I’m holding out for the electro-shock bear.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is America. It’s the same thing.
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.
Heh. Okay, you got me there. Consider my last post a modification of my earlier stance.
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.
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.
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.
They used force? You mean, they actually muscled their way into the factory and shut down the machines?
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.