That’s all fine – but why is the different approach “cowardly”?
If companies whose products you buy are sponsoring the show, then you’re still supporting it. That’s why the boycott.
I have the same question. How is taking a public stand on an issue cowardly in comparison to taking a private stand?
Because if I think something is wrong I want to fix it. And I know that my individual action is unlikely to be noticed much less cause change. So I’m going to make my views known in the hope that they will convince other people to act in the same way and our collective action will change things.
Let’s say some TV pundit announces they support segregation. They don’t advocate violence, but they support bringing back racial segregation. Well I don’t want to give any money or support to someone who supports segregation, so I don’t watch that show any more. And I don’t watch the network that pays him. And I don’t buy any products that advertise on that show. And I tell other people that I think this is a good idea and other people who oppose segregation might want to join me.
How is this cowardly, or wrong, in any way at all?
This is how people go about changing society. If you want to live in a world I which blatant racism is not acceptable, then you have to take steps to do so. People used to have to go out and face German shepherds and water cannons. We have the luxury of boycotting sponsors. But the thing is, if you don’t take action, then things don’t get better of they slide back to the way things were. I don’t see that as cowardly.
Focus on the Family tries to inflict their version of change too. How about you just let me decide for myself?
Maybe there are people other than you, who for their own reasons, want to hear what he has to say. It’s wrong because you are deciding for them that their reasons subservient to your own. You get to decide that you don’t want to watch them, but it’s wrong when you don’t think that the rest of society can’t handle hearing a dissenting view.
Again, in this case, I have no doubt that this dude is a racist. I don’t listen to him. But, I don’t care if you do. Maybe by having him heard, more people will listen and realize how ridiculous he sounds. Glenn Beck became a caricature, and I wish like hell he still had the platform he did a few years ago so everyone could see how silly his views were.
Maybe cowardly is the wrong word. Arrogant? Like I said, I don’t remotely understand the motivation, so it’s hard for me to put a word behind what it is.
I’m ok with being angry and uncomfortable with the things I hear, and prefer this to the milquetoast stuff that remains once every small group of people chimes in to decide that I shouldn’t get to hear any of it.
So pay his salary and broadcast his racist shit then. Why should someone else be forced to do it just because you want him on the air?
If you still don’t understand then you’re ignoring what people are telling you or you’re failing to think hard enough about it.
There are still people alive today who remember living in an America where open flagrant racism was everywhere.
Nobody thought twice about calling people “nigger” to their faces or denying black people service or warning them to be out of town by sunset. Sometime even murdering them just to keep them in their place.
How do you think they changed? It changed because people stood up to it and boycotted business that put up with it.
If we don’t keep up that commitment to making people understand that racism is unacceptable then we will lose what we have gained.
Now do you at least begin to understand the motivation? Or is your head still firmly stuck in the sand?
They shouldn’t. Where did I say that they should? What a weird comment.
So, you’re absolutely fine with the other side doing the same thing? I should be fine with the boycotts by the American Family Association or one of those other groups with “family” in the name successfully does the same move to curb what they consider unacceptable for me to watch? Because I’m not fine with that.
So, yes, I see the motivation now. It’s “I want my views to supersede the views of others and only have them reflected. I can win the marketplace of ideas by only having my ideas be the ones that have an audience.”
I have a better view of humanity as a whole. I think the majority of people look at the nonsense and see it as nonsense. They don’t need you to shield them from it.
This is a dishonest statement to attempt to attach to me with regard to what I think I’ve been pretty clear about:
Of course there are – and they’re certainly entitled to their views. I don’t see anything wrong with publicly saying to companies “I won’t be your customer if you give money to racists”.
No I’m not. I’m simply making my views known publicly. Trying to persuade people is not even close to “deciding that their reasons are subservient”.
This is not my view. My view, which I might choose to make public, is that I won’t give any money to companies who pay openly racist broadcasters. And I might encourage others to make their views public, too. In fact, I’d be happy if the supporters of Cumia (or whomever) made their views public. I’m all for everyone making their views public. Then the companies will decide what’s best for their business.
Your view is fine. I hope you continue to make your views known. This is a good thing! Way to go!
The motivation is “I don’t want to give money that helps openly racist broadcasters”. Saying that publicly is not wrong in any way – do you really think it’s “arrogant” to make my view public, or even try to persuade people that they might like to make their views public as well?
I’m fine with this too – and I’m not deciding anyone else “shouldn’t get to hear” anything. Sometimes I’ll make my displeasure public, if I feel it’s warranted. I encourage others to do the same, even when they disagree.
Thank you for making your views known publicly. You are a great American.
Of course! I’m absolutely fine with others, even those who are on the opposite side ideologically, making their views known publicly. I’m absolutely fine with them saying they don’t want to support companies that pay someone they disapprove of for various reasons. What a great country, isn’t it?
This is pretty much the complete opposite of our view.
Absolutely right. I don’t want to shield anyone from any views. I’m absolutely for free speech, including the freedom to voice one’s disapproval for various actions of corporations and other organizations and individuals. I am absolutely opposed to the government outlawing racist speech, or forcing companies to fire people for saying racist things.
Boy, what a great country this is. Thanks for being a part of this open discussion!
It seems that you use the phrase “marketplace of ideas” without understanding what it is.
This is a dishonest statement to attempt to etc. … How do you think any of those things became illegal?
Hey guys, there’s a thread over in GD where we’re discussing all of the “was it racist” and “should he be fired”, etc. kind of stuff. This thread was supposed to be in Cafe Society, but got demoted over to MPSIMS because Anthony is now a persona non grata and was retroactively deemed not important enough to belong in CS.
My OP:
[This discussion kind of morphed over into what’s going to happen next.]