I was going to do this simply as a response in the previous thread, but I’ve seen it enough times that I’m responding to it separately here, in re boycotts:
As far as I’m concerned, it still comes down to a person’s right on where they spend their money. Nothing more, nothing less.
Gordon Bennett, no, it doesn’t. Why in the WORLD do people keep bringing it around to people’s “rights?” Show me one posting, in the history of this board–in the history of my giving public opinions–where I have *ever* said people didn’t have the “right” to spend their money elsewhere?
It’s a sidetrack, people. It’s a dodge, a shuck and jive. “Peter, you’re saying we don’t have the right to–” NO, I AM NOT SAYING THAT. For that matter, I don’t find anyone else offhand who has said that. So if anyone else wants to respond with “people have the right to boycott,” save it. It’s a NON-ISSUE, and I am sick of it. It seems self-evident to me, but I will now spell it out for the folks in the cheap seats: When I say something is “wrong,” that does not automatically equate with saying that people don’t have the “right to do it.” And if you don’t believe me, then next time you go to a job interview, fart loudly and repeatedly, and if the interviewer makes a face, point out you have the right to fart. And enjoy unemployment.
It’s the same muddy-headed thinking that declares if one is against going to war, one is in favor of bloody dictators. Or the time that I pointed out to John Byrne that his changing a private security guard to a police officer in his Spidey reboot was wrongheaded because a NYC police officer would never shout to a private citizen that he should have tackled an armed robber…whereupon John responded that I was supporting the idea of people standing aside and doing nothing while a NYC police officer was beaten to death. If that makes no sense to you, then you begin to comprehend just how bewildered I am every time I see another “but people have the right to boycott” wheeze.
I’m talking about pure, simple, appropriate, proportional response: If you disagree with someone, say it with words, because saying it with punitive, retaliatory measures proves nothing except that you are petty and intolerant.
Furthermore, boycotts are unimaginative. They got no style. If you’re going to do a boycott, do it with some flair. For instance: All those people who sit there contentedly and say, “I’m boycotting Dominos Pizza because the owner gives money to Project Rescue,” all right. Fine. Just for laughs: I wonder how many people then say, “And I’m taking all the money I would have spent on Dominos and making contributions to Planned Parenthood in the name of the Dominos Pizza owner.” Now wouldn’t that be a kick. Planned Parenthood getting thousands of dollars a week in unspent pizza money, all in the name of that guy. Doesn’t make boycotts right. But it makes it less wrong.
PAD
• 
Ryard: “Just, just answer me this question : nobody expects me to VOTE for someone whose politics I disagree with, so why should I be made to feel guilty if I refuse to BUY something from someone’s politics I disagree with?!? Just answer that simple question.”
Look, maybe there’s a hidden clause here that’s so obvious to you that you’re not saying it. Some hidden clause like “…if the disagreement is severe enough”. Because otherwise, I have to ask you if you really would recommend living your entire economic life by finding out if all of your local shopkeepers are Dems or Repubs, and only buying from the ones that vote your way. That’s what you seem to be arguing. And I think buried in PAD’s point of view is the opposite of that buried clause, in that he doesn’t think that an entertainer insulting the President of the USA can ever reach the level of what we might call a boycottable offense.
I do not wish to fan the flames with a commentary, but ask a simple question. So what do you feel is the best way to protest to distinguish between viewpoints and artist’s work? I assume that you think the average Joe should write a letter to the artist and saying, “I disagree.” But this is not as public a demonstration, and so the average Joe’s voice is not as noticeable because he is not famous. Whereas celebs have their views spread all across the world. So what chance does Joe have of getting his voice heard as far ranging as the celeb?
This is a question I see a lot: We’re private citizens and they’re megastars. We can’t compete for attention.
My response?
Boo frickin’ hoo.
Say what you will about people like the Chicks, like Springsteen, like Martin Sheen, but there’s one thing which I think everyone can agree upon: They worked their áššëš off to get into a position of national or even international attention.
And John Q public wants to know what he can do to have equal time and equal attention. Here’s a novel idea that I’ve seen no one broach. How about…you’re not entitled to equal time? How about…they’ve earned it and you haven’t?
People accuse me of taking an anti-boycott/anti-punitive stance because it’s self-serving and want to avoid being boycotted myself.
I offer you a counterthought, if we’re all hot to discuss motivations: Every person who complains that they haven’t got an equal platform with movie stars or entertainers is suffocating in jealousy. Drowning in it. So suffused with jealousy it’s oozing out every pore. Because megastars worked and sacrificed and had the talent and dedication to get where they are…and other people don’t. And because they don’t, rather than aspire to get up to the level of these people whose opinions they resent, they endeavor to stab back at them, to drag them down. To say, “Hey, I put you on that platform and I can knock you down, sucker.”
Seems to me nothing more than petty jealousy. It’s not about voicing opinion or equity: It’s about embarking on a pathetic, controlling power play that is unworthy of anyone who pretends to embrace free speech.
You want to find a practical way to show you oppose what the Dixie Chicks said? Here’s a notion: When Bush runs for re-election, donate to his campaign. Volunteer to stuff envelopes, ring bells, get the vote out. Let the Dixie Chicks do what they can to support their VIEWS, and you do what you can to support your VIEWS, and stop trying to figure out how to stab back at the PEOPLE whose views you DON’T LIKE.
Hope that answers it.
PAD
So, anyway, I’ve decided that people are trying to take away my right to assemble (book-burnings bad activism? Well, maybe morally, but tragically, it is a right!) by saying I shouldn’t boycott.
Um… what the??
Did I say it wasn’t a right?
I said it was bad. As in my opinion that it was bad.
It smacks too much of Nazi Germany and McCarthy-ism.
A) You have a right to express your opinion.
B) If you choose to express your opinion by burning books, please go ahead, because:
i) it shows your mindset
ii) it’s the same knee jerk reaction the other side of the fence has by burning a flag.
iii) maybe you’ll get arrested by burning books in a no burn zone.
C) You have the right to protest.
D) You have the right to boycott.
E) I was just suggesting, in an homage to the Animaniacs (“good idea… bad idea…”) that there are better ways for you to be an activist than to be extreme.
Travis
Don P.:
Because otherwise, I have to ask you if you really would recommend living your entire economic life by finding out if all of your local shopkeepers are Dems or Repubs, and only buying from the ones that vote your way. That’s what you seem to be arguing.
Seems? I know not seems. Politics is certainly ONE aspect of who I support, but not the only or defining one. But it IS a valid one, as valid as picking and choosing the politics of who to vote for.
Hëll, if a person doesn’t want to buy a Dixie Chick album because the month has an “r” in it, what gives ANYONE on the planet the right to say that’s wrong? More power to them for having an easily quantifiable world view.
But, hey, I’ll try the argument I seem to be seeing a lot here. Next time I say something my girlfriend considers stupid, say, about her cat…Ðámņ, I hate that cat. So she turns her back to me in bed…I’ll tell her that she doesn’t actually have a right to do that because I had a first amendment right to speak without consequences (unless I’m a Republican politician), and since I know she likes sex, she’s just spiting herself. Oh, and she’s not allowed to make a decision unless “the disagreement is severe enough” and the person actually offended by those comments is not allowed to judge their severity.
Of course, that assumes she really does like sex, and isn’t faking, but women don’t do that, do they?
Do they??
Anyway, if, as you say, PAD’s point of view is the opposite of that buried clause, in that he doesn’t think that an entertainer insulting the President of the USA can ever reach the level of what we might call a boycottable offense.
Well, sure, Peter (and you) can “THINK” that, but that doesn’t by any stretch of imagination make that absolute truth. I happen to think that it’s a very boycottable offense, but that’s just a difference of opinion, and I can respect that.
Honestly, the more I ponder this…I’m becoming far more offended by people telling me what I can and can’t do than what the Dixie Chicks said. I can’t believe the hypocrisy.
things have been getting too serious here, of late. may i present:
YIDDISH FILMS FOR 2003
1. GONIF WITH THE WIND – A thief tries to acquire ownership of Tara through
a forged deed.
2. THE PUTZMAN RINGS TWICE – A Mohel murder mystery.
3. SCHNORER RAE – A freeloader tries to get in on the union movement.
4. BALABOOSTA COCKBURN – John Wayne’s wife memorizes Grossinger cookbook.
5. THE GOOD, THE CHABAD, AND THE UGLY – A kosher noodle western.
6. MOBY DRECK – Captain Ahab harpoons the wrong end of the whale.
7. THE CINCINNATI YID – Steve McQueen uses some of his poker winnings to
start a reform congregation.
8. LITVAK BIG MAN – Dustin Hoffman learns that his parents are an American
Indian and a Lithuanian immigrant.
9. THE SEDER HOUSE RULES… Zaydie lays down the law on Pesach.
10. BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KIBBITZER – Paul Newman and Robert
Redford do standup shtick while they rob their victims.
11. BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER KVETCH – the extras complain that whistling the
theme song dries out their mouth and hurts their lips.
12. THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LATKE – an overdone potato pancake turns
into a monster.
13. MAMZA POPPINS – A talented nanny has questions about her
birth-legitimacy.
14. THE MATZO CANDIDATE – Frank Sinatra is brainwashed into thinking that
it’s always Passover.
15. MISTER SCHNAPPS GOES TO WASHINGTON -Jimmy Stewart thinks he’s still
filming Harvey.
16. DRIEDELS OF THE LOST ARK – Harrison Ford plays Chanukah games.
17. ALEPH DOESN’T LIVE HERE ANYMORE – Neither the waitress nor the old
Hebrew school can be found.
18. BORSCHT-TIME FOR BONZO -Ronald Reagan tries to train an Ashkenazi
monkey.
19. SINGING IN THE CH’RAIN – Gene Kelly gets horseradish on his umbrella.
20. THE SIX CENTS… Three Jews each put in their two-cents’ worth.
21. SNOW FALLING ON SEDERS… Unexpected storm disrupts Passover.
22. DREYDEL WILL ROCK… Chanukah toy comes alive.
23. OY OF THE BEHOLDER… Singles kvetch about their awful dates.
24. GOYS DON’T CRY… Rabbi explains why only Jews observe Tisha B’Av.
25. ISN’T SHE GEVALDIK… Yeshiva boys read Jacqueline Susann.
26. STUART LADLE… Mouse makes chicken soup for Shabbos.
27. THE GREEN MOYEL… Young man performs first circumcision.
28. MUN ON THE MOON… Astronauts discover hamantaschen filling on lunar
surface is not green cheese.
29. GOY STORY II… Jewish man divorces shiksa, marries another.
30. ANGELA’S KASHAS… Woman reveals secret recipes.
31. SUPERNOVA… Space scientists discover powerful strain of lox.
Travis:
Did I say it wasn’t a right?
I dunno. Did I mention you by name? Or I was I making a rather general over-the-top statement?
Travis:
I said it was bad. As in my opinion that it was bad.
It smacks too much of Nazi Germany and McCarthy-ism.
I do agree that all the people trying to tell me and others we are somehow doing something wrong by choosing to exercise my rights does smack of Nazi Germany and McCarthyism, that is true.
Travis:
B) If you choose to express your opinion by burning books, please go ahead, because:
i) it shows your mindset
ii) it’s the same knee jerk reaction the other side of the fence has by burning a flag.
iii) maybe you’ll get arrested by burning books in a no burn zone.
Thanks for actually reading my post, the one you quote, where I said that it was morally objectionable to burn books, but a right. And if people are defending the Dixie Chicks’ right to say what they want without consequence, you should defend a person’s right to burn a book without consequence. And yet you insult them instead. That’s what I call hypocrisy.
PAD:
Say what you will about people like the Chicks, like Springsteen, like Martin Sheen, but there’s one thing which I think everyone can agree upon: They worked their áššëš off to get into a position of national or even international attention.
And John Q public wants to know what he can do to have equal time and equal attention. Here’s a novel idea that I’ve seen no one broach. How about…you’re not entitled to equal time? How about…they’ve earned it and you haven’t?
Wow. Just…wow. OK, to counter, at the absolute most BASE level, how exactly does their status as entertainers give them the “earned” right to talk about politics? They didn’t earn their stripes there, did they? Become elected, work for the people? Claw through local assemblies, state houses, governorships, national Congress? So why do they get a right to speak on politics?
And watch out when you mention John Q. Public. Travis might think you’re singling him out.
PAD:
Every person who complains that they haven’t got an equal platform with movie stars or entertainers is suffocating in jealousy. Drowning in it. So suffused with jealousy it’s oozing out every pore. Because megastars worked and sacrificed and had the talent and dedication to get where they are…and other people don’t. And because they don’t, rather than aspire to get up to the level of these people whose opinions they resent, they endeavor to stab back at them, to drag them down. To say, “Hey, I put you on that platform and I can knock you down, sucker.”
Also PAD:
Why is it that people try to take an argument, stretch it to absurdity, and then pretend that it’s rational?
I don’t think I need to comment there. Except, you know, for that comment I just wrote.
PAD:
You want to find a practical way to show you oppose what the Dixie Chicks said?
I think we did find a practical way. It’s just some people didn’t like it. But it worked.
PAD:
Let the Dixie Chicks do what they can to support their VIEWS, and you do what you can to support your VIEWS, and stop trying to figure out how to stab back at the PEOPLE whose views you DON’T LIKE.
Again, I think we did find a way to support our views. It just wasn’t a way you liked.
Wow. Just…wow. OK, to counter, at the absolute most BASE level, how exactly does their status as entertainers give them the “earned” right to talk about politics? They didn’t earn their stripes there, did they? Become elected, work for the people? Claw through local assemblies, state houses, governorships, national Congress? So why do they get a right to speak on politics?
Wow. Just…wow.
I mean, am I that lousy of a writer that I can’t make the simplest, clearest point without it being missed?
I wasn’t referring to their right to speak on politics, although frankly, that’s a question with such an obvious answer, I can’t believe I must say it: They have a right to speak on politics because they’re Americans and we live in a society which–theoretically–values opinions and the expression thereof.
I said specifically that they had “earned” national and international attention through their efforts and excellence at their professions. The question of rights (*sigh*) never entered into it.
I mean, c’mon, guys. I’m used to having my meaning distorted, but this is just getting ridiculous.
Again, I think we did find a way to support our views. It just wasn’t a way you liked.
You’re wrong. You didn’t find a way to support your views. You found a way to try and get back at others who didn’t share your views. It’s two different things.
PAD
“Tim Lynch’s response is a Senator has the power to DO something about his opinions, and a celebrity doesn’t. My initial response is why did the celebrities form Not In My Name if their intention isn’t to get
people to do something about their intentions.”
Of course that’s their intention.
It is, however, not in their immediate abilities. Nor yours. Nor mine. Nor Peter David’s, for that matter.
For any of us to want to make our own biases, beliefs, and idiosyncrasies become law, we need to convince our elected representatives (at whatever level is relevant).
Rick Santorum, and I can’t believe I’m pointing this out again, is one of those elected reps (okay, metaphorically for those of us not in PA, but you get the idea). He has a much more immediate and direct access to legislation than any of us does. As such, his words carry more power and thus must demand extra attention — pro or con.
I fervently hope that viewpoint is sufficiently clear by now.
TWL
ii) it’s the same knee jerk reaction the other side of the fence has by burning a flag.
Just for the record, I’m not a big fan of flag burning. I think it should remain a protected form of expression, but I personally would never utilize it in order to try and make a point. I think as an image it’s too (honest to God, no pun intended) incendiary. No one burns a flag because they’re trying to say burning flags is a great idea. They do it to try and draw attention to some cause they’re supporting. But the image so enrages people that you don’t have a prayer of convincing someone with an opposing viewpoint of the merits of your case. They’ll be too busy being pìššëd øff that you burned the flag.
Just seems to have extremely limited effectiveness, and I really don’t think it’s the way to go. Too many people have been wounded or died in defensive of the flag and what it stands for. Why diss them?
PAD
Those who disagree with Peter are generally expressing the following argument (and I’m paraphrasing here):
* I have the right to boycott anything I want.
* What criteria I use to determine where my money is spent is entirely up to me, and can’t (and shouldn’t) be dictated.
* The Dixie Chicks (or whoever) have their freedom of speech through the public stage; I have the freedom of speech through my purchasing power.
To points one and two, I agree wholeheartedly: You most assuredly have the right to boycott, and you can use whatever basis you want to purchase something (I’m sure there are people out there who bought a Korn album just because it had a Todd McFarlane cover). What Peter is (I believe) arguing is that, while you have the right it’s not a rational course of action; that it’s about the equivalent of saying, “I’m not going to buy that shirt,” just because you don’t like the way the store displayed it on a manequin. Just as an employer firing an employee solely for something he does outside the workplace isn’t rational (well, nor is it legal, but that’s moot to this particular discussion), so too is it irrational to not buy an artist’s work for something he does outside his art. It’s a legitimate reason for you because it’s your reason, but that doesn’t make it rational. And in the end, a point that is backed by rational decisions is generally received with more legitimacy.
As to the third point — that spending is a means of responding to free speech — well, that’s a question that’s seriously under debate, from a Constitutional perspective. That’s no small part of what the debates over campaign finance reform were about, as I recall. Lobbying groups and businesses argued that their contributions were a form of expression, and therefore protected by the constitution; opponents disagreed. Now, I’m pretty sure no clear-cut legal decision was made in this arena (though, it’s worth noting, some finance reform was passed), but it does demonstrate that this argument is on specious ground.
Of course, when it comes to the government taking action, an organized boycott would be a violation of the boycottee’s rights, but I don’t think the government is going to be telling people not to buy Dixie Chicks albums (unless they change their names to the French Chicks…).
(And, FWIW, I’m disinclined to agree that a large corporation organizing a boycott is legit, either, as that feels a bit too close to the whole monopoly principle. But I’m not even going to try to figure out where the law is on that one.)
Something occured to me tonight while I was thinking about this subject.
Do the Dixie Chicks even CARE if people boycott them? I mean, these girls are millionaires I would assume (not willing to invest the time to look up the net worth of the Dixie Chicks), or at least what I would consider filthy stinking rich. I think I could make a reasonable assumption that they could retire right now and never sell another record and be just fine.
Doesn’t that mean the message is completely lost that’s trying to be sent? Or is it only to feel “powerful” that people are doing it?
Just, just answer me this question : nobody expects me to VOTE for someone whose politics I disagree with, so why should I be made to feel guilty if I refuse to BUY something from someone’s politics I disagree with?!? Just answer that simple question.
Okay. Because when you’re voting for someone, you’re selecting someone whose politics are in line with your own in the hopes that they will represent your personal interests and viewpoints in the government. They are your representative.
When you’re buying someone’s music because you like their music, there’s no intrinsic reason for politics to enter into it, particularly if their music has nothing to do with their political opinions.
Call me if the Dixie Chicks start recording albums with songs like “Prune the Shrub” or “Go Screw the USA.” Otherwise, again, the conscious decision to stop buying their albums is an act of intolerance stemming from a desire to punish someone with opinions other than yours.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the reason one might feel guilty is because they know they’re doing something petty and wrong.
PAD
This is where the logic escapes me.
PAD:
When you’re buying someone’s music because you like their music, there’s no intrinsic reason for politics to enter into it, particularly if their music has nothing to do with their political opinions.
The thing is, I hardly think the Dixie Chicks’ concert goers bought those tickets to hear the group’s opinions on politics. I agree there was no intrinsic reason for politics to come into the performer/fans relationship. But the boycotters also weren’t the ones who brought politics into it. And for the life of me, I cannot see how it is petty or wrong for the fans to respond politically, and completely within the context of the purely economic relationship they have with the band, after the band brought politics into the equation. Truth is, bands perform, and the public responds by buying the product or not — it’s just how the system works.
I’m guessing the public did base their buying habits on the music alone, until the band brought politics up at the concert.
Schoolyard logic? Maybe. But why just blame the fans, when they didn’t bring the politics into it in the first place? And moreso, why blame the fans while praising the performers?
Thanks for actually reading my post, the one you quote, where I said that it was morally objectionable to burn books, but a right. And if people are defending the Dixie Chicks’ right to say what they want without consequence, you should defend a person’s right to burn a book without consequence. And yet you insult them instead. That’s what I call hypocrisy.
Again, I was talking about extremism. And the “no-burn” zone line is actually how people who get arrested for burning a flag are tried with.
My question was this… the way you phrased it “bad activism? tragically, it is a right”
seemed you were questioning whether or not it was bad. If you weren’t, my fault.
It is a right to burn books. It’s a right to be David Duke…
I just don’t think it’s good.
Do I agree with the sentiments of the Dixie Chicks… maybe… not really anyone’s business but my own. Did they have the right to say it?
Yes.
Should they have said it where they did?
No. They should have said it in Austin, Texas, or Raleigh, NC. Overseas was too much bad taste.
And finally… yes we have a right to say what we want, and to boycott what we want, and to express ourselves in any fashion that does not physically hurt anyone (unless we get paid… then we’re called professional sportsmen).
But, to paraphrase Stan Lee, with great rights come great responsibilities. You have the right to own a gun, but you also have the responsibility to make sure that your children don’t get a hold of it, that you use it properly, etc. etc.
Same thing with speech, and all of our other freedoms.
People seem to forget this. And I will include the Dixie Chicks…
Travis
//I’m guessing the public did base their buying habits on the music alone, until the band brought politics up at the concert.//
Amazing, especially since people like U2, Sting, Paul Simon, Peter Gabriel and many others seem to infuse their politics with their music, and most people who listen to them don’t care. And infuse their concerts with political rhetoric.
Watch Rattle and Hum, for an example. Or listen to Bullet The Blue Sky, Biko, Sunday Bloody Sunday, and a million others.
Artists have always been political.
Dante’s Inferno, Milton’s Paradise Lost, Steinbeck, Twain, Picasso, Michaelangelo…
Because, ahem, to sound trite – “Art imitates Life.”
All art is, unless you’re just a really bad, unimaginative artist – or just a singer, is the culmination of that artist’s life.
Music and politics go hand in hand… Mozart had to please the king (that sounds dirty), and Elvis had to pose to go to war… Wagner was a supporter of the Nazis. In fact, I think we all should stop listening to the Ride of the Valkyries. (Not because of his Nazi ties, just because I’m really really really tired of that piece.)
My point is… well… whichever. I’m saying trying to get away from politics in music… just listen to Britney Spears… or any other singer. That’s a surefire way to get away from it.
Travis
PAD:
**Say what you will about people like the Chicks, like Springsteen, like Martin Sheen, but there’s one thing which I think everyone can agree upon: They worked their áššëš off to get into a position of national or even international attention.
And John Q public wants to know what he can do to have equal time and equal attention. Here’s a novel idea that I’ve seen no one broach. How about…you’re not entitled to equal time? How about…they’ve earned it and you haven’t?**
Yep, the performers have worked hard to rise to the heights of their profession. However you seem to be equating that to earning the ability to speak publicly about politics with immunity to criticism. All they have earned is the ability to sell concert tickets, CD’s or movie tickets. That’s it! As citizens, they have are able to to speak in public about whatever they want but they need to remember that actions have consequences. And since all of the polls I’ve seen showed a majority of americans approve of the president and his actions concerning the war in Iraq, it should come as no suprise that there is a backlash against the Dixie Chicks.
-Jeff
And for the life of me, I cannot see how it is petty or wrong for the fans to respond politically, and completely within the context of the purely economic relationship they have with the band, after the band brought politics into the equation.
Then you never will.
That’s okay. No one can comprehend everything.
PAD
Yep, the performers have worked hard to rise to the heights of their profession. However you seem to be equating that to earning the ability to speak publicly about politics with immunity to criticism.
Thank you for putting “seem to be” in front of the misstatement of my view, considering others have misstated it and haven’t bothered with the qualifier.
I didn’t say they should be immune to criticism. I said fans of their work who truly believe themselves to be advocates of free speech shouldn’t try to turn around and penalize them just because they have different opinions.
A boycott isn’t criticsm. It is punitive. It is a power play. It has jack-all to do with free expression or criticism and everything to do with trying to get back at someone with whom you disagree. It is unworthy of anywho who pretends to be an advocate of free speech.
Now if any of you have the guts to state clearly and for the record, “I don’t believe that others should have the right to express an opinion different than mine, and if they do, I will try to hurt them if I can,” go right ahead. That will at least be honesty.
PAD
Thanks for actually reading my post, the one you quote, where I said that it was morally objectionable to burn books, but a right. And if people are defending the Dixie Chicks’ right to say what they want without consequence, you should defend a person’s right to burn a book without consequence. And yet you insult them instead. That’s what I call hypocrisy.
I missed something. What consequence was being called for to retaliate for people burning books? Aside from, y’know, being labeled as Nazi áššhølëš?
PAD
Jeff, no one is suggesting that they are or should be immune to criticism. What Peter and others (including myself) are arguing is that boycotting is, at best, really ineffectual criticism or, at worst, not actually criticism at all, but coersion.
This is criticism. This is criticism. So they definitely are receiving it, and I don’t hear anyone saying word one about abolishing it. Why? Because no one should be saying anything like that; because this is America, and free speech is one of our basic rights.
But voting with our dollars is, at best, a questionable form of “speech” (see my above post), and rarely effective on the individual level.
I’m not sure I’m getting it. Sorry for being dense.
The Chicks use the platform that the buyers have given them (by buying their work and making them a sought after commodity) in a manner that some buyers don’t like. They withhold their buying because they feel that the Chicks have misused the platform they’ve been given. They aren’t saying the Chicks can’t speak out, just that they aren’t going to financially support them.
Again, I’m not of that ilk (because I don’t buy anyone’s CDs), and I don’t feel strongly about them one way or the other, but if other people do feel strongly, why SHOULDN’T they withhold their financial support? It isn’t like the Chicks are going to be “hurt” in any way (obviously no more than they hurt those offended).
Artists do not exist in a vacuum. They must cater to their patrons if they want their support.
Not providing the Chicks financial support when a person feels they are behaving immorally is not immoral.
Death threats aside (and those people should be prosecuted), the Chicks have gotten the message. They are free to speak idiotically if they want, but their patrons have made themselves heard.
I do like your point about people earning the forums they speak from, but let’s remember who put them there. If you hired a nanny who taught your children to hate Isreal, I’m thinking you’d take retaliatory measures to hurt her by firing her sorry tush.
Or would you keep her on?
It seems to me that the issue is not one of free speech, but a poor understanding of the Dixie Chicks traditional audience, which, I’m assuming, is a conservative, southern base. Given that the Dixie Chicks are both individuals and a business, I believe it was a poor business decision to utter those fateful words that night in England. Although the reaction in the press and some of the irate fans has clearly crossed the line (death threats, violence), I can’t for the life of me understand why the Dixie Chicks didn’t see this coming. It’s called knowing your audience.
The fact that Maines chose to make her remarks to an audience that paid to see her and the Dixie Chicks perform songs also strikes me as wrong. As wrong as an individual using his/her buying power to punitively attack the artist by boycotting any products from the band. Had Maines exercised her rights in a public forum and not a concert that fans paid to attend, I think she’d be in a better position to claim that the punishment is not proportionate to the mistake.
I’m also curious as to what others think when liberals use a boycott, as they did successfully against Dr. Laura’s tv show last year. Is this wrong as well or is it okay because you agree with the viewpoint?
I’m sure I buy much from people who hold a view I disagree with, and will continue to do so. Robin Williams is the only actor who’s ever been in movies that made me cry (ironic, seeing as he’s most often known for his comedy.) Peter swings to the left of some of my own views, but he writes a dámņëd fine book.
What I’ve held to is that I support the right of the Dixie Chicks to make their statement, and I support the right of the boycotters to make their rebuttal. When the government steps in to stop either side, let’s all join hands and rage against that, shall we? 🙂
(Meanwhile, the only boycott I’ve ever done personally is against Exxon; until the restitution is made to the Alaskan fisherman for the Valdez, as ordered by the courts, I’ll continue to get my gas anywhere other than at the sign of the double-cross. Just my opinion, you’re free to have another.)
A boycott isn’t criticsm. It is punitive. It is a power play. It has jack-all to do with free expression or criticism and everything to do with trying to get back at someone with whom you disagree. It is unworthy of anywho who pretends to be an advocate of free speech.
That is such obvious BS that I’m actually ashamed you wrote it., For one thing it makes no distinction between those who have honestly boycotted to send a message and those who do just want to punish. I know you know the distinction exists because you pointed it out yourself in your post about the burning flag. Apparently, you’ve fallen victim to the same kneejerk inability to separate the message from the offense. Boycotting seems to be your “burning flag”.
The boycotting seems to have ticked you off more than the alleged death threats the Chicks claim they received. What I find somewhat amusing about that is that the people who sent the death threats did what you suggested. “If you disagree with someone, say it with words…”.
OK, I couldn’t read all of the posts(darn phone service being interrupted and all) but,…
I find it odd that Diane Sawyer never mentioned the fact that the radio stations spearheading the boycott of the Dixie Chicks are owned by Clear Channel.
I also find it odd that noone boycotts someone like Toby Keith for being pro war. I mean, pro war?? C’mon!
Lastly, I can only hope Santorum is voted out of office on the day his son comes out of the closet.
Col
Ðámņ, I love a good arguement/debate! While PAD and I probably will never agree on the “A boycott isn’t criticsm. It is punitive” statement (and I know he’s losing sleep over it…LOL), I’m glad he’s got this forum and allows others to participate. Peter, thank you.
I do like your point about people earning the forums they speak from, but let’s remember who put them there.
They did. They themselves did.
Perhaps that’s what people don’t seem to grasp. There’s this recurring theme: “We put them there.” As if it was great burst of altruism, sone generous and selfless act on the part of the audience. And because of this selflessness and generosity, the peformers owe them to not step beyond the boundaries that the audience places upon them.
What a load of crap.
They put THEMSELVES on the world scene. They did it by creating a body of work so commanding, so attractive, that people bought their albums because they like the albums and go to their concerts because they like the music. Audiences didn’t do this out of selflessness. They did it because they themselves were entertained.
They did the work. Audiences then noticed the work and bought it, but they didn’t “put” them anywhere.
PAD
That is such obvious BS that I’m actually ashamed you wrote it.
Oh, Christ, spare me.
For one thing it makes no distinction between those who have honestly boycotted to send a message and those who do just want to punish.
That’s because there is no distinction. The only message being “sent” by those who boycott in the name of opinions they don’t like is, “I’m going to try and punish you for saying this.” The only honesty would be if people admitted that’s what they were doing, instead of hiding behind high-flown rhetoric.
I know you know the distinction exists because you pointed it out yourself in your post about the burning flag.
And that rates a big “huh?” My post about flagburning was that it was a less-than-effective means of expression that I personally wouldn’t undertake because it would muddy my message. My point about boycotts is that they aren’t a means of expressing an opinion at all, but instead a strong-arm controlling tactic undertaken to be punitive.
Your endeavor to try and combine the two is so outlandish that, frankly, I’m actually ashamed you…nah, I’m kidding. I expected it.
PAD
I’m also curious as to what others think when liberals use a boycott, as they did successfully against Dr. Laura’s tv show last year. Is this wrong as well or is it okay because you agree with the viewpoint?
This is going to drive you nuts, because people keep smugly thinking they can pigeon-hole me. But I was asked about this over on my AOL board a while back (a place where Eclark regularly showed up to disagree with me about pretty much everything) and I’ll say it again: I took no joy whatsoever in her being hounded off the air. I think her opinions were wrongheaded, but there’s lots of people on the air with wrongheaded opinions. Frankly, part of me even wonders if the reason they were able to get her out of there was because she was a woman.
PAD
Thank you for responding, if only to that part.
And no surprise, I disagree. There are a lot of people who have put together a body of work that is sound, well-crafted and went nowhere.
Artists work their butts off, and whether they (we, since I am one, too) admit it or not, they gear their work to the audience and the audience rewards them by paying for their work.
The audience puts you there, and you either cultivate it or you split (to quote William Goldman “I’m too old and too rich to put up with this crap.”)
Artistic success is an equation: Hard Work+Good Choices+Audience Love = Success. Remove any one of those and your equation is broken.
Artistic success is an equation: Hard Work+Good Choices+Audience Love = Success. Remove any one of those and your equation is broken.
No.
Artistic success is measured purely by whether the art measures up to the artist’s standards, and whether it affects the viewer on some sort of emotional level (ideally that which the artist intended.) Beginning, middle, end of artistic success.
You’re confusing it with commercial success, and that is not–repeat, NOT–something that occurs through some sort of awards system conceived by the audience. Audiences are too mercurial, too fickle, too disloyal to pat themselves on the back and take any credit for putting artists where they are. To put it in its baldest terms, it’s like lions patting themselves on the back because they were clever enough to be captured by trappers.
Commercial success comes from artists being clever enough, innovative enough, lucky enough, dedicated and gutsy enough to attract, entice, and hold onto their audience. Probably the absolute master of this is Madonna. She has been reinventing herself for twenty years. Do you credit her success to the audience sticking with her? No. You credit it to her for continually coming up with new ways to MAINTAIN her audience.
Audiences, by nature, do not remain. They wander away. Always. Audiences are one collective Dark Willow: Constantly teetering on the edge of announcing “Bored now.”
PAD
You know, there is something here I think just has to be said.
Who cares what the celebrities think? I mean, Martin Sheen may be a very intelligent man, I don’t know, but the fact that he is an actor does not make him any more knowledgeable about foreign or domestic affairs than he would be otherwise. Natalie Maines is a young woman from a family of musicians and if she graduated from high school that’s as far as her formal education goes. She’s famous because she can sing, and as PAD pointed out she put in a lot of work. Her political opinions don’t bother me, and I doubt they bother the President. In the same way, it doesn’t bother me that Viggo Mortensen chooses in real life to speak more like Grima Wormtongue than Aragorn. I’m not going to deprive myself of the “Lord of the Rings” movies because of it.
Now, the manner in which she expressed her opinions — and she wasn’t being critical of the President, she was being insulting — does bother me. I won’t be buying her CD for the time being because I simply wouldn’t enjoy listening to it. I don’t consider it punitive. The amount of money Natalie Maines would be missing due to missing one CD sale probably wouldn’t buy her a stick of gum.
I think what a lot of people are missing here is that people are reacting on a very emotional level. We’re talking about someone who publically slammed someone whom a lot of us like and respect. Furthermore the man is the Head of State and she did it on a foreign stage. That is going to upset people. Add in the fact that the country music fan base skews more patriotic than the fan bases of other types of music (as can be demonstrated by the number of patriotic hit songs in country as compared to pop, rock, or other) and a backlash is inevitable. That’s not being petty or vindictive — that’s being human. I do think it will blow over eventually, especially if Natalie manages to say something about the incident that sounds intelligent (which doesn’t seem likely). If she had just said she was opposed to the war, there might still have been a backlash, but it would have been a lot smaller.
I certainly wouldn’t support blacklisting or organized boycotts in this case. It just seems to me like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. I hope that if PAD does buy “Home” he enjoys it. And if he does like it, may I suggest the music of Alison Krauss with or without Union Station. I have no idea what her political views are.
This is going to drive you nuts, because people keep smugly thinking they can pigeon-hole me. But I was asked about this over on my AOL board a while back (a place where Eclark regularly showed up to disagree with me about pretty much everything) and I’ll say it again: I took no joy whatsoever in her being hounded off the air.
Well, I didn’t show up JUST to disagree with you. We just happened not to see eye to eye on everything from the environment to whether kids should be allowed in R-rated movies.
It wasn’t just you, though. Just before I left AOL I got into it with Kurt Busiek about NAMBLA and some license plates in Florida. Most of our disagreements though, then and now, seem to deal with how far to take Free Speech.
I had this same argument about boycotts with you about the Bill Maher incident following 9/11. Apparently neither of us has changed our position on the subject. At least you’re consistent in your views, and I like that.
Robert: Add in the fact that the country music fan base skews more patriotic than the fan bases of other types of music
I’m hoping, Robert, that what you meant was “country music fan base skews more conservative“. Because I just feel it’s wrong to declare one group more “patriotic” than another based solely on their tendency to wear their national pride on their sleeve. Yes, you’re more likely to find “God bless the U.S.A.”-type songs in country music, but you’re equally likely to find “Give peace a chance”-type songs in pop/rock, and the composers of both types no doubt feel they are being patriotic.
I just think it’s an important distinction to make.
Robert: Add in the fact that the country music fan base skews more patriotic than the fan bases of other types of music
Alan : I’m hoping, Robert, that what you meant was “country music fan base skews more conservative”. Because I just feel it’s wrong to declare one group more “patriotic” than another based solely on their tendency to wear their national pride on their sleeve. Yes, you’re more likely to find “God bless the U.S.A.”-type songs in country music, but you’re equally likely to find “Give peace a chance”-type songs in pop/rock, and the composers of both types no doubt feel they are being patriotic.
I just think it’s an important distinction to make.
Very important Alan. Patriotism means : Love of and devotion to one’s country
It does not mean absolute blind “no matter what the government does, we support it.”
Nor does it mean, just because I scream it loud, I’m a patriot, and if you don’t you’re not.
Patriotism is many things. Including the right to love this country so much that you criticize it and the government.
Oh… and in the end… the government and the country are two separate entities.
Just because I disagree with the government, does not mean that I do not support our country.
Travis
Hmmmm. Good points, PAD. Well supported. Will ponder.
Do you think artists “owe” anything to their fans?
I very deliberately chose “patriotic” versus “conservative” when describing country-western songs because what I’m describing is not about political philosophy. It’s about love of country, and specifically love of America. “Give Peace a Chance” is not a patriotic song, though those who listen to it may be patriotic (and I don’t think John Lennon would be described as patriotic in any sense of the word, nor would he want to be). How many pop, rock, or rap songs are pro-America or use American imagery in a non-ironic way?
If you like, you can assume that when I used the word “patriotic” I was referring to “God Bless the USA” (an insipid song, by the way) style patriotism. There was no intention to say that anybody else was not patriotic. Heck, I don’t even own a flag.
**Hmmmm. Good points, PAD. Well supported. Will ponder.
Do you think artists “owe” anything to their fans?**
Of course. They owe their best effort. If people are plunking down good money for your artistic endeavors, you better give it your all every time. Your best won’t always be *the* best. You can’t knock it out of the park every time. But at the very least, you should always be looking to make contact.
PAD
Sorry, I just couldn’t read all of the comments listed here… So many great thoughts and views… Mind if I share a few???
The Dixie Chicks, much like nearly everyone in the entertainment business, are a product. Individually they are Americans, but as a group they are a product. I won’t say anything about my rights, I think Mr. David has made his point perfectly clear, but I wanted to put a different spin on it… 😉
If a chocolate candy company started putting large amounts of Alum in their products, I would get extremely sour chocolate. I wouldn’t buy it anymore, becuase hey, who wants sour chocolate?
I saw what Ms. Maines said at her concert, and anytime I hear their music (part of the Dixie Chicks product), I will also get that sensation of a sour taste in my mouth. Whether it is from a CD that I have bought, or a radio station here in DFW, I will move on to something else. Wrapped in a term like ‘Boycott’ makes it easier to categorize, that’s really all.
The public at large has the opportunity to decide on whether the actions of Ms. Maines has impacted the overall DC product. Their actions, words, views, musicianship, and lyrics are all part of the same product. You really cannot separate them. Try as you might, people will not buy the best of candies from Satan. (Not saying that DC = Satan, just making the point)
If Osama bin Laden were a country musician, would you believe that not buying his CD’s was wrong as well? Yes, I know its a stretch, I saw that before as well, but you have asked us to separate the views of the individuals from the product imprinted on the Compact Discs. I just don’t see how that is justifiable.
I was going to ignore this post some more, but I had a further thought about my earlier rantings, PAD. You avoided my accusation the way you avoid 9/10 of all accusations that are levelled against you, and that is by finding a loophole in a secondary point and then saying that the entire accusation is not correctly levelled against the point you are discussing. Sometimes you avoid the more important parts of the accusation by ideologically throwing yourself under a lesser part of the accusation. That is annoying, and not in any way that should flatter you. I certainly take pride in the fact that I will not align with parties unless *they* happen to agree with *me* on the point at hand, but I earn this pride by critically examining all sides with the same scrutiny.
The point was that you indicate your allegiance by what you decide to speak out against and when you decide to speak out. Your (and everyone else’s, respectively) beliefs and character are most accurately indicated by what you do, not by what you say. In this case, “what you do” is choose when to speak out. “What you say” is the exact choice of words. I am hardly concerned with your exact choice of words.
I am concerned about the selectivity you use when choosing to speak out, and by the fact that you claim an unjustified degree of fairness when you say you aren’t really anti-conservative. I don’t have a problem with bias. I have a problem with bias that is hidden behind a claim of impartiality. That’s why I don’t like Fox News (conservatives hiding behind a facade of impartiality) and it is also why I find issue your political comments, even when we agree (as we do in part here).
Anyway, to the thread thesis: Certainly, I will refuse to buy whatever I want: nobody would recommend to me that I have no choice in how I spend my music money. However, I will not try to silence the Dixie Chicks or violate their right to speak in any way. I will point out that fame/notariety is absolutely no indicator of a person’s knowledge of political issues. I think what people are really concerned about is that they recognize most people are swayed by the fame and status (as elements of power) backing up an opinion, not by the logic of an opinion. That makes the annoyed parties want to control what famous people say. In principal and in legality, it is an undefendable position because famous people have rights too. In this flawed world that we live in, where Platonic forms are no more than aspirations, they have a *moral* (not legal) point when saying that people should be careful to say what they mean. Famous people should be doubly careful, as their opinion carries more weight and has more extenuating consequences, no matter the source of their fame.
Now, concerning boycots: I agree that they can be ineffective in certain cases. This is one of those cases, in which they are used to shut up a person. They may have said what they said in the first place for greed, because they realized they were now in a crowd of people who would agree with that opinion. That part of the hypothesis is unprovable (as it establishes the assumption that we can never trust them at all, and cannot reliably get their position on anything no matter what), so we have to settle for the other, simpler, part: that they did. This serves to force a falsely held opinion onto the performer. The idea is that the boycot will be broken once they decide to agree with their fans. That is dishonest, because it is assumed that their artistic expression stems from who they are: including their world/political views. I wouldn’t trust a person who all of a sudden broke that kind of boycot because the performer started saying something else. I would be in favor of not buying their CD’s any more, because nobody is forced to appreciate any artist’s work. That work is, as partially stated above, a function of AND expression of a particular world view, and I can choose not to buy art that offends my world view. I don’t buy Eminem’s CD’s, even though I feel that he has some degree of talent, because I don’t agree with his channelling of that talent. I could do the same thing with the Dixie Chicks if I wanted, but it would be a personal boycot alone and is as pristine from moral fault as any kind of disagreement can be (a long book can be written on the subject of hypocrisy if it is interpreted broadly). Even if it were an organized boycot, that remains within my rights, but not within morality if the standard procedures of boycotting are observed. That’s all my opinion.
Durn it! I see there’s a couple of editing errors I left in my post that garbled some meaning. I meant this:
In this flawed world that we live in, where Platonic forms are no more than aspirations, they have a *moral* (not legal) obligation to be certain that they say what they mean. Famous people should be doubly careful, as their opinion carries more weight and has more extenuating consequences, no matter the source of their fame. That’s a matter of conscience. Can we all deal with the consequences of what we say, even when it results in hurting certain others?
and…
so we have to settle for the other, simpler, part of the hypothesis: that they meant what they said.
“I am concerned about the selectivity you use when choosing to speak out, and by the fact that you claim an unjustified degree of fairness when you say you aren’t really anti-conservative.”
I’m not anti-conservative. I’m anti-stupidity. I dislike liberal stupidity as much as conservative stupidity. I have great tolerance for opinions that are well thought out and expressed, even if they don’t concur with mine. I have little tolerance for stupid opinions. I don’t suffer fools gladly. I wish I did.
“Now, concerning boycots: I agree that they can be ineffective in certain cases. This is one of those cases, in which they are used to shut up a person.”
That may well be your opinion, but it’s not mine. I don’t see boycotts being done to shut people up. I see them as childish, control-freak, punitive measures taken by people who truly value free speech…as long as it’s their own.
PAD
Perhaps no one is reading comments on entries this old, but I have to ask. How is it that the guy who asked Spider-Man to stop the criminal was a private security guard? I just happened to read Amazing Fantasy 15 in Essential Spider-Man and I checked out issue 275 just to be sure. The guy who asked Pete to stop the criminal seems to have PD on his collar and threatens to “run in” Spider-Man for his failure to help. He was also at the Parker house beside a police car when he told Peter his uncle was shot. He was then at the warehouse seemingly in charge of the scene, and was called Captain by another character.
It’s true in issue 200 the same officer was shown working as a private security guard, but some police officers take those jobs when they retire. So what is it I’m missing?
—
Burt Ward, and no, not *that* one.