Andrew Sullivan Throws Hissy Fit at Amazon "Adult" De-Linking
The Los Angeles Times notes, "One of these books has been removed from Amazon's sales rankings because of "adult" content; the other has not":
"American Psycho" is Bret Easton Ellis' story of a sadistic murderer. "Unfriendly Fire" is a well-reviewed empirical analysis of military policy. But it's "Unfriendly Fire" that does not have a sales rank - which means it would not show up in Amazon's bestseller lists, even if it sold more copies than the "Twilight" series. In some cases, being de-ranked also means being removed from Amazon's search results.
Unfair? Perhaps ... But boy does this ever throw Andrew Sullivan into a hissy fit!
This has to be one of the weirdest and least defensible policy changes imaginable. Mein Kampf is fine. Jackie Collins is fine. But books about gay subjects are now "adult" on Amazon and so not included on best seller lists or rankings. Sure enough, "Virtually Normal" and "Love Undetectable" have been de-listed and stripped of customer sales rankings. Jackie Collins' "Married Lovers" hasn't. My books contain discussions of Aquinas and Freud and Foucault and Burke. I'm puzzled as to why those authors are more "adult" than Collins' adulterous couplings.
Hmm, "weird" and "indefensible"? Kind of like Iowa's same-sex marriage ruling. Go figure?
There is only one thing that destroys marriage, its called divorce, and straight couples do that all the time. Maybe they should get thier own house in order before trying to clean ours.
ReplyDeleteEvery book should be treated by the same criteria. It matters not whether I will read it or not. If only the Left was less hypocritical in this area when they attempt to stop books from the Right or Tea parties.
ReplyDeleteDennis is right. All books, even on subjects that I find reprehensible, should be available to those who want to read them.
ReplyDeleteYes, even Ann Coulter deserves to be misread!
ReplyDeleteSullivan has a valid point Don but your constant knee-jerk reactions to him somehow hide this fact from your understanding.
ReplyDeleteAlso, turns out that the temporary change at Amazon was a glitch.
That PJMedia article has to be one of the worst attacks on the decision I've yet read.
ReplyDelete---------------------------
For example, the court adopted malleable postmodern conception of right when it declared that “equal protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.” Oh yeah? Can the function of marriage be so easily discredited as a unique and historically-privileged familial bond between man and woman?
----------------------------
I mean, come on. This is a quote from one line of a relatively uncontroversial claim that the long-standing existence of a practice doesn't exempt it from constitutional scrutiny. What's the alternative? That Loving v. Virginia (to take one example) was wrongly decided because, well, anti-miscegenation laws have deep historical roots?
Anyway, the real purpose of my comment is to ask what's with all this "hissy fit" stuff? It sure reads like gay-baiting.