Put much more succinctly than I could've.Becca Mills said:
Echoing Linda here: THIS.Markus Croft said:
Possibly OT, but: Welcome to Kboards!linda reeves said:
Understood!Becca Mills said:
It will probably come as a surprise, but I don't disagree with you on most of what you said. The big difference between us is perspective. You seem to see it as a justice issue and a community issue where the reactions on this thread are the voices of allies and should not be questioned. I understand that stance. But I look at this is as a business problem in need of a business strategy, where the aim is to get the books back on Playster.Markus Croft said:Firstly, thanks everyone for the thoughtful posts. Coming to a thread like this, I don't usually expect to see measured, thoughtful responses. I didn't see pitchforks, I saw real talk. Moving on...
Where is the smear? First of all, you give one thread on kboards and a few blog posts an awful lot of credit if you're going to equate it with a smear campaign. For someone who keeps arguing we can't know the motives of this vendor based on their actions and first hand accounts of the authors who submit to them, it's interesting you continue to characterize the motives of people in this thread in a similar manner. From what I've seen, you're way off base. People want answers, they see patterns and they've spoken out. They are speaking to their experiences, and while it's critical at times, it's not bullying.
I really wish people would stop labeling everything as bullying. It's beyond tired. I don't see any schoolyard kids around here, do you? Seems to me that labeling people as bullies who speak up for groups that are smaller and easily marginalized is just another lame attempt to shut people up who are willing to push back and discourage discrimination. I repeat, where are the bullies?
"Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others."
That's a bit of a reach, wouldn't you agree?
Okay, you win. It's completely unfair, as is everything in the world we live in. What does that have to do with anything? You've argued ardently that businesses have a right to choose what they stock, fair or not. Seems hypocritical to turn on the independent contractions and business owners that provide content and say it's unfair for them to have an opinion about it based on the only thing they will ever know: first hand and second hand experiences. No one would have to guess at Playster's motive if their response to the experiences shared in this thread made one lick of sense.
No one is benefiting from the resolution that Playster may be incorrectly targeting LGBT fiction for reasons stemming from archaic and false negative myths about gay people (As Becca noted). When did business negotiations take place? All they wanted was answers (clear and logical, preferably). The answer they got didn't make sense, so they're left to draw their own conclusions and take the appropriate steps moving forward for them, their work, and their business. And they have just as much right to do so as Playster. It's a lot less dramatic than what you describe, at least from where I'm sitting.
On another side note...
Marginalized communities get stomped on and undercut all the time. People are not drawing conclusions that that may be happening here for no reason. While it may or may not be true in this case, and we may never know for sure, allies are certainly not the problem and I question anyone who would frame a narrative that would cast them as such.
More than one person has said this, in essence. No one has brought out the tar and feathers, no one has been bullied, or threatened in any way. If we decide we no longer want to do business with this company, that's what the much-vaunted free market is about, right?
WHDean said:
WHDean, what solutions might you have? Because I've tried to direct discussion that way and you've continued to accuse authors with complaint of bringing out the pitchforks. Nothing is really getting accomplished if we keep going around and around this.she-la-ti-da said:
I think that's a very easy answer.Becca Mills said:
I guess an automated process could glitch that way, but it could also have been a manual error involving some kind of bias. Regardless, it sounds as if Playster will rectify the situation. If the books in question do in fact get added to the catalog, that will show that the company is acting in good faith.Laran Mithras said:
Ahahahaha! I see! I got mightily confused for a moment thinking I missed something earlier in the thread! TBH tho, I'm not a 'good' mormon. I don't live in the 'bubble' and I won't condemn those that love the same sex -- or gender... or non-gender... asexual? How about, as long as you love and you love with a pure heart it can't be evil. That's what I live by anyway.Laran Mithras said:
Luckily, as a Mormon, I don't believe in hell with fire and brimstone, so I can't go there for my opinions on this hahahaha!
Playster, I really appreciate you looking into this and fixing the issue. Thank you so much!Playster said:
I'd reach out to D2D and just let them know your books have been in limbo. If they're LGBT, it may be more efficient to contact Playster directly at [email protected]IreneP said:
Yeah, agreed. I see it in how some of my kids' classmates' parents talk nervously about introducing the existence of LGB people to their kids. It's like because the issue of sexual orientation is involved, they're going to have to talk to their kids about having sex.veinglory said:
To piggyback, this is also "crying wolf" before the wolf is sighted. It exhausts the general pool of good will and ends up leaving those with proven discrimination problems with fewer resources, less sympathy, and less help. Those opposed to, say, LGBT+ rights get free ammunition "proving" that group will "smear the innocent to advance their agenda."WHDean said:
