To think that Amazon should not be selling this book!!! <warning - upsetting content>

[LEMisafucker]

www.amazon.co.uk/To-Train-Up-Child-children/dp/1892112000?tag=mumsnet&ascsubtag=mnforum-21

I don't have the words - this is actually a thread about a thread, but i thnk this needs more attention so posting here. There have been convictions for murder in the states by folk following this book. Yet it is still published

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/1915841-Has-the-world-gone-completely-mad

Link to original thread

[flatpackhamster]

missfliss

i could make up bullshit insults to belittle your opinion too flatpack - but thats not really debating a point is it?

No, it isn't. But feel free to, I have a thick hide.

And I will belittle the narrow-mindedness of the people who support censorship, because it is the thin end of the wedge, just like porn filters are. What will the high-minded censors step in to block next to protect us from ourselves? I don't care if it's offensive, crappy, poorly-written, it doesn't matter. What matters is that people can say it. Because as soon as we stop people saying it, we're heading down the road to book burning and hand-chopping.

on the definition of censorship - we could go round in circles - i disagree with your view and say it is top down suppression by govt or media, not a retailer deciding that enough consumers find an item for sale offensive.

I agree that censorship is exactly that - suppression by government. That's why I said what is being done here is worse, because government censorship is out in the open and clearly visible to everyone. This is censorship-by-stealth, without debate, without criticism, carried out by people with a sense of their own moral superiority.

There is a difference between 'asking' and 'imposing'

But what you're doing isn't asking. You're imposing your moral values on a company and telling it that your moral values are superior to others.

[missfliss]

here is some of the content from the book - it may not change your view on what is classed as commercial selling strategies / versus censorship - but it will give you a taste of what its about:

Quotes from the book:

"At four months she was too unknowing to be punished for disobedience. But for her own good, we attempted to train her not to climb the stairs by coordinating the voice command of "No" with little spats on the bare legs. The switch was a twelve-inch long, one-eighth-inch diameter sprig from a willow tree"


"After about ten acts of stubborn defiance, followed by ten switchings, he surrendered his will to one higher than himself. In rolling the wheel, he did what every accountable human being must do-he humbled himself before the "highest" and admitted that his interests are not paramount. After one begrudged roll, my wife turned to other chores"

She is talking about a 15 month old baby ...

"On the bare legs or bottom, switch him eight or ten licks; then, while waiting for the pain to subside, speak calm words of rebuke. If the crying turns to a true, wounded, submissive whimper, you have conquered; he has submitted his will. If the crying is still defiant, protesting and other than a response to pain, spank him again"


"One particularly painful experience of nursing mothers is the biting baby. My wife did not waste time finding a cure. When the baby bit, she pulled hair (an alternative has to be sought for baldheaded babies)"

Yes, pull a newborn's hair! That'll teach him!

[missfliss]

so by that definition - all forms of activism are a form of censorship flatpackhamster?

[flatpackhamster]

missfliss

so by that definition - all forms of activism are a form of censorship flatpackhamster?

No. In the case of Nestle, you're telling them that you won't buy their products. That's a commercial decision they have to make.

By trying to get Amazon to remove their product you're interfering with the right of other people to purchase the product.

Do you see the difference?

[missfliss]

Well seeing as they merrily take my money i feel i have a perfect right to not give it to them any more if i find their business activities abhorrent. If others also feel the same that is their business.

I'm simply imposing a loss of trade on them, if they wish to change their view they can have my money back - whats the difference?

On the insults -
i wont call you a Daily Mail reading busy meddling busy body because number 1 - i don't know you and just as importantly it invalidates any decent discussion. Its a lazy tactic.

[PresidentServalan]

The fact remains that it is not illegal to write about it. And to those who ask if it would be different if the book was telling men how to beat or rape women - it is the same principle. There are many things I find offensive but I wouldn't ban them. Amazon should NOT stop selling shit like this - that is censorship. I just don't see the point of everyone starting a thread to link to it except that the item gets more hits on Amazon

[LEMisafucker]

Wow - this has turned nasty :(

Who has said that the book shouldn't be published (although i beleive it shouldn't) but that a major retailer should not be condoning its content and letting these animals profit from their bullshit.

[missfliss]

It does not interfere with the 'right' of anybody to buy the product. They can buy it from anywhere that still offers it legally and with no barriers.

Do you think WHSmith should have kept selling the child porn ebooks? It was their commercial decision to do so, not a legal requirement. where's the difference? is that 'insiduous back door censorship'.

The reason i want amazon in particular to stop selling it is because a) they are the most visible outlet for the book b) because their size and scale means it would make it a less convenient for people to get hold of it and c) beacuse amazon's metadata means the book will be actively promoted by amazon.

If people want it, they will find it -and buy it. Being actively promoted by the worlds largest retailer is something quite different, and when i spend money with them i have a right to wothdraw my financial support until their policy changes.

[IAlwaysThought]

Amazon also sells THIS VILE BOOK. Penguin modern classics my arse.

I can see that it is ok to sell books with disturbing content if it's there for historical or educational purposes but that Anais Nin book is child porn.

[LEMisafucker]

What about racial hatred then TEE would you die to protect the right of people who publish that as well? Well, so long as everyone has freedom of speech eh.

[friday16]

What about racial hatred then TEE would you die to protect the right of people who publish that as well?

Odd that people appear unconcerned about Mein Kampf being sold by Amazon.

[LEMisafucker]

I agree with everything missfliss says here, she is saying what i want to say, just more eloquently than i can!

[missfliss]

amazon have removed other items for sale for precisely the same reason - its called consumer pressure.

[LEMisafucker]

friday - i disagree, i don't think i would have the stomach to read that but I can imagine that historically that would be a very interesting read. Hitler was mad/evil - seeing inside his mind would be fascinating, although i couldn't read it personally.

[PresidentServalan]

If you don't agree with censorship then you don't agree with ANY censorship surely? Isn't that the point? I loathe racists but I still support their right to publish their particularly fucked up views.

[friday16]

Indeed, Amazon only want six quid for a copy of the protocols. Available hardback, paperback or Kindle, for your convenience.

Or perhaps a bit of flat out Holocaust denial is more your thing?

[friday16]

I can imagine that historically that would be a very interesting read.

Ah, so there's now an "historical interest" test on race hatred?

seeing inside his mind would be fascinating

What about seeing inside the mind of people who advocate beating children?

[flatpackhamster]

missfliss

Well seeing as they merrily take my money i feel i have a perfect right to not give it to them any more if i find their business activities abhorrent. If others also feel the same that is their business.

I'm simply imposing a loss of trade on them, if they wish to change their view they can have my money back - whats the difference?

Because what you're seeking to do is use your commercial pressure to deny someone freedom of expression.

[PresidentServalan]

But by quoting the book and linking to it, you are publicising it, Amazon's algorithms will be affected and you achieve precisely nothing positive.

[LEMisafucker]

I don't really understand what point you are trying to make friday -

[lifeisajumprope]

I have friends (I use the term loosely) in the states who use spoons on their children....they are Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians who follow Dr Dobson's ethos: basically if you sit the child down and explain to them what you are going to do and why and use an implement other than your hand, the only way a child can interperate your actions is that you love them...

I had no words then, I have no words now....

[friday16]

LEM, bookshops sell all sorts of books full of all sorts of stuff. People appear to have a very arbitrary set of criteria for getting worked up about them. The protocols were responsible for a lot of people being killed in progroms in the early part of this century. Mein Kampf inspired the death of millions in the middle of this century. But you're getting worked up about a book which might (and, having read the details of the trial, might not) have been tangentially involved in the death of one child? What was that thing that Stalin said about one death being a tragedy, a million deaths being a statistic?

[LEMisafucker]

You are talking completely out of context friday - those texts are now historical (thank god) maybe there is something to be learnt from them - in terms of history and lessons learnt. I am not going to defend those books, they may well be equally wrong, bt that is not the point - the point is that the authors of these books are fruit loop evangalists who are making $$$ out of their teachings, TODAY!

[friday16]

The holocaust denial book I linked to was published in 2011. The author is very much alive.

[harticus]

Banning the sale of this book will achieve sweet FA because the brutalising religious freaks who wrote it give copies away from their "ministry" - Pearl claimed he'd sold 625,000 copies.
But since 2001 it has actually only sold 9,579.

It won't go away if Amazon stop selling it - however there is a case to be made for people profiteering from shit like this.

If I owned a book shop I would not stock it.
This is not censorship.