[patrickthehedgehog]

I've noticed since moving to Seattle, WA from Texas that people are far more into this kind of stuff than I'm normally used to. I guess something has to take the place of all the super conservative religious nut-jobs I put up with back in Texas.

It's hard to try to explain to people that these things are useless and possibly harmful to their health because all they do is call you "close-minded" and continue to be blissfully ignorant. Some people have to learn the hard way (or just waste a lot of money).

I'd hesitate to talk to your possibly "new age" boss about this, but stand by your morals and avoid peddling this crap if you can. When you figure out a non-confrontational method that works well please let me know!

[ConfusingJazz]

It's a private business. It can sell or not sell anything it wants. It doesn't restrict anyone's access to the information because they can still buy it somewhere else. This is really a ridiculous line of thought.

Comic book stores now forced to sell new age health books to avoid censorship accusations.

[LakeEarth]

It blows my mind that you still see Q-Ray commercials on TV.

[davepoobond]

I don't know that it would be considered censorship as they can get it just as easily elsewhere. Also I don't really mind even if it is censorship

you're right, its called GATEKEEPING.

censorship can only be done by the government.

[marrec]

It blows my mind that you still see Q-Ray commercials on TV.

It blows my mind that people still sell Power Balance.

[SuperEpicMan]

I would say continue to sell it, but caution people who buy it. Any author has a right to voice his opinion or knowledge whether that be completely false or not, it is the readers who should decide whether that book is relevant to them or not.

Also, there are many ideas or sciences which are recognised as pseudo sciences today which may not be tomorrow. I do biomedical science and we often talk about things which would normally be considered faux science, but have very factual scientific bases such as biological immortality and stopping ageing.

[Hawkian]

you're right, its called GATEKEEPING. censorship can only be done by the government.

Well that's like crazily wrong. I'm all for the point you guys are making but we don't need to just corrupt the denotation of words :P

[KHarvey16]

I would say continue to sell it, but caution people who buy it. Any author has a right to voice his opinion or knowledge whether that be completely false or not, it is the readers who should decide whether that book is relevant to them or not. Also, there are many ideas or sciences which are recognised as pseudo sciences today which may not be tomorrow. I do biomedical science and we often talk about things which would normally be considered faux science, but have very factual scientific bases such as biological immortality and stopping ageing.

A writer can still write whatever they like. A writer has no right to have their book sold in this specific store.

[davepoobond]

Well that's like crazily wrong. I'm all for the point you guys are making but we don't need to just corrupt the denotation of words :P

lol, how is it wrong? True censorship can only be done by a legal entity.

Some dude who works at a bookstore is not someone who can censor a book. He can only prevent you from buying them. Which means he can gatekeep the information from people, but true censorship would be a banning of a book from all the stores across the nation, and that can only be enabled by the government.

If wal-mart decided to not sell the book, that would be considered a form of Gatekeeping, because they are choosing not to allow the book to be distributed, but they are not censoring the book.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekee...mmunication%29

[Hawkian]

*sigh*

Can you provide me an example of a single definition that specifies that censorship can only be done by "a legal entity?"

A moderator on NeoGAF can very easily censor something any of its posters say. A private school can (and frequently will) censor content they deem inappropriate from being accessed by their students. A musical artist's lyrics can be intentionally created with both an uncensored and censored version to be used for radio play, and there is of course a such thing as self-censorship as well.

To be clear, I'm not taking issue with your characterization of what the OP is trying to accomplish as "gatekeeping," just with the claim that only the government or "a legal entity" is capable of censorship.

[davepoobond]

*sigh* Can you provide me an example of a single definition that specifies that censorship can only be done by "a legal entity?" A moderator on NeoGAF can very easily censor something any of its posters say. A private school can (and frequently will) censor content they deem inappropriate from being accessed by their students. A musical artist's lyrics can be created with both an uncensored and censored version to be used for radio play, and there is of course a such thing as self-censorship as well. To be clear, I'm not taking issue with your characterization of what the OP is trying to accomplish as "gatekeeping," just with the claim that only the government or "a legal entity" is capable of censorship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

the key word is "controlling body." This man who works at a bookstore is not a controlling body.

self-censorship is essentially gatekeeping brought on by a chilling effect of being actually censored, which is where the gray area comes in between the two words.

Schools are considered controlling bodies, and you can say they are censoring because they are a governmental institution. A private school would be gatekeeping in the same case.

A music artist's lyrics being "bleeped out" is a form of censorship, because the government's CONTROLLING BODY known as the FCC deems certain words as inappropriate. Any other words that are bleeped out would be considered self-censorship because they don't want to be legally censored. Self-censorship happens on Cable because they don't want the FCC to actually make it illegal for them to say those words if they want to, even though they have absolutely no power over them.

Self-censorship is only present because they don't want to get into trouble legally with a government.

[daviyoung]

You guys have clearly spent too long in the reference section.

[Hawkian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship the key word is "controlling body." This man who works at a bookstore is not a controlling body. self-censorship is essentially gatekeeping brought on by a chilling effect of being actually censored, which is where the gray area comes in between the two words. Schools are considered controlling bodies, and you can say they are censoring because they are a governmental institution. A private school would be gatekeeping in the same case. A music artist's lyrics being "bleeped out" is a form of censorship, because the government's CONTROLLING BODY known as the FCC deems certain words as inappropriate. Any other words that are bleeped out would be considered self-censorship because they don't want to be legally censored.

Dude, there's no way you're this obtuse...?

Second line of what you just linked me to: "It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals"

The moving of the goalposts from "only the government" to "a legal entity" to "controlling body" is a joke in and of itself... there's no chance you want to admit you were just slightly mistaken about the definition of the word?

And this right here:

Self-censorship happens on Cable because they don't want the FCC to actually make it illegal for them to say those words if they want to, even though they have absolutely no power over them. Self-censorship is only present because they don't want to get into trouble legally with a government.

You're seriously misunderstanding the situation.... the FCC only has authority to fine standard broadcast channels. If something on cable TV or premium radio bleeps out a word or uses something in place of profanity or has black bars across nudity, that is in fact self-censorship with no other "CONTROLLING BODY" calling the shots, and it's done out of respect for the perceived sensitivities of the audience, not because "they don't want to be legally censored."

Ah man. I agree with the point you were making in that I'm not altogether sure what the OP is advocating could in good conscience be called censorship. But it's still important to know what censorship is!

[davepoobond]

Dude, there's no way you're this obtuse...? Second line of what you just linked me to: "It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals"

you forgot to finish the quote..

"It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship."


Which I addressed "self-censorship" with the following: "self-censorship is essentially gatekeeping brought on by a chilling effect of being actually censored, which is where the gray area comes in between the two words."

The moving of the goalposts from "only the government" to "a legal entity" to "controlling body" is a joke in and of itself... there's no chance you want to admit you were just slightly mistaken about the definition of the word?

i only started using controlling body because that is a more appropriate phrase to say, and it was in the article I linked. but it is still essentially a government. what else is a truly controlling body?

You're seriously misunderstanding the situation.... the FCC only has authority to fine standard broadcast channels. If something on cable TV or premium radio bleeps out a word or uses something in place of profanity or has black bars across nudity, that is in fact self-censorship with no other "CONTROLLING BODY" calling the shots, and it's done out of respect for the perceived sensitivities of the audience, not because "they don't want to be legally censored." Ah man. I agree with the point you were making in that I'm not altogether sure what the OP is advocating could in good conscience be called censorship. But it's still important to know what censorship is!

that's one interpretation of why cable channels self-censor themselves. All the reasons under the sun are out there as to why they self-censor themselves. All the cable companies didn't get together and say "ok, this is the reason why we are censoring ourselves."

Of course having no nudity or bad words etc is to appeal to the people that are watching your cable channel, and it is an element of it for sure, but that is not the sole reason behind it.

[Hawkian]

you forgot to finish the quote.. "It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship."

It's clear to you that the words in the rest of the sentence make the clause "individuals who engage in self-censorship," right?

Which I addressed "self-censorship" with the following: "self-censorship is essentially gatekeeping brought on by a chilling effect of being actually censored, which is where the gray area comes in between the two words."

Okay? Are we agreeing that it is censorship, or are you saying that it's not censorship at all?

i only started using controlling body because that is a more appropriate phrase to say, and it was in the article I linked. but it is still essentially a government. what else is a truly controlling body?

A school? A message board? A videogame? A newspaper? And crucially, a controlling body is not required at all in the case of "an individual engaging in self-censorship" for any reason at all.

that's one interpretation of why cable channels self-censor themselves. All the reasons under the sun are out there as to why they self-censor themselves. All the cable companies didn't get together and say "ok, this is the reason why we are censoring ourselves." Of course having no nudity or bad words etc is to appeal to the people that are watching your cable channel, and it is an element of it for sure, but that is not the sole reason behind it.

Okay, I happily concede this point! We cannot possibly intuit the motivation of every unregulated media venue to censor itself; can we agree that it is still censorship?

btw, I apologize for the derail everyone- I expected this to be a simple clarification of an inaccurately-defined word.

[Adam Blade]

What's wrong with homeopathy?

[Anilones]

What's wrong with homeopathy?

What's right with it? When people put such belief in it over conventional medicine, there's a significant amount that is wrong.

[marrec]

What's wrong with homeopathy?

:lol

What's wrong with fake ass shit?

[oxrock]

People look for this garbage when they don't like what conventional science has to say. Let idiots be idiots and hopefully they'll find a way to kill themselves with that garbage.

[Kinitari]

My point is that people are curious for knowledge right or wrong. If you filter knowledge with your biases what does that make you? Do you sell religious books in your store?

Just by having the book under 'Health' - he is filtering the knowledge. If he wants to be more intellectually honest, he can re-categorize it, and it's a win win.

What's wrong with homeopathy?

It doesn't make any sense? It can be dangerous?

My girlfriend's sister is into homeopathy - she's a nice girl and I don't see her often so I don't say a peep when she brings it up, but if she were to get sick and said "Ugh, I'm really not feeling good, I think I am going to go to my homeopath" I would say "Maybe go to a regular doctor as well, get a second opinion". As soon as someone thinks they can cure what ails them by drinking water (that's LITERALLY what it is) than I feel the need to step in.

[patrickthehedgehog]

People look for this garbage when they don't like what conventional science has to say. Let idiots be idiots and hopefully they'll find a way to kill themselves with that garbage.

That's one way to approach it!

[OttomanScribe]

My point is that people are curious for knowledge right or wrong. If you filter knowledge with your biases what does that make you?

It isn't based on my biases, it is based on what can be conceivably assumed to have some efficacy. If something is placed in the 'health' section, yet has no form of provable medical efficacy, then placing it in health is a falsehood.

If people are curious about knowledge, then they need to know what is and what is not knowledge.

Do you sell religious books in your store?

No, why?

I would say continue to sell it, but caution people who buy it. Any author has a right to voice his opinion or knowledge whether that be completely false or not, it is the readers who should decide whether that book is relevant to them or not.

Sure, they can voice their opinion, but similarly I can not sell their crap. If I don't like, say, the book 'Little Coffee Shop of Kabul' and I think it is garbage, then I don't have to sell it in the store. Simple really.

Our store is a niche shop, we sell good quality often rare and quirky books, if we don't want to sell trash, we don't have to. Same goes for bs health claims. Just as when someone asks me 'what do you think of this book' and my reply is, after ensuring that they want honesty, 'it is unadulterated garbage', I am entitled to do the same in relation to unadulterated garbage books.

[CornBurrito]

You'll be the best salesperson at your workplace and live smugly knowing you are doing Darwin's work. What a two-fer.

Oh please explain how he'd be doing Darwin's work.

What genes would be selected against in this instance?

Also guys, Adam Blade peddles homeopathy in any thread remotely related to it. Ignore him for your own sanity. He never offers evidence, and instead goes for the Big Pharma conspiracy tactic.

[shira]

It isn't based on my biases, it is based on what can be conceivably assumed to have some efficacy. If something is placed in the 'health' section, yet has no form of provable medical efficacy, then placing it in health is a falsehood. If people are curious about knowledge, then they need to know what is and what is not knowledge.?

I don't really think that is your job to judge the quality of knowledge if you have no medical training. You work at a store designed for profit not a medical library. Also the section is called "health" - a very broad definition in which all sorts of things fall into.

No, why?

I'm very curious as to what you would say to someone who tried to buy a religious book that is not in agreement with your concept of religion. Would you also feel conflicted or does your comfort/discomfort level only extend to health & medicine advice.

[esquire]

So I work at a bookstore located near a major hospital. I like my job, I get to talk a lot about books, the store is a bit famous so lots of interesting people/travellers come in, and I don't have to sell any suss stuff that I am not comfortable with. However there is one thing, we have a health section. This health section is full of quackery. You name the BS faux medicine, and it'll be there, claiming to cure everything from anxiety to cancer. What is the morality of selling such dangerous pseudo science. Should I refuse to sell it? Try and get my boss to cease stocking it? Or is it none of my business what dangerous snake oil bs people buy? My current policy is to talk them out of it if I am asked their opinion, and to recommend other books, like Ben Goldacre's 'Bad Science' when they don't ask.

Quite frankly I'm surprised you woud even work in a place that sells something you find morally objectionable. The issue here isn't that some people might want to buy it (that's their choice), the issue is that you would choose to be a part of something you found morally objectionable. It's hypocritical. It says a lot more about how you feel about your moral values more than anything else.

[OttomanScribe]

I don't really think that is your job to judge the quality of knowledge if you have no medical training. You work at a store designed for profit not a medical library. Also the section is called "health" - a very broad definition in which all sorts of things fall into.

I'm not the one making such judgements though am I. It is the medical profession that does so. If something is presenting itself as a cure to specific ailments, in absence of any evidence, then I don't think it should be in the health section, no matter how broad 'health' may be.

I'm very curious as to what you would say to someone who tried to buy a religious book that is not in agreement with your concept of religion. Would you also feel conflicted or does your comfort/discomfort level only extend to health & medicine advice.

We don't sell religious books, which is one of the reasons I work there. It means I don't have to sell books that contradict with my beliefs, as my levle of discomfort does extend in that direction. The exception of course being atheist manifestos like that of Hitchens and Dawkins, but they are classified in 'cultural studies' rather than 'religion' or 'science', so there is no issue.

[OttomanScribe]

Quite frankly I'm surprised you woud even work in a place that sells something you find morally objectionable. The issue here isn't that some people might want to buy it (that's their choice), the issue is that you would choose to be a part of something you found morally objectionable. It's hypocritical. It says a lot more about how you feel about your moral values more than anything else.

What specifically is hypocritical here? What does it say about how I feel about my moral values?

[DiscoJer]

Kevin Trudeau's book Natural Cures They Don't Want You to Know About (and his TV infomercial) advised people to drink spoonfuls of vinegar if they have acid reflux disease to trick your body into producing less acid. When we were a less informed folk, my mother and I tried it. Never again.

My father drinks that for it. Apple Cider Vinegar though.

He says it works.

Me, I take generic Xantac for it.

[OttomanScribe]

Sad thing is that excessive consumption of vinegar is linked to stomach cancer.

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Kevin Trudeau's hilarious. I can't believe he even puts "they" in quotation marks. Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About. His TV show and book seem to be somewhat self-aware, yet they seemingly do quite well.

[DragonGirl]

Alt med quackery can straight up kill you. It can, has, and continues to do so. Examples:

http://whatstheharm.net/

And personal anecdote: I had a roommate really into this sort of stuff, reiki, special diets, herbal potions. He had ulcerated colitis really bad. He lived in absolute agony with it for 2 years. His doctors told him he needed surgery but he was determined he could treat it with energy healing and healthy eating and whatnot. Long story short, it very nearly killed him. Finally, after being in and out of the hospital dozens of times, his doctor finally told him point blank that if he didn't have his colon removed, he'd be dead very soon. Finally had the surgery and got his life back. Sure, the colostomy bag is a nuisance, but he's pain free, back up to a healthy weight, energetic, no longer looks like death warmed over.

Alt med, quack treatments, homeopathy, vitamin supplements, anti-vax etc. this stuff is big business. At the least, it wastes peoples' money. At the worst, you can severely damage your health or die. It's really not a small matter.

[esquire]

What specifically is hypocritical here? What does it say about how I feel about my moral values?

It's hypocrisy because odds are the books in the health section aren't the only books your store sells that would violate your moral values yet you specifically mentioned the books in the health section because pseudo-science isn't a controversial topic here. Therefore the question becomes, why would you put yourself in a position to violate your moral values if that is what you are most concerned with? Is your priority making money or is it upholding your moral values? Because you don't need to work in a bookstore that sells "objectionable things" if it is the latter and if it is the former, then you shouldn't have a problem selling "objectionable things" on moral grounds because your job is to sell books.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too which, as I said before, says a lot about what your moral values actually are. To me, the person you should really be taking up the issue with is your boss because they likely have the ultimate say in what is and isn't sold in your store, but again, you aren't going to do that because you want to have your cake and eat it too.

[OttomanScribe]

It's hypocrisy because odds are the books in the health section aren't the only books your store sells that would violate your moral values yet you specifically mentioned the books in the health section because pseudo-science isn't a controversial topic here.

I have actually already elaborated that one of the reasons I work there is because I do not have to sell things that violate my moral values, I don't have to sell things that contradict with my religious values (pornography etc) or religious iconography etc.

Therefore the question becomes, why would you put yourself in a position to violate your moral values if that is what you are most concerned with?

This is a false assumption, as already elaborated upon.

Is your priority making money or is it upholding your moral values?

The latter, hence me dealing with this moral quandary.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too which, as I said before, says a lot about what your moral values actually are. To me, the person you should really be taking up the issue with is your boss because they likely have the ultimate say in what is and isn't sold in your store, but again, you aren't going to do that because you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Don't be like that friend. I have already elaborated that my problem isn't so much selling such things per se, I think that critical studies, even bizarro ones, have a place in the work of science and society. However I do have a problem with them being sold as though they have ceased to be critical works, and have suddenly become established facts.

Hence my actions have been decided upon, I reclassify them as New Age and ensure that customers are aware of the issues with them.

[Lafiel]

Haven't been to many book-stores, but pretty much every "health" section in the libraries I've been too is filled with that "shit" it's easy to see how otherwise rational people can fall for that crap, due to how over-exposed it is, heck it's even worse somewhat if you use google.

Really stresses the importance of "critical thinking" so people can know how to filter this shit out when they come across it, although parts of our culture and general human nature have contributed to it's popularity too.

To the OP - If you really want too, you can comment about it with your boss, but demanding to "stop stocking it" is a bit to far imo, although deterring people from buying that crap can help too, and maybe he'll stop selling it in favour of stocking better health books.:p

[-viper-]

I agree books pertaining to be a source of good health and a cure for disease (particularly when they are contrary to the claims and are actually more harmful in the long run) should be banned. But let us be honest... who cares?

You work in the bookshop. And that's all there is to it. If people are stupid enough to buy that shit and eventually suffer, well good riddance I say. It's simply another way of filtering out stupid and gullible people from this planet.

[CornBurrito]

I agree books pertaining to be a source of good health and a cure for disease (particularly when they are contrary to the claims and are actually more harmful in the long run) should be banned. But let us be honest... who cares? You work in the bookshop. And that's all there is to it. If people are stupid enough to buy that shit and eventually suffer, well good riddance I say. It's simply another way of filtering out stupid and gullible people from this planet.

In your opinion, what causes stupidity and gullibility?

[-viper-]

In your opinion, what causes stupidity and gullibility?

Lack of education I guess.

[CornBurrito]

Lack of education I guess.

I wouldn't consider that a cause then.

You seem to be suggesting that stupidity and gullibility exist, and then are fixed by education.

But what initially leads to stupidity and gullibility. Why did they exist in the first place? In other words, I am asking what is it about the human mind that makes us fallible. And would the number of people dying from this kind of bullshit really have that significant of an impact on human cognition?

[Rentahamster]

Maybe I could put them in 'New Age' rather than medicine. Wouldn't be hard to reclassify them.. would that be a bad thing to do?

That's what I'd probably do, since I don't consider "medicine" an accurate category for them anyway.

[J-Rod]

I'm surprised there aren't more books that bother you, because it seems like there are wacky books in every section. You could probably find something about growing tomatoes based on star alignments in the gardening section.

[-viper-]

I wouldn't consider that a cause then. You seem to be suggesting that stupidity and gullibility exist, and then are fixed by education. But what initially leads to stupidity and gullibility. Why did they exist in the first place? In other words, I am asking what is it about the human mind that makes us fallible. And would the number of people dying from this kind of bullshit really have that significant of an impact on human cognition?

You're reading too much into my post - there was an element in sarcasm when I referred to the culling of the human population by means of stupidity... :P

[OttomanScribe]

I'm surprised there aren't more books that bother you, because it seems like there are wacky books in every section. You could probably find something about growing tomatoes based on star alignments in the gardening section.

We are a specialist bookstore, so we have limited stock in most places. Don't even have a gardening section lol.

I think that stuff like that is wacky, but not neccesarily harmful on the level that pseudoscience medicine is.

You work in the bookshop. And that's all there is to it. If people are stupid enough to buy that shit and eventually suffer, well good riddance I say. It's simply another way of filtering out stupid and gullible people from this planet.

I don't think people fall for this stuff because they are stupid, or even gullible. It is about hope, people, especially someone who has a terminal illness, really want some hope and sometimes real medicine doesn't give it to them, so they turn to fake medicine.

Also logical fallacies are really hard to avoid, and even smart people fall into the traps associated with them, this is even more so the case in the above example. Furthermore, not everyone is educated in science or medicine, so when they throw around a lot of fancy sounding words and talk a lot about 'quantum physics', then people can get confused.