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

[Prince Namor]

5 hours ago, HuddyBee said:

Just because they're doing a poor job of it doesn't mean they aren't censoring it. The exception doesn't prove the rule. Just because I get away with murder doesn't mean murder isn't illegal or forbidden.

No, but if they allow you to get away with it, you have to question their commitment. 

Quote

Books are being taken down.

And some aren't.

Quote

And eBay's official policy is to delist and remove all of these books. Again, the exception doesn't prove the rule.

If I own a bar, and I say smoking isn't allowed - it's our official policy - and I even occasionally kick people out for smoking - yet at any given time you can walk in and SEE people in there smoking... I'd say the exceptions prove I'M not following my rules.

Quote

And yes, when it comes to used collectibles, eBay is indeed a larger selling platform than Amazon. Or if I must, I'll rephrase my original comment to "one of the largest."

Ah, so this is about selling collectibles? Here I thought it was about banning books - you know - that you can buy - like on the biggest book seller in the world's web site - Amazon. But it's about selling used copies of a book that no one wanted until now. Got it. Thank god, eBay is protecting us from THAT.

Quote

I'm not quite sure what was funny about my saying eBay is removing these books out of political fear or motivation. Sure it boils down to $$$ for them, but the only reason they would lose money by leaving these books up is political in nature.

I can assure you that eBay isn't wearing the same tin foil hat as you.

Quote

As for the rest of your response, I think you are failing to understand the definition of censorship (at least as I perceive it). We clearly don't use or understand the word in the exact same way. Like I said in my last post, this is in most parts a matter of semantics only, so I think at least for the most part the debate over the definition of "censorship," should be put to rest.

Like many people, I think your bending it to fit your argument. That's not really how you successfully test a theory. 

Quote

And maybe I am making a mountain out of mole hill, but I do find this genuinely upsetting, and I don't look forward to a day when comics that I love and enjoy or books that I want to sell easily might be prohibited from eBay, because they are politically problematic. And this is a very real (maybe not likely to you, but I don't know) possibility. 

Some people will always live their life in fear like their TV tells them. 

Edited March 13, 2021 by Prince Namor

[HuddyBee]

28 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

No, but if they allow you to get away with it, you have to question their commitment. 

And some aren't.

If I own a bar, and I say smoking isn't allowed - it's our official policy - and I even occasionally kick people out for smoking - yet at any given time you can walk in and SEE people in there smoking... I'd say the exceptions prove I'M not following my rules.

This argument is silly. I just looked up the book "Scrambled Eggs Super," (I book I was unable to sell) on eBay, there is currently 1 copy available that was just listed. Previously there were tons of copies of this book that have sold, and there were tons listed. Now there is 1 that is sure to be delisted.

31 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

Ah, so this is about selling collectibles? Here I thought it was about banning books - you know - that you can buy - like on the biggest book seller in the world's web site - Amazon. But it's about selling used copies of a book that no one wanted until now. Got it. Thank god, eBay is protecting us from THAT.

No. This is about used books. Ebay happens to be the largest website to sell used books. It just so happens that some people call used books collectible books. And again, no one ever said these books were totally being banned. So yes, you thought wrong. It also turns out that there are no longer new copies being produced. Retailers that had new copies are all sold out, so the only way to obtain a copy is to buy a used copy. You can no longer do so through eBay.

35 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

I can assure you that eBay isn't wearing the same tin foil hat as you.

Like many people, I think your bending it to fit your argument. That's not really how you successfully test a theory. 

Some people will always live their life in fear like their TV tells them. 

I'm not going to respond to this. As most of your rhetoric is rather absurd and helpful in no way.

I will say though, I don't live in fear. And if you think simply voicing a concern is the same as "living in fear," then I'm afraid, my friend, I'm not the only one wearing a tin foil hat.

[Rip]

1 hour ago, Rip said:

I was going to rewrite my post, but thats a fantastic point.

 

One of the things I was going to say was E-bays policy statement overlaps under the meaning of Political correctness and what is or isn't politically unacceptable, so it becomes difficult not to discuss politics at all when talking about the meaning and subject. Sadly it becomes overt when its a current topic within major political officials/pundits spectrum.

Offensive material policy. Listings that promote or glorify hatred, violence, or discrimination aren’t allowed.

Under ebays delisting emails: a listing of materials are mentioned

- Listings that promote, perpetuate, or glorify hatred, violence, or discrimination, including on the grounds of race, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, aren’t allowed. This includes, but isn't limited to, the following:

-- Items, including figurines, cartoons, housewares, historical advertisements, and golliwogs with racist, anti-Semitic, or otherwise demeaning portrayals, for example through caricatures or other exaggerated features.

 

If stating this violates CGC's topic I'll remove it but here is CGC statements on the matter

DEFINITELY POLITICAL:

 

1. Political parties
2. Broad political labels (liberal, conservative, etc.)
3. Election outcomes / forecasts
4. Performance of specific politicians by name
5. Debates about proper legislation to address a topic

Edited March 13, 2021 by Rip

[Unca Ben]

I'm just waiting for common sense to kick so we can restore the original title and setting of Agatha Christies' most famous novel, And Then There were None.

I mean, just look at what was lost in our culture by making those changes just because some folks thought it was offensive.  America has never recovered from the damage.

Edited March 13, 2021 by Unca Ben

[Bird]

Just now, Unca Ben said:

I'm just waiting for common sense to kick so we can restore the original title and setting of Agatha Christies' most famous novel, And Then There were None.

I mean, just look at what was lost in our culture by making those changes because some folks thought it was offensive.  America has never recovered from the damage.

I was talking about this one the other day with wifey...funny that the name they changed it to in order to be more politically correct back in the day is now also offensive

you can't make this stuff up...well George Carlin could maybe!

[Unca Ben]

11 minutes ago, Bird said:

I was talking about this one the other day with wifey...funny that the name they changed it to in order to be more politically correct back in the day is now also offensive

you can't make this stuff up...well George Carlin could maybe!

Yep.  Thing is, things change.  Stuff comes and goes.

My "good old days" were someone else's "awful modern times, with all these terrible changes nowadays".

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Edited March 13, 2021 by Unca Ben

[Mercury Man]

Time to take down The 'STREET'!   They've gotten a pass for far too long!  

[Bookery]

36 minutes ago, Unca Ben said:

I'm just waiting for common sense to kick so we can restore the original title and setting of Agatha Christies' most famous novel, And Then There were None.

I mean, just look at what was lost in our culture by making those changes just because some folks thought it was offensive.  America has never recovered from the damage.

Since I'm even more of a rare book person than a comic book one, I'll introduce a factoid some might not know.  The title was changed almost simultaneously as the British edition came out in 1939.  Christie did not come up with the phrase... it's the title of what was a popular nursery rhyme at the time (in England, not here), which of course plays into the whole plot of the novel.  The original title was actually not generally considered offensive in Britain, seen more as a quaint colloquialism than an intentional attempt to denigrate.  But in America, that was a different thing entirely.  Even in 1939 the term was considered extremely offensive here, and so the title was changed to accommodate that.  Christie was obviously very much alive in 1939, and would have given her permission to the title change.  The book went on to become her single most famous individual work, even without the presence of Hercule Poirot or Miss Marple! 

[Bird]

38 minutes ago, Unca Ben said:

Yep.  Thing is, things change.  Stuff comes and goes.

My "good old days" were someone else's "awful modern times, with all these terrible changes nowadays".

Wash, rinse, repeat.

my wife was on her walk last month, older guy walking same pace...they were trying to stay socially distant but got to talking and he said something like "those were the days, why would anyone not want to go back to how it was in the 1950s?" and wifey answered "well, as a woman I would definitely not want to grow up in the 1950s" and she says he looked at her for a minute as he considered what she was saying and replied "ok, I guess I can understand that" or something to the effect (I wasn't there). She was really impressed that he responded positively.

[Bird]

6 minutes ago, Bookery said:

Since I'm even more of a rare book person than a comic book one, I'll introduce a factoid some might not know.  The title was changed almost simultaneously as the British edition came out in 1939.  Christie did not come up with the phrase... it's the title of what was a popular nursery rhyme at the time (in England, not here), which of course plays into the whole plot of the novel.  The original title was actually not generally considered offensive in Britain, seen more as a quaint colloquialism than an intentional attempt to denigrate.  But in America, that was a different thing entirely.  Even in 1939 the term was considered extremely offensive here, and so the title was changed to accommodate that.  Christie was obviously very much alive in 1939, and would have given her permission to the title change.  The book went on to become her single most famous individual work, even without the presence of Hercule Poirot or Miss Marple! 

and Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear recited some of the original poem not too long ago on an episode of that show!

I didn't know the timeline but I knew the rhyme predated the book.

wiki says it MAY have started as injuns in 1868 but which came first is moot likely...learn something every day (in fact at least two things learned there)

[Unca Ben]

33 minutes ago, Bookery said:

Since I'm even more of a rare book person than a comic book one, I'll introduce a factoid some might not know.  The title was changed almost simultaneously as the British edition came out in 1939.  Christie did not come up with the phrase... it's the title of what was a popular nursery rhyme at the time (in England, not here), which of course plays into the whole plot of the novel.  The original title was actually not generally considered offensive in Britain, seen more as a quaint colloquialism than an intentional attempt to denigrate.  But in America, that was a different thing entirely.  Even in 1939 the term was considered extremely offensive here, and so the title was changed to accommodate that.  Christie was obviously very much alive in 1939, and would have given her permission to the title change.  The book went on to become her single most famous individual work, even without the presence of Hercule Poirot or Miss Marple! 

Yep.  Kinda like the way that Geisel of his own volition changed one of his books when he was still alive.  

[Bird]

1 minute ago, Unca Ben said:

Yep.  Kinda like the way that Geisel of his own volition changed one of his books when he was still alive.  

he was also very dismissive of criticism from readers, especially women, about how he portrayed things. We are all imperfect, even Dr Seuss. It is very odd, to me at least as a man in 2021, how he could evolve and do The Sneetches or The Lorax and still keep those others images in play at the same time. One of my real heroes is John Wayne, love and respect him. I do think he was a "good man" and showed it to. But he did think some groups were more deserving of balanced representation than others, and that too evolved over his life.

I have what I think is a quite funny joke that I thought of after the Dr Seuss stuff came out. I didn't tell it here, but I did on twitter. The actual target of the jokey statement is the blatant racism seen in some of the Seuss images. Maybe that joke will be seen as offensive in 20 years; I know it is edgy now. But I also know my own heart so I excuse the language needed to make the joke. Others may not be so tolerant and they would not be wrong, two opposing truths can coexist.

anyway, I digress...

[HotKey]

4 hours ago, Mercury Man said:

Time to take down The 'STREET'!   They've gotten a pass for far too long!  

Offensive to people who hate memes and puppets.

[ttfitz]

13 hours ago, HuddyBee said:

My point wasn't that it is a "bad thing" therefore it is censorship. I've addressed why it categorizes as censorship in the post you quoted and my previous posts, so I won't repeat myself. However, I would argue that rather than me stretching the meaning to include private entities, you are shrinking the definition to a very limited result which I would argue is more dangerous.

I only wish to point out that I don't think that the inclusion of private entities is what is stretching the meaning of censorship, as I have agreed that it is possible for a private entity to engage in censorship. It's stretching when you include private entities making the decision on what things they wish to sell.

[Ride the Tiger]

14 minutes ago, HotKey said:

Offensive to people who hate memes and puppets.

Master of Puppets was one of the greatest albums ever. 

[ttfitz]

12 hours ago, Rip said:

22 hours ago, ttfitz said:

Maybe you would be assisted if I bolded things correctly, rather than just a word or two:

"These are all examples of PUBLIC entities banning things. Completely different than a private company deciding not to participate in the sale of an item."

So 2 things.

1. Why bring up public vs private at all?
    What's completely different?

    Again you did the same when you stated

"- all of which were by PUBLIC entities, which fell under almost any definition of censorship."

I thought by stating - on more than one occasion - that I agreed that a private company can engage in censorship that maybe it would be clear, but I can see not. And I thought by highlighting the two actions in my quote, it would point to exactly what I meant by it being "completely different" (as in the actions being taken are completely different) but I can see not.

Why bring up public vs private? Because it makes a difference - something done by a public institution is judged differently than a private one, largely in the fact that it is difficult for a private entity to "prohibit" something. Prohibit <> not participate.

Let's see if I can illustrate with a couple examples:

1a) Colbert shows a house that arranged Christmas lights in the shape of a [male member]. CBS blurred the image. Censorship (in a great deal due to the fact that you can't switch over to NBC, say, to see an unblurred image)

1b) Ford decided to pull its ads from the Late Show, because they oppose showing outline [male member] Christmas lights regardless of whether it is blurred or not. NOT censorship

2a) You and I are sitting on your front porch (masked and socially distanced, of course), and the government (national, state, local, homeowners association, block captain) says "You can't talk about eBay and the Dr Seuss books." Censorship

2b) You and I are sitting on your front porch, and YOU say, "No talking about eBay and Dr Seuss, I've had enough of that." NOT censorship

12 hours ago, Rip said:

So, are you saying retailers like Amazon, E-bay, and Kobo are absolved of censorship by just stating they are deciding not to participate in the sale of an item? What if they state books with witchcraft like Harry Potter is no longer to be sold because it violates their offensive policy? Or what about erotica?
What if E-bays says they will no longer sell Catcher in the Rye due to the offensive premarital sex, alcohol abuse and prostitution.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. When a company decides, for whatever reason, to not sell a particular product, and I am kept from buying/selling that product only because I am too lazy to switch my browser from their website to a different one, that's not censorship, that's a business decision that is made each and every day.

12 hours ago, Rip said:

(PS. I looked back and I feel like I may look like I'm berating you a bit and come off as a bit of a jerk, so I want apologize. I also think we do have some areas of agreement. Scott)

I will echo these remarks. As I've said, I've tried to limit my remarks to the use of censorship, and NOT the underlying actions. Despite your assertion that "censorship doesn't have to be bad," I think you will agree that the usual context is that of being a wrong thing, and I think if you start calling stuff like this "censorship" you run the risk of turning off people who might be on your side but feel you are blowing things out of proportion. If I could sum up, Scott says, "This is censorship, and it's bad." Tim says, "This is not censorship, but it's bad." (And my apologies if that isn't a great sum up for you)

Edited March 14, 2021 by ttfitz
Spoon!

[ttfitz]

5 hours ago, Unca Ben said:

I'm just waiting for common sense to kick so we can restore the original title and setting of Agatha Christies' most famous novel, And Then There were None.

I mean, just look at what was lost in our culture by making those changes just because some folks thought it was offensive.  America has never recovered from the damage.

Wow, a bit of serendipity - just the other day I was writing a review on GoodReads of Murder on the Oriental Express, and I was going to mention how much MotOE has been copied, along with that one, and in trying to insert a link to the book on GoodReads, I discovered that "Ten Little Indians" was no longer the title. And what the original title that you refer to was.

[ttfitz]

4 hours ago, Bird said:

my wife was on her walk last month, older guy walking same pace...they were trying to stay socially distant but got to talking and he said something like "those were the days, why would anyone not want to go back to how it was in the 1950s?" and wifey answered "well, as a woman I would definitely not want to grow up in the 1950s" and she says he looked at her for a minute as he considered what she was saying and replied "ok, I guess I can understand that" or something to the effect (I wasn't there). She was really impressed that he responded positively.

Seeing another's perspective is a really useful thing. As a younger man, a southern small town white guy, I was never a stars-and-bars guy, but it also never occurred to me that my saying things like "The South will rise again!" could be a frightening thing for some people, or that my referring to "The War of Northern Aggression" would be taken as something other than a joking sort of thing. And I think it's a good thing that issues are brought up, and people have a chance to reexamine how others might see things.

Thankfully it appears it's still okay to refer to those above the Mason Dixon as "damn yankees", so there's still that.

[Prince Namor]

6 hours ago, ttfitz said:

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. When a company decides, for whatever reason, to not sell a particular product, and I am kept from buying/selling that product only because I am too lazy to switch my browser from their website to a different one, that's not censorship, that's a business decision that is made each and every day.

Totally agree.

But this is what the tin foil hats can't understand - they've been conditioned to believe it's 'political', so they take that stance and spread that all over the place. And talk about it over and over and over. No one wants to hear it. No one wants to hear how they've been brainwashed.

If some nitwits with over active guilt complex's want to cry about a book that no one reads anymore - have at it. If some company wants to add up x-z=y2 and decide it's not worth it to carry - so be it.

But Jimmy Freakin' Christmas on Popsicle Stick, I can't take listening to these whiny comic nerds bellyaching about "I can't make a profit off of it on eBay!" and opening the door to these creepy politik dorks sliming their way into the conversation. 

At the end of the day, no one gives 2S's about that book, or the company's policy that previous to the controversy affected about .00000000000000000000000000001% of their business. But the comic nerd and politik dork will go on ad infinitum. FOREVER. And EVER. And EVER. And EVER.

Drink more water. Have a fruit cup. Get outside more. In the scope of things this event means NOTHING. The song that's banned - Mr. Potato Head - who gives a crud? It means NOTHING - regardless of what Bookery says 'the sky is falling!'. Seriously, it's NOT. Turn off the news - go outside - you'll see. 

It IS insane the amount of complaining that goes on in regards to what is 'acceptable' now, but it's nearly as bad as the amount of complaining ABOUT it. The complainers are even more annoying than the original complainers. It's Social Justice being attacked by Social Justice, or realistically by Social Selfishness. 

I at least GET where the OC's (Original Complainers) are coming from - yeah, maybe it's best those books AREN'T in public schools or whatever - good for you - who cares?

But the comic nerds and the politik dorks? Get a life.

[Prince Namor]

6 hours ago, ttfitz said:

Seeing another's perspective is a really useful thing. As a younger man, a southern small town white guy, I was never a stars-and-bars guy, but it also never occurred to me that my saying things like "The South will rise again!" could be a frightening thing for some people, or that my referring to "The War of Northern Aggression" would be taken as something other than a joking sort of thing. And I think it's a good thing that issues are brought up, and people have a chance to reexamine how others might see things.

Thankfully it appears it's still okay to refer to those above the Mason Dixon as "damn yankees", so there's still that.

There's an incorrect assumption that the minority is even more likely to 'complain' about their situation than ever before, because of how 'entitled' we are as a society. This is a truly self-serving observation for the ruling class. Truth is - those marginalized just have a forum to OPENLY express themselves about it. They've ALWAYS not liked it.

In the 70's, if a homosexual or a black man (or woman) or anyone 'different' from what was considered the idealized 'American', were walking down the street and 5 white dudes shouted some slur at them - they maybe wouldn't say anything back or feel they could stand up to themselves for fear of the over powering nature of who was saying it. And if they DID speak out, institutionally they where in trouble. 

NOW, they can go on Facebook, or Twitter, or Instagram or wherever and immediately say, "I don't like it!!!" They can attract OTHERS who've felt this marginalization and stand TOGETHER.

This is frightening to the ruling class. They have for centuries in this country been able to say what they wanted, ruled as they wanted, discriminated as they wanted and seen things as they wanted. Institutionally things have evened out to SOME degree, but... Its pretty easy to figure out what means they'd use (are using) to try and counteract it.