Walmartians Attack!

July 27, 2005 7:47 AM

Walmart vs the free press again... other examples: the book mentioned in this thread is no longer available. This and that and the other thread too. Another point in a pattern of steadily increasing restriction of the press by this taxpayer funded mega -corp? Or simply a case of private enterprise making decisions in its own interest - nothing to see here, move along...
posted by dorcas (118 comments total)

Walmart has enough power to do this, but just add another count to the list of corporate shills that have enough $ to influence the public opinion.
posted by cleverusername at 8:04 AM on July 27, 2005

You ask two questions, both of which can be answered in the affirmative. Private enterprise makes decisions like this in its own interest. And given the often evil and evil-looking things corporations do, it's always only a matter of time before they will have secrets that they want kept secret, placing them at odds with the media.
posted by voltairemodern at 8:10 AM on July 27, 2005

4 MeFi links ! (sidebar option?)
A rambling and poorly written editorial.
USAToday's article was tangentially good however.
But you might want to amend your ammendment.
posted by peacay at 8:13 AM on July 27, 2005

It is scary, the amount of power Wal-Mart has--especially in areas where it's the only resource for certain products.

The best way to stop this is simply to never shop at Wal-Mart. Not even if it's cheaper, not even if it's more convenient. Every dollar you spend on an innocuous trip inside to grab some cheap doo-dad is a vote of support for everything they do.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 8:13 AM on July 27, 2005

increasing restriction of the press [or] private enterprise making decisions in its own interest

Please explain how any corporation can "restrict the press."

Please point out the location of that rule which says that Walmart has to sell this newspaper (or newspapers at all).

Tags: 1stammendment freepress

Huh? Please explain any (even tangential) relationship to the First Amendment.
posted by dios at 8:15 AM on July 27, 2005

Please explain how any corporation can "restrict the press."

Ok.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 8:19 AM on July 27, 2005

Hahah.
posted by dios at 8:21 AM on July 27, 2005

Right. But seriously, I don't think Wal-Mart is actually infringing on the first amendment, and agree that the poster's reference to it is largely irrelevant.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 8:24 AM on July 27, 2005

The Pensacola News Journal is owned by a corporation as well... just sayin.
posted by mania at 8:25 AM on July 27, 2005

I forgot, Walmart is part of the Pentaverate, who control everything. They meet three times a year at a secret mansion called "The Meadows." Walmart, the Rothchilds, the Gettys, the Queen and Colonel Sanders, before he went tits up. I forgot how our corporate overlords pass laws banning newspapers for publishing critical stories. Thanks for reminding me, Espy.
posted by dios at 8:26 AM on July 27, 2005

This has nothing to do with free press. One wal-mart store isn't carrying the paper, although that is shitty, you're being rather dramatic to imply that this is the beginning of the end of the free press. If wal-mart somehow managed to stop this newspaper from being able to print itself, then we'd have a story.
posted by glenwood at 8:29 AM on July 27, 2005

peacay - just trying to show the progression - also damn spellchecker doesn't do tags?

Espy - that'd be my take on it, but I do know people living in more rural parts of the country who often don't have a choice - Wally is the only store in town... also the only newstand in town - that's where it starts to grate on my bill of rights. ouch! If this company has manipulated the market to the point where the control the only access to print media in an area, do they bear any responsibility to not censor at will?


It's more about them restricting public access to the press - if the press is free to say what they want, but then a company keeps them from getting their words to the public what's the point of that press being free in the first place?

PS: deeos thanks for your attempt to hi-jack, but I'd really hoped to discuss public access to media??? to much for ya?
posted by dorcas at 8:30 AM on July 27, 2005

In other news, Costco stopped selling a book called "1001 Reasons Why You Shouldn't Shop at Costco." Damn press-restricting fascists.

Also, Bob Smith, a local politician, quit giving stage time at his rallies to a Joe Jones, an anti-Bob Smith protestor whose message is that Bob Smith is the personification of evil. The ALCU is planning on filing a lawsuit to prevent this restriction of free speech.
posted by dios at 8:30 AM on July 27, 2005

hmmm. I guess so.

Well in other news my grandma Tilly thinks the country is on the right track based on what she read in the papers and news magazines available at the local Walmart. In fact things are going so well she's wishing she could vote that nice young man from Texas in for a third term.
posted by dorcas at 8:34 AM on July 27, 2005

If this company has manipulated the market to the point where the control the only access to print media in an area, do they bear any responsibility to not censor at will?

Maybe some sort of social responsibility, but not any kind of legal one. I don't think it would it be acceptable for any kind of government intervention to take place, telling Wal-Mart that they must sell this or that.

The small towns you're talking about are the hardest places to fight it, but if enough people shop elsewhere in towns where there are alternatives, Wal-Mart's prices will rise and more competitive options will emerge.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 8:38 AM on July 27, 2005

Well, this has gone well.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:39 AM on July 27, 2005

The Walmart manager looks pretty silly in all of this and his actions against the paper probably cause little impact on the paper. Regardless of the minimal impact or overall silliness, it is not a First Amendment issue; dios is correct. I would remove those tags.
posted by caddis at 8:40 AM on July 27, 2005

Dorcas, if the only place in town that people can get the local or regional newspaper is Wal-Mart, then the circulation director isn't doing a very good job, innit?

I mean, I get how Wally-World is bad and all, but c'mon, even though this is Florida, there isn't a gun to anyone's head (yet).

Dios, the part where W-M tries to restrict free press is where the manager offers a quid pro quo: fire the sumbitch and we'll let you back in. Clearly trying to intimidate, which didn't work. You might say it is hearsay that that happened, but it is in print and therefore libellous if not true.
posted by beelzbubba at 8:42 AM on July 27, 2005

The Walmart manager looks pretty silly in all of this and his actions against the paper probably cause little impact on the paper.

I suppose we could theorize that the paper could lose some reasonably significant advertising revenue because so very many people that advertisers want to reach shop at Walmarts, and if they can't conveniently pick up the paper at Walmart, they probably won't make the effort to buy it someplace else, so why advertise in the paper? That could cause an impact, maybe. But I'm just guessin'.
posted by JanetLand at 8:47 AM on July 27, 2005

the part where W-M tries to restrict free press is where the manager offers a quid pro quo

Not unless the manager is also a congressperson.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 8:50 AM on July 27, 2005

Oops, beelzbubba, by "restrict free press" i thought you were referencing the first amendment, which I now see that you weren't. Apologies.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 8:53 AM on July 27, 2005

Freedom of press doesnt not mean "guarentee of success of press regardless of content." What it means is that people have the right to print what they want to. The concept does not incorporate any component about providing resource channels, distribution channels, guarentee of sales or anything of the like.

So even if this paper becomes financially ruined and closes it doors, its freedom of press hasn't been harmed. The publisher can still publish whatever he wants to print. But this freedom to press doesn't include a guarentee that Walmart will sell his newspaper. Walmart has no obligation to sell any newspaper, including this particular one. The publisher was there as part of a basic business arrangement, not some free speech agreement. And if you want to rely on doing business X, then one ought not disgrace business X. If one wants to disgrace business X, then one ought not be suprised when business is not forthcoming.

This is such common sense that if it was anyone other than the Great Evil Devil Walmart Boogeyman Whipping Boy, this wouldn't register a tick even on the phenomally-sensitive MeFi Hysterical Outrage Scale.
posted by dios at 8:58 AM on July 27, 2005

Damn, I wanted to make a post on this topic. Mine would have included a link to this week's Atlanta Creative Loafing article.
posted by ijoshua at 8:59 AM on July 27, 2005

Wal-Mart is (justifiably?) proud to hold costs down, but when it's pointed out that they're doing by paying their employees low wages and not offering to subsidize their health care, causing them to seek publically-funded alternatives, the corporation (or its of their managers, anyway) gets all pissy and wants to shut off access to a whistleblowing publication or, failing that, get its offending writer fired. Well, Wal-Mart, if you're so embarrassed by having a the consequences of your low wages/no benefits behavior pointed out, either change it or shrug and live with the criticism of it.
posted by alumshubby at 9:01 AM on July 27, 2005

True enough, Walmart is a penny-grubbing, exploitative company, but I can't think of any company that would be willing to put books claiming that its destroying the world and must be stopped on display for its own customers. Or any media openly criticizing them. They have a happy-face image to project...they don't have to give their critics equal time in their own stores.
posted by leapingsheep at 9:14 AM on July 27, 2005

excellent article, ijoshua - thanks for linking it.

A lot of folks have a lot of good reasons for being upset with Walmart's business practices - crushing any dissenting voices and sponging off of the taxpayer funded safety nets for healthcare are just a few of 'em.
posted by dorcas at 9:14 AM on July 27, 2005

i hope the paper also has the balls to tell wal-mart that they won't be accepting any advertising from them

a long time ago, hudson's ran a page 5 ad in the detroit news all the time ... hudson's took exception to something that was written about them in the paper and threatened to pull their advertising ... the news told them to go to hell and pulled it anyway

hudson's backed off ... and the news accepted it ... but told them they were never going to get the page 5 slot again

it's little things like this that makes me believe that wal-mart's going to overreach itself and get itself in trouble ... did i mention that hudson's no longer exists?
posted by pyramid termite at 9:17 AM on July 27, 2005

Dios: This is such common sense that if it was anyone other than the Great Evil Devil Walmart Boogeyman Whipping Boy, this wouldn't register a tick even on the phenomally-sensitive MeFi Hysterical Outrage Scale.

Why is Dios still here anyway? All he ever does is make hysterical noises.

I love how some keep splitting hairs over distinctions between "legal" and "social" (or "moral") obligations. It shows what a poorly developed sense of moral responsibility you have (really--it's all symptomatic of arrested emotional development). Dios: You put the cart before the horse. The sole reason we have laws is to direct human behavior toward maximizing social benefit--we make laws up to serve our societal interests; the societal interest come first, not the imperfect language we use to attempt to express them. You seem to think laws are some purely abstract entity, divorced from any reality other than the ideal world of law for law's sake. But if we divorce the letter of the law from its intent (explicit and implicit), it loses all meaning and becomes merely another pointless mechanism for exercising authority. How ironic that you talk about common sense if you can't recognize that!
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 9:19 AM on July 27, 2005

Yes, WM isn't required to sell this paper. Neither is any other store. But I think its an ineffective way to stop bad PR (now way more people will hear about this story and the issues behind it than had the WM just kept selling the paper).

And if you want to rely on doing business X, then one ought not disgrace business X. If one wants to disgrace business X, then one ought not be surprised when business is not forthcoming.

So in other words, many of our freedoms (most notably press, speech) are just beholden to our corporate overlords who control the channels (WM, Target, TV stations, etc)? Short of setting up shop on a sidewalk...
posted by SirOmega at 9:21 AM on July 27, 2005

(That is: "societal interests come first"... See what I mean about language and intent not always syncing up?)
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 9:21 AM on July 27, 2005

Why is Dios still here anyway? All he ever does is make hysterical noises.

MeFi-Killfile and gods bless the Greasmonkeys
posted by dorcas at 9:24 AM on July 27, 2005

I love how some keep splitting hairs over distinctions between "legal" and "social" (or "moral") obligations. It shows what a poorly developed sense of moral responsibility you have

Well, I'm the one who made the distinction between a legal and social responsibility for Wal-Mart to carry newspapers in a theoretical town where it's the only newstand.

I think you're incorrect about legal and social/moral obligations being the same. Do I feel a moral obligation to help old ladies cross the street? Yes. Do I think those able to do so also have a moral responsibility there? Yes. Do I think it would "maximize social benefit" for this moral responsibility to become a legal responsibility? Hell no.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 9:24 AM on July 27, 2005

I forgot, Walmart is part of the Pentaverate, who control everything.

Quintaverate. Don't mix Greek and Latin.
posted by kenko at 9:25 AM on July 27, 2005

but I can't think of any company that would be willing to put books claiming that its destroying the world and must be stopped on display for its own customers.

Any good bookstore would.
posted by drezdn at 9:25 AM on July 27, 2005

...Quintavirate. I miss real preview.
posted by kenko at 9:25 AM on July 27, 2005

They wouldn't necessary display it, but they would carry it.
posted by drezdn at 9:26 AM on July 27, 2005

pyramid termite: WalMart doesn't do newspaper advertisements, preferring TV, POS, and circulars, although they did fund a histrionic political ad in Flagstaff, Arizona.
posted by ijoshua at 9:27 AM on July 27, 2005

MeFi-Killfile and gods bless the Greasmonkeys
posted by dorcas at 9:24 AM PST on July 27

Just to make sure I'm not missing this....

You post an FPP making outlandish claims about how wrong it is for a company to "silence" a dissenting viewpoint. And when someone makes a dissenting viewpoint in your thread, you suggest "silencing" the person by Killfiling his comments.

And who said irony is dead.
posted by dios at 9:28 AM on July 27, 2005

Metafilter: Law for Law's Sake.
posted by verb at 9:28 AM on July 27, 2005

I forgot, Walmart is part of the Pentaverate, who control everything.

Quintaverate. Don't mix Greek and Latin.
posted by kenko at 9:25 AM PST on July 27

It's a line from a movie. I used the word they used. Take it up with the screenwriter.
posted by dios at 9:29 AM on July 27, 2005

You post an FPP making outlandish claims about how wrong it is for a company to "silence" a dissenting viewpoint. And when someone makes a dissenting viewpoint in your thread, you suggest "silencing" the person by Killfiling his comments.

And who said irony is dead.

Ha! Point, dios.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:31 AM on July 27, 2005

Espy sez: “The best way to stop this is simply to never shop at Wal-Mart.”

Sorry, that's not enough. Every American taxpayer subsidizes WalMart's low prices through state welfare programs because most of WalMart's employees don't have insurance and cannot afford healthcare.
posted by ijoshua at 9:33 AM on July 27, 2005

You post an FPP making outlandish claims about how wrong it is for a company to "silence" a dissenting viewpoint. And when someone makes a dissenting viewpoint in your thread, you suggest "silencing" the person by Killfiling his comments.

And who said irony is dead.

Dios wins the thread. I've lost the will to live.
posted by FYKshun at 9:33 AM on July 27, 2005

Well, it is WalMart's right to refuse access to a newspaper, otherwise they'd have the Nazi Times being sold at their front door.

And its certainly the paper's right to draw attention to the fact that WalMart's decided to not allow their product to be sold at their place of business.

This isn't a First Amendment issue.

Its not hard to boycott WalMart (unless they've already driven all the competition out of business in your locality). Vote with your wallet and, when enough people do, WalMart will have to change their tune. But that means reaching an enormous number of people that don't care in the least about any of these issues and only care that they can get a 24 pack of toilet paper for $1.87.

Don't like WalMart? Don't shop there. Its pretty simple.
posted by fenriq at 9:33 AM on July 27, 2005

You post an FPP making outlandish claims about how wrong it is for a company to "silence" a dissenting viewpoint. And when someone makes a dissenting viewpoint in your thread, you suggest "silencing" the person by Killfiling his comments.

For someone who splits hairs about the meaning of "free press," you seem pretty blind to the distinction between "ignoring" and "pressuring person to shut up."

You're correct that the government is not censoring this newspaper, and WalMart is not obligated to fund its publication by purchasing advertisements, or facilitate its distribution. But it's also worth noting that WalMart and other oligopolies like it can function as "choke points" more effective than simple government censorship.
posted by verb at 9:34 AM on July 27, 2005

Dios, you're a third-rate troll. How can you connect an individual's desire not to read your ranting with a corporations intent to prevent others from reading a newspaper that criticises them?
posted by ijoshua at 9:36 AM on July 27, 2005

Still, "Walmartians" is a coup.
posted by ToasT at 9:36 AM on July 27, 2005

I think you're incorrect about legal and social/moral obligations being the same. Do I feel a moral obligation to help old ladies cross the street? Yes. Do I think those able to do so also have a moral responsibility there? Yes. Do I think it would "maximize social benefit" for this moral responsibility to become a legal responsibility? Hell no.

Let me rephrase: It's more like a continuum, with acts of ommission that cause social harm at one end, and acts that actively cause social harm on the other. We legislate to discourage the behaviors that most clearly cause social harm. All law begins with social interest. What else would you propose it begins with? Do we just have laws to maintain some arbitrary order of society just for the sake of having things stay in some kind of order? Really? Please propose an alternative motivation for creating laws that doesn't make me roll on the floor laughing my head off.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 9:36 AM on July 27, 2005

dios writes "And when someone makes a dissenting viewpoint in your thread, you suggest 'silencing' the person by Killfiling his comments."

Those of us who use MeFi-killfile do so because *some* people have proven, over the past few months and years, that they have little to nothing to contribute to the threads they appear in.

I don't see how using a killfile prevents other people from seeing said comments. After all since you equate Walmart being able to strong-arm a publisher into ceasing the publication of a book to using a killfile, you are (disingenuously, I might add) implying that it can do so.
posted by clevershark at 9:37 AM on July 27, 2005

yes, dear deeos, I smelled the irony too. It's just that a thorough survey of posts you have hysterified indicates that I can still get the gist of your "arguments" by reading the posts of those poor patient souls who still believe against all odds that they can get through your screens of ignorance -- the killfile just provides me with a tool to tone down the quantity noise to signal.

ps: thanks toast
posted by dorcas at 9:37 AM on July 27, 2005

also, what clevershark said
posted by dorcas at 9:39 AM on July 27, 2005

You post an FPP making outlandish claims about how wrong it is for a company to "silence" a dissenting viewpoint. And when someone makes a dissenting viewpoint in your thread, you suggest "silencing" the person by Killfiling his comments.

And who said irony is dead.

Ha! This from someone who equated dissent with noise, and suggested that government-sponsored censorship was okay for that very reason! Hilarious! J'accuse!
posted by Rothko at 9:39 AM on July 27, 2005

How can you connect an individual's desire not to read your ranting with a corporations intent to prevent others from reading a newspaper that criticises them?

Technically, your assessment of his analogy is wrong, so your conclusions would obviously be wrong as well. An individual is sharing with others a way to effecting "prevent others from reading dissenting opinions", just like Wal-Mart is creating is creating an environment that "prevents others from reading dissenting opinions". True, they are not perfectly analogous, but the irony, and comedy that ensues, are pretty spectacular.

Though I would love to hear now why I'm completely off my rocker and a Bush apologist now, since that's the normal course this discussion usually takes around this point.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:41 AM on July 27, 2005

Sorry, that's not enough.

The reason most people shop there is because of the low prices, which are possible because of the subsidized employees. It doesn't seem like they can pay their employees any less than they are now, so a sustained boycott will inevitably have to be compensated for by higher prices.

Are there any other options as easy to implement as a boycott? Letters to the editor obviously won't work.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 9:42 AM on July 27, 2005

it's little things like this that makes me believe that wal-mart's going to overreach itself and get itself in trouble ... did i mention that hudson's no longer exists?

Actually, the company that owned Hudson's (Dayton Hudson Corp.) changed its name several years back to Target Corp. (I wonder why?). Target then rebranded all of its Hudson's and Dayton's stores as "Marshall Field's" (including Hudson's) and recently sold the division to The May Co., which will rename everything Bloomingdales or Macy's. That being said, Hudson's didn't "go out of business" because it couldn't advertise on page 5 of the Detroit paper...it suffered because people shop at stores like Wal-Mart and Target instead of old-fashioned department stores. By the way, who buys the newspaper at Wal Mart anyway?
posted by Durwood at 9:44 AM on July 27, 2005

Are there any other options as easy to implement as a boycott?

Yeah, fixing our education system so people don't feel "lucky" to work for Wal-Mart, and are instead disgusted that such an educated populace is debased so much so that actual, productive companies like Toyota don't leave the US and instead goto Canada for their new manufacturing plants.

But it seems that Democrats are too busy calling each other names and pointing fingers to make this an issue (Krugman aside).
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:46 AM on July 27, 2005

STD: Whatever. Dorcas is essentially saying, “Hey, if you don't like dios, and you don't want to hear what he has to say, here's what you can do to ignore him. YMMV.”

Whereas, WalMart is trying to say, “We don't like this particular newspaper article and we want the author fired or else we don't want anyone to read anything this newspaper prints.”
posted by ijoshua at 9:48 AM on July 27, 2005

MetaFilter: Who Said Irony is Dead?
posted by voltairemodern at 9:49 AM on July 27, 2005

BTW, in case some of you aren't paying attention, there is a rather profound, and well substantiated, theory that a middle class that is economically strong tends to lead to social progression. So for all of you bitching about gay rights, civil liberties being violated, unequal pay between men and women, racial profiling, etc. etc., remember that unless those crazy, poor white people feel economically satisfied, they will continue to vote with their primal gut instincts (i.e. tax cuts, "deep-rooted" Christian values, etc.).
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:49 AM on July 27, 2005

all-seeing eye dog: I do understand that laws are derived from social interest. But I also understand the disctinction between what I believe would be in the social interest (Wal-Mart selling all newspapers) and what I believe should be legislated (Wal-Mart being forced to sell all newspapers).

Some things can change from being for or against the social interest depending on whether they are required.

and SeizeTheDay: I don't think fixing our education system would be anywhere near as easy as a boycott.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 9:50 AM on July 27, 2005

Yeah...that's an accurate depiction of what dorcas said. ::rolls eyes::
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:51 AM on July 27, 2005

Ha! This from someone who equated dissent with noise, and suggested that government-sponsored censorship was okay for that very reason! Hilarious! J'accuse!
posted by Rothko at 9:39 AM PST on July 27

Look Alex, I know you get off everytime you read one of my comments. But you still seem to fail to grasp how to properly throw my comments back in my face. You rarely ever link to relevant comments for your point.

See, I have no problem with him kill-filing me. I don't see it as censorship or problematic. I could care less. In this thread, I wasn't complaining of his kill-filing. I was pointing out the supreme irony of people for behaving the same way that Walmart did, all the while complaining of that behavior.

As a further note, I thought you were told and agreed to stop trying to cause a personality fight with me. So perhaps you would be well advised to quit your pathetic trolling of me.
posted by dios at 9:51 AM on July 27, 2005

STD: those "crazy, poor white people" who apparently feel economically dissatisfied voted for a guy that says "everything's peachy" instead of the guy that said "we can do better".

The theory you cite might be profound and substantiated, but your tangential inference from it makes no sense.
posted by clevershark at 9:53 AM on July 27, 2005

As a further note, I thought you were told and agreed to stop trying to cause a personality fight with me. So perhaps you would be well advised to quit your pathetic trolling of me.

I'm simply quoting you directly. Your inconsistent views on censorship are prescient to the discussion. Please don't accuse me of trolling again, either.
posted by Rothko at 9:56 AM on July 27, 2005

The reason most people shop there is because of the low prices, which are possible because of the subsidized employees. It doesn't seem like they can pay their employees any less than they are now, so a sustained boycott will inevitably have to be compensated for by higher prices.

The problem is that people like the low prices. Even some people who oppose Walmart in the abstract and would protest it still sometimes admit they like to shop there. It obviously provides a social good to some people.

But I find this argument about "subsidizing" peculiar. Suppose, hypothetically, we moved to a national healthcare system. It is then argued that the government is subsidizing every corporation? Doesn't Walmart pay money to the federal government now based on how many employees they have? Isn't Medicare a public good as opposed to a subsidy?
posted by dios at 9:57 AM on July 27, 2005

Your inconsistent views on censorship are prescient to the discussion. Please don't accuse me of trolling again, either.
posted by Rothko at 9:56 AM PST on July 27

That's the point AlexReynolds, my views are inconsistent. I am not complaining about it here; I don't think there is anything wrong with limiting expression. I was pointing out the irony of the poster, here. If you had one single shred of fairness in you, you could admit that your point is wrong.

You are trolling me. You are intentionally causing a personality conflict.
posted by dios at 9:59 AM on July 27, 2005

Obviously, that last one should say my views "aren't" inconsistent.

But, I'm sure some petty individual will try to make hay out of what is effectively a typo.
posted by dios at 10:00 AM on July 27, 2005

Technically, your assessment of his analogy is wrong, so your conclusions would obviously be wrong as well. An individual is sharing with others a way to effecting "prevent others from reading dissenting opinions", just like Wal-Mart is creating is creating an environment that "prevents others from reading dissenting opinions". True, they are not perfectly analogous, but the irony, and comedy that ensues, are pretty spectacular.

Technically your analysis of his analysis is wrong, since walmart didn't just leave a card next to the rack of papers saying 'we don't like this paper, they say mean things about us'. If he was able to kick dios out of the thread then you might have some ground.

Though I would love to hear now why I'm completely off my rocker and a Bush apologist now, since that's the normal course this discussion usually takes around this point.

You poor thing.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:00 AM on July 27, 2005

I wasn't referring to the election, at all. I was referring to voting, shopping, and occupational habits. i.e. voting "Christian" values (against gay marriage, against abortion, against "evil" terrorists); shopping at a place that affords them simple luxuries (Wal-Mart is so cheap that even a family at the poverty line can fill their house with fanciful merchandise); working for 6-12 bucks an hour because their educational system is so broken that they can't afford, and are not being taught, real world skills and knowledge.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:00 AM on July 27, 2005

Suppose, hypothetically, we moved to a national healthcare system. It is then argued that the government is subsidizing every corporation?

But we don't have national healthcare and the current system isn't designed to be treated as if we do.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 10:00 AM on July 27, 2005

But, I'm sure some petty individual will try to make hay out of what is effectively a typo.

Pre-emptive declaration of martyrdom seems to be all the rage today.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:03 AM on July 27, 2005

I call it "persecution fantasies".
posted by clevershark at 10:04 AM on July 27, 2005

If he was able to kick dios out of the thread then you might have some ground.

That's precisely what a killfile accomplishes. It kicks people out of threads. And the more who use such technology, the more real the "censorship" becomes.

And I'm not trying to defend dios here. All Im suggesting is that dios's comment was spot-on in depicting the irony associated with dorcas's comment.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:05 AM on July 27, 2005

“But we don't have national healthcare and the current system isn't designed to be treated as if we do.”

Furthermore, WalMart is abusing the system with a disproportionate number of employees dependent upon state-funded healthcare. If you read the Creative Loafing article to which I linked, you'd see the numbers. WalMart employs 1.15% of the working populace. [More than any other entity besides the U.S. Government itself.] Yet, they account for 6% of the children covered by PeachCare in Georgia.
posted by ijoshua at 10:06 AM on July 27, 2005

SeizeTheDay: An individual is sharing with others a way to effecting "prevent others from reading dissenting opinions"...

No. GreaseMonkey scripts don't have the AI mojo to eliminate "dissenting opinions." All the Killfile script does is eliminate posts made by a particular poster. The contents of those posts do not influence the script's operation.

The offline equivalent might be if a newspaper reader used a razor blade to slash out a particular writer's column from the reader's single copy of the paper every day.

Such behavior effects only one person's reading of only one person's writing. To try and draw parallels between such a thing and Wal-Mart's bullying tactics is absurd.

The two use different methods to achieve different goals. Wal-Mart is (clumsily) attempting to do what it can to control people's opinions about it; the killfile user is just trying to reduce how much noise he has to slog through, without changing what anyone else gets to see.
posted by Western Infidels at 10:09 AM on July 27, 2005

That's precisely what a killfile accomplishes. It kicks people out of threads. And the more who use such technology, the more real the "censorship" becomes.

You're being obtuse.

The more people learn to dart their eyes to the bottom of a comment and see 'dios' and learn to not bother wasting their time reading it the more real your version of "censorship" becomes as well.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:09 AM on July 27, 2005

Oh for Pete's sake.

It was a pithy comment showing that someone decrying an entity's silencing of a dissenting viewpoint from that entity is ironic when juxtaposed with his advice that an entity can (and should) silence a dissenting viewpoint for that entity. Of course I wasn't arguing it was perfectly analogous in the specifics. It was about the overall flavor.

I can't believe this is being argued. Much less being argued by a person who calls other people obtuse.
posted by dios at 10:14 AM on July 27, 2005

Space Coyote, you don't even know me. We've never spoken to each other on this board, we've never met, and quite frankly I'm getting rather annoyed now by your completely uncalled for attacks against me. Twice now you've called effectively acted like an asshole, in a span of 15 minutes. Are you so opposed to those who might acknowledge an ounce of intelligence in someone whom you don't like that you'd pounce on them as well?

Wal-Mart is (clumsily) attempting to do what it can to control people's opinions about it

Selling the idea of a killfile to others against a certain member here does the equivalent of attempting to "control people's opinions". A killfile actively ignores everything one poster says. It effectively changes the information presented on this board to reflect the killfile user's preferences. Wal-Mart, by NOT PRESENTING certain opinions, does a similar act. Obviously, as I've said twice now, the analogy isn't perfect. But within the context shown here, the irony is still humorous (or was, until a bunch of you decided to beat this horse until it was dead).
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:17 AM on July 27, 2005

Can we go back to talking about the Pentaverate?
posted by Espy Gillespie at 10:17 AM on July 27, 2005

May I be in your Mefi killfiles please?
posted by davy at 10:19 AM on July 27, 2005

my views are inconsistent.

If you admit your views are inconsistent, Dios, your views become subject to scrutiny on that basis. So don't accuse trolling (from you, of all people on this site) when others legitimately observe how your "point" lacks credibility.
posted by Rothko at 10:20 AM on July 27, 2005

SeizeTheDay-- ever read Krugman with a critical eye?

And the claims of Wal-Mart "abusing" Medicaid are pretty rich. After all, for better or worse, we've decided through the democratic process that people whose labor can't be sold for enough money to let them afford things like health care will have it subsidized for them with government money obtained through a system of progressive taxation.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:21 AM on July 27, 2005

LOL. Link to my story. Film at eleven!
posted by jmccorm at 10:22 AM on July 27, 2005

I'm a little dubious of the line that Walmart employees are disproportionately on government assistance. They might be more so than the general population, but they come from a lower income level that is far more likely to rely on government assistance than the general population anyway.

In the USA Today article the figure is given that 86% of Walmart employees have health insurance the most recent CDC figures indicate that at the time of the survey(a good snapshot, 14.6 percent of people did not have health insurance, about the same rate as Walmart employees without health insurance.

The figures are going to be a little off since Walmart employees will make up a portion of both samples, but they seem relatively consistent.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 10:23 AM on July 27, 2005

With America's obsession with low prices, I'm convinced our country is going to cheap itself to death. For example, one of my jobs is at a bookstore. We had "Harry Potter" for $17.99 (at a store that gives decent benefits and pays a reasonable wage), a woman said she wouldn't buy it with us because Walmart had it for $15.99. The nearest Walmart would take approx 1 gallon of gas at $2.40 a gallon to get too.

Then people point out that things are cheaper on the Internet. Yes, yes they are, but if you buy exclusively off the internet, the only jobs available for your children in retail will be order fufillment in giant warehouses. *grumble, grumble*
posted by drezdn at 10:26 AM on July 27, 2005

Kwanstar, the link associated with "eye" is a good one. Thanks.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:27 AM on July 27, 2005

Anyway, why is everyone still beating this mefi-killfile issue to death? It doesn't even work with the latest issue of Greasemonkey, which is pretty much mandatory considering the security holes that existed in the previous edition. Not that it'll stop anyone from bitching about it, I'm sure.
posted by clevershark at 10:28 AM on July 27, 2005

dios: Oh for Pete's sake. It was a pithy comment... Of course I wasn't arguing it was perfectly analogous in the specifics. It was about the overall flavor.

I see two ways to interpret this:

1) The facts are less important to dios than the chance to be pithy.

2) dios knows his point is just well-flavored rubbish, but he'll defend it to the death anyhow.

Even a moment's thought shows the Wal-Mart and killfile situations aren't even vaguely synonomous. The actors in those situations have different goals which they pursue through different techniques which cause different side effects. How are they similar at all? Because they both involve reading?

I can't believe this is being argued.

Yeah, me neither. Maybe you should, you know, apologize and give it up.
posted by Western Infidels at 10:29 AM on July 27, 2005

kwantsar, it's true that wal-mart seem to be legally within their rights to take unfair advantage of georgia's taxpayers, we're simply pointing this out.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:29 AM on July 27, 2005

Wow. I am prescient:

Obviously, that last one should say my views "aren't" inconsistent.

But, I'm sure some petty individual will try to make hay out of what is effectively a typo.
posted by dios at 10:00 AM PST on July 27

If you admit your views are inconsistent, Dios, your views become subject to scrutiny on that basis.
posted by Rothko at 10:20 AM PST on July 27
posted by dios at 10:29 AM on July 27, 2005

That's great, dios, have a cookie.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:33 AM on July 27, 2005

And if you want to rely on doing business X, then one ought not disgrace business X. If one wants to disgrace business X, then one ought not be suprised when business is not forthcoming.

I don't think the paper disgraced Walmart. Walmart did that on its own. The paper merely reported it. The manager's extortion like demand to see the article's author fired is pretty bad and it makes Walmart look bad. If I were his boss I would make him apologize, publicly.
posted by caddis at 10:56 AM on July 27, 2005

MetaFilter: The facts are less important ... than the chance to be pithy.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:00 AM on July 27, 2005

Only ugly people and trash shop at Wal-Mart. End of story, end of thread.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:08 AM on July 27, 2005

Stop the presses...!

Looks like WM HQ is pulling the plug on this maverick manager's hamhanded censorship of the local newspaper.

"We did make an error in judgment by removing the papers from our stores," Wal-Mart Stores Inc. spokeswoman Sharon Weber said in an e-mail from company headquarters in Bentonville, Ark. "They should be available in our stores by the end of the week."

this appology not quite as godwin-y as this other one.
posted by dorcas at 11:34 AM on July 27, 2005

Man, dios sure can make some people say stupid shit.
posted by Carbolic at 11:51 AM on July 27, 2005

Only ugly people and trash shop at Wal-Mart. End of story, end of thread.

ha ha ha, Optimus Chyme is better than you.
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:58 AM on July 27, 2005

No, Optimus Chyme shops only at Wal-Mart.
posted by caddis at 12:17 PM on July 27, 2005

I cannot believe that Wal-Mart threatened to stop carrying a paper because they published a column (a column) critical of it and demanded the author of that column be fired, the paper refused, Wal-Mart stopped carrying the paper - that's the definition of corporate tampering with the press here - and Dios thinks this is a healthy way for the world to work. And he's so incredibly vocal over the issue, too.

Pardon my overuse of italics, but it seemed appropriate at the time.
posted by JHarris at 12:34 PM on July 27, 2005

It's true. I get on my stirrup pants and my special sweatshirt with the Dale Earnhardt collage and then me and the kids go and they scream and then I smack em around for a while, then I usually pick up a Sylvia Browne book and a Bigmouth Billy Bass and then I abuse the employees because it's the only way I can feel in control of my small, sad life. Good times.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:35 PM on July 27, 2005

I cannot believe that Wal-Mart threatened to . . .

Wal-Mart did not, some local manager at Wal-Mart did. Read dorcas's last comment and you will see that Wal-Mart has reversed this manager's decision. Dios also did not say that this was a healthy way for the world to work (if he did I missed it); he said that the actions taken by this manager do not violate the First Amendment, and he is right in that.
posted by caddis at 12:40 PM on July 27, 2005

For there to have been a 1st amendment violation I believe you would need some state (or "state-like") actor. No matter how much you enjoy hating Wal-Mart (or dios) I don't think they meet the bill. I thought that was obvious. Now I understand why I was confused by so many of the comments.
posted by Carbolic at 12:52 PM on July 27, 2005

Christ, this thread sucks.

I do however, want to add to it a reference to GM's decision earlier this year to stop advertising in the LA Times because of what they perceived as editorial unfairness. A much bigger move, economically speaking, than this incident with the Pensacola Wal*Mart. Personally, I thought it made GM look petty and vindictive: pretty counterproductive for a company that seems so image-conscious.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:06 PM on July 27, 2005

The biggest part of the problem, and something that I haven't seen articulated here, is the increased corporatization of the public space. When Wal-Mart doubles for your public square, and then refuses to honor the traditional components of a public space, you'll have a de facto limiting of debated and discourse. But while it limits the freedom of speech, and is a dangerous thing (especially from a Millian view of liberty), it's not something that the government should step in to oppose, except through providing more opportunities for public space and encouraging community. And that's hard, partly because there's rarely any money in it.
(Oh, and All Seeing, the model that you were putting forth earlier, that laws exist to further the social sphere, would be the democratic view of the state. The other view that could be espoused is that laws exist to protect individual rights, not to foster society. Granted, you can argue that society is best served by the protection of individual rights [like, again, JS Mill], but the tension between the individual and society is at the heart the same as the tension between democracy and liberalism in our Republic.)
posted by klangklangston at 1:07 PM on July 27, 2005

It's true. I get on my stirrup pants and my special sweatshirt with the Dale Earnhardt collage and then me and the kids go and they scream and then I smack em around for a while...

... then I trot out a few more tired old stereotypes because it's easier than thinking for myself and trying to understand the world around me as anything more than my own solipsistic ass and the one dimensional characters it elevates me to take potshots at because it's the only way I can feel in control of my small, sad life.

You are such a herb.
posted by Divine_Wino at 1:12 PM on July 27, 2005

“I'm a little dubious of the line that Walmart employees are disproportionately on government assistance. They might be more so than the general population, but they come from a lower income level that is far more likely to rely on government assistance than the general population anyway.”

Maybe it's just me, but this seems like circular logic which fails to refute my point. Isn't the notion that WalMart's employees are generally at a lower income level a little suspicious? Maybe it has to do with the fact that their average hourly wage is at or below the poverty level?

And, reading the context of that 86% figure, that includes people who are covered by other plans. In this Frontline article, WalMart officials reportedly claim that figure is 90%. This UCFW report claims that only 47% of WalMart employees are covered by the company's plan. Additionally, part-time workers who opt for WalMart's coverage are only eligible for individual coverage, and must work 34 hours per week for 2 years before they qualify.
posted by ijoshua at 1:43 PM on July 27, 2005

You are such a herb.
posted by Divine_Wino at 1:12 PM PST on July 27

You kids are pretty sensitive today. It's true that not all Wal-Mart shoppers fit that profile, but it's certainly its most visible demographic. Sorry to hurt your feelings; may I suggest this fine product?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:56 PM on July 27, 2005

Optimus Chyme: zing!
posted by ijoshua at 1:58 PM on July 27, 2005

Are there any other options as easy to implement as a boycott? Letters to the editor obviously won't work.

Well, there's always terrorism. Not advocating, just listing it as an option. But everyone knows terrorism never works and nobody negotiates with terrorists, ever. Plus it's evil and illegal and no one should ever do that. I'm sorry the thought even entered my head.

Personally I'd be more inclined to foment mass pranks and shenanigans. Perhaps subtle sabotage from within...

Even better, hire away Wal-Mart's low-wage staff, and give them dignified jobs with benefits. Oh wait, we offshored those didn't we? Oops, sorry.

Well, failing those options, we could always unionize the workers. Everyone knows Wal-Mart plays fair with unions, right?

working for 6-12 bucks an hour because their educational system is so broken that they can't afford, and are not being taught, real world skills and knowledge.

But the skills in demand at Wal-Mart are "real world". Someone has to do those jobs, no matter how great our educational system is. If we could wave a magic wand and raise the educational bar so everyone had a Ph.D., we'd have Ph.D.s reshelving underwear at the Wal-Mart.
posted by beth at 2:01 PM on July 27, 2005

My feelings aren't hurt chief, I've never even been near a walmart. I just think you are an asshole and a sucker who frequently pops out with a content free comment meant to demean everyone who isn't like you. I'm not a baby because I can't stand your elitist, everybody look how cool I am bullshit. But let's call it quits, we'll never agree on anything.
posted by Divine_Wino at 2:13 PM on July 27, 2005

Divine_Wino is a genius. so is beth. there's nothing more honorable than working for a living.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 2:16 PM on July 27, 2005

DIOS WINS


LOL
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:38 PM on July 27, 2005

there's nothing more honorable than working for a living.

I don't think anyone's claiming otherwise, a-sed.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 2:43 PM on July 27, 2005

optimus chyme: didn't mean to misinterpret; personal sensitivity on this subject made me react a little defensively (to nothing, as it turns out). strange how that happens.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 2:59 PM on July 27, 2005

Well, yeah: I have no beef with Wal-Mart employees. I hope that's clear. They have difficult jobs that don't pay nearly as well as they should, which is why I find their customers' antics so horrific and depressing.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:01 PM on July 27, 2005

As someone who lives in Pensacola, saying "just go elsewhere" isn't as easy as it sounds. Walmart is everywhere, open 24 hours. Don't want to go to Walmart? Try Kmart...big difference.

And while I understand the stereotypes optimus chyme likes to go on about, it's simply not true. Lawyers, doctors, florists, teachers, everyone goes to walmart in this area.
posted by justgary at 7:58 PM on July 27, 2005

Walmart is the new US national poorhouse.

Or maybe it's a kinder, gentler plantation/system.
posted by troutfishing at 9:12 PM on July 27, 2005

I've heard some pretty compelling arguments that Wal-Mart is a larger scale, modern-day equivalent of the old, corrupt "company stores" since in some rural communities, Wal-Mart is effectively the only employer and the only provider of retail goods (or is that what you had in mind with "plantation system," troutfishing?).
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 8:49 AM on July 28, 2005