This is very strange. After all the kerfuffle over that ridiculous online bookstore, they just sent me this message:
Hi! Abunga CustomerService (CustomerService@abunga.com) has used the Abunga.com Email-A-Friend service to send you this message.
Personal message:
Please help us Empower Decency by encouraging as many of your readers to register with us.
Their votes are needed now more than ever.
Thank youPlease click this link or copy and paste it into your browser:
http://abunga.comDid you know that on Abunga.com ...
+ You support non-profits with 5% of every purchase?
+ You can help us monitor our book offerings by blocking titles?
+ You can buy brand new titles 30% off everyday!Abunga.com
Empowering Decency
info@abunga.com
877-566-0501We've got a blog! Come tell us what you think at http://blog.abunga.com
This is a little odd, because I did not register with them, and I haven't been flagging any of their books. I guess they just like the attention — and you are all now encouraged to empower decency at their site.
- Log in to post comments
Yeah I wonder who the final decency arbiter is.
They really want us all to vote?
Maniacal laughter ensues...
Well, why don't certain like-minded folk start finding certain OTHER "indecent" books, and see just what can be banned by their unintelligently designed website? ;-)
They really want us all to vote?
Maniacal laughter ensues...
the goal should be to vote to ban every book in the bookstore.
what happens then?
oh, since undoubtedly the entirely oblivious and reading comprehension impaired folk will visit this thread too:
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm
after reading so many of the comments in the first thread, I kept having to wonder why people who obviously spend so little time reading seemed so interested in an online bookstore to begin with.
but the answer is obvious:
Lee Martin, CEO
mobilize those fundies, Lee!
"Yeah I wonder who the final decency arbiter is."
The mob?
I have the Power of Greyskull!!!! Mwa ha ha ha ha ha!!!
"Yeah I wonder who the final decency arbiter is."
The mob?
I dunno I suppose you would have to join to find out. But they seem to be very happy that Pharyngula has noticed them. The email was no accident I'm sure!
I dunno I suppose you would have to join to find out. But they seem to be very happy that Pharyngula has noticed them. The email was no accident I'm sure!
Yup. PR/Marketing move.
*sigh*
yes, there is always the "there is no such thing as bad publicity" argument to be made.
likely, it will end up dying an unnoticed death, even with the minor attention granted to it by pharyngula. However, the positive thing to note is that attention is drawn to a particularly vile business model, regardless of whether or not the tangential effect of such notice is a temporary boost to sales.
goes back to the old: 'winning isn't everything'.
The two featured books on Abunga's front page are Finding God at Harvard and Heaven. Both worth reading, no doubt. I mean, who wouldn't want to know where God is hiding at Harvard and what heaven is going to be like?
I am, however, concerned that the bookstore's name contains the word "bung" in it. Isn't that a naughty word? I think I'm going to be upset!
btw, Ed Brayton has an interesting related piece as a recent post on his blog (I'd link directly to it, but the word P*rn seems to trigger the filter).
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/
Blocking a book alerts us that you may have found a book that we don't want to sell and allows us to remove these titles to guard your family and ours. Additionally, once you block a book it will also remove the title from your view and it won't show up in one of your searches again.
No guarantee that they will remove the titles. And anybody can use the "Email-A-Friend service" to send that "Hi! Abunga CustomerService" message to anybody.
Go read the blog
http://blog.abunga.com/.
They have noticed Pharyngula hord.
I am, however, concerned that the bookstore's name contains the word "bung" in it. Isn't that a naughty word? I think I'm going to be upset!
now, now, calm down Cornholio.
;)
Go read the blog
...and discover that the only comments ever made on any of the threads were made on the most recent one by 7 pharyngulites.
LOL
Be careful you don't intimidate these people!
Would PZ be happy with anyone whose slogan is "Cow Abunga!"?
The two featured books on Abunga's front page are Finding God at Harvard and Heaven. Both worth reading, no doubt. I mean, who wouldn't want to know where God is hiding at Harvard and what heaven is going to be like?
I have already answered that question.
If you're going to ban one book, you might as well ban them all.
It doesn't matter if you're selling the most putrid screed by the most repugnant dictator; it doesn't matter if you're selling the memoirs of a pedophile, or, for that matter, "Pandas and People." Once you whisk a book away from the public domain of academic or even casual discussion, its ideas can't be discussed in detail, and therefore can't be dissected and challenged.
Banning a book that makes you feel uncomfortable halts discussion on a topic, while at the same time bringing to light it's controversial existence. Such controversy only inflames curiosity. Then you have people with a certain view that are pushed the the margins of the public forum who seek out these books and fixate on the ideas of a single source. With no one to discuss them with, no one to point out the logical, factual, or ethical mishaps in a particular literature, these ideas can be internalized and solidified. If someone discredits your source text merely by virtue of it's banned status, then your author almost becomes a martyr for whatever misguided cause you're going on about. And obviously, there is always that one radical idea that hits the nail on the head, only to be smashed by a black listing bolder itself, slowing intellectual progress until it becomes an undeniable reality -- perhaps centuries later.
But what if a large minority expresses views in a published work that the majority, a majority with the power to flatten its opposition, is disquieted by? Then you have oppression, stunted thought, and beleaguered progress. We should show these tools that the sword cuts both ways. I regarded the first book on their front page as total garbage and a complete waste of tree -- does that mean that if I have the power I should stop it from seeing the light of day? Let's see how they feel if this goes viral and every book at some group of people disagree with in some way is banned from their stock.
If you don't think a book is decent, or if you think it's trash, then don't read it. If people you know are reading it and bringing it up in conversation, then I guess now you have to read it so you can say to them, "ok, I read your stupid book, and this is why I think you're a moron..." Too lazy to read the damn book? Then look for a critical review by an established authority on the subject and use THEIR counterpoints in your discussion. Too lazy to do that? Well then stop your bitchin'. Lazy-ass.
But this is nothing new. Quite frankly, I think the makers of this website understand the concept of intellectual freedom; they just don't care, as long as they can hang out with their buddy J-man for all eternity when they die. Lame.
My comment on the blog, consisting solely of a photograph of the Night of Shame Monument on Bebelplatz, Berlin, is "awaiting moderation".
According to the blog, the site's creater is an author. I have added their own books to my banned list.
Indecent books? You can start with this "Bible" here. Sex, murder, mass killings by a being who insists on being worshipped, death by stoning written of approvingly for minor offenses like talking back to your parents or wearing a cotton/poly shirt, approval of slavery. Hardly a family value in sight.
No doubt I mark myself as a child of my generation, brain duly rotted by the television streamed through my eye sockets, when I suggest that what they truly need is a cow.
No doubt I mark myself as a child of my generation, brain duly rotted by the television streamed through my eye sockets, when I suggest that what they truly need is a cow.
Obviously, though, they've taken to heart the business plan contained in the sacred truth "Don't have a cow, man!"
Man, everybody in Cambridge/Somerville seems to be awake and on Pharyngula right now.
If I were boundlessly evil:
Step One: Form a legion of minions.
Step Two: Troll the Abunga site.
Step Three: Vote against every "decent" book.
You know, it's not that well designed. I''m trying to censor every book that comes up on a search for "Bible", and have to go through 63 pages!
They also aren't all that good at censorship:
http://abunga.com/?d=product&productid=9780807262016
Hey! Are you calling me "boundlessly evil"?
Man, everybody in Cambridge/Somerville seems to be awake and on Pharyngula right now.
Well, Brighton...I haven't been able to get to sleep before 3:00 in weeks. Even with my sedatives and benedryl....trying to cut out evening caffeine now. Hopefully, my late nights at Pharyngula will start to shorten in the next week or so.
something tells me Pharyngulites have been busy:
I am in Arlington.
Hey! Are you calling me "boundlessly evil"?
it's OK; freedom is a good thing.
Well, Brighton...I haven't been able to get to sleep before 3:00 in weeks.
weird. exact same thing here (last 2 weeks).
haven't been able to pin down why. I figured it was just allergies.
Such fun! I've Fahrenheit 451 and Markus Zusak's The Book Thief (a kids' book about book burnings), along with Narnia and everything Intelligent Design.
I also banned "Fundamentalism and Evangelicals".
I also banned "Fundamentalism and Evangelicals".
Be careful they might not actually be blocked for all users.
"Blocking a book alerts us that you may have found a book that we don't want to sell and allows us to remove these titles to guard your family and ours. Additionally, once you block a book it will also remove the title from your view and it won't show up in one of your searches again."
Careful!
Forget it. I'll be "decent" and not click on their site. They don't deserve all this attention. And this could be one of many never-ending emails from them. PZ might have to change his addy soon...
Forget it. I'll be "decent" and not click on their site. They don't deserve all this attention. And this could be one of many never-ending emails from them. PZ might have to change his addy soon...
Exactly. I just don't want to go through the bother of registering and all that blah.
Well, Brighton...I haven't been able to get to sleep before 3:00 in weeks.
It's the call of Cthulhu, Jeff!
have you been having dreams of fantastic underwater cities of strange, angular proportions?
Stop picking on them! Decent families need a site where they can safely order a copy of Mein Kampf without the danger of clicking on something really disturbing, like The Golden Compass.
Y'know, the best thing we could do to safeguard values such as freedom would be to ban their whole website. Ban it from the intarwebs altogether. Y'know, for the sake of the kids.
Anybody know how to set up a DoS or DDoS attack?
*Note: I write (mainly) in jest.
Stop picking on them! Decent families need a site where they can safely order a copy of Mein Kampf without the danger of clicking on something really disturbing, like The Golden Compass.
it would be far more entertaining if, when you voted to block a book, they had an audio clip from that "Wife Swap" clip with the angry jesus lady saying:
"NOT CHRISTIAN!!! AAAAAUUUUGGGGGHHHH!!"
(if you haven't seen it, check out the old thread; MAJeff posted a link, and there are several variants there as well).
I hate that Wife Swap freako with every fibre of my being. Someone should force her through the eye of a needle just to bring home a few points the fundies have missed from the bible.
Perhaps angel-hair pasta is the closest she'll ever get to angels.
It would be even better if you could somehow work in the words "eldritch" and "cyclopean".
Before the Abungholes hijack this thread, I'd like to remind them of the original intent of the whole swarm of blockings by folks from "this side".
Abunga's model of operation is inherently self-destructive. Think of everyone you know who calls themselves "Christian". Now think of how many different definitions of "Christian" these people would give.
Works with "decency", "family friendly", "moral", and lots of other words. The only thing this site did was accelerate the inevitable blocking that will occur as more and more niche customers decide what is and isn't right.
The Bible is one of the books I own that I consider, in its message, to be very immoral. 1984 is one of my books that I consider, in its message, to be very morally instructive. Both contain sex and violence, and both are rather in favor of their practice, as long as it is for the right reasons. Both also contain blind obeidience to an authority which leads to the breakdown of the families, societies, and the very humanities of its victims. Guess which book thinks that that's just a dandy way to live?
nicely said, Autumn.
In case it doesn't make it through moderation (you never know with these people), here is a comment I submitted to the Abunga blog:
_________
"Because of your blocking efforts you've Empowered Decency by blocking the controversial book series The Golden Compass "
The only thing being empowered here is ignorance:
1. _The Golden Compass_ is the title of a single book, not a series. The trilogy of which it forms the first part is called _His Dark Materials_. Anyone proposing to censor a work of literature had better know at the very least how the work is identified and organized.
2. You are still selling the remaining two books of the aforementioned trilogy. Bear in mind that the first book (_Compass_), the one you have banned, is universally considered by those familiar with the books to be the LEAST controversial of the three. What can we conclude from this? Answer: far from being throughtful informed people, your customers are pathetic ignoramuses who have been incited into frantic mob action by some rumor they heard from a chain e-mail. If they were genuinely disturbed by the supposedly "antireligious" content of _His Dark Materials_, as opposed to being merely paranoid freaks, they would have banned the third book, not the first.
3. Criticism of religion does NOT constitute a violation of decency. (Read the last sentence again.) Anyone who says it does is a cretinous bigot and ought to be shunned.
4. "Family-friendly": Do the moronic mobs who patronize your store really think that _The Golden Compass_ is inappropriate reading material for the children of their atheist neighbors? (Oh, that's right, I almost forgot -- atheists are immoral people who wouldn't care if their children were exposed to drugs and pornography! So no wonder they let their kids read Pullman -- six of one, half a dozen of the other!)
5. Frankly, I don't know which is worse: that you allowed a magnificent, award-winning book like _The Golden Compass_ to be censored by a bunch of dunderheads, or that you issued a press release celebrating this fact.
I predict that you won't stay in business long. But if you do, it will only be a sad commentary on the sorry state of certain backward segments of our society.
_________
Yes - for a given value of Somerville. :-)
Really, though, Jeff - cutting the evening caffeine is a good idea. 6:00 P.M. cutoff. Seriously.
WTF is "abunga"? It sounds like something Ted Haggard would trade drugs for.
-jcr
WTF is "abunga"?
I think it was designed to be unique enough to give them lots of high ranking google hits. These are very clever folks. Be careful out there people!!
These are very clever folks.
yes, the CEO, H Lee Martin, was clever enough to write a book called:
Techonomics
from his own description of the book on the Abunghola blog:
how profound, wizard!
http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/niggerbt.htm
I second Narnia, let's ban it forever!
Does that mean Techonomics is the truth of life, Ichtyic? ;)
As for empowering decency, I dunno about you, but I feel empowered whenever I censor someone.
How many people would make "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" unavailable to everyone? I wouldn't. I used to have a copy. When I was working on my Masters Degree, I was focusing primarily on right wing movements, mapping them historically and contemporarily, and finally doing my thesis on the Minnesota Family Council.
I find the tract laughable and vile, ridiculous and dangerous. And it should be available.
Now, that's an extreme example. They folks as Bunga have already gone after a fantasy book, The Golden Compass. What about Neil Shubin's new book Your Inner Fish? So many of the "decency policy" with their appeals to the sky buddy, are of the culturally conservative, anti-modern, fundamentalist/evangelical bent. How long until a book that demonstrates how our bodies developed from previous life-forms, including ancient fish...and even more ancient "worms"...thus offending the sensibilities of those who want to remain ignorant, and who panic if anyone even hints that the two genesis stories are myths finds its way into their sights. Get enough of 'em geared up, and they'll make sure other people's children remain ignorant.
Then again, that's always been the point.
Does that mean Techonomics is the truth of life, Ichtyic? ;)
hmm, I'm thinking it might be worthwhile to try banning it on Abunghola.
In fact, I think that would send a clearer message than anything:
ban the one and only book the CEO of the company wrote himself.
seriously, for those that want to freep, I highly suggest abandoning random banning for just this one book.
Techonomics
what clearer message could be sent?
here ya go:
http://abunga.com/?d=product&productid=9780849370670
have fun.
I have to say that I'm quite surprised that neither The God Delusion nor God Is Not Great have been banned on there yet.
It's probably just a matter of time, but I'd have thought those would have been the first things to go.
Of course, the only way to be truly safe would be to ban all books. If Abunga really cared, they would take five minutes to just Think About The Children(TM), and then they'd realize they are still endangering precious, fragile, tender, squishy baby Christian minds with printed material. It is morally imperitive that they stop selling books at once!!!
If purveyors of questionable goods like Abunga stay in business, then the terrorists win...
I do find it amusing that they've banned "Golden Compass", but the other books of the trilogy are still available.
These fools don't know a damn thing about the books, they just do what others tell them. Mindless sheep.
The actual "killing of god" that they all seem to abhor happens in the third book, yet they behave as though the first book is the dangerous one? Maybe they ought to READ THEM before condemning them! Wait, that would mean they have to open their minds and read something, rather than taking orders.
so why dont we just block the bible on their site?
seriously, this sounds like a worthwhile jape to me!
I'm still confused as to their model - does a ban request ban it for everyone, or just that specific user?
Wait, I get it, it's both, once enough people ban it. Note to self: Do not post before morning cup of tea.
Linguistic question: is it really that hard for native speakers to distinguish "everyday" and "every day"? They aren't even stressed on the same syllable, are they?
Oh, I've been empowering decency over there alright. I'm going to have a second go at it now.
I'm gonna start by empowering decency right here on Pharyngula. For instance by this comment, which does not reference ladies' underware. (Whoops.)
How is this worse than the many regular "family" Christian bookstore where the owner anticipates the narrow-mindedness of his customers and filters the books he stocks accordingly? They probably remove books based on customer complaints too. I really think this sabotage business is kind of childish.
That didn't stop me from registering and flagging D'Sousza's book and The Case for Christ by Lee Stroebel.
[Sigh...]
Dear PZ:
I suppose I could just chalk this up to a generation gap or something. On the internet, as in life, things are not always as they first appear. Email headers in particular are pretty much meaningless. And this one was pretty obvious. Notice the "Email-A-Friend" notice at the top?
So just to make the point absolutely clear, you should be getting an email from ThePresident@abunga.com any time now...
-Kevin
Not surprising at all: They should want to read these books, if only for the sake understanding "the enemy," if they were smart.
Oh. Right. I suppose it is surprising, after all.
If books are outlawed, only outlaws would have books.
"Please help us Empower Decency by encouraging as many of your readers to register with us."
I'm patiently waiting for the day when folks of this ilk manage to compose a grammatically correct sentence.
I'm pretty sure your not going to get any books they approve of banned. Their blog post says that they felt they had to ban The Golden Compass because it was what their community wanted. If they had any reason to think a book was being blocked by outsiders who wished them ill and never bought anything, I doubt they would have any objection to reinstating the book.
Also, running or using this site is an act of authoritarian-minded idiocy but shouldn't they just be left to it? There are other bookshops after all, and freeping is, well, what freepers do.
ROFL. This actually elicited loud, evil cackling from me. Not that that's hard to do, but still.
How stupid are those people. They are so afraid of books that they can't even bare to see them on lists? What a bunch of pansy-ass schoolmarms. Then again, if we let them have their little fantasy haven maybe they'll leave the rest of world's book lists and libraries alone.
Yes, I know. Cold day in hell...
To spend time doing anything on their web site other than objecting to the stupidity of the venture/concept is intellectually dishonest. A better tact might be everyone post comments along the lines of: 'Because your site fosters ignorance, because your site undermines education, because your site actively encourages practices that are detrimental to civilization, I will not be purchasing your products and am encouraging others to follow suit.'
Most recent list of blocked books:
The Bible and Modern Life
By Clayton Sedgwick Cooper
Sword Bible-OE-Large Print KJV Easy Reading
By Gem Publishing
What's So Great about America
By Dinesh D'Souza
The Bible Made Easy
By Mark Water
Intelligent Design or Evolution? Why the Origin of
Life and the Evolution of Molecular Knowledge Imply
Design
By Stuart W. Pullen
My decency feels empowered.
most of henry miller and poppy z. brite's books were up and available for purchase. that was as much as i felt like getting involved with.
When I want to get creeped out by the decency crowd, I visit the Houston Area Associates For Decency web site.
Just a glance at their list of conference speakers will make you ill:
JAMES DOBSON
LAURA INGRAHAM
PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY
ANNE COULTER
WENDY WRIGHT
GARY BAUER
BILL O'REILLY (pre-loofa?)
MICHELLE MALKIN
And on and on. Gag.
JAMES DOBSON
LAURA INGRAHAM
PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY
ANNE COULTER
WENDY WRIGHT
GARY BAUER
BILL O'REILLY (pre-loofa?)
MICHELLE MALKIN
Nothing indecent about the decency police, nothing at all.
I've been having quite a time posting variations (some more ignorantly-worded) of this message to their customer service:
You have a book for sale on Abunga (many copies of it, actually!) that is riddled with filth! Pure, absolute garbage!
Just to name a few, it contains: rape, murder, incest, infanticide (baby-killing), coprophagia (eating of fecal matter), torture & execution, dismemberment and genital mutilation -- and the list goes on!!! I couldn't imagine letting my kids read this garbage, and I can't believe it's for sale on your website!!!!!!!!
Anyway, this book is apparently titled "The Bible" and I'll be looking forward to the removal of the 100+ versions that you are selling!
You know, the more I thought about it, the more convinced I became that the actions of the readers here, in going to Abunga and banning things, was just wrong. Abunga was in no way censoring anyone. They were not agitating for any books to be banned by government. Why should anyone interfere with their perfectly legitimate wishes? I don't see any difference between their actions and the actions of a co-op deciding not to purchase products produced in certain ways, or by certain companies- except, of course, that I might agree more with the co-op's goals. Ah, and that gives me the right to make sure that everyone else has to act in accordance with my goals, right? Bullshit. Screwing with the Abunga site was juvenile and wrong and could, in some sense, be viewed as a Denial of Service attack. Grow up, people. Screwing with their site is just a vandal's way of imposing your views on them.
Bzzzt, wrong answer! Sorry, these folks invited shoppers to identify books they considered indecent. Atheists who nominate the Bible and other religious books for exclusion are using the service exactly as it was offered, even if it's not how Abunga anticipated.
[a.] Using their site in the way it was designed is not "screwing" with it.
[b.] Nominating the "wrong" books for exclusion is not a matter of imposing atheist views on the Christian customers of Abunga; rather, it's a matter of pointing out that the site's approach is inherently based on prejudice: That is, it only works in the intended way if the "wrong sort" of people don't participate.
As a private business, Abunga would have had every right to say, "Here are the books we feel comfortable selling, based on our own notion of family and Christian values; if you seek books outside this selection, please look elsewhere." But they didn't do that. Instead, they chose to hold what amounts to a popular referendum on decency in books. That being the case, they have given up the right to be angry when the "wrong" people come to the polls.
I guess my comment on the Abunghole blog is too much for them. After approving several later comments, mine is still "awaiting moderation". I don't think this is all that bad:
Maybe it's because I used the A-word. Let's see if they choose to publish my follow-up:
I propose we flood them with comments pointing out how violent the bible is.
Agreed Chris. As I said before, some people here need to get their heads out of their asses. It serves us no good if, instead of rational discourse, when confronted with certain situations, some of our people revert to six year olds.
I think they need to come up with a better system.
Recently spotted:
Does God Have a Penis?
Get Your Penis in Shape
Vaginas: An Owner's Manual
Farting Presidents and Other Poems
Oh Crap...I Think I Shat Myself
Ok, I also kind of agree with Bill's points. However, its not so much the use of their system to undermine it, as much as that, combined with the gleeful joy at doing it. Its still a six year old throwing mud at something he/she doesn't like, then not getting why it was naughty. We could have pointed out to them how it *could* go wrong, and if they still didn't pay attention, then opted to make a concerted effort to prove out point by turning it on its ear and making it a site for "atheist" values. Instead we spray painted, "You're!", over someone's finger painting. Are we to be congratulated because we knew how to use a spray can, instead of finger paint?
Sigh.. Still need to learn to proof read before posting. Should have been "You're stupid!". Not going to even bother with the other errors. lol
Kagehi:
Let me add that, notwithstanding my previous comments, I also think most of us probably have better things to do with our time than "educating" these poor benighted souls through their website.
Hence, I haven't visited the site myself. If people are resorting to childish vulgarisms, rather than simply voting to ban religious books from the store, then I agree that's distasteful and unfortunate. However, my distaste is based more on social and aesthetic grounds than on any sense that it's morally wrong to tweak their noses.
If you put up a website that invites public comment, you've got to expect a certain amount of childishness and trollery. It's unfortunate, but it's neither immoral nor illegal... and a "denial of service attack" (per Chris' comment I was originally replying to) is potentially both.
Come on Abunga! Get it right!
Your site is full of evil stuff:
The Gas We Pass: The Story of Farts
Bag of Farts
Sperm Counts: Overcome by Man's Most Precious Fluid
Transgender Rights
Transgender Nation
Transgenderism and Intersexuality in Childhood and Adolescence: Making Choices
Bisexual Women: Friendship and Social Organization
Life, Sex and Ideas: The Good Life Without God
How about we compromise? Let's block every single sex-education and biology book on the site. By denying their "best" customers knowledge of human reproduction, we should be able to help them stay in their fantasy world and ensure that they don't produce any more ignoramuses.
Hell, let's block all the science books. That'll help accelerate their decline.
As far as comparisons to a DoS attack, I only used their service as it had been presented to me: to block books that I find offensive, such as the Bible or anything by Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter.
And also, as a sort of argument to point out the logical fallacy behind their concept: everyone doesn't find the same thing indecent. It's similar to Maddox's "For Every Animal You Don't Eat, I'm Going To Eat Three" theme. Vegetarianism may be a good idea, but it's an idea that others can easily screw up for you. Same goes for the Abunga concept; they can allow books to be banned, but aren't controlling who does the banning. To illustrate the point, we've all banned a few books. Sure, it's essentially acting like a six-year-old, but a very cynical six-year-old.
In an e-mail exchange with one of the operators, I even pointed how they could improve their system to meet their desires -- by requiring a purchase before your blocks are tallied into global totals. That would essentially nip the problem in the bud -- it's not going to bother them if you sign up and ban books for no one but yourself.
See, this is why I hate playoffs.
Someone let me know when they've finished all the elimination rounds, and we get down to the Douay-Rheims English Vulgate v. King James Version steel-cage death match.
"Two Bibles enter; one Bible leaves!"
"Which will be the last book standing?"
----
Chris @ 76: The first rule of Abunga is, you do not talk about Abunga.
My inner six-year-old is pretty sure the site's a joke. If she's wrong, she'll buy all comers a beer at the Hotsy Totsy Club, as soon as she is of legal age.
Shhhhh....
They haven't figured out who Susie Bright is.
Nothing But the Girl (with boobies in the cover!)
The Sexual State of the Union
Or what Penthouse is:
Letters to Penthouse 27: The First Time Is the Hottest
Letters to Penthouse XXVIII: Threesomes, Foursomes, and Moresomes
Or Playboy:
Playboy Cover to Cover-The 50's: Searchable Digitial Archive--Every Page, Every Issue with CDROM
Uh-oh. This one doesn't look like family material:
Sex God: Exploring the Endless Connections Between Sexuality and Spirituality
Quick, call the prude police. Ban this material!
What I love is that they're people of "the word" but we have more respect for books.
Yes, there is no doubt they left themselves open to an attack of this sort. And make no mistake, that's exactly what it is. Think about my comparison earlier: how would you feel about an organic co-op getting "assaulted" by civic-minded citizens who really, really wanted to purchase Pringles there? Do you think everything not forbidden is compulsory? Do you think you're making some kind of moral point here? Or are you just ensuring that the people who run and patronize Abunga think you (and other atheists like me) are a jerk? Do you even recognize that there's a difference between the spirit of something, and the letter of something? In the end, you know what happens? The entire world wide web is password protected, you need to register everywhere you go, and there's a little less (or a lot less) freedom for everyone. They had an open site- a commendable thing in my opinion, even if they are a bit wacky. Those are getting rarer and rarer these days. And now, I bet they are going to make it a fortress. Is that your goal for the entire web? Or is it just collateral damage from your vandalism? Either way, it sucks.
On top of that, did you take a moment to browse the charities they support? Part of their profit goes to groups like the March of Dimes, Aid to Distressed Families of Appalachian Counties, Blount County Literacy Council, Cerebral Palsy Center for Handicapped Adults, Contact Helpline,East Tennessee Children's Hospital...yes, I went through and pulled out some of the secular organisations- and yes there are a lot of religious charities there, and so what? Whoever buys from Abunga gets to decide which charity gets the donation. What a bunch of pricks, huh?
Congratulate yourself on making it harder for those charities to get donations, and make sure you never, ever tell someone else to "Live and let live."
Chris
Do you think you're making some kind of moral point here?
chris, as one of the people who can be congratulated for poor reading comprehension, please review what people are actually objecting to about this business model, and why it is functionally different from a standard selective business model.
read the original post by PZ, and read all the comments in the original thread about Mob censorship, and read #4 above.
if, after that, you still maintain this is a fine business model, you're simply a moron.
To phrase the use of their website for its intended purpose (block books I find offensive) as an "attack" is ludicrous.
Hitting upon one of Chris' points (sort of, I'm not going to go organic, because organic has a specific definition and "indecent" can vary wildly), let's say I start a grocery store chain and promise to sell only the products that my customers want, and define those "wants" with my own ambiguous term, "tasty."
So, my store, which we'll call KyleCo, allows customers to vote on the "tastiest" food and ban "bad-tasting" food. I may, in my own mind, have some ideas of what will be getting banned: brussel sprouts, spinach, vienna sausage. But that isn't necessarily the case, my customers could decide they hate the taste of Sun Chips and Diet Pepsi, and decide to ban them. Maybe these people are being funny, or maybe they're dead serious. Either way, the problem isn't with the people voicing their opinions, but with the business model.
I did sign up for abunga, and I banned books based entirely on my opinions of them. I did exactly what I was asked to do by the abunga webmaster, and now I'm being chastised, not by the business owners (I conversed with "Lee" by e-mail, and to be honest, he seems like a nice guy), but by someone not even involved in the equation.
And I, for one, wouldn't care if it was viewed as an atheistic assault on their values. That would be wrong, but it wouldn't bother me.
Though I'd prefer they use the correct phrasing, "atheistic retaliation."
"Abunga was in no way censoring anyone."
Yes. Very clever of them. No need to engage in direct censorship when you can get prudish customers to do it for you by proxy.
If they get complaints, they can appeal to the will of their customers and point the finger at others.
Or they can point to all the banning done by customers and declare that they are fulfilling a need.
Brilliant.
The next time I want to visit an online bookstore where I abdicate my buying choices to a bunch of uptight, prudish, conservative assholes, I know where to go.
Why, look!
Marijuana Horticulture: The Indoor/Outdoor Medical Grower's Bible
Marijuana Outdoors: Guerilla Growing
Marijuana Cooking
Maybe there's hope for this store after all.
"chris, as one of the people who can be congratulated for poor reading comprehension, please review what people are actually objecting to about this business model, and why it is functionally different from a standard selective business model."
How patronizing of you. First, anyone has the right to self-censor. This is not, despite some of the nonsensical comments I read here, mob censorship. There was no public outcry for censorship; no burnings; not even a letter-writing campaign or petition to a politician to have a book banned. This is a niche business catering to a particular clientele.
Second, I saw damned few business-oriented critiques here. I saw of lot of "Stupid fundies! Let's ban the Bible!" but not too many cost analyses; traffic-profit analyses, or any other legitimate comments on their model. As to whether it is a 'vile' model- it is a group self-censorship tactic. Are they agitating to have books removed from ALL bookstores, or just willing to have them not show up on searches at their store? I didn't see that even in the CEOs rantings.
Third, even if their business model does suck- and while it was vulnerable to vandalism, it doesn't mean their model is bad- what is your responsibility? You obviously feel a need to crusade here. There are enough serious threats to our liberties at the moment that to spend any time on this one seems kind of ludicrous. The bottom line, as I see it, is a simple extension of what PZ said in his post: if you don't like the bookstore, don't go to the website.
"...my customers could decide they hate the taste of Sun Chips and Diet Pepsi, and decide to ban them. Maybe these people are being funny, or maybe they're dead serious. Either way, the problem isn't with the people voicing their opinions, but with the business model."
It is susceptible to vandalism. If you are running the food business you describe, and all of a sudden your shelves are overstocked with Brussels sprouts and Vienna sausage, and you go back through your records and find a few hundred votes cast in a matter of hours by people who've never shopped at your store- perhaps all cast by one or two college students pranking you. Now, your regular customers have all gone elsewhere, someplace that still has Pringles and Jolt Cola in stock. Of course you might have made an injudicious error. But in this instance, it was vandalism that put you out of business, not market forces. Too bad for that nice guy who sent you the email that he's out of a job, I guess.
To disrupt their business and livelihood just because you can is, to my mind, as nonsensical as self-censorship. And as I pointed out before, it also is one more thing drying up the contributions to charities doing good work.
"To disrupt their business and livelihood just because you can is, to my mind, as nonsensical as self-censorship."
No one did it just because they can. They did it to make a point.
How patronizing of you.
i rather thought it appropriate, frankly.
First, anyone has the right to self-censor
which is of course, not what we are concerned about (strike one).
This is not, despite some of the nonsensical comments I read here, mob censorship.
*ahem*:
http://blog.abunga.com/2008/01/17/golden-compass-is-gone-because-of-you…
strike two.
Second, I saw damned few business-oriented critiques here. I saw of lot of "Stupid fundies! Let's ban the Bible!" but not too many cost analyses;
so one, you admit to ignoring any relevant points that were made, in deference to being attracted by the irrelevant ones (foul tip). and two, cost analyses are entirely irrelevant to the discussion of the ethics of a business model.
strike three.
congratulations, you whiffed at this attempt at bat too.
a suggestion: keep your eye on the ball, and don't just swing blindly, or at every pitch.
Ichthyic: It speaks volumes of you, that you believe patronizing attitudes are appropriate.
As to your "strikes":
Self-censorship is exactly the issue here. While no one has a right to force a book off the shelves of store against the wishes of the store proprietors, that isn't what is happening here. They are willing participants.
And again, I see no calls for government action. I see no agitation for removal of Golden Compass from any other bookstore's shelves. Your braying notwithstanding, you are calling something mob-censorship, that simply isn't. The store owners have every right to do what they're doing. No one's freedom of expression is being impinged upon.
Finally, who are you to impose your ethics on them? They are not forcing anyone to act against their will. They are not preventing anyone from shopping somewhere else. They are not attempting to have any books removed from other stores. I'd say your ethics are the ones that need a reevaluation, not theirs.
I wonder how this business model works if they carry the books in stock?
Chris P
Self-censorship is exactly the issue here.
*sigh*
talk about reading comprehension issues.
again, did you actually read the post on their own blog?
the decision of a certain number (not all) of the users resulting in the banning of a book for everybody.
do you deny this?
if not, why are you insisting this is an issue of self-censorship?
And again, I see no calls for government action. I see no agitation for removal of Golden Compass from any other bookstore's shelves. Your braying notwithstanding, you are calling something mob-censorship, that simply isn't.
you are fucking missing the point. if such a business model were to become popular, how much diversity do you think would remain in any bookstore you might choose to purchase books from?
do you get why we are trashing it as a business model now?
do you understand why Mill's essay on Liberty is relevant?
I'm guessing not.
please, do yourself a favor and READ it.
if you don't like the link I provided, try this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty
Finally, who are you to impose your ethics on them?
what a horrid little projection.
I like how signing up and using someone's website in a manner consistent with its description can be described as "imposing your ethics."
And I'm sure, Chris, that we'd all like to spend a little more time crusading for liberty where it would make a bigger difference. But I can't do that from work, in ten minutes, while waiting on a video to render. However, I can ban every Ann Coulter book on abunga, if I were to feel so inclined.
Chris, #95:
"And as I pointed out before, it also is one more thing drying up the contributions to charities doing good work."
How dare you? What utter smarm to suggest that people should refrain from any (perfectly legal, and invited by Abunga) action that would have the ancillary effect of "drying up" charitable contributions this business makes. Do you seriously mean to suggest citizens or consumers should refrain from criticizing businesses whose actions or policies they object to, because to do so would "hurt" the charities they support? Do you really mean to say people should allow themselves to be held hostage by any business or organization (pick any, it doesn't matter) because of the poor charities? Do I have no right to boycott BigOilCo because if I do, they'll stop making a drop-in-the-bucket contribution to the Word Wildlife Fund?
Christ on a cracker - I never thought I'd meet someone who literally doesn't see through the cynical marketing ploy that charitable support is for so many businesses. It's even more astonishing to meet someone on whom it works as completely as intended.
Citizens have the right to support - or not - any charities they please. Their charitable contributions are their business alone, and it's perfectly legitimate to ignore whether a business contributes to the charity of one's liking or not. I do not ask the businesses I patronize to do my charitable giving for me. If you're so concerned about these groups not getting their 5 percent from Abunga, I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and write a check. But to tell other people to sit down and be quiet so the tap doesn't dry up is an act of unparalleled chutzpah.
"again, did you actually read the post on their own blog?
the decision of a certain number (not all) of the users resulting in the banning of a book for everybody.
do you deny this?
if not, why are you insisting this is an issue of self-censorship?"
I do deny it, and it is self-censorship. It isn't "for everyone". It's for people who want to continue to patronize their store. Do you see the difference between the two populations?
I am missing no point. Yes, I've read Mills; probably 30 years ago was the first time. Quite stirring, and I agree with him. What I do not agree with is you saying this is a danger of Millsian proportions. There's plenty others, more serious. I get enough fear-mongering from the right, thank you.
Josh, by vandalizing this business, you not only potentially damage the livelihood of people who have not broken any laws or even, as far as I can see, you have had the side effect of stopping contributions to decent charities. Get as upset as you like that someone pointed this out; it's collateral damage from the actions taken by people who've posted on this thread. Protesting their business practices is fine: I wrote emails and letters all the time. But I don't see any reason for the actions taken here.
I am missing no point. Yes, I've read Mills; probably 30 years ago was the first time. Quite stirring, and I agree with him.
Mill, not Mills, and in what specific ways do you agree with his utilitarian philosophy?
And for those messing with Abunga, good on ya! They opened Pandaora's box, and they forfeited the right to be immune form the tools they themselves urged their customers to use.
Chris
No one is vandalizing the site.
They are using it as intended.
It's useless, spurge, I've brought the point up several times and it gets conveniently ignored. Chris seems to think that we've assaulted this business in some way, and refuses to see it any other way.
But three cheers for Josh:
Do I have no right to boycott BigOilCo because if I do, they'll stop making a drop-in-the-bucket contribution to the Word Wildlife Fund?
Censorship lol.
I am amused at the inherent paradox of censorship: to accurately point to a book that ought to be censored for immoral or obscene content, you need to have read it yourself or risk making a flawed judgment. Thus, you have willingly subjected yourself to moral pollution; regardless of the reason for it, you still have committed a "sin" by engaging in it.
I also enjoy the contradiction to free-market economics where a private business solicits the opinions of its prospective consumers not just in a financial sense (dropping low-selling items) but also in an ideological sense by simply not offering certain items for sale. Poor business model. Now they either have to suck it up and respond to equally valid requests for censorship or they have to come clean about their facade of "listening to the consumer" and admit to being a right-winger fundie business.
lol again.
Decency is arbitrary?! SAWEET!! :D
Hmm. So, the local cluestick dodger thinks that not planning to use the site is a) vandalism and b) undermines charity... I have a few books I would like to get copies of. Maybe I should sign in, **legitimately** buy a few, toss the 5% to reasonable charities, then proceed to spend the next 2-3 hours looking for every bit of useless crap I think **deserves** to be delisted? Would that be OK, our would I still be "vandalizing" the site because I did it with the intent of undermining their stupid theory about how to make the world better? I am 99.999999999999% certain that a *lot* of my views are about as far out of sync with what these people intended as possible. If I was really sadistic (and as I tried to point out, evil), I would help them ban all the works that make people think, and *only* support the ones that lie about history, human thought, what their own religion says, what other people's religions say, etc. Heck, who doesn't want 99% of 6 billion people following you around like sheep, like their anti-Christ is supposedly going to do. Only one problem, I am inherently lazy, I don't really like the idea of people shooting at me, and, unlike them, I actually value the potential in human life and think war is a damn stupid way to lose unachieved potential. They want to choose not to attain it either, that pisses me off a bit, but I support their right to make that choice. It just happens to piss me off more that the same people that think this sort of sight is just genius, and fail to grasp why its not, also think its their job to vote in thousands (or hundreds? We really don't know, in point of fact), in an attempt to ban, for all customers, stuff that might enable such potential, while keeping the stuff that is geared towards undermining it.
Linguistic question: is it really that hard for native speakers to distinguish "everyday" and "every day"? They aren't even stressed on the same syllable, are they?