hasn't already.  Instead of embracing history for the fascinating morass that it is, we want to keep pretending it didn't happen.  Or we want to apply today's standards to people of entirely different times (and cultures) as if any of us can be anything but the product of our times.

Once again, NOT the same thing. THEN, you had no other options, other than move to a state less uptight and religiously gross as Ohio, or... mail order.

That happening then DID make a difference in how we take in our music and movies and porn... today, if a bunch of nut jobs with too much time on their hands forces Wal-Mart to say, "No more R-rated movies", people just buy it from another store or online, or make their own or whatever. The stupidity of the mob mentality grew our means of consumption. That's the growing pains of society. 

This isn't that.

This is someone realizing this might not be the best book(s) for kids in this day and age, making a stink about it, the publisher agreeing, and then greedy eBay flippers trying to take advantage of the situation, while eBay says, "We ain't gettin' caught up in all of that (for right now anyway)" - and then old fogey's and entitled comic book flippers saying, "I remember back in my day" and trying to turn it into a modern day Fahrenheit 451.

Hyperbole to the nth degree.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Prince Namor