Our City Online

Messageboard - Shopping

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

WalMart is "Going Urban" with New Stores

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Shopping WalMart is “Going Urban” with New Stores

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 269 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #384979

    berdawn
    Member

    gramarye wrote >>

    Klablut wrote >>

    Walker wrote >>
    Can we get this back on topic? The cheap personal potshots aren’t really adding anything of value here.

    But it does tell me a whole lot about the mindset of WalMart’s shoppers. Shiny cheap things = good. Censorship of books and music, environmental and human rights abuses, who cares? As long as I can save a penny.

    Censorship of books and music? I’ve been past the Wal-Mart music selection. It certainly didn’t look that censored to me, though I didn’t look that closely–it’s not like Wal-Mart has a monopoly on music sales, especially in the era of iTunes, Pandora, etc.

    They will only sell edited versions of CDs/DVDs; not all artists will produce edited versions and are not available at their stores. I don’t know of any directors who have refused to produce edited films (I do wonder who would go there and plan to buy Shortbus, though) off the top of my head, but I’m pretty sure Green Day wouldn’t create a new version of their CDs (or is it back to album, now?)

    #384980
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Bear wrote >>

    rus wrote >>
    Because the only people who look down on others based on class are over 35 advanced degree holders?

    Because income is correlated with age and education

    Income, but not class snobbery perhaps.

    #384981

    gramarye
    Participant

    berdawn wrote >>

    gramarye wrote >>

    Klablut wrote >>

    Walker wrote >>
    Can we get this back on topic? The cheap personal potshots aren’t really adding anything of value here.

    But it does tell me a whole lot about the mindset of WalMart’s shoppers. Shiny cheap things = good. Censorship of books and music, environmental and human rights abuses, who cares? As long as I can save a penny.

    Censorship of books and music? I’ve been past the Wal-Mart music selection. It certainly didn’t look that censored to me, though I didn’t look that closely–it’s not like Wal-Mart has a monopoly on music sales, especially in the era of iTunes, Pandora, etc.

    They will only sell edited versions of CDs/DVDs; not all artists will produce edited versions and are not available at their stores. I don’t know of any directors who have refused to produce edited films (I do wonder who would go there and plan to buy Shortbus, though) off the top of my head, but I’m pretty sure Green Day wouldn’t create a new version of their CDs (or is it back to album, now?)

    And for this reason, Wal-Mart deserves to be boycotted?

    I’m having trouble following the logic between this kind of “censorship” (which is basically the company making its own choice about what to carry, not trying to project power to tell artists what to produce) and a reason not to go buy shaving gel there.

    If you want the unedited versions of songs, getting one has never been easier in all of human history. This isn’t like Wal-Mart has some kind of gatekeeping power.

    #384982

    somertimeoh
    Participant

    berdawn wrote >>

    gramarye wrote >>

    Klablut wrote >>

    Walker wrote >>
    Can we get this back on topic? The cheap personal potshots aren’t really adding anything of value here.

    But it does tell me a whole lot about the mindset of WalMart’s shoppers. Shiny cheap things = good. Censorship of books and music, environmental and human rights abuses, who cares? As long as I can save a penny.

    Censorship of books and music? I’ve been past the Wal-Mart music selection. It certainly didn’t look that censored to me, though I didn’t look that closely–it’s not like Wal-Mart has a monopoly on music sales, especially in the era of iTunes, Pandora, etc.

    They will only sell edited versions of CDs/DVDs; not all artists will produce edited versions and are not available at their stores. I don’t know of any directors who have refused to produce edited films (I do wonder who would go there and plan to buy Shortbus, though) off the top of my head, but I’m pretty sure Green Day wouldn’t create a new version of their CDs (or is it back to album, now?)

    That’s not what censorship is. We don’t live in a country where you can only purchase music at WalMart.

    #384983
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant

    Core_Models wrote >>
    Tucker Carlson nailed it, IMO:

    I don’t like Wal-Mart. But then I don’t have to. I’m not looking for a job; I don’t need to shop for bargains. My objections to Wal-Mart are mostly aesthetic. Wal-Mart is ugly. Its presence tends to push smaller, more picturesque stores out of business. I like small, picturesque stores. They’re more interesting. They’re also more expensive, which is why, when given the choice, most people choose Wal-Mart.
    For the average person, opposing Wal-Mart is an unaffordable luxury. And that is why the anti-Wal-Mart “activists” you run across in the news business invariably come from upper-middle class backgrounds. (Come to think of it, almost every professional activist I’ve ever met came from privilege. Working people are too busy working.) There’s nothing necessarily wrong with this. But the activists should admit the truth: the debate over Wal-Mart is really a debate about aesthetics and social class.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8063563/

    Thank you x 2.

    #384984

    Bear
    Participant

    rus wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>

    rus wrote >>
    Because the only people who look down on others based on class are over 35 advanced degree holders?

    Because income is correlated with age and education

    Income, but not class snobbery perhaps.

    “most of the people opposing Wal-Mart are the people who have the luxury of looking down at the less well-off.”

    but not because of their income.

    got it.

    #384985

    gramarye
    Participant

    Bear wrote >>

    rus wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>

    rus wrote >>
    Because the only people who look down on others based on class are over 35 advanced degree holders?

    Because income is correlated with age and education

    Income, but not class snobbery perhaps.

    “most of the people opposing Wal-Mart are the people who have the luxury of looking down at the less well-off.”
    but not because of their income.
    got it.

    Don’t get your posters confused.

    #384986

    berdawn
    Member

    gramarye wrote >>

    berdawn wrote >>

    gramarye wrote >>

    Klablut wrote >>

    Walker wrote >>
    Can we get this back on topic? The cheap personal potshots aren’t really adding anything of value here.

    But it does tell me a whole lot about the mindset of WalMart’s shoppers. Shiny cheap things = good. Censorship of books and music, environmental and human rights abuses, who cares? As long as I can save a penny.

    Censorship of books and music? I’ve been past the Wal-Mart music selection. It certainly didn’t look that censored to me, though I didn’t look that closely–it’s not like Wal-Mart has a monopoly on music sales, especially in the era of iTunes, Pandora, etc.

    They will only sell edited versions of CDs/DVDs; not all artists will produce edited versions and are not available at their stores. I don’t know of any directors who have refused to produce edited films (I do wonder who would go there and plan to buy Shortbus, though) off the top of my head, but I’m pretty sure Green Day wouldn’t create a new version of their CDs (or is it back to album, now?)

    And for this reason, Wal-Mart deserves to be boycotted?
    I’m having trouble following the logic between this kind of “censorship” (which is basically the company making its own choice about what to carry, not trying to project power to tell artists what to produce) and a reason not to go buy shaving gel there.
    If you want the unedited versions of songs, getting one has never been easier in all of human history. This isn’t like Wal-Mart has some kind of gatekeeping power.

    where did I propose a boycott? you asked about censorship and I replied…telling artists what to produce is exactly what they do (if you change your work, they will sell it)

    whether or not one can get items elsewhere does not change the fact that they will only carry work that has been altered (censored) to meet their standards.

    #384987
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    gramarye wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>

    rus wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>

    rus wrote >>
    Because the only people who look down on others based on class are over 35 advanced degree holders?

    Because income is correlated with age and education

    Income, but not class snobbery perhaps.

    “most of the people opposing Wal-Mart are the people who have the luxury of looking down at the less well-off.”
    but not because of their income.
    got it.

    Don’t get your posters confused.

    We must all look the same to him.

    #384988

    groundrules
    Participant

    Snarf wrote >>

    Core_Models wrote >>
    Tucker Carlson nailed it, IMO:

    I don’t like Wal-Mart. But then I don’t have to. I’m not looking for a job; I don’t need to shop for bargains. My objections to Wal-Mart are mostly aesthetic. Wal-Mart is ugly. Its presence tends to push smaller, more picturesque stores out of business. I like small, picturesque stores. They’re more interesting. They’re also more expensive, which is why, when given the choice, most people choose Wal-Mart.
    For the average person, opposing Wal-Mart is an unaffordable luxury. And that is why the anti-Wal-Mart “activists” you run across in the news business invariably come from upper-middle class backgrounds. (Come to think of it, almost every professional activist I’ve ever met came from privilege. Working people are too busy working.) There’s nothing necessarily wrong with this. But the activists should admit the truth: the debate over Wal-Mart is really a debate about aesthetics and social class.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8063563/

    Thank you x 2.

    agreed for the most part, but I’d probably add that besides just upper middle class activists, there are also some small business owners that are “activitsts”.

    #384989

    somertimeoh
    Participant

    No no no, this is why words like censorship lose their potency. A company sets a standard for their product. The artist (really, the label) has to decide whether they want to edit and redistribute to reach this market or not. It’s really not a tough decision. If you think your market shops at WalMart you change it, if you don’t, you don’t. These types of negotiations are done EVERYDAY in EVERY purchasing transaction for EVERY company. I want to work and live in a world where all of this is shocking, it sounds nice!

    If you really want to blame someone, shouldn’t it be Tipper for the whole explicit label thing anyway?

    #384990

    catnfiddle
    Participant

    somertimeoh wrote >>
    If you really want to blame someone, shouldn’t it be Tipper for the whole explicit label thing anyway?

    YES!!! I can’t stand that woman. Off topic, but YES!!!

    #384991

    Twixlen
    Participant

    I “get” what both sides of this arguement are saying…. because I’ve felt both things. I mean, if someone is willing and able to sell something at a cheaper price than other folks in town with the same items, why on earth wouldn’t I take advantage of that? That’s the free market. Also, why do I care what WalMart does or doesn’t carry – what their own corporate culture deems as vulgar or appropriate – since I can find whatever I want in other stores or on the internet?

    And yet, I have a problem with it. I remember when WalMart came to the nearest town when I was a kid – how excited we were. It was a tiny store by today’s standards (this is mid/late 1970’s), and it was a big deal to get hired by WalMart. They had tough standards for their employees, and rewarded them in kind. It was a store that had brought many different stores under one roof – but it wasn’t necessarily cheaper. It was just a convenience thing.

    Compare that to modern WalMart. Now, stores are deliberately built within miles of one another to drive out local competition. Once that competition is gone, one store is usually the clear favorite, and the other store is mothballed – to sit empty, since WalMart will not sell their former stores to anyone deemed competition. In some cases, these stores have gotten so blighted, they’ve ended up being torn down with taxpayer money. We’ve seen this happen here in town (not necessarily the taxpayer tear-down, but the empty space) – I know I’ve seen it happen in other towns.

    WalMart DOES censor – they’ve admitted to that censorship, in the guise of creating a more “family friendly” environment. It makes me uncomfortable when a corporation wants to be my parent, or to parent. Because they are so very huge, record labels, magazines, books and such have either changed their cover/content entirely, or create a separate “WalMart” version. So, in all those small towns, where WalMart has driven out competition, and the vast majority of folks do all their shopping there – do they realize their choices are limited? Pema Chodron has some of the bestselling religion/spirituality books on Amazon – has anyone ever seen one of her books in a WalMart, the largest box store in the world? I’ve never seen a book there on anything but conventional Christianity, or generally very conservative values. And yup, it’s WalMart’s choice to limit selection in any way they please, but it makes me very uncomfortable to have them make those kinds of choices. Especially considering that they deliberately limit the choices of shopping locations in smaller towns.

    It’s taking me too long to articulate this – I’m sure ya’ll’ve moved on to discussing why it is so many folks feel like pajama bottoms and slippers are acceptible attire in some stores, blah blah blah.

    For me, there are problems with WalMart – they’ve had class action problems with how they’ve treated women in the workplace (deliberately limiting advancement, less pay, etc), they play games with hours of employees to keep them from qualifying for insurance (this was NY, not sure of OH rules), they censor (remember the Brokeback Mountain debacle?)… and when they are the largest private employer, the largest retailer, they ARE making choices for people.

    #384992
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant

    Walmart is like so unaesthetic and shit, I can’t stand their style, it’s like hideous and junk.

    Who wants to meet for a java at Northstar? I can’t find my new Toms though, bummer!

    #384993

    Cookie
    Member

    Snarf wrote >>
    Walmart is like so unaesthetic and shit, I can’t stand their style, it’s like hideous and junk.
    Who wants to meet for a java at Northstar? I can’t find my new Toms though, bummer!

    Dude, you’re one of the people that posted a link to People of Walmart here.

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 269 total)

The forum ‘Shopping’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: