Discussion:
Well, we knew it was coming: Amazon now banning ideas
(too old to reply)
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2021-02-24 19:17:01 UTC
Permalink
We've talked here about Amazon banning certain authors, but that was
(apparently) due to claims they gamed the Kindle-Unlimited rules.

Now Amazon is (selectively) banning ideas.

https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/prior-removing-transgender-critical-book-amazon-changed-policies-ban-books-hate

Yeah, yeah, "I don't trust this wingnut site", but I don't think
the facts are in dispute. Time for some good old antitrust.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Robert Carnegie
2021-02-24 20:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
We've talked here about Amazon banning certain authors, but that was
(apparently) due to claims they gamed the Kindle-Unlimited rules.
Now Amazon is (selectively) banning ideas.
https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/prior-removing-transgender-critical-book-amazon-changed-policies-ban-books-hate
<https://www.amazon.com/s?k=mein+kampf&ref=nb_sb_noss_2>
Getting a straight copy seems to be tricky. One of those
offerings is titled "I'm Kamp". They're also offering a free
"Communist Manifesto" apparently. Curious recommendations!
pete...@gmail.com
2021-02-25 02:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
We've talked here about Amazon banning certain authors, but that was
(apparently) due to claims they gamed the Kindle-Unlimited rules.
Now Amazon is (selectively) banning ideas.
https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/prior-removing-transgender-critical-book-amazon-changed-policies-ban-books-hate
<https://www.amazon.com/s?k=mein+kampf&ref=nb_sb_noss_2>
Getting a straight copy seems to be tricky. One of those
offerings is titled "I'm Kamp". They're also offering a free
"Communist Manifesto" apparently. Curious recommendations!
Odd. It came right up for me, in an edition with a forward by an ADL
member, and a promise that profits would go to Jewish charities.

OTOH, there seems to be no complete text of 'The Protocols of the
Learned elders of Zion', and no versions at all of The Turner Dairies.

Pt
Titus G
2021-02-25 03:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
We've talked here about Amazon banning certain authors, but that was
(apparently) due to claims they gamed the Kindle-Unlimited rules.
Now Amazon is (selectively) banning ideas.
https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/prior-removing-transgender-critical-book-amazon-changed-policies-ban-books-hate
<https://www.amazon.com/s?k=mein+kampf&ref=nb_sb_noss_2>
Getting a straight copy seems to be tricky. One of those
offerings is titled "I'm Kamp". They're also offering a free
"Communist Manifesto" apparently. Curious recommendations!
Odd. It came right up for me, in an edition with a forward by an ADL
member, and a promise that profits would go to Jewish charities.
OTOH, there seems to be no complete text of 'The Protocols of the
Learned elders of Zion', and no versions at all of The Turner Dairies.
Pt
I had never heard of the Turner Diaries but a duckduckgo search cured my
ignorance and also showed Amazon withdrew them on January 21 because
they were related to Qanon.
Paul S Person
2021-02-25 17:26:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
We've talked here about Amazon banning certain authors, but that was
(apparently) due to claims they gamed the Kindle-Unlimited rules.
Now Amazon is (selectively) banning ideas.
https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/prior-removing-transgender-critical-book-amazon-changed-policies-ban-books-hate
<https://www.amazon.com/s?k=mein+kampf&ref=nb_sb_noss_2>
Getting a straight copy seems to be tricky. One of those
offerings is titled "I'm Kamp". They're also offering a free
"Communist Manifesto" apparently. Curious recommendations!
Odd. It came right up for me, in an edition with a forward by an ADL
member, and a promise that profits would go to Jewish charities.
OTOH, there seems to be no complete text of 'The Protocols of the
Learned elders of Zion', and no versions at all of The Turner Dairies.
Pt
I had never heard of the Turner Diaries but a duckduckgo search cured my
ignorance and also showed Amazon withdrew them on January 21 because
they were related to Qanon.
I rather suspect that that is the other way 'round, unless Qanon is at
least 30 years or so old.

But, no, I haven't checked any dates. I'm associating /The Turner
Diaries/ with The Order, which died [1] trying to start a new Civil
War in the 90s.

[1] Literally. And with guns blazing. Not very bright, apparently.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
pete...@gmail.com
2021-02-25 21:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
We've talked here about Amazon banning certain authors, but that was
(apparently) due to claims they gamed the Kindle-Unlimited rules.
Now Amazon is (selectively) banning ideas.
https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/prior-removing-transgender-critical-book-amazon-changed-policies-ban-books-hate
<https://www.amazon.com/s?k=mein+kampf&ref=nb_sb_noss_2>
Getting a straight copy seems to be tricky. One of those
offerings is titled "I'm Kamp". They're also offering a free
"Communist Manifesto" apparently. Curious recommendations!
Odd. It came right up for me, in an edition with a forward by an ADL
member, and a promise that profits would go to Jewish charities.
OTOH, there seems to be no complete text of 'The Protocols of the
Learned elders of Zion', and no versions at all of The Turner Dairies.
Pt
I had never heard of the Turner Diaries but a duckduckgo search cured my
ignorance and also showed Amazon withdrew them on January 21 because
they were related to Qanon.
The Turner Diaries goes back to the mid 70s. It may not be on Amazon, but I
Did find it for sale at Books-A-Million.

Pt
Andrew McDowell
2021-02-24 20:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
We've talked here about Amazon banning certain authors, but that was
(apparently) due to claims they gamed the Kindle-Unlimited rules.
Now Amazon is (selectively) banning ideas.
https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/prior-removing-transgender-critical-book-amazon-changed-policies-ban-books-hate
Yeah, yeah, "I don't trust this wingnut site", but I don't think
the facts are in dispute. Time for some good old antitrust.
Sorry, but I can't get worked up about this.
Amazon is a PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Would you really be making the same post if he/she/they decided not to
carry that book?
In the case of Amazon there is at least a question of concentration of power in one set of hands.

(At a time when personal mails were gummed up I ended buying the book "Model selection and model averaging" by ordering it from a religious bookshop. I was careful to explain that the models in question were mathematical abstractions, not scantily clad young ladies. They weren't really in the business of telling me what I could and could not read, but they were happy to learn that they wouldn't be embarrassed by having the book around for me to come and collect it).
Robert Woodward
2021-02-25 05:50:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
We've talked here about Amazon banning certain authors, but that was
(apparently) due to claims they gamed the Kindle-Unlimited rules.
Now Amazon is (selectively) banning ideas.
https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/prior-removing-transgender-critica
l-book-amazon-changed-policies-ban-books-hate
Yeah, yeah, "I don't trust this wingnut site", but I don't think
the facts are in dispute. Time for some good old antitrust.
Sorry, but I can't get worked up about this.
Amazon is a PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Would you really be making the same post if he/she/they decided not to
carry that book?
There is a slight difference between Amazon (with a huge presence in
both e-books and dead tree books) and Leslie Evelyn Smythe, owner and
operator of "Just the Books" bookstore in your local major metropolitan
region.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Quadibloc
2021-02-25 15:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
There is a slight difference between Amazon (with a huge presence in
both e-books and dead tree books) and Leslie Evelyn Smythe, owner and
operator of "Just the Books" bookstore in your local major metropolitan
region.
But as long as they're only using this power for good...

although banning books for being anti-transgender also risks getting
ahead of the curve, as there are legitimate concerns about the safety
of women in washrooms and locker rooms. Not from real transgendered
people, no.

John Savard
Paul S Person
2021-02-25 17:28:14 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 07:43:57 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Woodward
There is a slight difference between Amazon (with a huge presence in
both e-books and dead tree books) and Leslie Evelyn Smythe, owner and
operator of "Just the Books" bookstore in your local major metropolitan
region.
But as long as they're only using this power for good...
although banning books for being anti-transgender also risks getting
ahead of the curve, as there are legitimate concerns about the safety
of women in washrooms and locker rooms. Not from real transgendered
people, no.
So far as I can tell, only in the minds of Republicans. And related
groups.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2021-02-25 17:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 07:43:57 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 10:50:46 PM UTC-7, Robert
Post by Robert Woodward
There is a slight difference between Amazon (with a huge
presence in both e-books and dead tree books) and Leslie
Evelyn Smythe, owner and operator of "Just the Books"
bookstore in your local major metropolitan region.
But as long as they're only using this power for good...
although banning books for being anti-transgender also risks
getting ahead of the curve, as there are legitimate concerns
about the safety of women in washrooms and locker rooms. Not
from real transgendered people, no.
So far as I can tell, only in the minds of Republicans. And
related groups.
The hzards mostly lie in very stupidly written laws, like the one
that said people had to use the bathroom indicated on their birth
certificate. A quick search on Google for "how men who used to be
women" should clear that idiocy up right quick.

One guy I know said he'd attack anyone who looked like a man who
followed his young duaghter into the bathroom. So I asked him if he
was really willing to commit a violent felony against someone
specifically for *obeying* *the* *law*, and how well he thought
that would work out for him. (I included a link to a Google Images
search.)

The real idiocy is cheapskate contractors who use cheap-ass divider
stalls in multi-station bathroom instead of using real doors and
walls, which eliminates the entire problem.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Paul S Person
2021-02-26 17:23:56 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 10:23:12 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 07:43:57 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 10:50:46 PM UTC-7, Robert
Post by Robert Woodward
There is a slight difference between Amazon (with a huge
presence in both e-books and dead tree books) and Leslie
Evelyn Smythe, owner and operator of "Just the Books"
bookstore in your local major metropolitan region.
But as long as they're only using this power for good...
although banning books for being anti-transgender also risks
getting ahead of the curve, as there are legitimate concerns
about the safety of women in washrooms and locker rooms. Not
from real transgendered people, no.
So far as I can tell, only in the minds of Republicans. And
related groups.
The hzards mostly lie in very stupidly written laws, like the one
that said people had to use the bathroom indicated on their birth
certificate. A quick search on Google for "how men who used to be
women" should clear that idiocy up right quick.
One guy I know said he'd attack anyone who looked like a man who
followed his young duaghter into the bathroom. So I asked him if he
was really willing to commit a violent felony against someone
specifically for *obeying* *the* *law*, and how well he thought
that would work out for him. (I included a link to a Google Images
search.)
The real idiocy is cheapskate contractors who use cheap-ass divider
stalls in multi-station bathroom instead of using real doors and
walls, which eliminates the entire problem.
Individual one-stall/one-sink bathrooms would solve it even better.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Lynn McGuire
2021-02-26 19:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 10:23:12 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 07:43:57 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Woodward
There is a slight difference between Amazon (with a huge
presence in both e-books and dead tree books) and Leslie
Evelyn Smythe, owner and operator of "Just the Books"
bookstore in your local major metropolitan region.
But as long as they're only using this power for good...
although banning books for being anti-transgender also risks
getting ahead of the curve, as there are legitimate concerns
about the safety of women in washrooms and locker rooms. Not
from real transgendered people, no.
So far as I can tell, only in the minds of Republicans. And
related groups.
The hzards mostly lie in very stupidly written laws, like the one
that said people had to use the bathroom indicated on their birth
certificate. A quick search on Google for "how men who used to be
women" should clear that idiocy up right quick.
One guy I know said he'd attack anyone who looked like a man who
followed his young duaghter into the bathroom. So I asked him if he
was really willing to commit a violent felony against someone
specifically for *obeying* *the* *law*, and how well he thought
that would work out for him. (I included a link to a Google Images
search.)
The real idiocy is cheapskate contractors who use cheap-ass divider
stalls in multi-station bathroom instead of using real doors and
walls, which eliminates the entire problem.
Individual one-stall/one-sink bathrooms would solve it even better.
Expensive. I wonder if they all would have to be ADA ?

Lynn
Robert Carnegie
2021-02-26 20:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 10:23:12 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 07:43:57 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Woodward
There is a slight difference between Amazon (with a huge
presence in both e-books and dead tree books) and Leslie
Evelyn Smythe, owner and operator of "Just the Books"
bookstore in your local major metropolitan region.
But as long as they're only using this power for good...
although banning books for being anti-transgender also risks
getting ahead of the curve, as there are legitimate concerns
about the safety of women in washrooms and locker rooms. Not
from real transgendered people, no.
So far as I can tell, only in the minds of Republicans. And
related groups.
The hzards mostly lie in very stupidly written laws, like the one
that said people had to use the bathroom indicated on their birth
certificate. A quick search on Google for "how men who used to be
women" should clear that idiocy up right quick.
One guy I know said he'd attack anyone who looked like a man who
followed his young duaghter into the bathroom. So I asked him if he
was really willing to commit a violent felony against someone
specifically for *obeying* *the* *law*, and how well he thought
that would work out for him. (I included a link to a Google Images
search.)
The real idiocy is cheapskate contractors who use cheap-ass divider
stalls in multi-station bathroom instead of using real doors and
walls, which eliminates the entire problem.
Individual one-stall/one-sink bathrooms would solve it even better.
Expensive. I wonder if they all would have to be ADA ?
Not all, I would suppose.

Our office appears to be designed (currently) with
two disabled access WC rooms laid out near the
canteen, only one of which actually is a disabled WC.
The other is one normal Western throne with a lot of
space to left and right in the room.

Ancient Romans perched in a row over a channel
flushed from a stream of water. I think Billy Connolly
said that Glasgow shipyard workers did so as well,
when there were Glasgow shipyard workers and he
was one of them. "Arses up!" was the warning call
when some wag finished reading his newspaper and
sent it floating underneath his neighbours, on fire.

<https://www.scottishmaritimemuseum.org/paper-boats/>
may give you, or somebody else, the wrong idea.
Dimensional Traveler
2021-02-26 21:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Individual one-stall/one-sink bathrooms would solve it even better.
Expensive.  I wonder if they all would have to be ADA ?
Why would they not?
--
I like living in the suburbs of Sanity. I can commute there when I need
to be serious or mature but otherwise I can do as I please.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2021-03-01 17:19:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Paul S Person
Individual one-stall/one-sink bathrooms would solve it even
better.
Expensive.  I wonder if they all would have to be ADA ?
Why would they not?
Political pressure from campaign contributors to reduce overall cost.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Kevrob
2021-02-27 00:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 10:23:12 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
[snip]
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
The real idiocy is cheapskate contractors who use cheap-ass divider
stalls in multi-station bathroom instead of using real doors and
walls, which eliminates the entire problem.
Individual one-stall/one-sink bathrooms would solve it even better.
--
It would, but it would add others. I've worked where, when the men's
or women's room on our floor was being cleaned, the convention was
to leave the door to the one-toilet, one-sink bathroom reserved for
people who qualified under the ADA act, plus anybody with a temporary
medical problem, unlocked. Usually you had to tap in a code to use it.
Not everybody who used those facilities thought much about who would
use them next - unless they did, but their range of abilities made cleaning
up after themselves difficult. Once the multi-stall bathrooms were cleaned,
the lock and code were used. Having at least one bathroom like that which
could be accessed by someone who hadn't crossed some critical threshold
of transition ( - I won't say what, I'm not an expert - ) might help. If I were
still in brick-and-mortar retailing I'd want at least one customer bathroom
in the store that had controlled access, designed for a single-user. But
then there is the parent-accompanying-a-child situation. I've seen "family
rest rooms" at airports and even rest stops on the Interstate Highway System.

Are we going to have unisex common areas outside the stalls, with security
video tech installed? Are all types of men and women going to be standing
side-by-side when they do anything other than eliminating waste, or changing
clothes? Would we wind up developing "rest room etiquette" that might be
similar to that of the city dwellers in Asimov's "The Caves of Steel," or would
real-life mores be even weirder?

I worked for a short time in a factory that made dividers for bathroom
stalls, right after I recovered from an illness that interrupted my studies
for my degree. We cut wood to size and applied Formica. It was hard,
hot, nasty work. Nothing like making steel or mining coal, of course,
but it didn't pay much more than flipping burgers or selling books.
I was glad to quit. Another shop in the factory made steel dividers.
My next factory job was much less awful.

Nowadays, dividers can be treated with anti-graffiti coating, but then
the determined vandals just scratch their messages onto walls, partitions
or even mirrors. Does every public facility need a guard, then? Imagine
getting 86ed from a public bathroom because some innocent behavior
of yours was misread by an AI?

It doesn't matter which gender/sex a potential attacker presents to
the world, if that person has the desire to prey on children it might
not matter which "gendered bathroom" "they" are visiting.
--
Kevin R
Michael F. Stemper
2021-03-01 19:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Are we going to have unisex common areas outside the stalls, with security
video tech installed? Are all types of men and women going to be standing
side-by-side when they do anything other than eliminating waste, or changing
clothes? Would we wind up developing "rest room etiquette" that might be
similar to that of the city dwellers in Asimov's "The Caves of Steel," or would
real-life mores be even weirder?
As far as I can tell, what Asimov described is pretty much what the US
has now. Guys never talk to each other in the "Personals", women go
together so that they have somebody to talk to.
--
Michael F. Stemper
87.3% of all statistics are made up by the person giving them.
Scott Lurndal
2021-03-01 23:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Kevrob
Are we going to have unisex common areas outside the stalls, with security
video tech installed? Are all types of men and women going to be standing
side-by-side when they do anything other than eliminating waste, or changing
clothes? Would we wind up developing "rest room etiquette" that might be
similar to that of the city dwellers in Asimov's "The Caves of Steel," or would
real-life mores be even weirder?
As far as I can tell, what Asimov described is pretty much what the US
has now. Guys never talk to each other in the "Personals", women go
together so that they have somebody to talk to.
As for Kevrob's question, there were such unisex facilities at Orly
when I flew into it back in the 1990s. I fully expect they're still there
and have worked just fine in the intervening decades.
Alan Baker
2021-03-02 00:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Kevrob
Are we going to have unisex common areas outside the stalls, with security
video tech installed? Are all types of men and women going to be standing
side-by-side when they do anything other than eliminating waste, or changing
clothes? Would we wind up developing "rest room etiquette" that might be
similar to that of the city dwellers in Asimov's "The Caves of Steel," or would
real-life mores be even weirder?
As far as I can tell, what Asimov described is pretty much what the US
has now. Guys never talk to each other in the "Personals", women go
together so that they have somebody to talk to.
As for Kevrob's question, there were such unisex facilities at Orly
when I flew into it back in the 1990s. I fully expect they're still there
and have worked just fine in the intervening decades.
There's a casual restaurant down at the end of the road that, the last
time it was redesigned, replaced it's large restrooms with about 8-10
individual restrooms; each with its own small sink.

Just take the first open one.
Kevrob
2021-03-02 00:40:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Kevrob
Are we going to have unisex common areas outside the stalls, with security
video tech installed? Are all types of men and women going to be standing
side-by-side when they do anything other than eliminating waste, or changing
clothes? Would we wind up developing "rest room etiquette" that might be
similar to that of the city dwellers in Asimov's "The Caves of Steel," or would
real-life mores be even weirder?
As far as I can tell, what Asimov described is pretty much what the US
has now. Guys never talk to each other in the "Personals", women go
together so that they have somebody to talk to.
Some clowns talk on their phones, and with bluetooth can even do it
at the urinals.

I have been among groups of guys who talk to each other in a
public restroom, but it is unusual. It's more likely if you and
your friends are the only ones in there. Certain nightclubs and
sporting venues seemed to attract guys with fewer inhibitions,
if only so they could shout the name of their favorite band or
team.
As for Kevrob's question, there were such unisex facilities at Orly
when I flew into it back in the 1990s. I fully expect they're still there
and have worked just fine in the intervening decades.
Thanks for the report.
--
Kevin R
Quadibloc
2021-03-02 06:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
As far as I can tell, what Asimov described is pretty much what the US
has now. Guys never talk to each other in the "Personals", women go
together so that they have somebody to talk to.
He was extrapolating from how men and women behaved in public
washrooms even in his time.

John Savard
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2021-03-01 17:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 10:23:12 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 07:43:57 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 10:50:46 PM UTC-7, Robert
Post by Robert Woodward
There is a slight difference between Amazon (with a huge
presence in both e-books and dead tree books) and Leslie
Evelyn Smythe, owner and operator of "Just the Books"
bookstore in your local major metropolitan region.
But as long as they're only using this power for good...
although banning books for being anti-transgender also risks
getting ahead of the curve, as there are legitimate concerns
about the safety of women in washrooms and locker rooms. Not
from real transgendered people, no.
So far as I can tell, only in the minds of Republicans. And
related groups.
The hzards mostly lie in very stupidly written laws, like the
one that said people had to use the bathroom indicated on their
birth certificate. A quick search on Google for "how men who
used to be women" should clear that idiocy up right quick.
One guy I know said he'd attack anyone who looked like a man who
followed his young duaghter into the bathroom. So I asked him if
he was really willing to commit a violent felony against someone
specifically for *obeying* *the* *law*, and how well he thought
that would work out for him. (I included a link to a Google
Images search.)
The real idiocy is cheapskate contractors who use cheap-ass
divider stalls in multi-station bathroom instead of using real
doors and walls, which eliminates the entire problem.
Individual one-stall/one-sink bathrooms would solve it even
better.
Putting private stalls with real doors into a separate room with
common sinks is far more practial, and could actually happen.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Paul S Person
2021-03-02 16:34:22 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 10:18:09 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 10:23:12 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 07:43:57 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Woodward
There is a slight difference between Amazon (with a huge
presence in both e-books and dead tree books) and Leslie
Evelyn Smythe, owner and operator of "Just the Books"
bookstore in your local major metropolitan region.
But as long as they're only using this power for good...
although banning books for being anti-transgender also risks
getting ahead of the curve, as there are legitimate concerns
about the safety of women in washrooms and locker rooms. Not
from real transgendered people, no.
So far as I can tell, only in the minds of Republicans. And
related groups.
The hzards mostly lie in very stupidly written laws, like the
one that said people had to use the bathroom indicated on their
birth certificate. A quick search on Google for "how men who
used to be women" should clear that idiocy up right quick.
One guy I know said he'd attack anyone who looked like a man who
followed his young duaghter into the bathroom. So I asked him if
he was really willing to commit a violent felony against someone
specifically for *obeying* *the* *law*, and how well he thought
that would work out for him. (I included a link to a Google
Images search.)
The real idiocy is cheapskate contractors who use cheap-ass
divider stalls in multi-station bathroom instead of using real
doors and walls, which eliminates the entire problem.
Individual one-stall/one-sink bathrooms would solve it even
better.
Putting private stalls with real doors into a separate room with
common sinks is far more practial, and could actually happen.
As another poster has noted, it already /has/ happened.

And that still won't quell the "fears" of Republicans.

Which are, of course, projections of what they themselves would do if
they had the chance.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2021-03-02 23:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 10:18:09 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 10:23:12 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 07:43:57 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Woodward
There is a slight difference between Amazon (with a huge
presence in both e-books and dead tree books) and Leslie
Evelyn Smythe, owner and operator of "Just the Books"
bookstore in your local major metropolitan region.
But as long as they're only using this power for good...
although banning books for being anti-transgender also risks
getting ahead of the curve, as there are legitimate concerns
about the safety of women in washrooms and locker rooms. Not
from real transgendered people, no.
So far as I can tell, only in the minds of Republicans. And
related groups.
The hzards mostly lie in very stupidly written laws, like the
one that said people had to use the bathroom indicated on
their birth certificate. A quick search on Google for "how men
who used to be women" should clear that idiocy up right quick.
One guy I know said he'd attack anyone who looked like a man
who followed his young duaghter into the bathroom. So I asked
him if he was really willing to commit a violent felony
against someone specifically for *obeying* *the* *law*, and
how well he thought that would work out for him. (I included a
link to a Google Images search.)
The real idiocy is cheapskate contractors who use cheap-ass
divider stalls in multi-station bathroom instead of using real
doors and walls, which eliminates the entire problem.
Individual one-stall/one-sink bathrooms would solve it even
better.
Putting private stalls with real doors into a separate room with
common sinks is far more practial, and could actually happen.
As another poster has noted, it already /has/ happened.
In some places, yes.
Post by Paul S Person
And that still won't quell the "fears" of Republicans.
I know a number of Repu8blicans. None one of them had any such
fears to begin with. I believe that for the most part, such
Republicans only exist in your diseased mind.
Post by Paul S Person
Which are, of course, projections of what they themselves would
do if they had the chance.
Typical of the left: You know your entire world view is so damaged
and demetned that the only way you can even live with yourself is
to brutally suppress all other opinions, preferably through
violence.

You're damaged goods, son.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Michael F. Stemper
2021-02-25 20:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Woodward
There is a slight difference between Amazon (with a huge presence in
both e-books and dead tree books) and Leslie Evelyn Smythe, owner and
operator of "Just the Books" bookstore in your local major metropolitan
region.
But as long as they're only using this power for good...
although banning books for being anti-transgender also risks getting
ahead of the curve, as there are legitimate concerns about the safety
of women in washrooms and locker rooms. Not from real transgendered
people, no.
Then there isn't much point in bringing it up.
--
Michael F. Stemper
Psalm 82:1-4
J. Clarke
2021-02-25 21:36:57 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 14:39:46 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Woodward
There is a slight difference between Amazon (with a huge presence in
both e-books and dead tree books) and Leslie Evelyn Smythe, owner and
operator of "Just the Books" bookstore in your local major metropolitan
region.
But as long as they're only using this power for good...
although banning books for being anti-transgender also risks getting
ahead of the curve, as there are legitimate concerns about the safety
of women in washrooms and locker rooms. Not from real transgendered
people, no.
Then there isn't much point in bringing it up.
Well actually there is. Real transgendered people are for the most
part not a problem. However sexual predators who _pretend_ to be
transgendered is another story. And telling which is which can be a
problem.
Hamish Laws
2021-02-26 00:17:19 UTC
Permalink
Well actually there is. Real transgendered people are for the most
part not a problem. However sexual predators who _pretend_ to be
transgendered is another story.
Yes, as in it's fictional.
a) Find cases where sexual predators have pretended to be transgendered to commit an offence
b) How does that compare to number of GOP politicians who've committed sexual offences?
c) How does it compare to the number of committed sexual offences committed by men in toilets who haven't pretended to be transgendered?
d) If it's a legitimate problem how is targeting the people not committing sexual offences a good solution?
e) how many transgendered people would be assaulted in some way if they went into the public toilets from their birth gender?
And telling which is which can be a
problem.
Quadibloc
2021-02-26 03:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hamish Laws
b) How does that compare to number of GOP politicians who've committed sexual offences?
I'm not sure that I see that this comparison is remotely relevant.
Post by Hamish Laws
c) How does it compare to the number of committed sexual offences committed by men in toilets who haven't pretended to be transgendered?
The question is to eliminate one particular avenue of opportunity.
That it addresses only part of the overall problem is not an excuse for inaction.
Post by Hamish Laws
e) how many transgendered people would be assaulted in some way if they went into the public toilets from their birth gender?
Now I agree that *this* legislation in some states with extreme
right-wing governments is wrong-headed. Once someone has
undergone sexual reassignment surgery, having them still use
toilets for their birth gender is exactly the opposite of the goal.

As for the transgendered who are at an earlier stage in the process...
if, indeed, they genuinely constitute no threat, then they simply need
ID cards to show to the police. Or, later on, implanted microchips,
so that the ceiling-mounted male detecting guns in women's
washrooms and locker rooms won't fire at them. (As for custodial
personnel: they have a key which they use outside the door to disarm
the system; it sets off lights and sirens, and then after a period of a
couple of minutes or so, it is safe for males to enter without being
shot at.)

John Savard
J. Clarke
2021-02-26 03:38:43 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 19:18:46 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Hamish Laws
b) How does that compare to number of GOP politicians who've committed sexual offences?
I'm not sure that I see that this comparison is remotely relevant.
Post by Hamish Laws
c) How does it compare to the number of committed sexual offences committed by men in toilets who haven't pretended to be transgendered?
The question is to eliminate one particular avenue of opportunity.
That it addresses only part of the overall problem is not an excuse for inaction.
Post by Hamish Laws
e) how many transgendered people would be assaulted in some way if they went into the public toilets from their birth gender?
Now I agree that *this* legislation in some states with extreme
right-wing governments is wrong-headed. Once someone has
undergone sexual reassignment surgery, having them still use
toilets for their birth gender is exactly the opposite of the goal.
As for the transgendered who are at an earlier stage in the process...
if, indeed, they genuinely constitute no threat, then they simply need
ID cards to show to the police. Or, later on, implanted microchips,
so that the ceiling-mounted male detecting guns in women's
washrooms and locker rooms won't fire at them. (As for custodial
personnel: they have a key which they use outside the door to disarm
the system; it sets off lights and sirens, and then after a period of a
couple of minutes or so, it is safe for males to enter without being
shot at.)
Personally I am of the opinion that the simplest solution is simply to
change the segregation of washrooms from "by gender" to "by
genitalia". If you have a penis you use this one and if you have a
vagina you use that one and if you have both or neither then you get
to pick.
Michael F. Stemper
2021-02-26 18:46:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
If you have a penis you use this one and if you have a
vagina you use that one and if you have both or neither then you get
to pick.
The ObSFW for which is, of course, "-- All You Zombies --".
--
Michael F. Stemper
Zechariah 7:10
Juho Julkunen
2021-02-26 04:45:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
if, indeed, they genuinely constitute no threat, then they simply need
ID cards to show to the police.
How many sexual assaults happen in bathrooms with a police at the door?
--
Juho Julkunen
Leif Roar Moldskred
2021-02-26 15:29:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Well actually there is. Real transgendered people are for the most
part not a problem. However sexual predators who _pretend_ to be
transgendered is another story.
"Story" is indeed the word, yes.
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
J. Clarke
2021-02-26 21:53:58 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:29:52 -0600, Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by J. Clarke
Well actually there is. Real transgendered people are for the most
part not a problem. However sexual predators who _pretend_ to be
transgendered is another story.
"Story" is indeed the word, yes.
For now perhaps.
Quadibloc
2021-02-26 03:10:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Quadibloc
although banning books for being anti-transgender also risks getting
ahead of the curve, as there are legitimate concerns about the safety
of women in washrooms and locker rooms. Not from real transgendered
people, no.
Then there isn't much point in bringing it up.
My. I must be unclear here.

Although one may indeed legitimately be suspicious of the motives of
the Right in opposing greater protection for the transgendered... I would
have thought that the logic behind the concern is clear.

Allowing transgendered individuals who haven't yet had their "bottom
surgery" into women's washrooms and locker rooms out of concern for
equal rights for the transgendered...

*risks weakening the protections of women against men who are not
actually transgendered, by disguising themselves as transgendered,
sneaking into women's washrooms and locker rooms*. And these protections
should *not* be weakened at all. Rather, they should be strengthened.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2021-02-26 05:02:53 UTC
Permalink
On the other hand, I think that it is commendable that our society
is making efforts to overcome centuries of religious tradition in
order to adopt a compassionate approach to people with genuine
gender-identity issues.

Just because it can be brought up as a red herring by people with
other motives, though, doesn't mean that washrooms and locker
rooms are not a valid concern.

But indeed one can see opponents of transgender rights displaying
the stupid for all to see. I just saw a YouTube video wherein Marjorie
Taylor-Greene (remember her?) puts up a sign saying

There are two genders: MALE and FEMALE.
Follow the Science!

...as a rejoinder to a transgender flag put up by another Representative.

Mais, elle fait une erreur.

One could say that science tells us that there are two *sexes*, male and
female. At least in H. sapiens, and indeed in most other familiar species.

This, though, doesn't mean that Klinefelter syndrome, or androgen
insensitivity, or hermaphrodism, or a number of other conditions don't
exist, nor is it in any way an argument against compassionate treatment
of those with gender identity problems.

But if you want to find out about gender, that's not a matter of Science.
No, indeed. If you go over to the department of Romance Languages, you
will indeed find that there are only two genders, masculin and feminin, in
*French*. However, there are three grammatical genders in German,
Russian... and English.

John Savard
Leif Roar Moldskred
2021-02-26 15:33:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Allowing transgendered individuals who haven't yet had their "bottom
surgery" into women's washrooms and locker rooms out of concern for
equal rights for the transgendered...
How many places are non-transgendered men actually _forbidden_ from entering
womens' washrooms by anything more than custom?
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
Paul S Person
2021-02-26 17:34:26 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:33:05 -0600, Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Quadibloc
Allowing transgendered individuals who haven't yet had their "bottom
surgery" into women's washrooms and locker rooms out of concern for
equal rights for the transgendered...
How many places are non-transgendered men actually _forbidden_ from entering
womens' washrooms by anything more than custom?
I suspect that the various Armed Forces have regulations against it.

So, possibly rather a lot of them, depending on the age of the
buildings involved. [1]

In civilian life, it probably depends on the State/County/City. Some
schools might enforce it with the threat of expulsion.

[1] Back when I was in, it varied from "one barracks, one latrine" to
"one floor, two latrines" (these could be divided in two by a wall and
a "female" area carved out thereby), to "one room, one bathroom"
(rooms were male or female, but floors had both types of rooms on
them).
What they have /now/ I have no idea.
Keep in mind that the "sharp edge" units were all male until a few
(well, 8? 12?) years ago. These would have barracks, intended to last
forever, that were set up for one gender (male) and are now,
presumably, going through a period of adjustment.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
David Johnston
2021-02-26 08:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Woodward
There is a slight difference between Amazon (with a huge presence in
both e-books and dead tree books) and Leslie Evelyn Smythe, owner and
operator of "Just the Books" bookstore in your local major metropolitan
region.
But as long as they're only using this power for good...
although banning books for being anti-transgender also risks getting
ahead of the curve, as there are legitimate concerns about the safety
of women in washrooms and locker rooms.
No. There aren't. Men who go into ladies rooms claiming to be
transgender to rape strangers are not going to find that an effective
sexual assault strategy. The thing you don't want to be when doing that
kind of shit is conspicuous.
Alan Baker
2021-02-25 17:07:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
We've talked here about Amazon banning certain authors, but that was
(apparently) due to claims they gamed the Kindle-Unlimited rules.
Now Amazon is (selectively) banning ideas.
https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/prior-removing-transgender-critica
l-book-amazon-changed-policies-ban-books-hate
Yeah, yeah, "I don't trust this wingnut site", but I don't think
the facts are in dispute. Time for some good old antitrust.
Sorry, but I can't get worked up about this.
Amazon is a PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Would you really be making the same post if he/she/they decided not to
carry that book?
There is a slight difference between Amazon (with a huge presence in
both e-books and dead tree books) and Leslie Evelyn Smythe, owner and
operator of "Just the Books" bookstore in your local major metropolitan
region.
Not in principle.

This is a private seller determining what he/she/they are willing to sell.
Robert Woodward
2021-02-26 06:14:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
We've talked here about Amazon banning certain authors, but that was
(apparently) due to claims they gamed the Kindle-Unlimited rules.
Now Amazon is (selectively) banning ideas.
https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/prior-removing-transgender-criti
ca
l-book-amazon-changed-policies-ban-books-hate
Yeah, yeah, "I don't trust this wingnut site", but I don't think
the facts are in dispute. Time for some good old antitrust.
Sorry, but I can't get worked up about this.
Amazon is a PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Would you really be making the same post if he/she/they decided not to
carry that book?
There is a slight difference between Amazon (with a huge presence in
both e-books and dead tree books) and Leslie Evelyn Smythe, owner and
operator of "Just the Books" bookstore in your local major metropolitan
region.
Not in principle.
This is a private seller determining what he/she/they are willing to sell.
Anti-trust law, because of the several orders of magnitude difference in
market power, could say otherwise.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Alan Baker
2021-02-26 07:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
We've talked here about Amazon banning certain authors, but that was
(apparently) due to claims they gamed the Kindle-Unlimited rules.
Now Amazon is (selectively) banning ideas.
https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/prior-removing-transgender-criti
ca
l-book-amazon-changed-policies-ban-books-hate
Yeah, yeah, "I don't trust this wingnut site", but I don't think
the facts are in dispute. Time for some good old antitrust.
Sorry, but I can't get worked up about this.
Amazon is a PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Would you really be making the same post if he/she/they decided not to
carry that book?
There is a slight difference between Amazon (with a huge presence in
both e-books and dead tree books) and Leslie Evelyn Smythe, owner and
operator of "Just the Books" bookstore in your local major metropolitan
region.
Not in principle.
This is a private seller determining what he/she/they are willing to sell.
Anti-trust law, because of the several orders of magnitude difference in
market power, could say otherwise.
Quote the salient law.
Jonathan
2021-02-25 16:22:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
We've talked here about Amazon banning certain authors, but that was
(apparently) due to claims they gamed the Kindle-Unlimited rules.
Now Amazon is (selectively) banning ideas.
https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/prior-removing-transgender-critical-book-amazon-changed-policies-ban-books-hate
Yeah, yeah, "I don't trust this wingnut site", but I don't think
the facts are in dispute. Time for some good old antitrust.
Banning hate speech isn't banning ideas. And a private
corp can ban whatever they like. But it does seem
odd they dropped that particular book.

But let's be clear what's protected and what's not.


Fighting Words

There is one exception to this idea. That is if the speech uttered
could incite violence, or be considered ‘fighting words’ under
the law. Fighting words would be those that would provoke the
person who is being spoken against to start a fight or otherwise
attack a person who spoke those words to them.

Because of the ‘fighting words’ statute under the law, friends
who are speaking hatefully and mutually among themselves about
a certain group would not be considered to be committing a
hate crime.
https://attorneyhamilton.com/blog/line-between-hate-speech-and-free-speech-in-lubbock/



Feiner v. New York (1951)
In Feiner v. People of State of New York, 30 U.S. 315 (1951), the
Supreme Court held that akin to the fighting words doctrine, an
incitement to riot which creates a clear and present danger is also not
protected by the First Amendment.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)
In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the Supreme Court redefined
the scope of the fighting words doctrine to mean words that are "a
direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs." In the
case, the Court held that the burning of a United States flag, which was
considered symbolic speech, did not constitute fighting words.`

R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992)
In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the Supreme Court
found that the "First Amendment prevents government from punishing
speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas
expressed." Even if the words are considered to be fighting words, the
First Amendment will still protect the speech if the speech restriction
is based on viewpoint discrimination.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words#:~:text=Overview,immediate%20breach%20of%20the%20peace.&text=Fighting%20words%20are%20a%20category,unprotected%20by%20the%20First%20Amendment.
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1
Paul S Person
2021-02-25 17:32:08 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:53:12 -0800, Alan Baker
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
We've talked here about Amazon banning certain authors, but that was
(apparently) due to claims they gamed the Kindle-Unlimited rules.
Now Amazon is (selectively) banning ideas.
https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/prior-removing-transgender-critical-book-amazon-changed-policies-ban-books-hate
Yeah, yeah, "I don't trust this wingnut site", but I don't think
the facts are in dispute. Time for some good old antitrust.
Sorry, but I can't get worked up about this.
Amazon is a PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Would you really be making the same post if he/she/they decided not to
carry that book?
Depending on how the EEO laws are written, and who they apply to, it
could be illegal to stock such a book if it offended an employee or a
customer. Depending on whatever the relevant case law is, of course.
And, BTW, IANAL.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Kevrob
2021-02-25 18:26:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:53:12 -0800, Alan Baker
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
We've talked here about Amazon banning certain authors, but that was
(apparently) due to claims they gamed the Kindle-Unlimited rules.
Now Amazon is (selectively) banning ideas.
https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/prior-removing-transgender-critical-book-amazon-changed-policies-ban-books-hate
Yeah, yeah, "I don't trust this wingnut site", but I don't think
the facts are in dispute. Time for some good old antitrust.
Sorry, but I can't get worked up about this.
Amazon is a PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Would you really be making the same post if he/she/they decided not to
carry that book?
Depending on how the EEO laws are written, and who they apply to, it
could be illegal to stock such a book if it offended an employee or a
customer. Depending on whatever the relevant case law is, of course.
And, BTW, IANAL.
--
The First Amendment, in a sane court, should supersede any ordinary
employment discrimination legislation. Don't want to see any books that
might trigger you? Don't apply for a job in a bookshop. Maybe make sure
you are working for Jesus Booksellers, or Wimmin's Book Collective, or
some other niche retailer unlikely to stock things you disagree with. I
worked in bookshops of one kind or another 30 years, give or take. I am
not offended by much, or at least could usually keep my contempt for a
bad, even evil book to myself. OK, did I once get in trouble for putting a
book that directly contradicted the thesis of the one an author was flogging
in my space on the "staff recommends" shelf? Sure, but I was the only
libertarian in a store full of pinkos. I regularly recommended tomes that
were outside the indie-bookstore-down-the-street-from-a-state-U consensus.

BTW, Tim McVeigh was influenced by THE TURNER DIARIES. If any neo-
Nazis, or even the old-fashioned kind ever wondered why chain bookstores
or independents never stocked it, its publisher did not offer it to stores
on standard, returnable retail terms. I spent several years as a special
order clerk, and it was infrequently requested. We bought it at short discount,
prepaid, non-returnable. Any wholesaler that had it gave worse terms.
Maybe the Birchers' "American Opinion Bookstore" might have had it.

I worked for years at a regional chain owned by a Jewish family. It
stocked Hitler's book on the "know your enemy" principle.
--
Kevin R
Quadibloc
2021-02-25 18:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
The First Amendment, in a sane court, should supersede any ordinary
employment discrimination legislation. Don't want to see any books that
might trigger you? Don't apply for a job in a bookshop.
That sounds nice in principle.

If a state passes an employment discrimination law that allows workers
in a bookstore to complain about offensive books being stocked on the
grounds of it creating a hostile workspace, is that, by barring certain books
from retail channels, an un-Constitutional violation of the First Amendment?

I don't think it's an open-and-shut case. Two arguments in favor of the law
being Constutional would be:

- books could be sold by mail-order instead of through a bookstore, or
directly by the publisher instead of through Amazon;
- laws to protect workers from a hostile workplace have a legitimate
purpose, and are therefore not enacted as a way of suppressing some
ideas.

So I wouldn't bet on how the Supreme Court would decide this, although
certainly Trump has improved the odds in your favor.

John Savard
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2021-02-25 18:34:23 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 11:26:55 AM UTC-7, Kevrob
Post by Kevrob
The First Amendment, in a sane court, should supersede any
ordinary employment discrimination legislation. Don't want to
see any books that might trigger you? Don't apply for a job in
a bookshop.
That sounds nice in principle.
If a state passes an employment discrimination law that allows
workers in a bookstore to complain about offensive books being
stocked on the grounds of it creating a hostile workspace, is
that, by barring certain books from retail channels, an
un-Constitutional violation of the First Amendment?
I don't think it's an open-and-shut case. Two arguments in favor
- books could be sold by mail-order instead of through a
bookstore, or directly by the publisher instead of through
Amazon;
Irrelevant.
- laws to protect workers from a hostile workplace have
a legitimate purpose, and are therefore not enacted as a way of
suppressing some ideas.
Restricting the 1st Amendment requires what is called "strict
scrutiny," the strictest test for something to be allowed to
restrict restrict a constitutional right. Baseically, to
oversimplify, that means that a) there has to be a compelling
public interest in doing so, and b) there has to be no other way to
do it. I have doubts that such a law would pass either part of the
test, even with a more liberal court. SOCTUS has always been
reluctant to restrict Bill of Rights stuff, no matter who the
justices are.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Paul S Person
2021-02-26 17:42:28 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:34:23 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 11:26:55 AM UTC-7, Kevrob
Post by Kevrob
The First Amendment, in a sane court, should supersede any
ordinary employment discrimination legislation. Don't want to
see any books that might trigger you? Don't apply for a job in
a bookshop.
That sounds nice in principle.
If a state passes an employment discrimination law that allows
workers in a bookstore to complain about offensive books being
stocked on the grounds of it creating a hostile workspace, is
that, by barring certain books from retail channels, an
un-Constitutional violation of the First Amendment?
I don't think it's an open-and-shut case. Two arguments in favor
- books could be sold by mail-order instead of through a
bookstore, or directly by the publisher instead of through
Amazon;
Irrelevant.
- laws to protect workers from a hostile workplace have
a legitimate purpose, and are therefore not enacted as a way of
suppressing some ideas.
Restricting the 1st Amendment requires what is called "strict
scrutiny," the strictest test for something to be allowed to
restrict restrict a constitutional right. Baseically, to
oversimplify, that means that a) there has to be a compelling
public interest in doing so, and b) there has to be no other way to
do it. I have doubts that such a law would pass either part of the
test, even with a more liberal court. SOCTUS has always been
reluctant to restrict Bill of Rights stuff, no matter who the
justices are.
I just want to point out a few things:

1. Private businesses are not bound by the 1st Amendment. They are (or
can be, as appropriate) bound by the anti-discrimination laws.

2. This is similar to whether or not an employee can be fired for
persisting in display a Nazi flag in the workplace. Especially if it
is visible to the public.

3. In some cases, employers' are /required/ to protect their employees
and customers from various forms of harassment. Persistent harassment
is one component of a "hostile work environment".

But I agree that I have no idea if any of that actually applies to
Amazon banning books that promote certain ideologies.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2021-03-01 17:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:34:23 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 11:26:55 AM UTC-7, Kevrob
Post by Kevrob
The First Amendment, in a sane court, should supersede any
ordinary employment discrimination legislation. Don't want to
see any books that might trigger you? Don't apply for a job
in a bookshop.
That sounds nice in principle.
If a state passes an employment discrimination law that allows
workers in a bookstore to complain about offensive books being
stocked on the grounds of it creating a hostile workspace, is
that, by barring certain books from retail channels, an
un-Constitutional violation of the First Amendment?
I don't think it's an open-and-shut case. Two arguments in
- books could be sold by mail-order instead of through a
bookstore, or directly by the publisher instead of through
Amazon;
Irrelevant.
- laws to protect workers from a hostile workplace have
a legitimate purpose, and are therefore not enacted as a way
of suppressing some ideas.
Restricting the 1st Amendment requires what is called "strict
scrutiny," the strictest test for something to be allowed to
restrict restrict a constitutional right. Baseically, to
oversimplify, that means that a) there has to be a compelling
public interest in doing so, and b) there has to be no other way
to do it. I have doubts that such a law would pass either part
of the test, even with a more liberal court. SOCTUS has always
been reluctant to restrict Bill of Rights stuff, no matter who
the justices are.
1. Private businesses are not bound by the 1st Amendment. They
are
Not as blanket a truth as moonbats like you would like to believe.
Post by Paul S Person
(or can be, as appropriate) bound by the anti-discrimination
laws.
That cuts both ways, except in the minds of moonbats like you wan
know their beliefs are so weak to only way to protect them is to
focibly silence all other opinions.

There's also going to be anti-trust laws involved. Soon.
Post by Paul S Person
2. This is similar to whether or not an employee can be fired
for persisting in display a Nazi flag in the workplace.
Especially if it is visible to the public.
No, it's no. It's similar to whether or not a *customer* can, and
that's not as simpale as you are.
Post by Paul S Person
3. In some cases, employers' are /required/ to protect their
employees and customers from various forms of harassment.
Persistent harassment is one component of a "hostile work
environment".
Teh "various forms of harassment" are pretty strictly defined
within the protected classes, like age, sex, and religion. And
enforcement is not all that easy. Or cheap.
Post by Paul S Person
But I agree that I have no idea if any of that actually applies
to Amazon banning books that promote certain ideologies.
One of many, many, many, many things you have no idea about.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Paul S Person
2021-03-02 16:42:50 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 10:26:34 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:34:23 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 11:26:55 AM UTC-7, Kevrob
Post by Kevrob
The First Amendment, in a sane court, should supersede any
ordinary employment discrimination legislation. Don't want to
see any books that might trigger you? Don't apply for a job
in a bookshop.
That sounds nice in principle.
If a state passes an employment discrimination law that allows
workers in a bookstore to complain about offensive books being
stocked on the grounds of it creating a hostile workspace, is
that, by barring certain books from retail channels, an
un-Constitutional violation of the First Amendment?
I don't think it's an open-and-shut case. Two arguments in
- books could be sold by mail-order instead of through a
bookstore, or directly by the publisher instead of through
Amazon;
Irrelevant.
- laws to protect workers from a hostile workplace have
a legitimate purpose, and are therefore not enacted as a way
of suppressing some ideas.
Restricting the 1st Amendment requires what is called "strict
scrutiny," the strictest test for something to be allowed to
restrict restrict a constitutional right. Baseically, to
oversimplify, that means that a) there has to be a compelling
public interest in doing so, and b) there has to be no other way
to do it. I have doubts that such a law would pass either part
of the test, even with a more liberal court. SOCTUS has always
been reluctant to restrict Bill of Rights stuff, no matter who
the justices are.
1. Private businesses are not bound by the 1st Amendment. They
are
Not as blanket a truth as moonbats like you would like to believe.
True, I forgot the usual disclaimer: provided they have not provided a
public forum.
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
(or can be, as appropriate) bound by the anti-discrimination
laws.
That cuts both ways, except in the minds of moonbats like you wan
know their beliefs are so weak to only way to protect them is to
focibly silence all other opinions.
Lots of things cut both ways.

And who is trying to silence whom here?
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
There's also going to be anti-trust laws involved. Soon.
If you say so.

However, when that was tried with Microsoft, it went ... nowhere.
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
2. This is similar to whether or not an employee can be fired
for persisting in display a Nazi flag in the workplace.
Especially if it is visible to the public.
No, it's no. It's similar to whether or not a *customer* can, and
that's not as simpale as you are.
It's the same thing. If it's offensive, it's offensive, and it doesn't
matter who does it.
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
3. In some cases, employers' are /required/ to protect their
employees and customers from various forms of harassment.
Persistent harassment is one component of a "hostile work
environment".
Teh "various forms of harassment" are pretty strictly defined
within the protected classes, like age, sex, and religion. And
enforcement is not all that easy. Or cheap.
Our Customer Service Representatives were required to take these steps
if a customer began to verbally harass them because they of their
gender:

1. Advise them /once/ that they need to focus on their tax problem.

2. If that fails, /disconnect the call/.

This was because the IRS was legally required to protect its employees
from sexual harassment.

So, yes, in some cases, employers are /required/ to protect their
employees from some forms of harassment.

And -- trust me on this -- between age, race, and sex pretty much
everyone and every form of harassment is covered.
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
But I agree that I have no idea if any of that actually applies
to Amazon banning books that promote certain ideologies.
One of many, many, many, many things you have no idea about.
No doubt, but you aren't exactly the Fount of All Knowledge yourself.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Kevrob
2021-03-02 19:57:38 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 11:43:23 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:

[snip]
Post by Paul S Person
Our Customer Service Representatives were required to take these steps
if a customer began to verbally harass them because they of their
1. Advise them /once/ that they need to focus on their tax problem.
2. If that fails, /disconnect the call/.
This was because the IRS was legally required to protect its employees
from sexual harassment.
I worked customer service in call centers for the entirety of the second decade
of this century, and a bit more before that. I was taught, and later passed on to
new hires I trained, that callers could swear or use an abusive term once. If
they persisted after being warned to conduct themselves in a civilized, business-
like manner, they were permitted to dump the call. If any customer called back
or emailed complaining that they had been hung up on, a manager would review
the situation. "This call is being recorded for quality assurance," our phone menu
greeting played on every call. Reps put up with a lot more abuse than our "one-
strike" rule would allow, if strictly kept to. Most of the long-term employees were
very good at calming down angry callers, and frequently the formerly-pissed -
off wound up thanking the CS agent who unsnarled the problem and resolved
whatever issue they had. Some people just wanted to vent and bitch, though.
We sometimes joked about experienced agents being "customer whisperers."
"You get paid to help the customers, not to take abuse from them" was a mantra
at my last job. It was too bad that, when the call-center was closed at the end
of 2019 that the crew couldn't have been kept together to work for another client.
In that kind of job, one of the biggest expenses is training new hires up to a
minimum level of competence, and turnover of new hires who can't hack the
environment, haven't developed the "people skills" or otherwise aren't a good
fit is high. The same person might be very successful doing something else.
We also lost experienced people when they found better jobs, usually after
they gained more formal education. I worked with someone who got certified
as an EMT. She told me her call center experience taught her to talk to all kinds
of people and to get to the heart of a problem quickly, both skills thatn carried
over.

Unlike the IRS, our clientele dealt with us voluntarily, and if they didn't like
the service they could not deal with us, deal with the competition, or just
do without. Nobody would threaten them with fines and imprisonment
if they had nothing to do with us. If we did, I'd expect abusive callers, too.
--
Kevin
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2021-03-02 23:44:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
On Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 11:43:23 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person
[snip]
Post by Paul S Person
Our Customer Service Representatives were required to take
these steps if a customer began to verbally harass them because
1. Advise them /once/ that they need to focus on their tax
problem.
2. If that fails, /disconnect the call/.
This was because the IRS was legally required to protect its
employees from sexual harassment.
I worked customer service in call centers for the entirety of
the second decade of this century, and a bit more before that.
I was taught, and later passed on to new hires I trained, that
callers could swear or use an abusive term once.
Many call centers have similar policies. They are not required to
be that strict by law, and many do not. Horror tales abound, even
horror tales involving lawyers. Successful lawsuits over it are
rare.

Very few people have any comprehension of how limited protection
against a hostile work environment actually is, legally, because
most companies (that are properly run, at any rate) are far less
tolerant than the law requires.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Kevrob
2021-03-03 04:43:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Kevrob
[snip]
Post by Paul S Person
Our Customer Service Representatives were required to take
these steps if a customer began to verbally harass them because
1. Advise them /once/ that they need to focus on their tax
problem.
2. If that fails, /disconnect the call/.
This was because the IRS was legally required to protect its
employees from sexual harassment.
I worked customer service in call centers for the entirety of
the second decade of this century, and a bit more before that.
I was taught, and later passed on to new hires I trained, that
callers could swear or use an abusive term once.
Many call centers have similar policies. They are not required to
be that strict by law, and many do not. Horror tales abound, even
horror tales involving lawyers. Successful lawsuits over it are
rare.
Very few people have any comprehension of how limited protection
against a hostile work environment actually is, legally, because
most companies (that are properly run, at any rate) are far less
tolerant than the law requires.
--
Besides the management not wanting reps to begin to loathe the
job and quit a lot sooner than they otherwise might, resulting in higher
training costs, adopting a "one-strike" rule made "asshole calls" much
shorter than ones in which the rep made an attempt, however futile,
to dissuade a caller who just would not meet minimum standards of
civility from abusing the agent. As calming said assholes and reaching
a resolution they would accept could take several times the average
call-time, if you could get them to agreement at all, calls like that played
hell with productivity metrics. Better to escalate the call to the next level
or arrange for someone with the requisite authority to call or email the
jerk. I had that duty for some of our accounts.

Not taking enough calls in a day because of arguing with obstreperous
callers is a sure ticket to the top of the "whose hours should we cut/who
is just not working out" tables, and learning when you could escalate the
call or just hit the dump button without either move biting you in your
tuches was very helpful in improving one's numbers. At least with phone-
only CS one can't get face-to-face threats, or an actual punch in the snoot!
--
Kevin R
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2021-03-03 15:22:28 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 7:44:48 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Kevrob
[snip]
Post by Paul S Person
Our Customer Service Representatives were required to take
these steps if a customer began to verbally harass them
1. Advise them /once/ that they need to focus on their tax
problem.
2. If that fails, /disconnect the call/.
This was because the IRS was legally required to protect its
employees from sexual harassment.
I worked customer service in call centers for the entirety of
the second decade of this century, and a bit more before
that. I was taught, and later passed on to new hires I
trained, that callers could swear or use an abusive term
once.
Many call centers have similar policies. They are not required
to be that strict by law, and many do not. Horror tales abound,
even horror tales involving lawyers. Successful lawsuits over
it are rare.
Very few people have any comprehension of how limited
protection against a hostile work environment actually is,
legally, because most companies (that are properly run, at any
rate) are far less tolerant than the law requires.
--
Besides the management not wanting reps to begin to loathe the
job and quit a lot sooner than they otherwise might, resulting
in higher training costs, adopting a "one-strike" rule made
"asshole calls" much shorter than ones in which the rep made an
attempt, however futile, to dissuade a caller who just would not
meet minimum standards of civility from abusing the agent. As
calming said assholes and reaching a resolution they would
accept could take several times the average call-time, if you
could get them to agreement at all, calls like that played hell
with productivity metrics. Better to escalate the call to the
next level or arrange for someone with the requisite authority
to call or email the jerk. I had that duty for some of our
accounts.
Not taking enough calls in a day because of arguing with
obstreperous callers is a sure ticket to the top of the "whose
hours should we cut/who is just not working out" tables, and
learning when you could escalate the call or just hit the dump
button without either move biting you in your tuches was very
helpful in improving one's numbers. At least with phone- only
CS one can't get face-to-face threats, or an actual punch in the
snoot!
Call centers are their own special kind of hell, certainly. There
are many reasons why policies stricter than the law requires get
implement, some good, some bad, and sometimes both at once.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Paul S Person
2021-03-03 17:38:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Kevrob
[snip]
Post by Paul S Person
Our Customer Service Representatives were required to take
these steps if a customer began to verbally harass them because
1. Advise them /once/ that they need to focus on their tax
problem.
2. If that fails, /disconnect the call/.
This was because the IRS was legally required to protect its
employees from sexual harassment.
I worked customer service in call centers for the entirety of
the second decade of this century, and a bit more before that.
I was taught, and later passed on to new hires I trained, that
callers could swear or use an abusive term once.
Many call centers have similar policies. They are not required to
be that strict by law, and many do not. Horror tales abound, even
horror tales involving lawyers. Successful lawsuits over it are
rare.
Very few people have any comprehension of how limited protection
against a hostile work environment actually is, legally, because
most companies (that are properly run, at any rate) are far less
tolerant than the law requires.
--
Besides the management not wanting reps to begin to loathe the
job and quit a lot sooner than they otherwise might, resulting in higher
training costs, adopting a "one-strike" rule made "asshole calls" much
shorter than ones in which the rep made an attempt, however futile,
to dissuade a caller who just would not meet minimum standards of
civility from abusing the agent. As calming said assholes and reaching
a resolution they would accept could take several times the average
call-time, if you could get them to agreement at all, calls like that played
hell with productivity metrics. Better to escalate the call to the next level
or arrange for someone with the requisite authority to call or email the
jerk. I had that duty for some of our accounts.
Not taking enough calls in a day because of arguing with obstreperous
callers is a sure ticket to the top of the "whose hours should we cut/who
is just not working out" tables, and learning when you could escalate the
call or just hit the dump button without either move biting you in your
tuches was very helpful in improving one's numbers. At least with phone-
only CS one can't get face-to-face threats, or an actual punch in the snoot!
We did, however, get such threats, and eventually were able to
/record/ them as well as filling out a special form. The IRS has a CID
(well, IIRC it got detached and moved outside the IRS at some point),
and so anyone making such a threat was very likely to find himself
talking to an /armed agent of the IRS with arrest powers/ about it.

And then we'd get told that he was very apologetic. (Somehow, it was
always a "he" in my experience, but the occasional "she" would have
gotten the same treatment.)

Management was forbidden to require a minimum number of calls per day
in one of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights Congress gifted us with (no,
really: they improved things immensely) in the 90s (maybe early 00s).

So, instead of harping on how many calls we took per day, Management
harped on average call length. As if measuring the wavelength instead
of the frequency somehow wasn't an evasion of the prohibition.

I retired before /that/ particular evasion blew up, if it ever did.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Paul S Person
2021-03-03 17:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
[snip]
Post by Paul S Person
Our Customer Service Representatives were required to take these steps
if a customer began to verbally harass them because they of their
1. Advise them /once/ that they need to focus on their tax problem.
2. If that fails, /disconnect the call/.
This was because the IRS was legally required to protect its employees
from sexual harassment.
I worked customer service in call centers for the entirety of the second decade
of this century, and a bit more before that. I was taught, and later passed on to
new hires I trained, that callers could swear or use an abusive term once. If
they persisted after being warned to conduct themselves in a civilized, business-
like manner, they were permitted to dump the call. If any customer called back
or emailed complaining that they had been hung up on, a manager would review
the situation. "This call is being recorded for quality assurance," our phone menu
greeting played on every call. Reps put up with a lot more abuse than our "one-
strike" rule would allow, if strictly kept to. Most of the long-term employees were
very good at calming down angry callers, and frequently the formerly-pissed -
off wound up thanking the CS agent who unsnarled the problem and resolved
whatever issue they had. Some people just wanted to vent and bitch, though.
We sometimes joked about experienced agents being "customer whisperers."
"You get paid to help the customers, not to take abuse from them" was a mantra
at my last job. It was too bad that, when the call-center was closed at the end
of 2019 that the crew couldn't have been kept together to work for another client.
In that kind of job, one of the biggest expenses is training new hires up to a
minimum level of competence, and turnover of new hires who can't hack the
environment, haven't developed the "people skills" or otherwise aren't a good
fit is high. The same person might be very successful doing something else.
We also lost experienced people when they found better jobs, usually after
they gained more formal education. I worked with someone who got certified
as an EMT. She told me her call center experience taught her to talk to all kinds
of people and to get to the heart of a problem quickly, both skills thatn carried
over.
Unlike the IRS, our clientele dealt with us voluntarily, and if they didn't like
the service they could not deal with us, deal with the competition, or just
do without. Nobody would threaten them with fines and imprisonment
if they had nothing to do with us. If we did, I'd expect abusive callers, too.
Indeed.

Nonetheless, we were trained to regard and treat them as "customers",
with whom we were to work to find a mutually-acceptable solution. When
I referred to it as "mouth to mouth combat", I was joking.

And learning to deal with various types of people and to really listen
to them. A lot of times the actual problem was not what it looked
like, and "hearing" it was an art that paid off. But most calls were
pretty cut-and-dried.

The main problem was frequent procedure (IRM) updates. At one time, we
were promised no updates for three months because we had an entire new
regime to master. "No updates" tuirned out to be "five a day" rather
than 15.

Apparently, there was an IRM that /required/ updates every day ...

That's based on experience with collection, BTW. At one point, we were
cross-trained into Taxpayer Service (the combination being called
"Customer Service") and used to "chase refunds" in the Spring. Those
calls were a lot more combative, and why not? We owed them money, not
the other way around.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2021-03-02 23:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 01 Mar 2021 10:26:34 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:34:23 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Kevrob
The First Amendment, in a sane court, should supersede any
ordinary employment discrimination legislation. Don't want
to see any books that might trigger you? Don't apply for a
job in a bookshop.
That sounds nice in principle.
If a state passes an employment discrimination law that
allows workers in a bookstore to complain about offensive
books being stocked on the grounds of it creating a hostile
workspace, is that, by barring certain books from retail
channels, an un-Constitutional violation of the First
Amendment?
I don't think it's an open-and-shut case. Two arguments in
- books could be sold by mail-order instead of through a
bookstore, or directly by the publisher instead of through
Amazon;
Irrelevant.
Post by Quadibloc
- laws to protect workers from a hostile workplace have
a legitimate purpose, and are therefore not enacted as a way
of suppressing some ideas.
Restricting the 1st Amendment requires what is called "strict
scrutiny," the strictest test for something to be allowed to
restrict restrict a constitutional right. Baseically, to
oversimplify, that means that a) there has to be a compelling
public interest in doing so, and b) there has to be no other
way to do it. I have doubts that such a law would pass either
part of the test, even with a more liberal court. SOCTUS has
always been reluctant to restrict Bill of Rights stuff, no
matter who the justices are.
1. Private businesses are not bound by the 1st Amendment. They
are
Not as blanket a truth as moonbats like you would like to
believe.
True, I forgot the usual disclaimer: provided they have not
provided a public forum.
Still so oversimplified as to be meaingless drivel.
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
(or can be, as appropriate) bound by the anti-discrimination
laws.
That cuts both ways, except in the minds of moonbats like you
wan know their beliefs are so weak to only way to protect them
is to focibly silence all other opinions.
Lots of things cut both ways.
And who is trying to silence whom here?
The left is trying despearely to silence anyone pointing out that
they started a violent civil war four years ago. Mostly failing at
it, though.
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
There's also going to be anti-trust laws involved. Soon.
If you say so.
Both partis in Congress are starting to say so.
Post by Paul S Person
However, when that was tried with Microsoft, it went ...
nowhere.
Sort of, but not really. Microsoft lost the browser war, after all,
even to this day.
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
2. This is similar to whether or not an employee can be fired
for persisting in display a Nazi flag in the workplace.
Especially if it is visible to the public.
No, it's no. It's similar to whether or not a *customer* can,
and that's not as simpale as you are.
It's the same thing. If it's offensive, it's offensive, and it
doesn't matter who does it.
In your diseased mind, perhaps, but the law says otherwise.
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
3. In some cases, employers' are /required/ to protect their
employees and customers from various forms of harassment.
Persistent harassment is one component of a "hostile work
environment".
Teh "various forms of harassment" are pretty strictly defined
within the protected classes, like age, sex, and religion. And
enforcement is not all that easy. Or cheap.
Our Customer Service Representatives were required to take these
steps if a customer began to verbally harass them because they
1. Advise them /once/ that they need to focus on their tax
problem.
2. If that fails, /disconnect the call/.
This was because the IRS was legally required to protect its
employees from sexual harassment.
Most employers have policies rather stricter than the law requires.
Post by Paul S Person
So, yes, in some cases, employers are /required/ to protect
their employees from some forms of harassment.
The key word there being "some." A hostile work environment isn't
illegal, only harassment _because the victim is part of a protected
class_ is. So I've been told by the actual lawyers who did the in
person training California requires for all management level
personnel every two years.

You know, actual lawyers (litigator, usually, who had great war
stories) who practice in the field. Rather than some mentally
diseases moron on the interwebs. So also say 100% of all trained HR
people.
Post by Paul S Person
And -- trust me on this -- between age, race, and sex pretty
much everyone and every form of harassment is covered.
I've met lawyers in the field who say otherwise. But apparently,
none of them practice law in your fantasyland where you aren't a
moron who doesn't, and will never, matter in any way.

And I wouldn't take your word for it that the sun rises in the east
without indpendent verification, simply because you're so full of
shit on *everything*.
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Paul S Person
But I agree that I have no idea if any of that actually
applies to Amazon banning books that promote certain
ideologies.
One of many, many, many, many things you have no idea about.
No doubt, but you aren't exactly the Fount of All Knowledge
yourself.
Unlike you, I can at least tell the difference between my ass and a
hole in in the ground without a thumb test.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Andrew McDowell
2021-02-26 05:32:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
We've talked here about Amazon banning certain authors, but that was
(apparently) due to claims they gamed the Kindle-Unlimited rules.
Now Amazon is (selectively) banning ideas.
https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/prior-removing-transgender-critical-book-amazon-changed-policies-ban-books-hate
Yeah, yeah, "I don't trust this wingnut site", but I don't think
the facts are in dispute. Time for some good old antitrust.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
I have not read this book. The growing discussion of transgender politics on this site does not include suggestions that anybody else here has read this book. If Amazon is going to get away with banning books on some topics based only on the general state of argument on that topic, second hand information on the likely position of the book, and nothing else, then political argument is not so much argument any more as the naked wielding of power.
Paul S Person
2021-02-26 17:45:54 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:32:43 -0800 (PST), Andrew McDowell
Post by Andrew McDowell
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
We've talked here about Amazon banning certain authors, but that was
(apparently) due to claims they gamed the Kindle-Unlimited rules.
Now Amazon is (selectively) banning ideas.
https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/prior-removing-transgender-critical-book-amazon-changed-policies-ban-books-hate
Yeah, yeah, "I don't trust this wingnut site", but I don't think
the facts are in dispute. Time for some good old antitrust.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
I have not read this book. The growing discussion of transgender politics on this site does not include suggestions that anybody else here has read this book. If Amazon is going to get away with banning books on some topics based only on the general state of argument on that topic, second hand information on the likely position of the book, and nothing else, then political argument is not so much argument any more as the naked wielding of power.
You are confusing Amazon with a public forum.

It is a business, and (except as actual laws intervene) has the right
to conduct it's business as it wishes.

How much would it cost those complaining to set up their own on-line
store to sell and ship these books? Not as much, surely, as in, say,
the fifties, where they would have to set up an entire printing plant.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Loading...