Comments on: This is Nuts!

By: Tom G. Palmer

Tom G. Palmer — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:31:35 +0000

The last commentator should try to read with more care. I did not judge the book by the title; I judged the title by the title:

“I know that authors donâ??t always come up with the titles or covers of their books, but they do get to veto them. This one is so utterly stupid that I hope that Goldberg is ashamed to show his face in public.”

The author of the book evidently was convinced that the title was absurd and changed it. So, no, I don’t “feel dumb.” But perhaps the commentator should.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:01:07 +0000

Now that the book is out, do you feel dumb for judging it by it’s title?

By: Tom G. Palmer

Tom G. Palmer — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 04:35:09 +0000

Now that is a remarkably obtuse comment. Mr. Goldberg’s use of the term was not to complain about union relations (unions were, in fact, a major component of fascist movements, by the way), but — it seems — to suggest that organic foods are somehow fascist. The comment immediately above is nearly as strange as Mr. Goldberg’s title.

By: Wu Wei

Wu Wei — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 02:54:20 +0000

Whole Foods isn’t fascist (necessarily) but the company is extremely conservative in some surprising ways. CEO Mackey is an avowed “conscious capitalist”, which is the kind of forward oxymoron you’d expect from a longtime vegetarian who makes quite a bit of money selling dead meat (and adds to the profit margin with “grocery lit” descriptions of the ideal settings in which the animals were raised and killed – it’s all about the ad line no doubt).

Also WF has a policy towards unions that makes Walmart seem liberal. A good part of the holistic image of WF is directed outwards at the consumer; much less of that towards the employees, who often would have financial problems actually shopping at the store in which they work. Difficult to imagine why a company built upon the interests of what were counter-cultural ideas would be so fearful of collective bargaining.

Not to be overly negative, the company has helped create an international market for conscious food consumers, and for that I’m thankful. They’ve done a lot of things well.

To go forward however they really, really need some honest competition. Buying all of it actually won’t help either their long term service to the general public or their employees either.

Cheers!

By: Martin

Martin — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 23:56:09 +0000

Although he will mention fascism has in common with modern day liberalism, I doubt he’ll mention all the similarities between fascism and the neoconservatism that he and his NR warmongers espouse. I doubt Goldberg will mention much about fascists affinity for preemptive wars or executive power or concentration camps for example.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:15:07 +0000

Absolutely, this was exactly the point that I’ve been trying to make. The title “Religion Poisons Everything” is just an opinion of author, and he tries to justify his claim in the book. While accusing anybody (either through title or through the contents of the book) of things he/she did not do and did not even intend to do (however hillarios or stupid it might sound or read) can be pretty offensive.

By: Tom G. Palmer

Tom G. Palmer — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:52:06 +0000

Yes, of course. But “religion poisons everything” is a claim that the author can sustain or not. It’s not a blood libel. People who take religion seriously (as I do) should take the time to read serious criticisms and to think about them. The same is not true of pseudo-scientific anti-Semitic rants.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:26:01 +0000

Well, “offensive” might be not the exact word to use here. Since I am not the native English speaker, I might have used the wrong term. But I think there is clear difference between “The Earth Isn’t Flat and Those Who Believe It are Wrong,” or “Flat Earthism Poisons Everything” and what “Mein Kampf” claims with regard to Jews.

By: Tom G. Palmer

Tom G. Palmer — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 00:19:55 +0000

The most recent comment is interesting for what it says about standards of civil discourse today. Being told by someone that your deepest convictions are wrong and even harmful is hard to take. Most people don’t like it. Indeed, they are offended when told such things. Is it offensive for someone to say you are wrong? If so, then most of the religions in the world are inherently offensive, since they say that those who don’t follow their path are doomed, damned, cast out, and so forth. But…it’s authentically what they believe. It’s not offensive for them to believe it or to proclaim it. I find the mentality that says that exclusive claims are “offensive” far too sensitive, not only for my tastes, but for the persistence of civil discourse. “The Earth Isn’t Flat and Those Who Believe It are Wrong,” or “Flat Earthism Poisons Everything” may hurt the fellings of some, but if an argument is offered, I don’t think that people should find it “offensive,” just as “X Is the Only Path to Salvation” shouldn’t be considered “offensive.” Stupid is one thing; offensive is another. One can be both, of course.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:13:03 +0000

Dear Just Stoppn By,

I know what the most of people in this thread mean, and I fully agree that the title is stupid. And I agree that title wouldn’t be stupid if Y were Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein. But I fully disagree with the idea that offensiveness of the book can be justified by the fact that it ” makes a really strong claim”. “Mein Kampf” (although not the title, but the book itself) is quite offensive in its contents, although makes really a storng claim; well, history clearly showed that it mattered a lot. Of course I cannot compare the book under discussion with the mentioned. First of all because I have not read it, and it’s really doubtful that it can have the similar consequenses, but the idea that making a strong claim releases author from responsibilit from being ofensive seems a little odd to me.

By: Just Stoppin By

Just Stoppin By — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 17:54:01 +0000

This is for the last writer. A bunc of the people in this thread made the point that the “totalitarian temptation from X to Y” is dumb/ridiculous when Y is a grocery store. If Y were Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, it would not be stupid. But a grocery store?

If an book makes a really strong claim, whatr does it really matter if it’s “offensive”? The title “All the nonChristians are going to burn in hell” is pretty strong, but so what? Christians believe that. (At least most do.) If the book defends that point of view, so what? Why should anyone be offended? The issue isn’t offensiveness, but stupidity. Most of the people in this thread think that connecting totalitarian politics with groceries is pretty dumb.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 05:11:57 +0000

Being ridiculous does not prevent thing from being offensive. I wonder wether you would like title: “Totalitarian Temptation from Hitler to YOU(namely)”. I certainly would not like it.

By: A Hermit

A Hermit — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:56:49 +0000

…”National Socialism (which did self-describe as ’socialism,’ after all) was originally conceived as a leftist movement…”

What a load of crap.

North Korea self-describes as a “Democratic Republic”. Doesn’t make it any less of a totalitarian dictatorship..

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:29:41 +0000

I don’t think that Tom considered the title of Jonah’s book ridiculous because it gives offense (which seems ture of Christopher Hitchen’s book), but because it was just plain ridiculous. Saying “You are dead wrong” usually gives offense, but it’s then up to the person saying it to show it. But writing ‘The Totalitarian Temptation from Homer to Home Depot’ is ridiculous.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:04:35 +0000

Maybe all the titles are opinions of authors, but that’s not what I mean: I mean that title insulting persons is an offence in all meanings of this word. It’s as simple as this.

By: Radek

Radek — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:05:41 +0000

Let me add something to this active debate.

The Hitchen title is supposed to get your attention. But it is a strong statement about a familiar debate. It is not saying that, for example, ‘all religious people are pedophiles,’ which would be brainless. Smearing whole foods with the charge of fascism and totalitarianism is brainless.

By: Still Snoring

Still Snoring — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:49:00 +0000

Titles are chosen by authors. They are opinions.

People who don’t see the shock value created by Hitchen’s marketing team are just drinking the Kool-aid (in other words, the title wasn’t chose to market to them, as they are already buyers/suckers).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:22:34 +0000

Ok, Still Snoring. A title is not an opinion. It’s a title. “The History of Alabama” is not an opinion; it’s a title. “God is Not Great” is a title that announces a substantive opinion. Is Jonah saying that shopping at Whole Foods is giving in to the totalitarian temptation? If so, then by his own admission, he’s guilty! Jonah’s glib title was written for marketing purposes and is just causing him grief. He should back down and change it. Or he’ll just be laughed off the stage.

By: Still snoring

Still snoring — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:55:26 +0000

Both titles are obviously personal opinions, as are all book titles.

Pretentious people pretend otherwise.

By: matt

matt — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:26:58 +0000

FWIW, Lewrockwell.com bashed this same article a couple of days ago and did a far better job.