Wal-Mart to reach another new low

The BBQ Pit
61

In defense of WalMart, they apparently have had complaints of the covers of those women’s magazines from a lot of people AT THE CHECKOUT STAND. I don’t agree with it but they are not required to, by the Constitution, to sell or show anything we can get elsewhere. It is highly possible that their stock holder base disagreed with the covers. As for Maxim and the like, I have no idea as I have no need to pick up a men’s magazine. Apparently WalMart also has decided not to carry the latest Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.

While I am not completely trusting of the mass media, CBS or NBC did a news story on this this afternoon. The only place they will “cover” the covers is at the checkout stand. If this is true then what’s the big fucking deal.

Kroger’s division of King Soopers has done a similar thing. They cover the so-called racy magazines like Cosmo at the checkout stands but not at the magazine section.

It’s not a violation of rights on anyone’s part. You want Maxim, get a subscription or go to a store that carries it. If you want to see what Cosmo’s latest antidote (sp) on getting a perfect orasgm, while you are standing in line, pick it up and read the front page or better yet, go down the magazine and book isle and read the cover so you don’t have to use your arms to read it.

While I am against such measures, people shouldn’t be so quick to complain about something so ridiculous. They must have a reason for it, like complaints and don’t forget that probably the majority of people that shop there are mommies and older people.

I don’t shop there so it doesn’t affect me a bit. I don’t think it’s that big a deal. Covering magazines or not allowing certain magazines? BAH, that is free-market at it’s best, even for this Libertarian.

62

What if I come up with a brand of morality that includes doing nasty things to people who name themselves after artificial sweeteners?

(Note to mods: This is not a threat, but an example of whacked morality, and I’m tired of the whole fundamentalist Islam example that tends to be used.)

63

Well I think it was called for, so I decline your invitation. And the reasons I think it was called for were outlined in my post. If you were capable of intelligent discourse you might respond in a substantive manner. But, judging by your posts to this thread, that condition likely does not hold.

64

Allow me to explain. In your post, you implied that I was a hypocrite. This is insulting. I have spend a great deal of time and energy developing a personal code of ethics and conduct, and have put a great deal of effort in to making sure that it is consistent. Naturally, you have no way of knowing that but there it is.

The reason that I find the actions of Wal-Mart to by hypocritical is that they really are trying to have things both ways. Conceptually, in terms of the psychology of how retail outlets and grocery stores are physically set up, there is something called the point of purchase display. These are things that you may not have had on your shopping list, but that you decide that you need as you are waiting to pay.

A great deal of effort goes in to the types of things that get placed there (candy at the eye level of young children, to name one example). In the case of magazines, as I understand it there is a great deal of competition among them as to who gets to be at the point of purchase and who is relegated to the magazine rack on isle 5 (or whatever). Part of being at the point of purchase, and a lot of the reason that the covers of these magazines are the way they are, is that they are attempting to get folks to buy them on impulse. Attempting to, as it were, have folks judge a book by it’s cover.

By caving in to this special interest group, Wal-Mart is potentially affecting the revenue of these magazines, while at the same time benefiting from the sales of them to the folks that do not buy them on impulse.

And again, I am not really crying a sorry tear for Cosmo. I am of the school of thought that these rags are crap (though not because they offend God, or some shit). What I am saying is that this is bad faith on the part of Wal-Mart.

My guess (always remembering that I don’t know you) is that you agree with this special interest group on the whole “these things are immoral filth” front.

So, to conclude, you hit a hot button with me that you would have had no way of knowing I had. I lashed out, and am sorry for that. Having said all of that, I do stand by my position that Wal-Mart is acting hypocritically here, and in bad faith and that I am fundamentally tired of Christian Right groups throwing their weight around like this.

65

Binarydrone,

I agree with almost your entire post, but I don’t see how Wal-Mart is hypocritical. Of course the magazines are going to lose revenue if people can’t see their cover - that’s why they put the stuff on the cover to begin with. But the crucial point is that Wal-Mart is under no obligation to maximize revenue for these magazines. And it is not at all hypocritical for Wal-Mart to agree to sell magazines even while not doing it in a way that maximizes their revenue. Wal-Mart and these magazines have a purely business arrangement, and each is free to look out for its own interests.

Wal-Mart is trying to make everyone happy. There are some people that do not like being confronted with racy covers. There are other people who like reading these magazines. By covering up these covers, both groups are accommodated. Very simple, really.

Your comment about shoving morality down people’s throats is wrong. They are only trying to accommodate people who don’t want racy magazine covers shoved in their face. These people are also human beings (& Wal-Mart shoppers) and there’s no reason to not try to accommodate them, just as you expect to be accommodated yourself.

You’ve not shown any way that morality is being shoved down your throat. The only thing I see is your refusal to accommodate other people who have a moral code that you don’t share. Hence my charge.

66

And this, I believe, is where we have the parting of ways. I would argue that, generally speaking, the folks in question are not in any need of accommodation and that our entire culture is pretty much pandering to them 24/7,and that my “refusal to accommodate others who have a moral code that differs from my own” is a moot point, because of the very nature of the society in which I live.

Every time that I turn on the television, and am treated to graphic violence but spared the sight of a naked human (because that is somehow dirty), every time I spend paper money with God mentioned on it, or hear our president speak as he blesses America, my beliefs are not being respected.

The difference is that I realize that I am on one side of the bell curve (just as these folks are on the other), and so not in the majority. That being the case, I do not form lobby groups and the like to try to force my beliefs on the world.

Admittedly, some of my problem comes from the group (American Family Association) that is pushing this through. Given that what they stand for is just about like kryptonite to me, I will be deeply suspicious of anything that they are pulling.

67

When I go on my weekly shopping trips to King Soopers, I routinely move some of the Cosmos in the rack in front of their little protector thingy. Just doing my part. :slight_smile:

68

I participated in a letter writing campaign to get Walmart to stop displaying Cosmo, Redbook, etc. at the check out stand. Not because I want to shove my morality down your throat, but because I dont’ want Cosmo shoving their morality down my throat!

Have you looked at these magazines lately? They are just Playboy and Penthouse for women. They market titillating ideas instead of images, because women are wired differently from men. And its the blurbs on the cover I’d rather my daughter not see, not the photo.

I don’t care about whether they obscure the cover or not. I just want them put back at the magazine rack instead of at the checkout stand. Being at the checkout gives them a legitimacy, a stamp of approval which says “These magazines and their ideas are as normal as candy bars and pen flashlights.” I’m not at all against the magazines being sold. I just don’t want my daughter to think them and their message that she should view herself primarily as a sex object are ordinary.

69

I would say that this very perception is a product of intolerance. If you pay attention to these groups and their aims, you would note that American society is far far removed from what these folks would prefer to see. In fact, I would venture to suggest that it is a lot closer to you than it is to them. The fact that you see it otherwise is - I would guess - simply the fact that you don’t find them worthy of accommodation, and so perceive every little amount of this as “pandering to them 24/7”.

Certainly, the notion that God being mentioned on paper money or Bush blessing America representing a lack of respect for your views suggests that you are simply intolerant of other viewpoints, rather than genuinely imposed upon.

But we are venturing afield here. Our discussion is not about any of this - we’re talking about Wal-Mart accommodating those who don’t wish to see racy magazines. This is clearly a simple matter of accommodating other people, and has no connection to any of the above. Your attitude seems to be - these people and their morality have been categorized as Bad and deserve nothing but scorn. This is similar to the tendency of people waging war to see themselves as victims no matter what the actual circumstances - the other guys are so bad that we have to fight them or they’ll over-run us. Unfortunate.

70

This is the sort of argument that never ceases to amaze me. I state that I am against Christian values being explicitly sanctioned by the government (i.e. on the money and the president God blessing everything), and call in to question the motives and goals of an anti-gay, anti-sexuality, pro-censorship fundamentalist fringe group that is attempting to influence the media, and somehow the conclusion is that I am the intolerant one. Simply amazing.

I may have a different operating definition of intolerance than you, but to me intolerance implies that I am in some sort of position to be denying others the free exercise of their own morality, or otherwise attempting to influence the world in a way that is not generally inclusive of the needs or wants of others. This is just not the case.

Now if by intolerant you mean that I disagree with the way that some things are done, and that I refuse to shut up about it than I guess you have me there.

All of this is not to say that this whole magazine issue is directly impacting me. As I stated, I think that they are crap, and for that matter refuse to shop at Wal-Mart (because I think that they are crap as well). What I am saying is that the particular group that is pushing this through is a fundamentally repugnant organization, and that Wal-Mart sucks for pandering to them. YMMV.

71

And the price difference is not as much as you might think.

Well, why don’t you exercise your parental responsibilities instead of having Wal-Mart do them for you? Now, I haven’t been in a Wal-Mart in a while, but at other discount stores, not every checkout lane has magazines (just as not every checkout lane has candy). You could direct your cart to the magazine-free aisles.

And you could talk with you daugher about several topics. About how most cover models are air-brushed (so she doesn’t get an unrealistic idea of what the adult female body looks like). About how she has several wonderful qualities that none of these magazines seem to talk about (intelligence, musical talent, athletic ability, etc.). About how your religious/personal/whatever beliefs emphasize A, B, and C, which are in opposition to the magazine’s ideals of X, Y, and Z.

I mean, the horror of having to talk about sex with your daughter! :eek: Even if Wal-Mart covers up all of the magazines, there are plenty of other sources of that type of material. Isn’t it better to teach your daughter how to understand the motivation behind these images, and your beliefs about them, than to hide them?

72

Not precisely.

It’s not that you are against Christian values being explicitly sanctioned by the government. I was responding to your statement that having God on money or in presidential speeches was disrespectful of your views. It is not - it is merely the expression of a viewpoint that you don’t share. If you cannot accept that others may express viewpoints that you don’t share - if you would consider all such expression to be disrespectful of your views - than you are indeed being intolerant.

And it was not that you called into question the motives of any group - it was your perception that they were being “pander[ed] to … 24/7”. As noted, this perception is greatly at odds with reality, and suggests that you view even a small amount of accommodating of such groups as being unacceptable. (I should note that while it seems much less legitimate and more sinister if you focus on “groups” as you have, these groups represent the opinions of actual people).

Well I don’t know what you do in general, for the issue we are discussing here - displaying covers of magazines - it very much is the case, as noted previously.

73

OK, I will try again. Perhaps I can approach this a little bit differently, say by posing a direct question. Is it your position that a person (or group) expressing an opinion that I (or another group) do not share by nature is not disrespectful? That the two are somehow mutually exclusive and that the mere expression of one point of view somehow exempt it from disrespecting the other?

On this front, you are correct. It is my belief that these sorts of groups (and the people that populate them) are fundamentally wrong, narrow minded and a threat to the general evolution and advancement of society. That being said, I really think that you are confusing what is my opinion with something that I am somehow acting on. As far as I am concerned, the fact that I am taking no action to prevent the free expression of their points of view (trusting that eventually we will grow out of this sort of foolishness) means that I am tolerating them. Disrespect their position? You bet. But I do tolerate it.

Finally, as a closing thought, I would point out that no matter how many times you write “As noted” it will not change the fact that the only one that noted it was you. Bit of a nit, but I have to say that this is a particularly annoying debating style, as it seems like you are trying to give added legitimacy to what, in the end, is only your opinion.

74

It is not disrespectful by its very nature, but it is not exempt from being disrespectful. You can express another opinion in a respectful or disrespectful way. But the mere expression of an idea that someone else does not share is not disrespectful - someone who thinks otherwise is not tolerant.

Well OK, we can quibble about whether this sort of thing qualifies as intolerance. (By your definition, nothing ever said on this board - or elsewhere - qualifies as intolerance - only action). But you are at least advocating intolerance by others (in the form of store policy).

I’m sorry - I thought it was obvious that I was referring to my own earlier observation. If I refer to others’ observations I would make that clear. The intent is not to give legitimacy but only to clarify that what I am saying is the same point that I made earlier, to which you have not (adequately) responded.

I believe this is the conventional usage of the term “as noted”, but I apologize if this is incorrect.

75

Would you feel differently if the magazine in question was Hustler?

The question here is not whether Walmart should draw lines, but about where to draw the line.

You have a pretty inflated idea of the relative influence of parents. For instance, my mom patiently tried to instill me again and again a disdain for violence, but do you think she stood a chance against the influence of TV and comics when I faced another boy on the schoolyard? Be realistic.

Attitudes and tastes are formed by influences other than intellectualizing. Perhaps even in spite of intellectualizing.

I don’t know why you are defending the placement at the checkout. I’m not advocating censorship. I’m only in favor of not giving the magazines an advantage. Just put them with the rest of magazines. I wouldn’t care if Walmart did carry Hustler, as long it was with the rest of the magazines and on the top shelf away from minors. Next to the Cosmo.

76

But, see, this is just the point. My folks also decided that violence was a bad thing and (here is the weird thing) they monitored the kinds of media that I was allowed to view. This included previewing the specific comic book titles that I was allowed to buy, and the same with movies and so forth. The point is that parents can do this without trying to change society at large, if they so choose.

Mind you, I understand the “magic bullet” approach. If you just eliminate some influences from society, you won’t have to worry about it. I just happen to disagree with it.

Another weird thing is that in spite of all of the groovy and pacifist efforts that my parents made, I was no more or less violent than the other kids around me. Could be a fluke, and I am sure that extreme exposure matters, but I think that this sort of stuff matters a whole lot less than we think that it does.

77

Francis E,

Well, Hustler is considered pornographic and can’t be purchased by anyone under 18, so there’s a good reason for having it separated from other magazines. But if Wal-Mart ever decided to sell it, that’s fine with me. Because I won’t buy it.

I don’t think I have a “pretty inflated idea of the relative influence of parents” as I know that their guidance helped shape me. Because when I was very young, rather than try to hide any sort of controversial movie or whatever, they would watch it with me and discuss it with me. Then, when I grew older, they trusted that I wouldn’t be stupid.

And frankly, I see no difference in having trashy women’s magazines at the checkout when they have stuff like The Weekly World News also at the checkout. Because both print a lot of false information, but both can also be wildly entertaining, if you look at them the right way. But the bottom line is that anything placed near the checkout is to try to lure in impulse buyers. They put those magazines there because they know people will look at them and buy them. It’s not some conspiracy to corrupt the youth of today.

78

Honestly, I am more concerned about all of the junk-food.

79

My post here is NOT stating my opinions on the subject, but trying to ask why there are such strong opinions on this issue, It seems to have devolved into a “my rights against your rights” free for all. I fail to see how anyone’s rights have been taken away.

Many stores have “candy-free” checkout stands as well.

It seems as if a lot of people are taking this WAY too much to mean some sort of “shove our brand of morality” (whether that’s “we have the right to have magazine covers displayed at the checkstand,” or “we have the right to have covers covered”) WAY too much to heart.

Customers spoke. They said "hey, we (whoever the “we” were) don’t want to be lambasted with Orgasm Articles every time we check out at the checkstands (just as those who didn’t want to have to keep little hands out of the gum and candy while juggling checkbook, groceries and other little ones requested candy free checkouts).

Whose rights are we denying by simply covering up the covers? The magazines are still there. Those who wish to peruse to see if they want to buy them can still do so.

This is no different than having the “girlie shows” at the state fair in a tent instead of at the entrance to the fair.

80

It’s kind of funny how, on any given day, you can find ample Pit threads describing companies that absolutely refuse to listen to what their customers want, and yet here we have a company that is listening to its customers and reacting to their complaints getting Pitted for doing exactly that.

Businesses just can’t win for losing, can they?