Its one of those “great quote” things, probably the early 1800’s. Emerson, Thoreau, one of those guys, you’d have to ask an English major. But it was at least a hundred years before the French invented oral sex.
‘Hobgoblin’ – Emerson
I honest don’t think I’ve ever seen a worse argument in great debates…
So you believe peoples first amendment rights should be restricted based on what you think their motivation is? Who gets to decide?
When Laura Ingraham called for a boycott of the Dixie Chicks was it for societal or governmental change? I’d say it was because she was being vindictive, she didn’t like their message and wanted to silence them.
When Laura Ingraham decided to out a group of gay students by publishing the attendance and transcripts of a private gay student club, was she doing so to influence societal or governmental change? I think she did so because she’s an awful person who wanted to do harm.
If you want to implement stupid laws restricting free speech, how do you think they should be enforced? Do you plan to restrict enforcement to solely people you disagree with?
I’m glad it stands out.
When a boycott is called, there must be a reason, right? Whoever is the subject of the boycott could request an injunction and those who are organizing the boycott would have to appear in a court and state the reason. A judge would determine if the boycott requests societal or governmental change or if it is a tool of harassment or intentional harm. If it is the latter, the organizers could be liable for economic damages.
For instance, you could call for a boycott of a restaurant that served foie gras due to its inhumane preparation. However, you could not organize a boycott because the head waiter stole your girlfriend and posts selfies of the two of them in bed.
Another criteria would be whether free speech is expanded or reduced. Boycotts seeking to reduce public discourse would also be limited. I don’t see liberal commentary or news outlets as a threat and conversely you should welcome conservative and other points of view as well.
The boycott of the Dixie Chicks would be prohibited but you could still remind people of how how they are ashamed of this country and yet enjoy its benefits.
Ashamed of the President. Little did they know what was lurking.
Boycotts are not legally required to promote societal or governmental change.
So when me and my friends are deciding where to eat and I boycott Chick-Fil-A, we’ll get to let a judge decide if I’m allowed to do so? What if I decide not to state my reasons for requesting a boycott? Am I only allowed to speak freely with government sanction?
I’m not boycotting the restaurant to punish the head waiter. I’m boycotting the restaurant for the purpose of societal change. I don’t think restaurants should employ people who rub my nose in their heterosexuality.
Any instance in which the government punishes those for expressing themselves reduces free speech.
So ‘I’m not saying anyone should boycott the Dixie Chicks, I’m just using my platform as a network TV host to say I don’t like the Dixie Chicks’ is OK but not ‘People should boycott the Dixie Chicks’
How about we not give the government more control over what people are allowed to say?
Hogg didn’t boycott anything. Hogg didn’t ask anyone to boycott anything. He simply posted a list of companies that advertised on Ingraham’s show. The way I see it, executives at large companies may often be unaware of the details of their ad placements- especially companies like those listed who tend to be prolific advertisers over the entire cable and network TV spectrum. So it’s up to the concerned public to let those companies know that their products are being associated with a hateful and vile person.
Now I’ve always found it kind of ironic that while Republicans are the ones espousing and defending the idea of corporate personhood, it turns out that most large corporations are left wing socially liberal people. So I honestly believe that they aren’t dropping her because they’re scared of boycotts. I believe they really think she is a horrible person and they want to make a statement against her.
And twitter is full of right wingers that are boycotting the businesses that pulled their ads. Should these companies get an injunction against these boycotters and sue them for economic damages? I don’t think so, although the spectre of Amazon getting to sue Donald Trump personally for 16 billion is pretty delicious.
But this is how free markets self-regulate morality. So some liberals may boycott Arby’s and some conservatives may boycott Wayfair - but those companies being boycotted will also garner extra support and extra business from the other side. And the profile of the customer base may figure into the calculus, I have a gut feeling that the Arby’s customer base may be tinted red, while Wayfair clientele may be tinted blue.
Apparently, Laura Ingraham has tapped into a vast well of public support: Ruskie Twitter Bots.
So, mocking a teenager for not getting into a certain college and calling him whiny is a conservative point of view? That’s good to know.
Huh, I’d’a thought the conservative policy was mocking people who applied to colleges in general, i.e. “what, you think you’re better’n’me?!”
Okay, here is the deal: the lad said, “We should have a discussion about this important issue,” to which the woman responded, “You’re a whiny baby.” That may be an opinion, of sorts, but it is not “civil” and it has no bearing on the discussion. In other words, she is saying to him, “I don’t wanna talk about it, shut up and go away,” to which he responded, “‘Go away’? Let me show you the meaning of ‘go away’.”
If you consider that “unfair”, so sorry. Sometimes it happens this way.
Good luck with your crusade against free speech. I think it’s unAmerican and doomed to pathetic failure, but let us know how it turns out!
Like I said, it sounds communist, punishing loudmouthed individuals for disrupting the smooth operation of the larger socioeconomic plan.
Maybe the U.S. should turn Alaska into its own Siberia so dissidents can be sent there.
I don’t have a crusade. I merely expressed that Hogg and his behind the scenes supporters may be engaged in abusive behavior. Whether it merits legislation or some type of judicial review is another matter. Sometimes having the public aware of the ramifications of any action may enough alone to change behavior.
Again, liberals are so insecure about Fox News they even made a thread bashing it. Why not simply ignore them? I’ve ignored some of the responses here and sometimes that’s the most effective way to drive the other side nuts.
This could go for Ingraham as well. She may (or may not – I have doubts about whether she is capable of learning stuff) learn that words do have consequences.
You might want to read the OP.
Are you still claiming that you didn’t know what LI said before you stepped up to protect her?
Wow! Why have I never thought of that! I’ve gotten pretty good at ignoring internet posts over the years, but it never occurred to me that what barely makes a difference in an internet forum would work against a television network poisoning millions of people with biased propaganda. If just enough people ignore them that … will … how will it stop the obviously real and negative influence of Fox News actually?
Indeed, and I’ll be the first to say that trying to drive each other out of business over political disputes may not be a great idea. I don’t think “national news personality and celebrity with a long history of really shitty behavior goes after 17-year-old for petty reasons” is a bad reason to see a person driven out of business. I think Fox News generally does enough to harm public discourse in the US that attempting to drive it out of business is essentially a public good at this point.
Insecure really doesn’t hit the mark here. Have you spent some time reading this thread? Fox News is a fundamentally dishonest, intentionally biased news source. Fox News viewers are, on the whole, demonstrably less well-informed on a variety of important issues than viewers of other networks. What we’re dealing with is nothing short of a right-wing propaganda machine that has a significant negative effect on public discourse and public policy. This Vox article sums it up very well:
Fox plopped down on cable and dared the mainstream media to say anything about it. It never saw itself as better mainstream media — it saw itself as a conservative competitor to a liberal incumbent. It started mainstreaming conservative talking points and conspiracies, quickly gained a huge (mostly white, mostly old) audience, and, through sheer chutzpah, was accepted as a legitimate news outlet. It’s not that Fox News hasn’t produced some good journalism and good journalists. It’s that the ultimate axis around which the enterprise revolves is partisan. It is an instrument to advance the interests of the conservative movement. When Ailes was ousted in the wake of horrific sexual harassment allegations, he almost immediately became a Trump adviser. The cat was never in the bag.
[…]
Conservative media has different incentives than do Republican officeholders. It doesn’t have any reason to compromise or accept partial progress. It doesn’t have any reason to grapple with unwelcome facts, calm irrational fears, or temper unrealistic expectations. It profits from ideological maximalism and a constant state of mobilized outrage.
In effect, right-wing media took an audience already inclined to traditionalism and deliberately played on its fears and anxieties, pushing it further and further into tribalism. (That is the evolution many people in my cohort have seen in their older conservative relatives — from sensible fiscal conservatives in the 1980s to angry Tea Partiers in the 2010s.) The result is that conservatives are pulled with increasing gravity into an information vortex that simply has no analogue elsewhere in American politics.
And it makes sense, in a way - in what other atmosphere than one where facts play second fiddle to partisanship does electing Donald Trump to be the leader of the free world make any fucking sense?
nobody believes that - we can see you just don’t have answers to the points raised.
and some people care about this country, rather than just wanting to drive “the other side nuts” like this was 7th grade or something. :rolleyes: