Yes, of course. Ultimately, however, I see that as a distinction which may make the current boycotters somewhat silly but which is unimportant as far as ivylass’ point goes. It’s still a case of “X said something which upsets me, so I refuse to support X.” The fact that we may think it’s silly to be upset by whatever X said doesn’t change the underlying principle. People have every right to boycott for silly reasons; we can criticize them for it, of course, and should, but to say that boycotting artists because we disagree with them is bad but boycotting talk-show idiots because we disagree with them is good is, frankly, not particularly coherent. In the end, the two are exactly analogous, and the mere fact that person A might be offended by one thing and person B by another does nothing whatsoever to change the principle of the matter.
For the same reason, I think it’s a little disingeneous to say that we should separate the artistic merits of some song from the perceived political idiocy of the singer. That is, people don’t boycott Dr Laura because she sells her moralization and it offends them, they boycott her because she offends them, period, and not listening to her show is a way of making that clear to her, or her handlers, or whoever it is that decided what she was to say.
Similarly, if people are offended by the Dixie Chicks and want to make that plain, how else is the offended right-wing nutjob to do this? By walking up and down the street making fun of the Dixie Chicks, only to eagerly go out and fund them when he sees the next new CD? That would rather take all the sting from the response, wouldn’t it? It’s not about not liking the music, but rather about not liking the musicians and not wanting to support said musicians.
I, of course, have been boycotting the Dixie Chicks ever since I first heard them, basically because I can’t stand their music. Similarly, I have been boycotting Dr Laura ever since I first heard her, basically because I can’t stand her idiocy.
-In WW2, Sauerkraut was called Victory Cabbage. Such jingoism is therefore not without precedence. And, considering that we still call it sauerkraut today, one assumes the “freedom fries” phrase will be short lived.
For that matter, I can’t recall the last time I called them “french” fries. They’ve been just plain fries for decades. Unless they come with bits of beer-battered Halibut, in which case they’re “chips”.
I suppose next we’ll be hearing about the Howard Estate suing Arby’s over the apellation curly.
absoultely people are allowed to act stupidly. But there is still a difference here.
It should be horrific to American citizens that people are punished for their political beliefs.
we, who allow the KKK to march through our streets because they have a right to free speech, and congregation.
But, suggest that Bush may be less than perfect, that you may be embarrased about his actions, and groups will proudly advocate for your financial ruin.
I find Trey Parker & Matt Stone’s political views moronic and offensive, and I flinch when they work them into their storylines, but I’m not about to skip on South Park, because it makes me laugh my ass off.
I guess I don’t make a big stink about them equating stem-cell research with baby-eating because I have an underlying faith that people don’t form their opinions about important things based on what pudgy entertainers babble about. Maybe I’m naive.
Not entirely true, I have disliked the French government and the Parisian attitudes for decades, long before I ever heard of Dubya.
But to have ordinary citizens (and their tractors) show their displeasure for a certain musical group by running over their CD’s? As long as they are not blocking traffic on 5th Avenue or destroying storefronts in Seattle, I feel they have that right.
Why? As long as we allow people to express their beliefs, why should we not also respond to their professed beliefs? At what point does it become inappropriate to take someone else’s views into account when you are deciding whether or not to support them financially? Which is ultimately what we’re talking about here, after all, and which might otherwise get lost in the high dudgeon.
I’m willing to allow the KKK to gather; they have that right. I’m also willing to refuse to patronize stores that I know are owned by a KKK member, and to urge others to do likewise. I’m willing to allow homophobes to express their bile; I’m also willing to refuse to support them. These are not, of course, examples of political disagreement. But I’m not sure why political disagreement is fundamentally any different from any other form of disagreement.
In general, I agree that it’s pretty stupid to boycott someone over their political beliefs, because to me, most political beliefs aren’t upsetting enough to go to the effort. But it’s also not something I’m willing to protest against, because it’s just as important a freedom as the others. In fact, as you can see, I’m quite happy to defend it. Make an idiot of yourself all you want as long as you don’t turn violent about it.
**
How exactly does this constitute punishment for political beliefs? Would it not be more accurate to say that people are not being supported financially because of their political beliefs? Bob the Artist is not entitled to Joe the Angry Consumer’s money, and calling Joe’s refusal to give it to Bob punishment for political beliefs is, I would suggest, stretching things somewhat. It’s not like we’re jailing people we disagree with, or giving them 20 lashes, or something horrific like that. Refusing to spend money on their music is at somewhat of a different level, surely?
Sarandan/Robbins had a gig cancelled (Sarandan had two actually) Performers generally are paid for appearances of this type. Even if they weren’t, for performers, publicity opportunities do represent income making opportunities.
Dixie Chicks, the boycotts being called for were to the radio stations, and yes, that absolutely represents financial harm to them.
For the Baseball gig, they’d been hired to do attended a show. The gig was cancelled because of their political views. Generally, an employer is not allowed to use a potential employees political views as reason to not hire them, fire them etc. (note I’m not suggesting that the guy wasn’t allowed to cancel the gig, but am suggesting that it’s similar in nature to firing some one because you disagree w/their political views).
as for the ‘I would not support the KKK store’ etc. I know I brought them up, (as an example of tolerance for different views in the US), but are you really suggesting that being against BUsh is somehow similar in vileness to the beliefs of the KKK, thus justifying the boycott?
So, what’s the solution?
Make Movie A starring Tom Selleck, Charleton Heaston, and Movie B with Martin Sheen and Tim Robbins?
what to do w/ Bull Durham?? Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon and Kevin Costner (himself a self described conservative)?
Voicing opposition to the leader was a death sentence under SH, and the world deplored it (rightfully so) and Bush decried it (rightfully so). So why do they not cry out against people being financially punished for their anti-administration views? Or is it ok as long as the person isn’t tortured? Is this the freedom that our fathers fought for? Freedom to speak publically only if you agree with the powers in office, otherwise you’ll risk loosing your way of providing for your family.
I thought the whole “Stem-cell research equals eating babies” was just an exaggeration of how some people think of the research. For comedic reasons, you see-- not them actually feeling that way.
How ironic that in a thread about people being oversensitive about language, someone actually took offense at the use of a brand name for a medicine. Boy, now, THAT’S oversensitive.
Yes, of course you find Dr Laura more offensive. So do I. So what?
If Joe Nutjob finds some comment upsetting, who are you to tell him that he can’t do so? The fact that you don’t find it upsetting is utterly, completely, and totally irrelevant. Joe Nutjob may be a nutjob, but he has as much right to be offended, and to take the appropriate response, as you do. And he’s responding for exactly the same reason: he was offended. There is no difference of principle. Joe Nutjob is upset for a reason which seems silly to me, but I won’t pretend that he is wrong to take action because he has been offended, nor will I say that he has no right to be offended by any particular comment. Which is ultimately what you imply.
Yes, of course it does. I thank you for drawing this to my attention; I would never have otherwise realized that being boycotted does, in fact, have a financial influence. But, and here’s my key contention, they were never entitled to this money to begin with. The world does not owe a performer a free ride, anymore than it owes me a free ride, more’s the pity. It’s just that no one is likely to boycott me because I don’t produce anything. But if I were to produce something, let’s say sweaters, and to do so in a way that upsets people, let’s say by dyeing them red, then I would have to expect that some people would refuse to buy my red sweaters. It’s exactly the same thing. And yes, it absolutely represents financial harm to me. Well, more precisely, it represents loss of potential earnings which were never guaranteed to be mine to begin with. But so what? I have no a priori right to make you buy my sweaters. And if you choose not to do so because I’ve dyed them red, I have only myself to blame.
Oh sweet suffering motherfuck, of course not! I am suggesting that some people, people who are in my opinion a little silly, find being against Bush to be upsetting, are unwilling to support people who have upset them, and are well within their rights to do so.
Seems pretty simple to me. Say what you wish, as you wish, whenever you wish, and be aware that some people may be upset by your doing so and act upon this. We’ve only been doing that for what, a couple of centuries now?
Come on, wring. I respect you immensely as a poster, but this is rather hyperbolic on your part! I find myself in serious doubt that Susan Sarandon is starving, and in serious doubt that her career is so besmirched that she’ll never be able to work again.
Nevertheless, your fathers (mine were all in Europe at the time, I think) fought for the right to speak publically and say what they please. They did not fight for the right to say whatever they please in public but to have that public speech not taken into consideration when decisions are made. They didn’t fight for the right to say whatever they please and have everyone else smile and nod and say “Forsooth, I disagree with everything you say. Verily, thou art an idiot, and thou hast wounded me. Here, let me give thee my money.”
Not, of course, that I can see them saying something like this in any event.
where the fuck did I say anyone ‘owed’ performers $$? You asked how they’d been punished, I told you. They’ve been harmed financially. IN the case of the Sarandon, gigs got cancelled. No, obviously their children aren’t starving, but if it’s “ok” to punish them economically, professionally for their political views, then it’d be ‘ok’ for the Fast Food Worker who had anti BUsh bumper stickers to be suddenly scheduled for two one hour shifts per week.
and I find that thought frightening. Perhaps you do? if so, what’s the difference? if you don’t why the fuck not? Their political views have nothing to do w/their skill as a worker.
I understand that during my work day (essentially the same deal for RObbins/Sarandon) my speech can and is curtailed. I’m not allowed to swear at work, and certain political expression while on the job aren’t allowed. HOwever, what I say off the fucking job certainly cannot and should not be used against me. as it was with them.
By the government, yes. It would be horrific. But not by private citizens.
**
** wring I know you wouldn’t go to a supermarket, say, that had a “No niggers allowed” sign and where all the bag-boys were wearing KKK regalia. Why, except for degree, is this any different? (Note: I’m NOT, NOT, NOT saying that the Dixie Chicks slamming Bush is anything even remotely in the ballpark of being a Klansman. I’m only using an over-the-top example to illustrate a principle.)
**
So when the lefties went insane that Rush Limbaugh was offered a job as being spokesman for Florida Orange Juice and threatened to boycott it, you were equally aghast? How 'bout when a bunch of Domino’s Pizza chains were giving to Pro-Life causes? Would you still buy from them? Did you?
I have every right and intention of not supporting people who will use my money against me. Every dollar I give Babs Striesand has a chance to get used to promote legislation or politicians that I disapprove of. Granted, buying her latest CD full of noise is a tiny drop in the bucket that she’ll never notice, but it’s a moral thing. No, I don’t have an all-encompassing ideological impurity test, but I have a semi-defined threshold of “Pisses me off enough” where I’ll no longer buy someone’s products/goods/services.
There’s this annoying idea that someone’s speech should be utterly free from consequences. (At the moment, somehow it only seems to be applied to entertainers on the left: where are all you “You MUST allow EVERYONE to speak on your dollar” types now that some are calling for censorship of Franklin Graham? (I’m fine with him being boycotted too: he’s an ass) Me? I’m cool with anyone who shoots their mouth off in a way that I don’t like losing my business. I don’t have a lot of world-shaking power, how I spend my money is one of the few bits I do have.
And besides, I assure you that if I went out and said “Hi! My name is Fenris and I work for X Company, as their representative I want the U.S. Troops to die at the hands of Saddam’s Glorious Republican Guard”, I’d be out on my ass so fast my head would spin. The Dixie Chicks’s “bosses” are their fans. Piss the fans off enough and they’ll stop buying the product; firing them, in other words.
Besides, what’s the alternative? Having the govenment force people to continue buying products from people they no longer wish to support financially?
As long as the government isn’t the ones providing the consequences, let the marketplace and the marketplace of ideas run free.
Fenris
PS: On preview, I see that the stupid GD idea that “It’s ok to insult groups, except for certain groups that you can’t get out of being in” is being bandied about again. Hint folks: in the real world, that doesn’t work. It’s ONLY in GD that this idiotic idea exists. If it’s wrong to say “Gays are stupid cretins” or “Blacks are stupid cretins”, it’s also wrong to say that, say “Jews are stupid cretins” or that “Catholics are stupid cretins”
Sorry wring, but what I say publically will certainly affect my job. Especially if I represent myself as an employee of my company.
There was a case a few years back in Colorado where a Safeway (or King Soopers) bagboy was also a Neo-Nazi and kept showing up at rallies in his bag-boy uniform and was eventually fired.
Sarandon’s “uniform” is her alleged acting reputation. Certainly outside of that, no one would care what she had to say. I see no problem in a private organization telling her to get bent. Especially given her and Robbin’s history of ignoring “no politics” requests. (Look at their behavior in the '93 Acadamy Awards)
My point is, I’m tired of the stereotype of people who take Ritalin are hyper freaks. That’s all. It’s just one of my pet peeves. Just like when people say, “Take your prozac!”
It contributes to the stigma of mental health conditions.
Other than that, I don’t have a problem. And really, it’s not that big of a deal, just a little problem I have. I’m not THAT offended and I’m sorry I flipped a little. It’s just one of my stupid quirks.
Fenris - I already noted that by the government etc.
however, those prohibitations also apply to employment and housing. I may not discriminate against people in employment/housing based on their political views (for one).
Hiring some one as a spokesperson for an industry/commodity is a tricky issue - consider, Wheaties who decided to not have Greg Louganis on their boxes 'cause of his sexual orientation. and I believe it was Anita Bryant and the OJ folks. When you’re working as a spokesperson, your character and personal life may come into play, it seems. Since your effectiveness as a spokesperson is partly determined by you ‘saleablility’ with the population you’re attempting to draw. I personally think it was silly to hire Rush for that gig (if they did) but not because of his political views, but because as a semi obviously out of shape not healthy guy, I’d think that’s not the image that they’d want.
On a personal level you are allowed to not shop at the KKK store. I don’t find that a compelling comparison.
In these cases, there’s a semi organized boycott (Dixie CHicks), or specific individuals representing an organization cancelling a contract for performance based on political views known at the fucking time they were booked. How specious is that? who on this earth doesn’t know that Susan and Tim are lefties? It wasn’t exactly a secret. and in the baseball situation, he made it clear that it was indeed the political views that mattered. (and he was ‘afraid that they’d expouse them during the ceremony’ even tho they’d managed to get through the Oscars right before that w/o any incident)
**
That is the law, but my libertarian side disagrees with it: if I am a private employer who does not contract with the government, I should have every right to be a stupid, dispiciable bigot.
**
** Bryant was kicked out for her views (and I’m glad she was. I find her repugnant), but Limbaugh was either kicked out or not allowed to start, because of the outcry from lefties about his politics. Early to mid '90s. Sorry, I can’t find a cite.
**
**
Ok, how 'bout this. A well-known Neo-Nazi (that bagboy I spoke of in my earlier post, for example: a friend just reminded me that his big stunt was, for two years running, to have a anti-Black/anti-Jew parade down Denver’s main thoroughfare: on Martin Luther King day…he camped out overnight to get the permits) in your town comes to you and says “I want a job as a spokesman for your company”. Do you hire him? I wouldn’t. Again, I do NOT think Sarandon and Robbin’s views are anywhere even remotely close to a Neo-Nazi’s, but the principle is the same.
And again: Sarandon and Robbins have broken their word before on keeping politics out. Another person with similar views and without the history of lying, I might have more sympathy for.
**
But not earlier Oscar nights. And in any case, this Oscar night, they still flashed peace signs in front of the cameras which, as harmless as it is, is STILL a political message so they didn’t stick to the letter of their word AGAIN. I wouldn’t trust 'em either.
Yes, I gathered that you were viewing this as punishment; I happen to disagree. And my disagreement is based upon the premise that not being given something to which you were never entitled in the first place can in no sense be regarded as a punishment. Clear now?
Certainly I’m not going to deny that there is financial harm involved. There wouldn’t be much point in the boycott if there weren’t, would there? But to rant about being punished for political views is a little extreme, I think.
Of course. Give me a modicum of credit for being a half-way decent human being, would you?
**
Quite simply:
That is to say, when I am interacting with some one as my employee, it behooves me, morally, to consider them strictly as an employee. When I am interacting with someone as a consumer, however, I am perfectly free to spend my money however I please. That is, I would say it is wrong to fire the employee for having a bumpersticker which says “Fuck Republicans” on his car; his political beliefs have nothing to do with his job. It is not wrong for me to refuse to eat at said employee’s restaurant, because it’s my money to do with as I please.
As an employer, there is a moral obligation to treat your employees based upon their ability to do their job. I should not discriminate against an employee on the basis of race, gender, religion, political view, sexual orientation, or anything else, inasmuch as these things are irrelevent to the ability to do the job. As a consumer, I am perfectly free to patronize which ever business I desire and to do whatever I want with the fruits of my own labor. If that means an anti-Semitic homophobe refuses to patronize stores which are owned by Jews or homosexuals, sobeit. Equally, if a communist pagan refuses to patronize stores which are owned by conservatives or Christians, sobeit.
These are all perfectly legitimate, and while this does mean that some stores aren’t going to get the business of some people, frankly, so fucking what? If that means that some stores aren’t going to get the business of a lot of people, so fucking what? Why should I not be free to spend my money as I see fit? Why should it matter that a whole bunch of people agree with me on this and organize?
And when we cut through the hyperbole, that’s exactly what you’re arguing: we should be frightened and horrified when person A takes into account person B’s public statements when deciding on whether or not to give person B money to which person B has no entitlement to begin with.
[
Now what we have is “Patriotic Correctness”. Anybody who disagrees with the President or his military campaigns is branded “unpatriotic”, “anti-american” or a “traitor”
People are going around boycotting musicicians and movie stars who dare say an unkind word about our President.
Sad. Really, really sad. Were people widely branded as traitors for speaking out against Clinton’s military campaigns in Kosovo or Bosnia? They were merely people who disagreed with the president.
I totally agree with you I couldn’t have said it better myself. It’s interesting how the same people who howled for Clinton’s blood are now calling anyone who questions Bush a “traitor.”
