That's a great idea. Let's completely stifle the free exchange of ideas based on people's ability to pay. Next we can insist that Amazon only accept purchases from people willing to write 5 star reviews. /s
A book review that has nothing to do with the content of the books is not the forum for a free exchange of ideas. The purpose of a review it to help people decide if the book is a good fit for the reader. Actually reading the book and providing feedback good or bad is the objective. If you want a free exchange of ideas create a forum of your own.
The book is entirely recycled from columns appearing on the web. One need not have purchased it to know what is within. The volume could easily be reduced to a few dozen URLs pointing to where all of the content is to be found.
I would agree, although I suppose even trolls have a right to be heard. What I would suggest is allowing people to sort only reviews by verified purchaces. This is a e-book only book so chances are there are very few non-verifieds here that have actually read it.
Although I highly doubt either the trolls, or the troll hunters are seriously fooling anyone.
So if someone finds the book more readily (and cheaper) available on iTunes and is so enthralled/appalled at the book are they allowed to post? I suppose Amazon can set the reviews but most authors would be pleased to hear people read their book either way. This Yglesis guy is so childish I am quite surprised he was able to manage his thoughts long enough to write a book. Seriously, do they just find someone who appears to be popular and wrap a book around them?
Consider something, Jim- we're not trying to fool you. We just don't like Matt for the simple reason he's a tasteless, soulless nincompoop who just could not put his nasty attitude away for one day. He had to put his nastiness on display for all to see mere hours after Breitbart's death. It wasn't even connected to politics or policy differences- it was a pure personal attack that couldn't be defended.
We couldn't give a damn less about the book. Had this been just the premier of another screed by another wanna-be Sinclair, it would have died on it's own with time. Nobody but the hardest-core of leftists would have paid it any due. Matt brought this campaign by the Moron Herd on himself. It just remains to be seen where he goes and who he whines to next.
A book review that has nothing to do with the content of the books is not the forum for a free exchange of ideas. David Duke replies: It is today, my dear Subaru driver.
The purpose of a review it to help people decide if the book is a good fit for the reader. David Duke replies: Based on his character, I can assure you that nothing this misfit writes is a good fit for any reader.
Actually reading the book and providing feedback good or bad is the objective. David Duke replies: Depends on how you define "objective". My objective is to help others avoid reading drivel - of which your comments also qualify.
If you want a free exchange of ideas create a forum of your own. David Duke replies: Why bother when I have a perfectly good forum right here? And by your participation in it, the forum only gets stronger and better.
I agree that Yglesias showed a lack of propriety in speaking ill of the dead. I make it a rule to never do so myself. I also agree with you (at least I think I do) that Yglesias has poked the hornet's nest himself and really shouldn't be suprised at the result.
But what's happening here is kind of silly. I'm struggling to find a real world analogy that would fit the situation. I guess I would compare it to PETA protestors standing outside a fast food restaurant handing out graphic images of slaughtered animals to customers going in. They are spending alot of effort to make fools of themselves, and not actually accomplishing anything but annoying people who like meat. To give you an idea about how silly the trolls are; This book is #49 on the new releases list, and I bought it out of spite.
What's sad about all this is that this book is a conservative argument entirely about reducing, not increasing, government regulation. I guess I get the desire to "punish" Matthew Yglesias for tweeting mean things. But the book is a conservative argument produced by a liberal. It is mostly going to be read by liberals. Conservatives who care about having less government regulation of markets (which is all conservatives, right?) should be encouraging this kind of thing.
I'm just sad we can't get past tribalism and personalities and actually discuss policy. Perhaps that's just wishful thinking. But honestly, I encourage conservatives to read the book. Borrow it from someone if you don't want to put money in Yglesias's pocket. Next time you're arguing with someone about regulation, you can say, "Even the liberal Matthew Yglesias thinks burdensome regulation is bad for the economy!"
I'm not sure I'd term all of the reaction as "sad." Some of these reviews brought tears of mirth to my eyes. What I might instead consider sad is praise for a book that a conservative economist would never have thought to write -- because the arguments in it are 60 years old! If the wet-behind-the-ears "smart set" of today would expand their reading list, they might find some original dragons to slay. Instead, because of the ideological background of the author, we are supposed to treat this as if it were a hymn to the Pope written by Christopher Hitchens. It makes me wonder if in 20 years Yglesias will publish "The cover-everything-including-band-aids-federally-mandated-health-insurance is too damn expensive."
We're not dumber than our forefathers, but certainly more naive...
Jill, as you know, Yglesias was only following Breitbart's lead with that tweet.
And Bill, if being a "tasteless, soulless nincompoop who just could not put his nasty attitude away for one day" were enough to get you not to like someone, Breitbart wouldn't have a legion of adoring followers posting fake reviews here.
Oh, believe it, Jesse, that wasn't the only reason. It was simply a tipping point. An attack like that just a few days before the unveiling of what amounts to a pamphlet you hope to sell for excessive money? Me thinks marketing is not Matt's strong suit. I happily, gleefully admit to the fake review. What's more, I don't give a damn how much- or how little- it damages him. But, watching him whine to Slate was a desired response. I enjoyed the hell out of that. Perhaps Matt will think twice now before trashing someone who can't defend himself. Not likely, but perhaps.
Also, you want to take Jill to task over Yglesias following Breitbart's supposed lead? I continue to hear this particular bon-not from the left, yet nobody seems to be able to link it or quote it. Dude, if you don't like Breitbart or the things he's done for the conservative movement, it's OK. Just be honest about it.
I agree that the reviews on the book should be cleaned up. There's absolutely no way I can tell what the actual book contents are by the nature of the reviews (a huge number of them being explicitly NOT related to the book); the sheer number of irrelevant reviews makes it impossible to find the reviews actually coming from book readers.