France approves law stopping Amazon from shipping discounted books for free

[aceflor]

Originally Posted by roger64

OTOH, don't forget that "toutes les Anglaises sont rousses... "

(this time, i did not forget to put the smiley)

right, I forgot that one .

We also have "Oh France, yeah, I was there, there was a McDonald's"

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Laridae

This thread seems to have devolved into a political debate between left-leaning French and other Europeans and right-leaning Americans. It would be so much easier to follow if people would specify their country in their info so we could quickly see where they were "coming from", instead of having to infer it from their comments.

You seem to be saying there are no leftists in the States or right-wing people in France. Your use of left and right also implies those terms are universally accepted and understood in only one way.

The failure to perceive other people's individuality is not caused by the total conformity of citizens to the political tendencies of their countries' leaders, but it is often exacerbated by misleading representation in the media.

Perhaps you perceive Americans to be universally right-wing and all French people to be leftists because a cursory glance at the media, posts by the most vocal members of forums like this and -- here's the especially fine point -- assumptions about individual members' agendas give you that impression. Trust me: It isn't true.

The public protest of millions of demonstrators is often severely underreported by privately owned and/or governmentally controlled media which endorse/enforce a different position, and that high-level decision -- to silence public opinion instead of showing it -- can shift the perception of national unity in virtually any country.

If the opinions of millions can be omitted or misrepresented routinely, then what about the quiet reality of individuals whose dissent goes largely unexpressed? The answer is, we almost never see it.

A gay person who lives in a viciously homophobic community is no less gay if they're reticent to display who they are publicly. Their reticence doesn't mean that everyone in that community -- including them -- is heterosexual.

A person who knows that expressing their opinions could create subtler problems might also be disinclined to make their views known.

Likewise the person whose political views are potentially isolating or subject to overt hostility or retaliation: They exist in France, North America and everywhere else whether they talk about it publicly or not.

And there are some of us who have concluded that ideology and political views often tell us nothing about a person's character -- that we can have friends whose beliefs are antipodal to our own and enemies with whose political vision we find ourselves in lockstep. Isn't friendship contingent on the quality of the person and not the compatibility of their beliefs with our own?

Some of us are trying to find common ground and points of discussion and agreement with people whose political views are very different. I believe that friendly discussions between apparent political adversaries are important. Every reasonable argument deserves to be tested whether we agree with it or not, and every reasonable human being deserves at least the chance to be understood.

In that sense, it's sometimes difficult to say where our posts are "coming from," as you put it. But knowing our nationality isn't the key to understanding our positions, and assuming that devious obscuration is our motivation seems rather uncharitable.

Paying attention to what people actually say -- here and elsewhere -- is the closest thing to a universal key that you're going to find.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Isn't friendship contingent on the quality of the person and not the compatibility of their beliefs with our own?

Getting way way off topic, but: What defines the "quality of the person?"

While we certainly can have friends with differing political beliefs, and while I think we can and should in most case look for the things that bring us together rather than the things that keep us apart, don't certain beliefs, and a certain extremity of belief, illustrate the quality and character of the person, and serve as proper reason for considering that person someone who you want to associate with or not?

ApK

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by ApK

Getting way way off topic, but: What defines the "quality of the person?" . . . [D]on't certain beliefs, and a certain extremity of belief, illustrate the quality and character of the person, and serve as proper reason for considering that person someone who you want to associate with or not?

One problem is that the answer to that question is itself often politicized.

I have friends whose economic and political views would lead me to conclude they're insufficiently concerned with other people's welfare. But in practice, those same friends demonstrate time and again that they are extremely concerned about other people's welfare -- not only that of their friends and family, but for strangers whom they encounter in everyday life.

I would say that an ideological ally in the abstract is a person whose character has not yet been tested, whereas a person who has proved to be consistent, empathetic and principled in real life might hold apparently unjust political views for their own reasons -- reasons which I might find mistaken but which do not define them as moral beings.

Political views are often the result of how people receive and interpret information. Individual conduct is a better indicator of their character.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by ApK

Getting way way off topic, but: What defines the "quality of the person?"

While we certainly can have friends with differing political beliefs, and while I think we can and should in most case look for the things that bring us together rather than the things that keep us apart, don't certain beliefs, and a certain extremity of belief, illustrate the quality and character of the person, and serve as proper reason for considering that person someone who you want to associate with or not?

ApK

My really close friends have shared beliefs; the rest of my friends have shared interests. With the latter group, I don't care what their beliefs are and never discuss it with them. Life's easier that way.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

My really close friends have shared beliefs; the rest of my friends have shared interests. With the latter group, I don't care what their beliefs are and never discuss it with them. Life's easier that way.

Well put. Here's a question:

Do your immediate relatives all share your beliefs and interests? If not, are they less dear to you than they might have been if they did?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Well put. Here's a question:

Do your immediate relatives all share your beliefs and interests? If not, are they less dear to you than they might have been if they did?

Some do, some don't. Either way, it plays no part in how I feel about them.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

One problem is that the answer to that question is itself often politicized.

I have friends whose economic and political views would lead me to conclude they're insufficiently concerned with other people's welfare. But in practice, those same friends demonstrate time and again that they are extremely concerned about other people's welfare -- not only that of their friends and family, but for strangers whom they encounter in everyday life.

I would say that an ideological ally in the abstract is a person whose character has not yet been tested, whereas a person who has proved to be consistent, empathetic and principled in real life might hold apparently unjust political views for their own reasons -- reasons which I might find mistaken but which do not define them as moral beings.

Political views are often the result of how people receive and interpret information. Individual conduct is a better indicator of their character.

And occasionally to what information they have been exposed to, and when. Not all life experiences are the same, nor do they always lead to the same conclusions...

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by roger64

OTOH, don't forget that "toutes les Anglaises sont rousses... "

(this time, i did not forget to put the smiley)

Well, dammit, we thought that was the Irish

[Laridae]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

You seem to be saying there are no leftists in the States or right-wing people in France. Your use of left and right also implies those terms are universally accepted and understood in only one way.

It's not that complicated, Presti. I was referring to the OP, where a specific Socialist government made a specific business-regulating decision. If I'm not mistaken I believe there is universal agreement that that usually means left.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

My really close friends have shared beliefs; the rest of my friends have shared interests. With the latter group, I don't care what their beliefs are and never discuss it with them. Life's easier that way.

Yeah, I'm with you there.

Presti is right, though: I guess it's true the belief-sharing element is not what defines the close friendships, it's a just a part of it. Lord knows there is a large group of folk who share some of my beliefs that I constantly feel the need to point out "Umm...I'm not with them...."

ApK

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Laridae

It's not that complicated, Presti. I was referring to the OP, where a specific Socialist government made a specific business-regulating decision. If I'm not mistaken I believe there is universal agreement that that usually means left.

Indeed, no need to over generalize. On this matter, the terms are pretty clear, and this matter is all we were talking about, originally.

[gouni]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I highly resent that type of meddling from government. But hey, it's their country and they're free to do as they wish.

I'm French, and at first I thought that this was not good, agreement between publishers and everything can go as a derivative.

But in the end I am well content, finished the large surface that sell that great books public price, for this there are periods of promotion, and then it allows you to keep a part of small booksellers who them more diversity and also more rare editions books.

It is a compromise between any not expensive and in the end once crushed small large date back their price, and diversity in the choice.

In this decision there's very good, but was also made very bad choices elsewhere for the book industry.It was a law to curb the wholesale without thinking that it penalizes small publishers flick that was also this free service.

Saving a chick but one breaks eggs.

It must be a happy medium.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Laridae

It's not that complicated, Presti. I was referring to the OP, where a specific Socialist government made a specific business-regulating decision. If I'm not mistaken I believe there is universal agreement that that usually means left.

You might feel that you were only commenting on the OP -- assuming we're even talking about the same post -- but the post to which I responded (and which seemed to provoke more discussion than any of your others on this thread) seemed clearly aimed at those who contributed later on:

This thread seems to have devolved into a political debate between left-leaning French and other Europeans and right-leaning Americans. It would be so much easier to follow if people would specify their country in their info so we could quickly see where they were "coming from", instead of having to infer it from their comments.

It was that comment to which I responded, and it is that particular comment which used left and right in purely nationalist terms. The idea that every French and European MR member who posted was on the left and every American member was on the right seemed reductive and still does to me.

[Waylander]

I have only recently signed up to Mobileread, but have followed it for quite some time. This kind of digression from the actual topic of discussion seems to happen a lot. I thought the news was about the French banning Amazon from shipping discounted books for free, not what constitutes a left or right leaning person, or which type of person is more common in which country, OR what makes different types of people who they are.