These poeple who boycott the Dixie Chicks, do they hum “Ride of the Valkyries”, even though Wagner was the prototype of later Naziism?
I think that a lot of it has to do with the celebrities who are doing the speaking. Michael Moore’s sales increased because of his outburst and the fact that he speaks about political things. Celebrities who don’t should just accept the fact that if they speak their views they will lose sales. They don’t have a right to having their opinions respected.
Sometimes I think people should stage “anti-boycotts” to counter boycotts.
An anti-boycott is where you ask people to buy as much of a product as they can in order to negate the effects of the boycotters.
But I have to say it is OK to punish someone economically for their political views, as long as it’s not the government.
I like Tim Robbins. He’s made some dandy films. I will continue to pay to watch his future films. But it’s OK if others want to withhold their entertainment dollars because of his speech. I don’t always agree with Robbins, but I find him rather heroic. Heroic because of the lumps and bruises he’s taking for speaking his mind. I know it’s weird, but if there were no consequences, it wouldn’t be heroic at all.
If you wanna make statements, you have to be willing to accept the consequences, don’t you?
Oh, I agree with you. However, at that point in time, Robbins chose to make a big public fuss about being canceled. ISTM that the more prudent course for a public figure would have been to not make a fuss (although he had a right to say whatever he wanted to.)
Petrowsky made it public first. Robbins merely replied in kind.
Geeze, since the Nixon administration (remember the enemies list?), Republicans have considered disagreeing with the President as an unpatriotic act of treason. If that President is a Republican that is. If the President is a Democrat, it’s open season.
I love the looks I get from the flag wavers when I mention that one of the freedoms I was fighting for in Nam was the right of every American to burn the stars and stripes if they wanted to. And that everytime I see an American burning the flag, I know our sacrifices were not in vain.
I would find it ironic if that statement were true. I honestly don’t think that I know of any liberals who say that someone is violating their rights by disagreeing with them. Can you give an example? (I supported the right of the neo-Nazis to march through a largely Jewish population. For me that was the ultimate test of my willingness to support freedom of speech.)
What irks me is actually being labelled unpatriotic. It’s silly and inaccurate. It is everyone’s right to say that liberals are unpatriotic and liberals generally stand up for that right. And that is a very patriotic thing to do. There’s the irony.
I didn’t see flashing a peace sign as being political. Is peace unpatriotic too?
As for “political correctness,” that has been around as long as I can remember. It didn’t start during the Clinton Administration. Everyone has the right to be politically incorrect – but it is often very insensitive. For example, no one in her or his right mind would call a grown African-American male “boy” – or worse. Language affects attitudes and, as far as I know, it always has.
Pax
It is a political statment. As I clearly stated, it’s a harmless one, but if, in fact, Robbins and Sarandon had promised to not make any political statements at the Oscars and then flashed the peace sign, they violated their word. Again.
Note that I’d say exactly the same thing about someone who came on stage and said “I support the troops” which is also a political statement, but a harmless one: it’s still breaking a “no politics, dammit” promise.
Fenris
Great OP, I really couldn’t have said it better myself. It’s really sad to see how the networks are becoming cheerleaders for the president, in particular MSNBC. We starting to resemble Nazi Germany in the late 1930s. I’m just waiting for Shrub Lite to sprout a mustache and the army to start goosestepping.
Oh bullshit. A few idiot Republicans do this. The vast majority don’t.
Or should I say that all Democrats want U.S. soliders to be killed because that one Professor (and the jackasses in Salon Magazine) want them to be killed?
Fenris
Perfectly legitimate. Perfect example, Gay Days at Disney World here in Orlando. There was a big flap about Disney catering to gay people on certain days, the SBC boycotted. Long story short: gay people bought more merchandise than the Baptists didn’t buy, merchandise sales went up. Disney hasn’t backed down.
So, feel free to snatch up all those Dixie Chicks CDs. :eek:
- Michael Moore is a lying gadfly asshoole on his own merits
- The dixie chicks suck on their own merit.
- Willing Human Shields are stupid because they fail to understand self preservation…
any questions
Do you get the same pleasure when you thank black GIs for preserving the freedom to burn a cross?
Here’s an example. Shortly after 9/11, John Ashcroft harshly criticized those who he felt had gone overboard in their criticism of certain US policies. A number of them and their supporters alleged that their civil rights were violated by Ashcroft’s harsh criticism.
One of the things that set my irony meters off the scale is the headlines and ballyhooing about how ‘now Iraqis are free to voice their dissent against SH’ and that’s what the war was all about.
however, back at home, voice your dissent against Bush and get punished.
and yes, pulling an invitation for a public appearance is a punishment. They were contracted for that appearance, they perhaps turned other opportunities down to make that appearance and at the last minute, the people who’d hired them for it, pulled out.
now, unless you can show me that the organizers of those events had no way of knowing in advance, when they set up the appearance of Saranadon/Robbins’ political views, you’ve got a case.
you’ll note that I’m not arguing that the sponsors of these events were under any obligation at all to hire these folks in the first place.
however.
once they had done so, their actions in removing Sarandon/Robbins or cancelling the event, based on S/R’s political views (which again, let me emphasize were well fucking known at the time of the original offer), said actions are reprehensible.
Oh, fuck all of you for making this more complicated than it has to be.
I will buy (or not buy) certain products, watch (or not watch) certain movies or TV shows and listen (or not listen) to certain music for any reason my little heart desires, which may include the fact that I don’t like a manufacturer’s/actor’s/singer’s politics, choice of outfits, plastic surgeries etc. I resent any implication that somehow I’m not qualified to make these decisions, or that my decisions should be questioned, or that I’m being manipulated by the media or government.
And here’s a news flash for ya: I think everybody should have the same discretion over their own purchases.
Meantime, Bill Mahr can say whatever the fuck he likes, even if I think he’s being a schmuck.
go ahead Bryan - however, if you contract with some one (celebrity or not) to perform a service, knowing that they hold political views you don’t agree with, then later decide to pull the contract 'cause they hold political views you don’t agree w/, I’ll think your a schmuck.
Deal? 
Deal. I assume the contract has some kind of “kill fee” which allowed one party or the other to cancel it unilaterally and pay a penalty.
If not, the issue is best settled in civil court.
[sub]Schmuck.[/sub]
I disagree: the Iraqis are free to voice their dissent against SH’ without fear of reprisal FROM THE GOVERNMENT and torture and jail and that’s what the war was all about.
NO-ONE is “ballyhooing” the right of someone to blather on completely free of any consequences whatsoever. This sounds like a really bad strawman. Is it really what you meant to say?
Again: if he’d screwed up and hired Marge Schott to speak at his thing, she started spewing the “blacks=monkeys” thing, would I be OK to unhire her? Especially if she’d had a history of ignoring her promises to not discuss her views?
Fenris
Fenris - If he hired Marge Schock, not knowing that she was a blithering idiot, then she came out and said stuff, then I think he’d be in fine shape to withdraw the invite (on the basis of ‘new’ information).
But, again, the baseball guy had to have known about S/R’s political views. Had to. Had he not offered the opportunity, fine. Just have Costner and whothehellelse was in that movie. BUt he’d offered the opportunity to them. then pulled out at the last minute, w/ a big advert saying ‘this is why’.
and that was wrong. Again, federal laws prohibit using someone’s political ideology as reasons in employment situations. There may be a material legal difference between a written appearance agreement and an employment contract, but they certainly are similiar in nature, in that one party agrees to pay another party for a specific service/work.
I disagree strongly with the position that their flashing the peace sign at the recent Oscars should be evidence that they wouldn’t honor agreements to keep their views to themselves.
A. the flashing of the peace sign occured on the red carpet outside the event, not at the event itself.
B. the flashingof the peace sign itself isn’t necessarily any particularly political statement - the same sign is ‘victory’, ‘peace’ and a general sentiment used as a greeting by members of kids of my son’s generation.
insufficient evidence to ‘prove’ future intent, especially since they had ample other opportunities at the Oscars themselves and behaved.
It still bothers me as well that “no political statements” did not preclude any mention of the war itself (so would preclude the statements honoring the service men/women etc.) And especially since no one got any amount of flak for such gestures at the podium, claiming that Sarandon flashing the peace sign violated the ‘no political statement’ really is stretching it, IMHO.