Purchasing Decisions?

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by Fbone

If we only interacted with people whose beliefs were similar to our own, wouldn't we be living in stagnating walled enclaves?

There is a difference between listening to other views and listening to hate speech.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Fbone

If we only interacted with people whose beliefs were similar to our own, wouldn't we be living in stagnating walled enclaves?

Funny enough, I manage to be exposed to authors' ideas without buying their books.

For instance, I didn't buy or read He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named's Shakespeare adaptation, but I was definitely exposed to the ideas within it.

[miguel1626]

If the offending viewpoint is not present in the work in question, that I see no problem in buying said work. Except if buying it would finance a bigger cause (e.g., I'd never buy a book from an active member of a neo-nazi group).

H.P.Lovecraft is one of my favorite writers, but he was also a great bigot. I think we should be able to set a writer's works apart from the writer himself.

For some people, on some issues, this is not always possible, and this is an understandable point of view, but I tend to think it unduly decreases the breadth of your choices.

Regarding He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Name: I've not and I will not read his Shakespeare adaption, but I still enjoy his other works (Someone's Game, particularly, and Speaker for the Something).

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

There is a difference between listening to other views and listening to hate speech.

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Funny enough, I manage to be exposed to authors' ideas without buying their books.

For instance, I didn't buy or read He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named's Shakespeare adaptation, but I was definitely exposed to the ideas within it.

The original post said "differing views" which I took to include political, religious and social not necessarily "hate speech." This was also what the previous thread suggested.

Ana, I am referring to people's reactions after the exposure to this individual and others with opposing beliefs.

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by Billi

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? If freedom of speech would be an absolutely sacred right wouldn't this mean that there must not follow any financial consequences (in an ideal world)?

I think voting with your wallet is some kind of censorship, maybe from the "good side", but nevertheless.

I don't think that there was a contradiction. Freedom of speech does not guarantee nor even imply a lack of financial consequences.

Just as an author has freedom of speech, so do I have freedom of choice. And vice-versa. To imply that I should limit the reasons that I make a choice would be to imply that I should be censored in my decision-making.

Most freedom of speech laws relate to requiring governments not to censor, not private citizens. Citizens have the right to censor for themselves and that right is as important as freedom of speech.

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

So without bringing up He Who Must Not Be Named, I was intrigued by a recent thread wherein someone contended that deliberately not buying the (unrelated) works of someone for having different views than you was a trampling of the freedom of expression/speech.

Wow, really? That's absurd.

Just because you have the right to say it doesn't mean you have the right to not have any consequences from the public for saying it.

Someone is free to say whatever they want. I am also free to react to that however I want. Choosing not to give them my money is not "silencing" them. Even if they were homeless they can still say it. Their reach just might not be quite as big.

But if you're going to say that having a smaller reach equates to "silencing," then by that logic I would have the right to sue the government because I'm not rich enough to afford a billboard in Time Square, and thus I'm being "silenced." That's silly.

As to your poll, yes, I vote with my dollar. I try to do it as consistently and frequently as humanly possible, even if it causes me some inconvenience along the way. What I'm "voting on" largely depends on the particular thing you're talking about. But if an author supported something absolutely abhorrent, I would stop buying their books.

[kjk]

As I mentioned in the other thread-authors (like everyone else) have the right to voice their opinions. They don't have a right to my patronage.

[transmitthis]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

deliberately not buying the (unrelated) works of someone for having different views than you was a trampling of the freedom of expression/speech

Being coerced into buying said work because of the converse of the above, would be trampling on your own freedom of choice...


So I guess I didn't understand your point, or you didn't have one

[RichL]

Two observations:

First, if it is your intent to let the author know you don't approve of their beliefs by not buying their book it is of little or no value if you don't notify the author of such.

Second, because there seems to be a misconceptions of "freedom of speech" I have quoted the constitution. I understand that there are laws and laws on laws that allow / disallow freedom of speech but the constitution itself does not guarantee it, it simply says that Congress cannot limit it.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

P.S.
There should be an amendment to the constitution (of any government) that forbids the use of the word 'minty' to describe the condition of a camera.

[afa]

I voted for "None. Your poll options are too long and do not accurately reflect my opinions. Even this option is not accurate."

I feel that way about most polls, though, so don't take it personally.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by RichL

Two observations:

First, if it is your intent to let the author know you don't approve of their beliefs by not buying their book it is of little or no value if you don't notify the author of such.

Well, I wouldn't say that. If book sales were great prior to an internet blowup and bad afterward, the author can draw conclusions.

But as another person said already, for me it's more about not monetizing hate speech. Whether or not they know I disapprove is not material to me.

[KindleChickie]

And exactly who is the nameless author?

It is a case by case basis for me. I love Jill Scott, I buy her music and her poetry books. But some of the things people have credited to her disturb me. Just not enough to tip me to dislike her artistry.

On the flip, I will not buy Calvin Klein. His quasi-pedo ad campaigns creep me out.

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by KindleChickie

And exactly who is the nameless author?

[...]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

I think they are referring to this thread

Cheers,
Marc

[RichL]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

But as another person said already, for me it's more about not monetizing hate speech. Whether or not they know I disapprove is not material to me.

I don't figure there's enough people that even know his position to make a dent in his sales. I wrote him to give myself a warm fuzzy and to let him know that there was at least one former fan that will not be a future customer.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by RichL

I don't figure there's enough people that even know his position to make a dent in his sales. I wrote him to give myself a warm fuzzy and to let him know that there was at least one former fan that will not be a future customer.

I'd be surprised -- his positions aren't new ones, and most of the adults I know now who liked him as a kid are aware of his positions.

It's sort of the elephant in the room. Nobody wants to get rid of their old copies of his books, but he's making "buying new stuff" seem less and less like a great idea.

I agree with whoever said up-thread that it's a bit easier when the author is dead (the example always being Lovecraft) and then you worry less that the money is going to end up going to sponsor a hate group or something.

Now, I *can* think of some SciFi authors who hold opinions I wasn't aware of until before that MeFi thread. I'm going to have to think long and hard about a few of those before I purchase them again.