That bear is NUTS.

[buttonjockey308]

The Bear In Question (http://www.comcast.net/News/GENERAL//XML/1120_Feature_Stories/71c17a92-ed80-4874-a822-e382d2dd61f1.html)

Seems the mental health community is up in arms, so to speak, about this "crazy for you" bear sold by Vermont Teddy Bear. The bear, in case you haven't seen it, comes complete with straitjacket and committment papers for $70. I think the only thing that's offensive in this scenario is that there is a stuffed animal for sale for $70.

Really, if you don't like the thing, YOU DON'T HAVE TO FUCKING BUY IT. But now, nobody can, which isn't a GREAT loss, but why should a company have to pull as innocent a product as a damn teddy bear, because it makes a few people, um, crazy?
Fuck that. Let the market handle it, if it's not a danger to the public (i.e. won't choke kids or spontaneously combust) then who cares? Obviously they've been selling this bear for some time with relative success, and the only ones bitching are the so-called advocates. Fuck 'em. Get this, you PC hack assholes. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED.

In FACT, YOUR non-existant right not be offended is ABSOLUTELY TRUMPED by the 'offending' persons' FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. Sure, it may not be tasteful, but the only things that ought be forced out of the market are things that are a danger, and the things that the market will not, um, bear (oh boy, that was bad).

Anyhow, screw Vt. Teddy Co. for caving, and screw the advocates for whining about it.

[UrbanChic]

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED. This would be great on a t-shirt.

I like the bear, but you'd have to be crazy to pay seventy bucks for it!

[FinnAgain]

Reading the story, did you get the sense that the mental health community is, well, crazy?

[Earthworm Jim]

Dammit! That would have been perfect! Why do I always hear about these things when it's too late?

I would've paid $70 for it. My wife would have loved it. It's so...us.

le sigh

[Dead Badger]

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED.This would be great on a t-shirt.
It would just need one tiny addition:
YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED.



wanker

[UncleRojelio]

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED.

Do you mind if I use that as a sig line?

[BrotherCadfael]

As of this morning, the Crazy for You bear is sold out. (I heard it on local radio)

So they didn't cave the entire way.

[Kimstu]

bj: Anyhow, screw Vt. Teddy Co. for caving, and screw the advocates for whining about it. [...] Let the market handle it.

Looks to me like the market just did, babe.

Amazing how all you free-market advocates keep complaining that people should exercise consumer pressure and appeal to public opinion instead of depending on government regulation and the courts, yadda yadda yadda yadda. And then when a group of consumers actually does that, and persuades a company voluntarily to discontinue a product in order to avoid negative publicity, you start whining about how people "don't have the right not to be offended."

'Course they don't. But if they are offended, they have a perfect right to complain about it to the people who offended them. If they can persuade those people to change their policy, what's wrong with that?

[Homebrew]

Ohh, I've got a story to share. I was thinking of starting a thread over this issue; but hadn't done it yet. It fits with this story.

Ford has pulled a planned Super Bowl ad for their Lincoln Mark LT truck because of whiners. The ad begins with parishioners leaving a church and the priest shaking hands as they leave. Then he goes in to check the offering plate and finds the keys to a car. He walks out into the parking lot to find the Lincoln Mark LT pickup. The song "Guilty", featured on the Amelie soundtrack, is playing in the back ground "Is it a sin, is it a crime, loving you like I do? After he slowly walks around the truck gently touching it smooth curves and admiring it's lush interior, a man with a small girl in tow walks up and touches his shoulder, pulling him back to reality. The man smiles holds his hand out for the keys and says "Kids". The priest smiles sheepishly and hands the keys back. The man and girl leave and he walks to the marque which says "Sunday Sermon: US". He holds up an L and a T (get, it? the truck is the Lincoln Mark LT) and now the sign says "LUST"

View the ad here (http://www.adage.com/shared/includes/spotwin.html?vid=lincoln-sb05-charity.asf&type=nws) (Registration required)

Well apparently Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests has called the ad offensive to them and complained. Ford pulled the ad.
Ford in a statement today said, "Lincoln has decided not to run the Lincoln Mark LT ad on the Super Bowl this Sunday. Of course we had no intention of offending anyone -- and we are frankly surprised there is a negative reaction."Of course you are surprised. There is nothing offensive about the ad and those who objective are freakin' nuts.

Now I'm sure there are a couple of folks on this board who consider me one of the easily offended. I'll grant that I don't cut much slack over preceived anti-gay attitudes. But even I have thicker skin that this. It's absurd.

[buttonjockey308]

Do you mind if I use that as a sig line?


Nope. Go nuts.

[Otto]

Dammit! That would have been perfect! Why do I always hear about these things when it's too late?

I would've paid $70 for it. My wife would have loved it. It's so...us.

le sigh They're already on eBay, fetching upwards of of $300. Just be sure if you go that route that it's in the original padded cell otherwise it's not mint.

[buttonjockey308]

bj: Anyhow, screw Vt. Teddy Co. for caving, and screw the advocates for whining about it. [...] Let the market handle it.

Looks to me like the market just did, babe.

Amazing how all you free-market advocates keep complaining that people should exercise consumer pressure and appeal to public opinion instead of depending on government regulation and the courts, yadda yadda yadda yadda. And then when a group of consumers actually does that, and persuades a company voluntarily to discontinue a product in order to avoid negative publicity, you start whining about how people "don't have the right not to be offended."

'Course they don't. But if they are offended, they have a perfect right to complain about it to the people who offended them. If they can persuade those people to change their policy, what's wrong with that?

I would disagree. The "market" kept the bear in business. Pissy PC whiners with access to the press and the straw cause of offending the mentally ill put the squeeze on the company. They forced them to take a product off the market that the potentially offended group probably wouldn't buy or shop for anyway.

What's more, it isn't as if straitjackets are commonplace anymore. Some might compare them (as in articles I've read researching this pitting) to a "lynching noose" which is as ludicrous as it gets. Some things are worth putting excess pressure on, this, IMO, of course, ain't one of 'em.

[Earthworm Jim]

They're already on eBay, fetching upwards of of $300. Just be sure if you go that route that it's in the original padded cell otherwise it's not mint.
Pfft. $70 I'll do, but I'm that crazy. I didn't even bother with ebay, I knew they'd be through the roof.

[Trunk]

As a retard, I'm pretty offended by that bear.

[Miller]

Amazing how all you free-market advocates keep complaining that people should exercise consumer pressure and appeal to public opinion instead of depending on government regulation and the courts, yadda yadda yadda yadda. And then when a group of consumers actually does that, and persuades a company voluntarily to discontinue a product in order to avoid negative publicity, you start whining about how people "don't have the right not to be offended."

Boy, that's a heck of a lot of assumptions you're carrying around with you there. Want some help with them?

Now, I can't speak for all "free-market advocates." But I think the whole point of the free market is that, so long as a product is safe and works as advertised, nobody has any business at all trying to force retailers to pull products from the market, or of depriving consumers of access to whatever product they want. I have no more brief for private censors than I do for public censors. You don't like a product? Don't buy it. You don't like a TV show? Don't watch it. You don't like a book? Don't read it. That's the extent of your "right" to prevent a product from reaching the market. When someone takes it upon themselves to decide what I can and cannot have access to, because it somehow offends their morality, then I have a huge fucking problem with that.

'Course they don't. But if they are offended, they have a perfect right to complain about it to the people who offended them. If they can persuade those people to change their policy, what's wrong with that?

Because what if I want to own that bear? Why does their right to piss and whine about how some toy hurt their feelings trump my right to own that toy? I'm sick unto death of these self-appointed busy-bodies deciding what books I can read, what music I can listen to, what movies I can watch, because they find it offensive. Fuck them. What gives them the right to make that decision for me?

[gobear]

Buttonjockey308, you do not understand the problems of stigma that people wiht mental illness have to endure. Mental illness is caused by bad brain chemistry, yet people who have it are maginalized and treated as inferior by people like you, who buy into the idea that it's socially acceptable to mock people with a terrifying, crippling illness.

I work for one of the mental health advocacy groups that protested against the sale of these bears, which make fun of people afflicted with an illness that already makes them outcasts in our society. Stigma against the mentally ill only exacerbates the popular prejudice against people who struggle each day against the bigotry of people who view illness as a badge of inferiority. From the NAMI Website:

"In May, 1997, a consumer found herself screaming for help on a sidewalk in LA in the middle of the night. This was her initiation into the terrifying world of bipolar, but it was the stigma, she contends, that did more harm than the illness. Soon after, her good friend of six years sent her a letter saying she could no longer be her friend, and not to call. Then her boyfriend, a doctor, disappeared.

The misfortunes continued to pile on: Her business partner took advantage of her five-day hospital stay to take over her company. The stresses culminated in a suicide attempt two years later. Her next boyfriend flew the coop, and his mother accused her of stalking. Meanwhile, the people who should have been helping her only wound up making her feel like an outcast. A senior company vice president recommended she not share the details of her bipolar with anyone. Her psychiatrist bailed on her. Her rabbi said, "Don't tell anyone you are bipolar - you will never get married."

"Stigma has made me scared, isolated, and traumatized," Annabelle told the workshop at the NAMI Conference. "A chemical imbalance became a stigma practiced by educated, intelligent people."


Your OP perpetuates ignorance and antagonism against people whose brain-based illness makes them targets of people like you.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Guy_Incognito]

As a retard, I'm pretty offended by that bear.

As someone with multiple personality disorder, I'm not offended by that bear.

I am, though.

[manhattan]

But I think the whole point of the free market is that, so long as a product is safe and works as advertised, nobody has any business at all trying to force retailers to pull products from the market, or of depriving consumers of access to whatever product they want. I have no more brief for private censors than I do for public censors. You don't like a product? Don't buy it. You don't like a TV show? Don't watch it. You don't like a book? Don't read it. That's the extent of your "right" to prevent a product from reaching the market. When someone takes it upon themselves to decide what I can and cannot have access to, because it somehow offends their morality, then I have a huge fucking problem with that.Oh, I dunno. There's no law, legislative or economic, that says that price is the only signal the marketplace can send about supply and demand. If I were a merchant, I'd want to hear from customers who might otherwise purchase my products but won't for some reason. That knowledge would allow me to assess whether the apparently offending product is making me as much product as I think it is -- perhaps sales of it are brisk but its existance is costing me even larger sales for my Valentine Bears and Graduation Bears and whatnot.



Because what if I want to own that bear? In the unlikely event that VTB has a trademark on the entire concept of a stuffed bear wearing a straitjacket, I don't think it would hold in court. Make your own bear. In fact, I think that's a pretty darn good idea, as I think VTB may have assessed their signals from the marketplace incorrectly and made a poor decision. Find a backer and a contractor who can make up some bears PDQ, set up a website and let CNN know. Ride the free publicity to millions. Get a couple of follow-up products ready and you've even got a sustainable business plan.

What gives them the right to make that decision for me?They have no such right. They do have the right to make their opinions known to the company, which in turn has the "right" to "make that decision for you" just as they have already made that decision for you as regards any number of hypothetical bears which they have in the past considered but not marketed.

[Kimstu]

bj: I would disagree. The "market" kept the bear in business. Pissy PC whiners with access to the press and the straw cause of offending the mentally ill put the squeeze on the company. They forced them to take a product off the market that the potentially offended group probably wouldn't buy or shop for anyway.

Miller: But I think the whole point of the free market is that, so long as a product is safe and works as advertised, nobody has any business at all trying to force retailers to pull products from the market, or of depriving consumers of access to whatever product they want.

(My emphasis.) Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Consumer activity is not limited solely to individual choices about whether or not to purchase something. Consumers also have the freedom to form voluntary associations to concentrate their purchasing power, to institute boycotts, to generate positive or negative publicity, and in many other ways to pressure the market to get what they want. This is a perfectly legitimate part of market activity.

If the advocacy groups involved here were lobbying legislators for a "Ban Insensitive Toys" law, or suing manufacturers for the pain and suffering caused by insensitive toys, I'd be squalling about it just as loud as all y'all. But they're not. They're simply using the free press and the free market to exert pressure on a company to voluntarily change its actions. Good for them.

The only way you can make this sound like a Bad Thing is by inaccurately describing it as "force", which it ain't.

Miller: Because what if I want to own that bear? Why does their right to piss and whine about how some toy hurt their feelings trump my right to own that toy? [...] What gives them the right to make that decision for me?

Ridiculous. Neither of you has any kind of "right" to get your way in this matter. You don't have a "right" to own any toy that the manufacturer doesn't want to sell. And in this case, the piss-and-whiners successfully convinced the manufacturer to change its mind about selling the toy, which they had every right to do.

Of course, you have just as much right to institute or participate in a counter-campaign designed to pressure the company to change its mind back again, so you can get the toy you want. But it looks as though the pro-Crazy-Bear side couldn't be bothered to mobilize, so too fuckin' bad. They won. You lost. Nobody violated anybody's rights. Suck it up, Whiny-Boy.

[Or, in preview, what manhattan said.]

[Miller]

(My emphasis.) Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Consumer activity is not limited solely to individual choices about whether or not to purchase something. Consumers also have the freedom to form voluntary associations to concentrate their purchasing power, to institute boycotts, to generate positive or negative publicity, and in many other ways to pressure the market to get what they want. This is a perfectly legitimate part of market activity.

They have the freedom to do so in the sense that there is no law against it, and I don't think there should (or could) be a law against it. It's still a fucked up thing to do. It's petty, DIY tyranny, and I've got zero respect for anyone who engages in an organized boycott. Such people are showing absolute contempt for the principles of individual freedom which are the foundation of this country.

If the advocacy groups involved here were lobbying legislators for a "Ban Insensitive Toys" law, or suing manufacturers for the pain and suffering caused by insensitive toys, I'd be squalling about it just as loud as all y'all. But they're not. They're simply using the free press and the free market to exert pressure on a company to voluntarily change its actions. Good for them.

No, fuck them. I don't care if they're using the government to enforce their morals on the rest of the country, or if they're using private pressure groups. The end result is the same: a vocal minority gets to impose their ideas of what's right on the rest of us, without our consent.

The only way you can make this sound like a Bad Thing is by inaccurately describing it as "force", which it ain't.

Like hell it isn't.

Ridiculous. Neither of you has any kind of "right" to get your way in this matter. You don't have a "right" to own any toy that the manufacturer doesn't want to sell. And in this case, the piss-and-whiners successfully convinced the manufacturer to change its mind about selling the toy, which they had every right to do.

But the manufacturer does want to sell it. Else, they wouldn't have made and marketed it in the first place. Instead, a small, vocal pressure group has bullied them into removing the product using the threat of massive negative publicity.

Of course, you have just as much right to institute or participate in a counter-campaign designed to pressure the company to change its mind back again, so you can get the toy you want. But it looks as though the pro-Crazy-Bear side couldn't be bothered to mobilize, so too fuckin' bad. They won. You lost. Nobody violated anybody's rights.

Yeah, 'cause the bear is the real issue here. That's what I'm pissed about. The bear. I really, really wanted to own this bear, and now I can't, and that's what I'm angry about.

Suck it up, Whiny-Boy.

Fuck you, you mealy-mouthed limp-dick.

[Ghanima]

Aren't you guys all a bit behind the times? They stopped selling it last year if I recall. Why weren't you whining about it last February?

[kaylasdad99]

Being offended is an internal reaction that is chosen by the offended party.

Just as a f'rinstance, I am a registered voter in the state of California. The interests who manipulate the initiative process in the state of California routinely engage in behavior that suggests that they believe that I, as a California voter, am stupid enough to buy any bill of goods they wish to peddle. If I am offended by that implied accusation of stupidity, it is because I am choosing offendedness (offense) as my response.

From another perspective to illustrate my point, I direct your attention to the following stereotypical exchange of gracious conversational snippets:

SPEAKER A: "No offense intended."

SPEAKER B: "None taken."

The above doesn't even require a real-world (or even hypothetical) example to place it in context. I'm sure we can all recognize the exchange as formulaic. The point illustrated is that offense is something which is TAKEN, not something which is BESTOWED.

Given the above, I have to conclude that I DO, in fact have a right to not be offended.

I also have the responsibility to exercise that right on my own behalf.

[Kimstu]

Miller: It's petty, DIY tyranny, and I've got zero respect for anyone who engages in an organized boycott. Such people are showing absolute contempt for the principles of individual freedom which are the foundation of this country.

Cheeses Rice. Without intending any disrespect to the mental-health advocacy community, I gotta say, kid, you are nuts. This is libertarian individualism run absolutely frothing mad.

Just how far are you willing to take this interpretation of "DIY tyranny", anyway? Is it "tyranny" for anybody to attempt to influence commercial decisions in any way except through individual purchase choices? What if the spouse of the company's CEO says "You know, honey, I think that bear's kind of disgusting, I don't think you folks ought to be marketing it"? Is that person "showing absolute contempt for the principles of individual freedom"?

Miller: The end result is the same: a vocal minority gets to impose their ideas of what's right on the rest of us, without our consent.

Oh, it's much worse than that, Miller! You know, companies often make marketing decisions on the basis of studying focus groups! A small group of people, completely unbeknownst to you and entirely without your consent, is able to express any opinion they want about a proposed product, and significantly influence the company's decision about marketing it! Talk about imposing the ideas of a vocal minority on the rest of us without our consent!! Oh, the horror, the bleak black-leather fascism of it all! [cue gloomy music...]

Come off it. A company's marketing choices are not sacrosanct shrines to "freedom". They are commercial decisions about profitability. It is no more "bullying" for a protest or a boycott to use negative publicity to convince a company to stop selling a product voluntarily than it is for a company to use negative publicity to force a competitor's product off the market.

[Finagle]

Buttonjockey308, you do not understand the problems of stigma that people wiht mental illness have to endure.
Your OP perpetuates ignorance and antagonism against people whose brain-based illness makes them targets of people like you.

You should be ashamed of yourself.


And yet, heart wrenching as that anecdote was, I didn't see any mention of strait jackets or teddybears. Nor, in the OP, did I see any mention of "let's mock the bipolar".

The teddy bear might be considered in poor taste, but it's an enormous stretch to say that it perpetuates ignorance and antagonism towards the mentally ill.

[gobear]

And yet, heart wrenching as that anecdote was, I didn't see any mention of strait jackets or teddybears. Nor, in the OP, did I see any mention of "let's mock the bipolar".

The teddy bear might be considered in poor taste, but it's an enormous stretch to say that it perpetuates ignorance and antagonism towards the mentally ill.
No, it isn't. I fielded tons of calls from outraged consumers who wanted us to know about this item and how it perpetuated stigma.

[kaylasdad99]

Further to what gobear said, it is a stretch to deny that it perpetuates the stigma. In fact, it capitalizes on that stigma.

[Miller]

Cheeses Rice. Without intending any disrespect to the mental-health advocacy community, I gotta say, kid, you are nuts. This is libertarian individualism run absolutely frothing mad.

You call me a libertarian again, and I'm going to get really angry.

Just how far are you willing to take this interpretation of "DIY tyranny", anyway? Is it "tyranny" for anybody to attempt to influence commercial decisions in any way except through individual purchase choices? What if the spouse of the company's CEO says "You know, honey, I think that bear's kind of disgusting, I don't think you folks ought to be marketing it"? Is that person "showing absolute contempt for the principles of individual freedom"?

No, it's not. I'm talking about organized boycotts, here.

Oh, it's much worse than that, Miller! You know, companies often make marketing decisions on the basis of studying focus groups! A small group of people, completely unbeknownst to you and entirely without your consent, is able to express any opinion they want about a proposed product, and significantly influence the company's decision about marketing it! Talk about imposing the ideas of a vocal minority on the rest of us without our consent!! Oh, the horror, the bleak black-leather fascism of it all! [cue gloomy music...]

Focus groups are one of the main reasons that mainstream media is almost entirely devoid of anything interesting, creative, or original. I've got about as much contempt for them as I do for you, but in this case, at least the companies using them have sought them out on their own initiative, not been bushwhacked by a bunch of loud-mouths in desperate need of a hobby.

Come off it. A company's marketing choices are not sacrosanct shrines to "freedom". They are commercial decisions about profitability. It is no more "bullying" for a protest or a boycott to use negative publicity to convince a company to stop selling a product voluntarily than it is for a company to use negative publicity to force a competitor's product off the market.

I'm not talking about the company's freedom to market, I'm talking about my freedom to consume. Organized boycotts are grassroots censorship. They are attempts to dictate what other people are allowed to read/watch/hear/think about. While mercifully less effective than government censorship, they are no less disgusting, and the people responsible for them no less repulsive.

[Homebrew]

*huff* everyone is ignoring the example I provided. It's much more looney.

::goes away to pout::

[Guinastasia]

I suffer from depression and anxiety and I would LOVE to own that bear. I too abhor the stigma of mental illness in our society. That being said, I still like the bear and think that sometimes laughter helps us get over these things.

[Otto]

Your OP perpetuates ignorance and antagonism against people whose brain-based illness makes them targets of people like you.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Wow, I thought I was being wooshed until I read your follow-up post.

Do your outraged consumers (were they, by the way, mentally ill themselves or were they mentally healthy and just assuming outrage on behalf of others?) demand the banning of the Pasty Cline song "Crazy"? What about Madonna's early semi-hit "Crazy for You" or "I'm Going Bananas" from Dick Tracy? Or any of the thousands of other examples of commercial exploitation of the commonly accepted trope of "crazy" as a synonym for "in love"?

Now if they want to get outraged about a bear, let them get outraged at Hallmark's homophobic Kiss-Kiss Bears (http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/857/857_kiss_kiss.asp).

[gobear]

Wow, I thought I was being wooshed until I read your follow-up post.

Do your outraged consumers (were they, by the way, mentally ill themselves or were they mentally healthy and just assuming outrage on behalf of others?) demand the banning of the Pasty Cline song "Crazy"? What about Madonna's early semi-hit "Crazy for You" or "I'm Going Bananas" from Dick Tracy? Or any of the thousands of other examples of commercial exploitation of the commonly accepted trope of "crazy" as a synonym for "in love"?

Now if they want to get outraged about a bear, let them get outraged at Hallmark's homophobic Kiss-Kiss Bears (http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/857/857_kiss_kiss.asp).
Otto, I work for NAMI and I help people who deal with schizophrenia, bipolar illness, OCD, chronic depression, and other serious mental illnesses. Most of the people at my nonprofit either are consumers themselves ("consumers" being the nice word for mentally ill people) or have mentally ill family members. Dude, stigma hurts people's employment, their housing, their relations with healthy people. Do you have any idea about the real pain that people have to endure because people like you laugh at their illness? Do you know how hard it is to keep a job, let alone get hired, because people like you think that the mentally ill don't deserve the same rights or the same medical care as you?

Bigotry sucks. All bigotry. Yeah, I hate the homophobic "kiss kiss bears" too, but unlike you I can empathize with the struggles of other people as well.

[Shagnasty]

Otto, I work for NAMI and I help people who deal with schizophrenia, bipolar illness, OCD, chronic depression, and other serious mental illnesses. Most of the people at my nonprofit either are consumers themselves ("consumers" being the nice word for mentally ill people) or have mentally ill family members. Dude, stigma hurts people's employment, their housing, their relations with healthy people. Do you have any idea about the real pain that people have to endure because people like you laugh at their illness? Do you know how hard it is to keep a job, let alone get hired, because people like you think that the mentally ill don't deserve the same rights or the same medical care as you?

Bigotry sucks. All bigotry. Yeah, I hate the homophobic "kiss kiss bears" too, but unlike you I can empathize with the struggles of other people as well.


Gobear , I am Biploar Type I and I know first hand the type of stigma that people with mental illness have to endure. I applaud you and your non-profit center for the work you do. It is certainly welcome and drastically needed.

However, I don't get offended by the bear. I have been in a few mental hospitals and have never seen a straight jacket. To me, it is just a comical device to express an idea. It would be the same thing if they made a bear with an old-style ball and chain and the families of prisioners got offended. I wouldn't call it a positive thing for the mentally ill but I think it is just a cute bear. Others can protest all they want but I think that there are more productive things to spend time on in the fight the rights of the mentally ill.

[Otto]

Dude, stigma hurts people's employment, their housing, their relations with healthy people. Do you have any idea about the real pain that people have to endure because people like you laugh at their illness? Do you know how hard it is to keep a job, let alone get hired, because people like you think that the mentally ill don't deserve the same rights or the same medical care as you?
Fuck you, you self-righteous son of a bitch. I'll see your "answers phones for NAMI" and raise you three years in a relationship with a man with schizo-affective disorder, diagnosed depression (but IMHO undiagnosed bipolar), anxiety disorder and social phobia. You deal with the mentally ill 9-5 five days a week? I dealt with the mentally ill 24/7 for three years, through the loss of jobs, the inability to get him on my insurance because we weren't legally married, the battles with the feds and the state to get his medical bills paid, the depression and the multiple runs to the emergency room and the locked psych ward (not to mention getting to be the one who gets to call his mother) following suicide attempts. I've been on the front lines, asshole. You have nothing to say to me about dealing with the mentally ill.

Bigotry sucks. All bigotry. Yeah, I hate the homophobic "kiss kiss bears" too, but unlike you I can empathize with the struggles of other people as well. Oh, I can only hope that one day I'll be as evolved as you. Be sure to send me your garment so I may touch the hem of it.

[buttonjockey308]

Buttonjockey308, you do not understand the problems of stigma that people wiht mental illness have to endure. Mental illness is caused by bad brain chemistry, yet people who have it are maginalized and treated as inferior by people like you, who buy into the idea that it's socially acceptable to mock people with a terrifying, crippling illness.

Hey, listen here you self-righteous cockgobbler, I know both first and second hand about the trials and tribulations of those suffering from mental illness, and it's root causation, so fuck you, fuck your assumptions AND fuck your igorance of my situation and experiences. And what the fuck is with the "people like you" comment? That's a GIAGANTIC assumption on your part, pal. I haven't marginalized or treated ANYONE as inferior because of an illness they cannot control having.

Frankly, I think mocking just about anything is socially acceptable, just because it offends YOUR personal sensibilities, does NOT mean everyone must subscribe to your way of thinking.

I work for one of the mental health advocacy groups that protested against the sale of these bears, which make fun of people afflicted with an illness that already makes them outcasts in our society. Stigma against the mentally ill only exacerbates the popular prejudice against people who struggle each day against the bigotry of people who view illness as a badge of inferiority.

Cue the violins already :rolleyes:. Give it a rest ya fuckin' hand-wringer, there are a LOT of things that make people outcasts in this society; fat people, gays, blacks, women, cripples (ok, disabled) are all technically victims of a stigma, of some kind, whining about it only vaguely addresses the symptoms, and does nothing for the disease.

The outrage you and the 'industry' folks are manufacturing for this fucking teddy bear is doing nothing more than making sure the mentally ill remain victims of the stigma you rail against.


Your OP perpetuates ignorance and antagonism against people whose brain-based illness makes them targets of people like you.

Here we are again with the 'people like you' bigotry. YOU KNOW FUCK ALL ABOUT ME, you jackass. Fuck. When come back, bring argument, asscake.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Piss off.

[gobear]

Actually, Buttonjockey308, your posts and your attitude tell me all I need to know about you.

And since Otto believes that because he dated a mentally ill guy that no complaints about stigma need be addressed, I'll just back away.

[gobear]

And just to be clear, I'm only posting my opinions, and am speaking only for myself, not for NAMI, consumers, or any other group.

[Harborwolf]

Might I just suggest that there may be better avenues to deal with the prejudices faced by the mentally challenged then getting all bothered by a teddy bear.

I really want to understand where people are coming from about this whole thing, but it's a teddy bear.

Of all the examples of prejudice against the mentally ill, a fight was picked over a teddy bear. The best example they could find was a teddy bear in a straight jacket?

It's a play on words. It's a cheesey little joke. It's a friggin cutesy teddy bear!

How in the crap can people get so lathered up over a teddy bear? If you want to get mad about it, get mad about the price. $70 bucks for a teddy bear with a lame joke costume. Now that's offensive.

[Shagnasty]

Fuck you, you self-righteous son of a bitch. I'll see your "answers phones for NAMI" and raise you three years in a relationship with a man with schizo-affective disorder, diagnosed depression (but IMHO undiagnosed bipolar), anxiety disorder and social phobia. You deal with the mentally ill 9-5 five days a week? I dealt with the mentally ill 24/7 for three years, through the loss of jobs, the inability to get him on my insurance because we weren't legally married, the battles with the feds and the state to get his medical bills paid, the depression and the multiple runs to the emergency room and the locked psych ward (not to mention getting to be the one who gets to call his mother) following suicide attempts. I've been on the front lines, asshole. You have nothing to say to me about dealing with the mentally ill.

I don't understand the point of any of this. Does this mean that Gobear's opinion has no value because he only works with the mentally ill while you were partners with someone affected? Well, I will raise you. As I explained earlier, I have it myself. I guess that means that you now have absolutley nothing to say about the mentally ill in this thread. I value Gobear's opinion and not yours from what I have read so that settles that as long as we are having a ranking contest.

[gobear]

I really wanted to use my 10,000th post for something else.

I have no interest in playing "Can You Top This"? I only mentioned my work (which is not "answering phones") because this issue has been brought up by consumers themselves who were upset by the bear. I'd be pissed as a gay man if the company had produced a bear that perpetuated a derogatory stereotype of gay people.

What I think the OP misunderstands is that bigotry isn't perpetuated by burning crosses or overt acts as much as it is by the small, "harmless" things that we let slide, like using "cockgobbler" as a term of insult, as if being gay were a bad thing.

I understand we need a sense or proportion and that we can't be the Sensitivity Police, and I certainly don't pretend to speak for other people, but are supposed to ignore it when people say that they are offended by a stereotype being sold as a joke?

[Otto]

And since Otto believes that because he dated a mentally ill guy that no complaints about stigma need be addressed, I'll just back away. You're not usually this stupid. Did I say that the stigma of mental illness doesn't need to be addressed? No. Did I say that because I was in a long-term committed relationship with a severely mentally ill man (and fuck you sideways with a rusty saw blade for reducing it to "dating," fucker, way to devalue the relationship just like a fundamentalist prick) that I am Lord God King of What Offends The Mentally Ill? No.

What I said, you martyr-complexed jackass, is that your stupid, ill-informed, condescending, fucked up in general assumptions about me and my background and experience with the mentally ill and the asshole remarks you made as a result of your pig-ignorance were flat wrong, and that your claim of some special expertise in the matter because you answer phones for a mental health organization (that I, by the way, was involved with long before you started drawing your paycheck) is a load of shit.

You come barreling in here as, from what I know, a mentally healthy person, declaring that the OP is the sort of person who "targets" the mentally ill, and follow that up with the ludicrous idea that because I don't fall in line with what your idea of "support" is that I have no empathy for the mentally ill. Then when that shithead attitude gets exploded, you belittle and dismiss my experiences as the long-term partner of a mentally ill man. I hope you treat the partners of your consumers better than that.
Does this mean that Gobear's opinion has no value because he only works with the mentally ill while you were partners with someone affected? No, it means that his rickety ladder to the moral high ground starts losing rungs when he pretends like disagreeing with him on this issue means that those who disagree are bad people who "target" the mentally ill and are incapable of empathy. It means that my experiences on the ground dealing with a loved one with multiple mental illnesses every day for three years count for at least as much as whatever training he got from NAMI to answer their phones and that he needs to go fuck himself for being a dismissive little prick.

[Smeghead]

You don't have to be crazy to get offended around here, but it helps!!

[gobear]

You're not usually this stupid. Did I say that the stigma of mental illness doesn't need to be addressed? No. Did I say that because I was in a long-term committed relationship with a severely mentally ill man (and fuck you sideways with a rusty saw blade for reducing it to "dating," fucker, way to devalue the relationship just like a fundamentalist prick) that I am Lord God King of What Offends The Mentally Ill? No.

Nor am I claiming that. I am merely passing on what has been brought to my attention by many, many people. I apologize for dismissing the gravity of your relationship, which I'm sure you learned much from. I don't pretend to be on the moral high ground, but I am close to the issue and deal directly with stigma.

And my work is not "answering phones"-- I work in media, as you must know, so guess how much I might happen to know about a media issue. I've mentioned my diagnosed depression on the boards before but I'm not going to talk about it with you. It doesn't give me clinical knowledge--I lack a Ph.D in psychiatry--but I think I know something about this issue.

[Homebrew]

But what about the TRUCK!!???

;)

[GingerOfTheNorth]

I can not read the title to this thread without thinking "Brian Fellowes" from Saturday Night Live.

Someone, please, tell me they know what I'm talking about.

[Harborwolf]

I can not read the title to this thread without thinking "Brian Fellowes" from Saturday Night Live.

Someone, please, tell me they know what I'm talking about.

Man, that bear got devil eyes.

I'm Brian Fellowes.

[Otto]

It's Brian FELLOW, no "s." Although Tracey Morgan frequently forgets that his own self.

[Bryan Ekers]

You don't have to have $70 to buy this bear.


But it couldn't hurt.

[Askia]

Whenever I see a problem like this I can't quite wrap my head around, I wonder how this affects me as a nigger. Then all becomes clear.

Because while I obstensively agree with Miller's statement... But I think the whole point of the free market is that, so long as a product is safe and works as advertised, nobody has any business at all trying to force retailers to pull products from the market, or of depriving consumers of access to whatever product they want. I have no more brief for private censors than I do for public censors. You don't like a product? Don't buy it. You don't like a TV show? Don't watch it. You don't like a book? Don't read it. That's the extent of your "right" to prevent a product from reaching the market. When someone takes it upon themselves to decide what I can and cannot have access to, because it somehow offends their morality, then I have a huge fucking problem with that.... I realize the marketplace is a bit more complicated than that; in a world of public relations, concerning a product whose schtick is obstensively humorous, you're always going to have to worry about whether some group feels offended by it. Recall, as I now do, the flap over Ghettopoly (http://ghettopoly.com/) and how this situation is a somewhat less heated version than that.

Opposing groups seem to have taken appropriate measured steps to remove said item from the mainstream marketplace. Someday, it may succeed in getting eBay to stop listing auctions for it, too, they way eBay stops auctions for KKK robes and Nazi memorabilia (doubtful, but it's an option.). Conversely, someone else with thicker skin may see those $300 auctions selling and decide to manufacture another bear for $150 to replace the bear that originally retailed for $70 even though it should probably only sell for maybe $35 and probably was manufactered for less than $10 -- by which time we'll have come full circle.

You can't really stop anybody bound and determined to from marketing anything as long as the product has a demand for it. ('Safe' and 'works as advertised' have nothing to do with it: you've heard of marijuana?) You can, however, sometimes with relatively little effort, exert a coordinated campaign to either influence or sometimes coerce manufacturing companies, retailers, advertising venues and distributers to make sure said product disappears from the mainstream and is regulated to the fringe, where it may or may not survive at all. That's the other aspect of the free market. Sucks to be the consumer who wants the product, but hey, the same mechanisms that protects them from dangerous products work here, too.

Kimstu has a more realistic take on the situation, and manhattan offered a sane view of other options.

I also think YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED t-shirts would totally rock.

[Excalibre]

It's petty, DIY tyranny, and I've got zero respect for anyone who engages in an organized boycott. Such people are showing absolute contempt for the principles of individual freedom which are the foundation of this country.
Really? So I don't have the right to refuse to buy Nestle products? I won't purchase from the company as a result of what I see as inhumane actions in the developing world, including long-standing efforts to discourage breastfeeding and encourage use of Carnation formula. You have zero respect for me based on that? I find that surprising.

[mhendo]

I must say, Miller, i find your position in this thread somewhat puzzling. I don't see why you can't accept attempts at organized boycotts as nothing more than the flipside of advertising—that is, an organized attempt to convince a group of people that they should not purchase a particular product or patronize a particular service.

If i say to you, "Please don't buy those t-shirts made in China, because they are the product of sweatshop labor," how is that any different, in philosophical terms, than saying, "Please buy this product, because it's made in America and keeps Americans in jobs"?

The individual freedom you fall back on in your earlier post is one that, in ideal circumstances, thrives precisely on allowing you to make this decision in an atmosphere of complete information. If you were also philosophically opposed to advertising, on the grounds that it also undermines your freedom to make your decision, then at least your position would have the virtue of consistency. As it is, though, you seem to happy to countenance one type of persuasion, but not the other, which strikes me as rather odd.

[villa]

It's petty, DIY tyranny, and I've got zero respect for anyone who engages in an organized boycott. Such people are showing absolute contempt for the principles of individual freedom which are the foundation of this country.


Yes! God damn those NAACP bastards and the contempt they showed for the individual freedom to maintain segregated lunch counters and busses.

:rolleyes:

[Askia]

Actually, lunchcounter sit-ins were more of a Southern Christian Leadership Conference / Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee thing, but your point is tken.

I think Miller got the point. buttonjockey308 seems to have, too.

[WilhelmGefallen]

I dont mean to speak for Miller, but I'd say his point is not that an organised boycott is wrong, but it is wrong to force people to remove the item for sale to a public that obviously wanted to purchase it.

IE: MHendo, your boycott of Nestle is fine, if you wanted to organise a public boycott of the product it is fine if you were then to organise a boycott which forced Nestle to stop selling Carnation products to willing consumers there would be a problem.

[mhendo]

I dont mean to speak for Miller, but I'd say his point is not that an organised boycott is wrong, but it is wrong to force people to remove the item for sale to a public that obviously wanted to purchase it.

IE: MHendo, your boycott of Nestle is fine, if you wanted to organise a public boycott of the product it is fine if you were then to organise a boycott which forced Nestle to stop selling Carnation products to willing consumers there would be a problem.You have the same problem as Miller, though. You fail to appreciate that none of these organised boycotts have any power to force any company to remove any product from the market (unless, of course, they copnvince governments or government agencies to actually legislate against or ban the product).

It wasn't me that brought up Nestle, but i'm happy to use it as an example. The only way my boycott can "force" Nestle to stop selling any of their products is if they believe that the negative publicity that i generate is sufficiently influential to cause people to stop buying their products. They will then make a market-based decision, deciding that the sales they lose from dropping the product will be greater than the sales they lose from keeping that product in their line.

A boycott and its attendant publicity are, as i said before, nothing more than the flip side of advertising—rather than attempting to persuade people of a company and its products' benefits (which advertising does), a boycott attempts to persuade people of a company and its products' drawbacks. If advertising is successful, more people buy the product and the company keeps the product on the market. If a boycott and its attendant publicity are successful, fewer people buy the product and the company might have to withdraw the product from the market.

[Askia]

I dont mean to speak for Miller, but I'd say his point is not that an organised boycott is wrong, but it is wrong to force people to remove the item for sale to a public that obviously wanted to purchase it. See, I kinda agree. But I think Miller ideologically opposes bans on items like pornography, government curbs on exotic animals as pets and maybe even certain anti-drug laws and things like that -- y'know, "safe" and "works as advertised" -- and equates boycotting with banning when the two are not quite the same thing. You still have legal marketing venues and avenues available to you when you when an otherwise legal product is boycotted only because it offends many people's sensibilities. The stigma reduces demand for the object, leaving it only for those who really want it and seek it out. (Which jacks up the price.) Items made illegal because they guv'mint says they're not good for you still have a huge demand in the black market, the fringe. The stigma here actually helps increase demand to buy and sell because of the seductive lure of owning something forbidden and the hugely artificially inflated prices, pushing it all underground where's its still available to everyone and anyone who knows how to get it. Grassroots boycotting largely works, state and federal prohibition largely doesn't. It's bad for the consumer that prices get raised so high, but HEY. The prices is no higher than what the market will bear.

mhendo's right. Boycotting can only persuade businesses to comply with a consumer demand. Other tactics have to be used to coerce businesses to comply or face ruin. But those other tactics are not the same as boycotting.

[Miller]

Excalibre raises a fair point. I should have included an exception for boycotts aimed at correcting dangerous or inhumane business practices. But I think that's materially different than what the OP complains about, which is nothing more than an attempt to censor a harmless (if offensive) product on purely ideological grounds. That's something that I have a huge problem with, even when I'm sympathetic to the offended ideology.

[Kimstu]

Miller: I should have included an exception for boycotts aimed at correcting dangerous or inhumane business practices. But I think that's materially different than what the OP complains about, which is nothing more than an attempt to censor a harmless (if offensive) product on purely ideological grounds. That's something that I have a huge problem with, even when I'm sympathetic to the offended ideology.

But your distinction isn't logically sound. There is no clear division among different kinds of objectionable business practices. They don't all group neatly into clearly distinct categories like "dangerous" versus "offensive". (For example, there are plenty of people, even in Third World countries, for whom bottle-feeding rather than breast-feeding is harmless and even necessary. Why should folks like Excalibre try to "force" companies like Nestle to deny those people what they want? After all, if other people don't want to use baby formula, they can simply avoid buying it, right?)

Nor is there a clear division between individuals protesting a product on ethical grounds (e.g., my example of a complaint from a CEO's spouse, which you were apparently fine with) and an "organized boycott". How many complaining individuals does it take before you consider it an "organized boycott"? Why not one more, or one fewer?

There's no way you can make a logically coherent overall rejection of boycotts on the grounds of defending freedom. I do see the point you're trying to get at: minding one's own business is a good thing, and if people never mind their own business then things do become too intrusive. Very true. However, minding one's own business has to be balanced against working to improve the world you live in, which is also a good thing. There are always tradeoffs when ethical principles are involved.

The way you're trying to set it up, though, there's an absurd inconsistency in what you consider ethical market behavior:
- choosing to purchase something is not "anti-freedom";
- choosing not to purchase something is not "anti-freedom";
- choosing to market something is not "anti-freedom";
- choosing not to market something is not "anti-freedom";
- trying to persuade somebody else to purchase something is not "anti-freedom";
- trying to persuade somebody else to market something is not "anti-freedom";

... but trying to persuade somebody else not to purchase, or market, something is "anti-freedom", according to you.

WTF?? Why on earth should we consider it "pro-freedom" to discourage other people from expressing and publicizing their opinion about a product, just because the opinion happens to be negative? That certainly doesn't sound "pro-freedom" to me. After all, we're not talking about busybodies interfering with other people's strictly private behavior here: we're talking about publicly marketed and advertised products that companies do their best to force on everybody's attention, even people who find them repugnant. I think being able to complain publicly about something you find repugnant is a pretty important freedom.

The final paradox in your position is in your claim that you reject people's "imposing their morality on others". Well, the only argument you have against boycotts is itself a moral one: you consider that it disrespects freedom (although as has been noted, that's not a very logical conclusion). By condemning boycotts just because you find them ethically offensive, you are yourself trying to impose your own moral views on others.

It is natural to get all irritated about oversensitive people making a huge stink to spoil other people's harmless fun. Nobody likes a party-pooper. However, there is really no way to condemn such practices wholesale without tying yourself up in logical knots. Face it, the use of negative pressure from consumers is a natural and integrated part of market activity in general. It is not "pro-freedom" to condemn it.

[Miller]

But your distinction isn't logically sound. There is no clear division among different kinds of objectionable business practices. They don't all group neatly into clearly distinct categories like "dangerous" versus "offensive". (For example, there are plenty of people, even in Third World countries, for whom bottle-feeding rather than breast-feeding is harmless and even necessary. Why should folks like Excalibre try to "force" companies like Nestle to deny those people what they want? After all, if other people don't want to use baby formula, they can simply avoid buying it, right?)

Well, I'm not familiar enough with the basis of the Nestle boycott to effectively argue it. From what I understand, Nestle's marketing of their formula in some third world areas is killing a lot of kids. That's a pretty clear distinction to me from something that's simply "offensive." Too, the ultimate goal of the boycott is not to remove the formula from the market entirely, but to force Nestle to market it more responsibly. If the boycott is successul, the product will still be available to anyone who wants it and can afford it.

Nor is there a clear division between individuals protesting a product on ethical grounds (e.g., my example of a complaint from a CEO's spouse, which you were apparently fine with) and an "organized boycott". How many complaining individuals does it take before you consider it an "organized boycott"? Why not one more, or one fewer?

What's so hard to understand about the division between "one" and "more than one"? Seems pretty clear to me.

There's no way you can make a logically coherent overall rejection of boycotts on the grounds of defending freedom. I do see the point you're trying to get at: minding one's own business is a good thing, and if people never mind their own business then things do become too intrusive. Very true. However, minding one's own business has to be balanced against working to improve the world you live in, which is also a good thing. There are always tradeoffs when ethical principles are involved.

I agree. And I think I covered this in my last post. If there's a product/business practice that is killing or physically harming people, I don't object to the boycott. If someone wants to organize a boycott becuase they just don't like a product, well, they should grow the fuck up and recognize that there are things in the world that don't appeal to them, but do appeal to other people, and to let those other people enjoy the things they enjoy.

WTF?? Why on earth should we consider it "pro-freedom" to discourage other people from expressing and publicizing their opinion about a product, just because the opinion happens to be negative? That certainly doesn't sound "pro-freedom" to me. After all, we're not talking about busybodies interfering with other people's strictly private behavior here: we're talking about publicly marketed and advertised products that companies do their best to force on everybody's attention, even people who find them repugnant. I think being able to complain publicly about something you find repugnant is a pretty important freedom.

There's a difference, to me, between saying "That bear is really stupid," and participating in a letter writing campaign aimed at convincing the company to pull the bear off the market. I object to that shit because 90% of it is aimed at removing products that I use and enjoy from the marketplace. Thank God, they're usually unsuccesful, at least where I live, but almost every single thing I do recreationally is being targetted by a lobby determined to make sure I cannot enjoy my hobbies. From the music I listen to, to the books I read, to the games I play, to the person I sleep with, there's always some loud-mouthed busybody who's convinced that these things are satanic, or immoral, or traitorous, and that I should not have the choice to enjoy these things if I want to. Where does that end? There's nothing in this world that isn't offensive to someone, somewhere. God knows, 90% of the stuff I see on network TV offends me to some degree, but I can just turn the damned channel. I don't have to run out and scream at NBC until they stop broadcasting Fear Factor. And I don't want to do that, because a lot of people enjoy the damned thing, and their enjoyment of the show doesn't hurt me in any way. So let them enjoy their entertainment, and I'll enjoy mine, and we can both be happy. To me, that's the basis for a functioning, multi-cultural democracy. And the degree to which this attitude seems to be eroding in American society genuinely scares me.

The final paradox in your position is in your claim that you reject people's "imposing their morality on others". Well, the only argument you have against boycotts is itself a moral one: you consider that it disrespects freedom (although as has been noted, that's not a very logical conclusion). By condemning boycotts just because you find them ethically offensive, you are yourself trying to impose your own moral views on others.

Yeah, well, my morals are better than theirs.

Seriously, though, you are correct. But then again, that's the nature of human society. I'm against murder, and support laws outlawing it. That, too, is "imposing my moral views on others." That's simply unavoidable in any sort of human society. The question we have here is, to what extent do we allow this imposition of moral views to erode personal freedom? I draw that line pretty far back. I'm arguing from the principle that anything that neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket is no concern of mine. I believe in this principle because I think it assures everyone the most amount of personal freedom possible. If someone participates in a boycott aimed at removing a product for no other reason than personal offense, then they have no basis to complain when something they find enjoyable or important is attacked because someone else finds if offensive. And, as I said above, I'm pretty much on the bottom of the cultural heap when it comes to this sort of pile-on. My opposition to boycotts is as much out of self-defense as any moral or ethical principle.

[Kimstu]

Miller: Too, the ultimate goal of the boycott is not to remove the formula from the market entirely, but to force Nestle to market it more responsibly.

I could just as well say that the goal of the bear campaign is not to force the company to stop selling teddy bears, just to get them marketed more responsibly (i.e., without mental-illness ad gags). Again, there really is not a "bright line" when it comes to evaluating ad campaigns or protests against them.

Miller: What's so hard to understand about the division between "one" and "more than one"? Seems pretty clear to me.

Hmmm. So if one individual complains to a company about its product, that's okay, but if two individuals do, that's "anti-freedom"? Or is it okay as long as the two individuals don't talk to each other about it? I honestly don't see how you can make a useful dividing line here between allowable individual protests and group protests.

Miller: So let them enjoy their entertainment, and I'll enjoy mine, and we can both be happy. To me, that's the basis for a functioning, multi-cultural democracy. And the degree to which this attitude seems to be eroding in American society genuinely scares me.

I can see your point, and even agree with it to a large extent. But I don't think it helps the situation to slap sweeping, arbitrary generalizations like "Boycotts Bad" on top of it. IMO it just encourages the spread of "what you do is bad and I think it should be stopped" attitudes. Tolerance begins at home, and I think we should set the example by tolerating stupid and oversensitive attempts at boycotts. Doesn't mean we can't oppose or criticize them, but I don't think we should denounce the whole enterprise as fundamentally illegitimate.

Miller: I'm arguing from the principle that anything that neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket is no concern of mine.

Then I can't see how you could support a boycott of a company on account of its baby-formula marketing strategies in the Third World. In the first place, it isn't breaking your leg or picking your pocket. In the second place, why should the company suffer for the fact that some people use its product incorrectly, with dirty water? The company's not advocating that they use it with dirty water. Similarly, how could you support an anti-segregation boycott, if you're not black? Discriminating against black people doesn't break your leg or pick your pocket.

See what I mean? As you quite rightly point out, we always have to balance between promoting our own moral views and respecting others' freedom. But it just doesn't work to try to establish an arbitrary dividing line between different kinds of legal activities and complain that everybody who draws the line in a different place from you is "anti-freedom".

Miller: And, as I said above, I'm pretty much on the bottom of the cultural heap when it comes to this sort of pile-on. My opposition to boycotts is as much out of self-defense as any moral or ethical principle.

Well, I sympathize on a personal level, but it does kind of let the air out of your earlier passionate denunciations of boycotters "showing absolute contempt for the principles of individual freedom which are the foundation of this country." Translation: "they might persuade manufacturers not to sell me stuff I want".

[Homebrew]

Hmmm. So if one individual complains to a company about its product, that's okay, but if two individuals do, that's "anti-freedom"? Or is it okay as long as the two individuals don't talk to each other about it? I honestly don't see how you can make a useful dividing line here between allowable individual protests and group protests.
You know, if one person, just one person complains about it they may think he's really sick and they won't listen to him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't listen to either of them. And if three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in
complainin' about Crazy Bears and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in complainin' about Crazy Bears and walking out. Friends they may think it's a movement.

And that's what it is, the Anti-Crazy Bear Massacre Movement, and
all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come's around on the
guitar.

With apologies to Arlo

[NurseCarmen]

I'm holding out for the electro-shock bear.

[Miller]

I could just as well say that the goal of the bear campaign is not to force the company to stop selling teddy bears, just to get them marketed more responsibly (i.e., without mental-illness ad gags).

That's not a valid comparison, as the the product under discussion is that particular bear. If I were objecting to, say, an attempt to boycott any TV show that portrays a homosexual couple, it would not be a valid defense to say that they can still portray couples that are heterosexual.

Hmmm. So if one individual complains to a company about its product, that's okay, but if two individuals do, that's "anti-freedom"? Or is it okay as long as the two individuals don't talk to each other about it? I honestly don't see how you can make a useful dividing line here between allowable individual protests and group protests.

Well, no, I'm fairly contemptous of individuals who take it upon themselves to bitch at companies for daring to manufactur something that they don't personally want to own, too. The analogy to the CEO's wife isn't strictly applicable, because there's a pre-exsisting, personal relationship between the two people involved that has its own dynamics, seperate from that of consumer/producer.

I can see your point, and even agree with it to a large extent. But I don't think it helps the situation to slap sweeping, arbitrary generalizations like "Boycotts Bad" on top of it. IMO it just encourages the spread of "what you do is bad and I think it should be stopped" attitudes. Tolerance begins at home, and I think we should set the example by tolerating stupid and oversensitive attempts at boycotts. Doesn't mean we can't oppose or criticize them, but I don't think we should denounce the whole enterprise as fundamentally illegitimate.

Well, I tolerate them to the extent that I don't think they should be banned or legislated against in any way. I just think the people who participate are a bunch of cocks, and I take a certain amount of pleasure in saying so.

Then I can't see how you could support a boycott of a company on account of its baby-formula marketing strategies in the Third World. In the first place, it isn't breaking your leg or picking your pocket. In the second place, why should the company suffer for the fact that some people use its product incorrectly, with dirty water? The company's not advocating that they use it with dirty water. Similarly, how could you support an anti-segregation boycott, if you're not black? Discriminating against black people doesn't break your leg or pick your pocket.

To be clear, I don't support the Nestle boycott, I'm simply not opposed to it, based on what I know about the issue.

As for discrimination, the Civil Rights Movement was not a Black Rights Movement. The victories won in the original movement protect me today as much as they protect a black, a woman, or a Muslim. A society that discriminates against one portion of its population can discriminate against any portion of its population.

See what I mean? As you quite rightly point out, we always have to balance between promoting our own moral views and respecting others' freedom. But it just doesn't work to try to establish an arbitrary dividing line between different kinds of legal activities and complain that everybody who draws the line in a different place from you is "anti-freedom".

It works pretty well for me. I've yet to find an area in which this particular stance has been self-contradictory, or come into an irresolvable conflict with any of my other principles. Although I welcome attempts to demonstrate otherwise.

Well, I sympathize on a personal level, but it does kind of let the air out of your earlier passionate denunciations of boycotters "showing absolute contempt for the principles of individual freedom which are the foundation of this country." Translation: "they might persuade manufacturers not to sell me stuff I want".

This is America. It's the same thing.

[Kimstu]

Kimstu: Is that person "showing absolute contempt for the principles of individual freedom"?

Miller: No, it's not. I'm talking about organized boycotts, here.

Kimstu: How many complaining individuals does it take before you consider it an "organized boycott"? Why not one more, or one fewer?

Miller: What's so hard to understand about the division between "one" and "more than one"? Seems pretty clear to me.

Miller: Well, no, I'm fairly contemptous of individuals who take it upon themselves to bitch at companies for daring to manufactur something that they don't personally want to own, too.

Miller: I've yet to find an area in which this particular stance has been self-contradictory [...] Although I welcome attempts to demonstrate otherwise.

Happy to help.

[Miller]

Heh. Okay, you got me there. Consider my last post a modification of my earlier stance.

[WilhelmGefallen]

It wasn't me that brought up Nestle, but i'm happy to use it as an example.

Sorry about that it was actually Excalibre, my bad.

The only way my boycott can "force" Nestle to stop selling any of their products is if they believe that the negative publicity that i generate is sufficiently influential to cause people to stop buying their products. They will then make a market-based decision, deciding that the sales they lose from dropping the product will be greater than the sales they lose from keeping that product in their line.

A boycott and its attendant publicity are, as i said before, nothing more than the flip side of advertising—rather than attempting to persuade people of a company and its products' benefits (which advertising does), a boycott attempts to persuade people of a company and its products' drawbacks. If advertising is successful, more people buy the product and the company keeps the product on the market. If a boycott and its attendant publicity are successful, fewer people buy the product and the company might have to withdraw the product from the market.

The problem comes however that the bad publicity outweighs the actual consumer outcry, and thus the average consumer is not allowed to make up his or her own mind, thus losing a certain amount of freedom of choice.

You dont want to buy it thats fine, get your campaign together and let other people make up their mind but its not ok to force someone to remove the product altogether which is what Im getting at, I hope that makes it clearer.

[Excalibre]

I don't think there's any logical line between "offensive" and "harmful", and that seems to be what Miller's trying to suggest. I certainly favor the idea of a marketplace of ideas; I think that "offensive" material is perfectly legitimate and people ought to be able to choose to enjoy it or not as they wish. But it's foolish to claim that the ideas we here don't contribute to our actions, and while I don't feel that violent video games (for example) are harmful, the argument that they promote violence is not completely unreasonable. So while you may consider something to be merely offensive speech, others may believe that it, indirectly, poses an actual-factual threat to their safety. Neither side can claim to be right for certain, so while you go on an ideological campaign to permit free speech, the other side feels that they are fighting something dangerous that poses a real threat to itself.

And frankly, if the shoe were on the other foot, and NBC started running a ministry show on its network that said nasty things about homos, I, being gay, would feel inclined to join up in a boycott against the network. After all, some people might merely consider it offensive, but since I feel that hate speech can lead to violence, I might consider it a threat to my own safety.

[tnetennba]

The OP is way over the top. It's true that people do not have the right not to be offended, but they do have the right to be offended, and to say something when they are. Moreover, I think the bears are a dumb caricature and make light of a serious problem. Some people may long to return to the days of wide-eyed, pearl-toothed negro servants, hook-nosed Jewish villains like Fagin and Shylock, wild-haired communists throwing cannon-ball bombs into government buildings, and straitjacketed crazies with rolling pupils. I, for one, do not. My gut reaction to the toy or any such representation of "craziness" is to wince.

[tnetennba]

Sorry about that it was actually Excalibre, my bad.


The problem comes however that the bad publicity outweighs the actual consumer outcry, and thus the average consumer is not allowed to make up his or her own mind, thus losing a certain amount of freedom of choice.

You dont want to buy it thats fine, get your campaign together and let other people make up their mind but its not ok to force someone to remove the product altogether which is what Im getting at, I hope that makes it clearer.

They used force? You mean, they actually muscled their way into the factory and shut down the machines?

[The Great Sun Jester]

Buttonjockey308, you do not understand the problems of stigma that people wiht mental illness have to endure. Mental illness is caused by bad brain chemistry, yet people who have it are maginalized and treated as inferior ... [s]tigma against the mentally ill only exacerbates the popular prejudice against people who struggle each day against the bigotry of people who view illness as a badge of inferiority ...

You should be ashamed of yourself.
I am.

OK, I'm not entirely right in the head, and I get your point that as long as society pokes fun at the crazies then the craziness will continue to be a humiliating and misunderstood affliction. So at least part of my personal stress package has to do with people laughing at crazy people. But Dammit, gobear, them things are funny!

I might just be unhinged, but there's a difference between harassment and humor. This toy is clearly not intended to intimidate, humiliate, exacerbate or perpetuate anything other than the love between the giver and recipient. If it weren't so damned expensive I'd buy it for my wife this V-day, and we're in the midst of cleaning up a hell of a matrimonial disaster witha bunch of mental illness smeared on the walls. It'd be just the ticket. It's cute and it's funny. And I suppose if someone has allowed life to rob him of his sense of humor, then it's probably offensive...but ANYTHING can be offensive when taken out of context. I mean, it's not as if the bear had a small child impaled on its lap to symbolize "crazy," it's just in an "I-Love-Me" jacket, which if you've ever been in love, is sometimes the most prudent place for all involved.

It's just a funny toy. I think. But I also get your point, and the point of your customers. I just refuse to view it as malevolently as they do...and I'm a paranoid.