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
• 
I disagree with two points you make PAD:
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.
Somethings rate being intolerant of them. Racism, discrimination, etc. The Selma Bus boycotts were petty and unimaginative? Boycotting Companies like Nike and Pepsi that traded with companies like South Africa was wrong? Hey, I admit that boycotts are a bit heavy handed, but sometimes you have to hit people over the head witrh a bat to get their attention. And Unions like SAG and UAW use boycotts all the time, although they call it a strike. In fact, SAG punished some people recently for taking jobs in acting during a recent strike, by not letting them apply for membership for a full year. Hollywood being a company town, that meant those people couldn’t get a job in anything for a year. You can imagine my disdain for an organization that uses the very tactics it often criticises.
BTW, ‘petty’ just means that YOU don’t think it’s important.
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.”
I have this feeling that you’re addressing me specifically, but theat may just be me feeling self-important. At any rate, I don’t argue whether or not someone has the right to boycott. I argue exactly the opposite of what you do, that boycotts are valid and justifiable. It’s mainly for those times when injustices are just so great, or you want immediate attention or when letters just get directed to the round file.
Heavy handed, maybe. Wrong? No way.
Agreed.
Reminds me of the time when I tried explaining to a jury that the nudity/sex in comic books were artistic representations (exaggerated at that) and that I could purchase certain adult magazines depicting the same thing with real people. The jury saw no difference – they only saw the nudity/sex. No one was forced to buy the product, no boycotts of my business occured (but I would have loved to see people picketing my place of business), nothing detrimental (other than the comments in the local newspaper) happened at all.
Remember the guy who got arrested for burning the flag at some government building? He was making a statement with his actions. The general populace had a difficult time accepting that someone would go to the extremes he did too. He was trying to make a point that his constitutional rights were being ignored and overrun by the local government agencies. This act brought in enough attention, he got the appropriate action and everything (including his arrest for the flag burning) came out fine for him. Those who understood what he was attempting to do, applauded his harsh actions, those who didn’t would never be able to comprehend why he was trying to get the attention.
Watch the HBO NEW Robin Williams comedy special that he recently filmed. Then, recall it was filmed before the current war action against Baghdad. I wonder, has he has been boycotted?
I’m agreeing with you Peter, not the previous poster, EClark1849.
**I’m agreeing with you Peter, not the previous poster, EClark1849.
Posted by Gordon Lee**
Well, at least I know you won’t boycott me.
If boycotts have no “style”
What style do violent protests have? The delibrate blocking of key intersections and financial districts and hospitals.
Not much style present, but it is a right. Somewhat.
**If boycotts have no “style”
What style do violent protests have? The delibrate blocking of key intersections and financial districts and hospitals.
Not much style present, but it is a right. Somewhat.**
Blocking means of public access…I’m reasonably sure that is against the law, which would make it not a right.
Obviously, protestors do that in order to get themselves noticed. The 11 O’Clock news is more likely to air your activities if you’re being dragged away by the cops than if you’re off to the side and impeding no one.
What style is that? “Guerilla” style, I suppose. Showboating. I can tell you, if I was stuck in traffic being snarled due to anti-war protestors, my response would be, “I agree with you! Now get the *#%% out of the way, dipstick!”
Some people elevate the concept of getting noticed above everything. When you pìšš øff even the people who are on your side, your approach needs rethinking.
PAD
eclark you said
Somethings rate being intolerant of them. Racism, discrimination, etc. The Selma Bus boycotts were petty and unimaginative? Boycotting Companies like Nike and Pepsi that traded with companies like South Africa was wrong?
Peter covered that already with
I’m talking about pure, simple, appropriate, proportional response:
(emphasis mine.) when something is aggregiously out of line then certainly some actions like a boycott are appropriate.
but even when they are they still lack style.
EClark,
Well, I guess we can both be self-important because I thought PAD was addressing me (since he quoted my thread). So, we can both feel self-important today. 🙂
PAD, I know you were being facetious about the farting, but couldn’t the not hiring of that person be considered a form economic retaliation – a point you have said is wrong? Isn’t it out of proportion to the action?
Anyway, back to the topic of the rights and wrongs of boycotts. EClark already mentioned the very ones I was thinking of (the bus boycotts in Montgomery and South Africa). Now, those might be considered proportional because you are talking about individuals taking on large corporations or government.
However, how are the Dixie Chicks different? They have a great deal more money and influence than most people on the street. They perform on stage before tens of thousands nightly and get to say what they want. They get put on the cover of magazines and invited on PrimeTime Live. Joe SixPack doesn’t get that. The only response he has is writing a letter – which as EClark points out probably gets put in the trash bin – or making their point in a bit more personal way – economically. Not that this seems to be hurting the DC’s much. They are now on prime time shows, the covers of magazines and still have sold out concerts and a number one album.
We could go round and round on this. In fact – it’s probably way past time to let it die. I don’t see boycotts as wrong. PAD, you see them all as wrong as near as I can tell (maybe not, but that’s the impression I get). So, it may just be time to agree to disagree. Personally, I don’t care about country music any more than most others around here – so we’re all arguing over something we have very little to do with anyway……
I believe personal boycotts, or even group boycotts among people who feel the same way, are part of our supposed free-market economy. We have competition specifically for that purpose – so if one department store screwed you big time on a purchase, you and your freinds can make a point of spending your money elsewhere.
Same goes for music. If you dislike the Dixie Chicks’ philosophy, don’t buy their music. It’s that simple. If you own a radio station, and you don’t want to play it, that’s your prerogative (and it’s mine to refuse to listen to your station).
What I dislike, and see as a little dangerous, is MOB MENTALITY. The idea that, if you’re caught walking out of a music store with a Dixie Chicks CD, you’ll be attacked by an angry mob. Or the Dixie Chicks themselves having to endure death threats – there’s no point to that. Recording music is their job, and whether they succeed or not depends on record sales – so maybe a boycott will work to that effect. Killing them is NOT an option.
Another example is a truck driver in Cincinnati OH who was arrested drove onto a sidewalk to chase away anti-war protesters. He’s being hailed as a local “hero”. But what if one of those protesters couldn’t run fast enough? Or was in a wheelchair? Would any of us be willing to live with even one person’s death from such a stupid and dangerous move? Would anyone be willing to simply laugh, and say “That’s the price for going against the war”?
Freedom of speech INCLUDES freedom from persecution. If we have to fear for our lives, or feel unprotected by the government and police, which our taxes pay for, for simply displaying a dissenting opinion…then we are no longer free.
“Freedom of speech INCLUDES freedom from persecution. If we have to fear for our lives, or feel unprotected by the government and police, which our taxes pay for, for simply displaying a dissenting opinion…then we are no longer free. “
Jason… I couldn’t agree more.
My dad, still a journalist, though as much as I try to dissuade him from that, has a poster which I agree with a hundred percent:
“Talk is cheap. Free speach isn’t.”
I recently re-watched the A&E Richard E. Grant/Elizabeth McGovern/Martin Shaw production of The Scarlet Pimpernel.
And throughout it all… the executions of people who spoke out against the cruelty of the Revolution (what it turned out to be)… When Mob Mentality rules, then what we get is blood. History teaches that.
Oh… and thought for today…
Everyone talks about being “patriotic” and “un-patriotic” a lot.
We can all name patriots and heroes of the USA, and other countries.
Yet, is being patriotic always a good thing?
As many heroes as I can name, I can name at least twice as many villains who did their job because they were “patriotic” towards their country.
Travis
I think in many instances a boycott is really nothing more than a preference motivated by some cause. To others, the cause becomes subject to some degree of validation and reinterpreted by some other person’s preferences.
I am pro-choice. I have rationalized my position down to a fairly narrow libertarian idea of no government in private lives. For a year I extended my pro-choice stance to a relatively passive boycott of Dominos. I would not buy Dominos, but would not push the issue (e.g., if a group of friends bought Dominos, I would chip in and eat the pizza without preaching – social interaction and social activism are seperate in my mind). After a year, I found the boycott a silly distraction to my real belief and resumed acting normally. Dominos owner’s beliefs his beliefs, mine are mine and I would be happy to discuss them over one of his pizzas if he wants. I’d buy.
Same goes to the Dixie Chicks beliefs. I like their music, think the fiddler is cute, and am not going to rationalize my preferences in a way that distracts from my cause. And as Bill Maher said a few weeks ago, it is possible to chew gum and walk — and be against the idea of a war and fully support the troops in that war.
However, I will continue to boycott Roman Polanski. And I will socially express this boycott. I toss this digression into the debate because of your statement “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.”
I think in cases as this, where the punitive, retialotory measures that were indeed appropriate for Polanski’s action were avoided from his midnight exit to France. And words have gone ignored for as long. So, I don’t think I have any other option but boycott him and hope my social stance in this boycott is heard by my circle of friends (or the visitors to PAD’s site). I’ll take the terms petty and intolerant in this example (or, the potential boycott waiting for the Girls Gone Wild guy because of his recent actions – I’ll wait for a conviction of the crime, but I stand ready to lump him into my very small boycott circle) because the SOB has left me, or society, much else to strike at him with.
I mention the above because as silly as boycotts are in my opinion, I see some examples where words are not so powerful. And, if anyone does know of a “Capture Polanski” bounty, I would happily toss in the price of a movie ticket as a contribution to the fund. Please, no fakers…
Lighter side, I read about this somewhere and I hope to God it’s true…
The Dixie Chicks (Who’re currently among the Top Ten Highest-Selling Country Albums, by the by) aren’t the only country artists to speak out against the war. Billy Ray Cyrus, the ‘Achy-Breaky Heart’ one-hit wonder, also criticized the government’s actions. Pro-War activists arranged a (Wait for it…) bonfire rally where people could bring their Billy Ray Cyrus albums to burn.
No, wait, it gets better. Y’see, Billy Ray’s not a top seller so a lot of the people who went to the rally didn’t have any of his albums at home. So they bought some so they’d have something to burn. Billy Ray’s sales were the highest they’d been in years.
As for me, I’m going out and not only buying the latest Dixie Chicks album, but the latest Springsteen. Which is interesting considering I’ve never purchased albums from either…
Now I’m assuming that you are going to buy the albums in a form of support for these artists, not for your like of the music. How is this different than someone chosing NOT to purchase (ie: boycott) these items in a form of protest?
-Jeff
Did John Byrne really once have a bodyguard? Yikes, I didn’t know that there were so many people out there giving fandom a bad name. If this is so, then I’m disappointed in those clods who may have threatened him.
PAD you stated:
“Blocking means of public access…I’m reasonably sure that is against the law, which would make it not a right.”
While I know what you meant, I would like to clear up a few things from a “legal” aspect because that statement was misleading. While there is no right to block public access (what you meant), because something is against the law does not automatically make it NOT a right. Abortions were against the law at one time, so was sodomy, so were inter racial marriages in some states. Well all know those things happen now because the Supreme Court deemed them to be Constitutional Rights. [As an aside there is a Texas sodomy case pending that may/may not deem that a fundamental right, most states just took it upon themselves to allow it.]
The court recognizes two types of rights: fundamental and non-fundamental. Fundamental rights are weighed by past cases and the relationship to other established fundamental rights as well as “deeply rooted tradition.” There is a strict scrutiny in regards to fundamental right. Non-fundamental rights must only conform to a rational basis for their acceptance. Do the ends justify the means in protecting a valid state interest. As always this is vague language that can be manipulated and danced around for a SC Justice to do what he wants. Cynical but true.
Sorry about the Constitutional Law 101 lecture!
I really agree on everything you said, Pad (and most opinions on this forum are quite reasonable also). Thanks for giving me some new hope in Americans because recently, in Europe, most we get about America is mr Bush, mr Powell or (worse) mr Rumsfield opinions… It’s nice to see some other views on what is or should be America.
As for the boycott issue…
I’m buying TMNT. 🙂
I agree, Mr. David. It’s silly. The whole Dixie Chicks thing is silly. Maybe I’ll buy their CD, too, though I intend not to listen to it (not my cuppa tea). I have Springsteen’s latest anyway.
Oh, and I boycott Dominos simply because their pizza sucks. So I guess that’s not a boycott. Whatever.
Down with “patriotic” zealotry!
Bill
Now I’m assuming that you are going to buy the albums in a form of support for these artists, not for your like of the music. How is this different than someone chosing NOT to purchase (ie: boycott) these items in a form of protest?
It’s the difference between being supportive and punitive. I’m acting on behalf of a cause to try and make up for, in my own small way, those who I believe are acting in a spirit that is contrary to that cause. Also, I fully intend to listen to them and see if I get to like them.
PAD
Oh, and I boycott Dominos simply because their pizza sucks. So I guess that’s not a boycott. Whatever
No, that’s just brand preference.
PAD
At 2:41 PM ET, Jeff asked:
How is this different than someone chosing NOT to purchase (ie: boycott) these items in a form of protest?
Of course I can’t speak for Mr. David, but here’s my motivation for doing something along those lines:
…. If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.
– Robert A. Heinlein
What can I say? I don’t quite care strongly enough about the issue to devote a lot of time, money, and effort to actively fighting the Righteous Attention Hounds among the “let’s boycott!” crowd. So I’ll just do my bit to counteract them.
Hey! I guessed more or less correctly! Now if only I weren’t so slow a typist….
Gordon Bennett: 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.
Peter David: Gordon Bennett, no, it doesn’t.
Luigi Novi: I agree with Gordon. People will look at an issue in whatever context or on whatever level they will. If someone like Gordon looks at an issue as a matter of where he spends his money, that’s just him.
Peter David: 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.
Luigi Novi: Interesting argument, given that the exact same argument can be made to Natalie Maines. She said something others found offensive. She can point out she had the right to say it. And enjoy some people deciding not to buy her music.
Oh, but that’s “retaliatory”, huh? Well guess what, Peter? It’s just as retaliatory when the interviewer doesn’t hire the farter. It’s not as if the interviewer isn’t hiring the guy because of his ability at the job, right? It certainly did seem that you were saying that he wouldn’t get hired because of the farting.
Peter David: 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.
Luigi Nov: I disagree. People don’t have to respond with words if they don’t want to, and I don’t think it’s wrong if they do so. There are many ways to respond to a given issue, and there’s nothing wrong with people deciding to vote with their wallets. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with me deciding that I don’t want to buy any of Todd McFarlane’s books or the Dixie Chicks’ music. If I simply don’t feel comfortable any more patronizing their works, that’s just that.
Why does it necessarily have to be “punitive”? Or “retaliatory”? Or petty and intolerant? Why can’t it simply mean that I’m making a personal decision?
Consider how we choose which movies we see. People are often admonished to judge a movie after they’ve seen it, but there’s a situation in which we all don’t do that: When we’re trying to decide whether to see one. In so doing, we trying use all sorts of superficial cues to decide whether the movie might be good: The trailer. The writer or director. The stars. The genre. The plot. Word of mouth. If I decide I don’t want to see a film because I don’t like the lead actor, or because the trailer turned me off, is that petty or intolerant? No, because the entire act of choosing to watch a movie is based entirely on making guesses about a film you haven’t seen. Our decisions in this regard are often based on nothing more than a superficial whim, and nothing empirical or scientific. Is it wrong to do this? Personally, I don’t think so, because the only way you can choose to watch a movie is by taking a chance, a chance based on less-than-perfect guesswork.
Now let’s say that I’m perusing the racks at Tower Records and I see the new Dixie Chicks CD. I’m standing there, trying to see what emotions come up that might help me decide whether to buy it. Nothing very positive comes up. Then I remember a comment Natalie Maines made that I thought was just plain dumb. That memory turns me off the CD, and I walk away. Was this retaliatory? Petty? Intolerant? I personally don’t think so. Purchases of aesthetic things like entertainment is often idiosyncratic, and if being offended at something an artist said is one of the things that informs my purchases, there is NOTHING WRONG with that, period. I don’t have to base my purchases or what some other person says is right or wrong, nor am I being petty or intolerant just because he says it’s wrong for me to make my purchases in this way.
I will say that perhaps organised efforts to boycott such people may be seen as punitive or retaliatory, especially when the boycotters try to tell other sheep what to think and how to react. But I don’t think I’m being petty if I confine my individual purchases to what I feel like buying, regardless of the reasons.
Peter David: For instance: All those people who sit there contentedly and say, “I’m boycotting Dominos Pizza because the owner gives money to Project Rescue,” …
Luigi Novi: And I don’t think it’s unimaginative to boycott an organization if they do this. If I don’t want my money to end up with that organization, that is perfectly right. I’m not obligated to be more creative than that in making that decision.
Peter David: If I say, “I believe in “A” and you respond with, “Well, I believe in “B”,” that’s speaking back. If I say “I believe in A” and you respond with, “Oh yeah? You SOB. I’m going to stop buying your work and try to get all my friends to stop buying it too,” that is NOT speaking back. That is an attempt at punitive measures because you disagree with what I’ve said.
And that is wrong.
How can ANYONE not see that?
Luigi Novi: Um, because we simply don’t agree with you? Because some of us think you’re wrong? I don’t have to make my purchases based on your criteria, Peter. If politics informs my purchases, there is NOTHING WRONG with that. It’s my money. If the memory of something an artist said that offended me hangs in my mind at the record store, what am I supposed to do? Buy it anyway, even though I don’t like that person, because I can’t use politics as a criteria when buying stuff? I don’t agree with that. I’m sorry you think I’m petty, retaliatory or intolerant because of that.
Peter David: But patting yourself on the back because you’re opting for a nice, easy boycott that’s going to hurt no one except the local Domino’s franchise is…there’s that word again…idiotic.
Luigi Novi: Why do you assume that choosing to no longer buy Domino’s must equate with a pat on one’s back? Why can’t it simply be personal decision I make because not making it makes me uncomfortable?
From Jeff:
Now I’m assuming that you are going to buy the albums in a form of support for these artists, not for your like of the music. How is this different than someone chosing NOT to purchase (ie: boycott) these items in a form of protest?
From PAD:
It’s the difference between being supportive and punitive. I’m acting on behalf of a cause to try and make up for, in my own small way, those who I believe are acting in a spirit that is contrary to that cause. Also, I fully intend to listen to them and see if I get to like them.
But it’s still a matter of choice. You choosing to purchase seems to be in favor of their political views, with a secondary interest in the music. For me, my choosing to not purchase is my musical tastes with the political views coming in secondary, or even further down the list. That’s just choice, no matter what the reasonings behind it may be.
-Jeff
Both right and wrong Peter.
You’re right when you draw the line between saying something is wrong and saying someone has the right to do something. This is the frequent black & white, “if you disagree with me than you’re a fascist denying me my rights” thinking. People should recognize that the art of debate is explaining to persuade someone else why your side is correct. This often involves arguing that your opponent’s side is wrong; that does not mean your opponent is denied his/her rights — and they can use those rights to argue against you.
You’re wrong when you say about boycotts “saying it with punitive, retaliatory measures proves nothing except that you are petty and intolerant.” Boycotting something is using your right as a consumer to place your money where you want, for whatever reason you want. It would be great if people who boycotted one thing gave money/time to the other side too, but boycotting alone *works*. Companies may not care about editorials in the paper decrying them, or indignant letters from upset folks; but when the companies’ profits start to drop, those companies will take notice. In a sense, boycotting is the financial equivalent of a protest. It’s a valid use of one’s finances, it can last for a long time (Harlan Ellison still refuses to buy grapes from one food chain, from a protest began in the ’70s), and it can result in change (Dr. Laura’s show didn’t get yanked because network executives suddenly felt liberal). It’s also perfectly legal.
So are you saying that boycotts for any reason whatsoever are wrong UNLESS the boycott attains some level of cleverness and wit? That reasoning seems just a wee bit tortured.
Honestly, the mountain that has been made out of this molehill is absurd beyond belief. Other than some lost airplay, the Dixie Chicks have incurred no real damages from these boycotters, as their album and concert ticket sales attest. People who would never otherwise have bought their albums are doing so. They were interviewed on an ABC newsmagazine and are appearing on the cover of Entertainment Weekly. Yep, those boycotts REALLY stifled their rights!
Frankly, Mr. David, I’m finding your arbitrary demarcation of the terms of acceptable public discourse more troubling than people and radio stations offended by the band’s comments choosing not to buy or play their music. It really seems like you’re saying it’s OK for individuals to express disagreement with the band by not buying them as long as they don’t tell others why they’re doing it or try to persuade others to do the same, which is all a boycott consists of. And radio stations apparently aren’t allowed to make any decisions about the band’s airplay since there’s apparently a divine right to airplay that, I suspect, would be news to a few thousand garage bands. I find the idea that certain forms of perfectly legal speech and expression with long and at times proud traditions (such as the Montgomery bus boycott) should be off-limits because they offend your sensibilities more chilling than I do a radio station dropping a band’s songs because of something the band said.
The fundamental error committed by the Dixie Chicks is not understanding their audience. The world of Country & Western music is probably the most strictly conservative demographic in music today. To denounce a Republican President on the eve of war and expect any outcome other than what they received is foolish.
I do not endorese the boycott, nor does it offend me. You see while we have the right to speak our minds many operate under the misapprehension that we have “Free” speech. We live in a TANSTAAFL society: There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
You can say whatever you want, but words — just like actions — have consequences.
The Dixie Chicks are paying for their words. It is neither right nor wrong. It is what it is, the way of things.
Musicians and actors should stick to entertaining. Few of them have the wherewithal to do much else.
Ok, in response to PAD’s argument of punitive response, I suppose what he’s saying is:
When you choose to boycott a music cd based on something the artist said, you’re boycotting something that’s wholly on different grounds that what you’re offended by.
For instance, if the Dixie Chicks put out a CD in which they simply orate their political views, and you disagree with their political views, then boycotting that CD would get your point across. But if you’re boycotting a music CD that has no bearing on any form of politics, it’s just a weak measure.
As for the farting example . . . I don’t think he was using it with the employer’s bias in mind, I think his point was to assume that anyone who would behave inappropriately in front of an employer would not get hired. Anyone who wants to argue that the employer is showing a bias is nitpicking farther than the example was trying to show.
As for patriotism, what I always think of is this:
The Nazis were being patriotic by killing and gassing people because their nation’s leader told them to.
When I think of that, I realize how dangerous patriotism can get. It’s good to remember your rights and why you were given them in the first place.
I agree with you Peter, individuals boycotting the Chicks is a non-issue. The real issue is the systematic corporate promotion of the Chick boycott by Texas radio station, and by default, advertisers and sponsers who all of sudden, treat the Chicks like lepers because Natalie Maines exercised her BASIC AMERICAN right, and spoke her mind. When did having an opposing viewpoint become an un-American thing? Isn’t that one of Bush Jr’s justification for invading Iraq…to allow the oppressed Iraqis the freedom of thought? Yes people and companies have a right to boycott. But in a country that so cherishes freedom, I’m stunned that few can see the parallels of the blacklists of 1950s with McCarthyism to Bush Jr administration tacit endorsement of the Chick’s boycott.
If someone said or did something you really disagreed with then why would you buy their cd or comic or anything? Ok so there’s no need to shout it from the rooftops that you’re doing it, but wouldn’t you be more inclined to go buy someone elses cd or book, especially since what you’re boycotting/choosing not to buy is going to be a form of expression from someone you disagree with so why read/listen to things you disagree with?
‘But if you’re boycotting a music CD that has no bearing on any form of politics, it’s just a weak measure.’
It may have nothing about politics in it, but why on earth would you buy it if you disagreed with the artist? Wouldn’t you be more inclined to buy one by someone you liked? So but the same token but on a grander scale why would a radio station owner pay out money to someone with whom he/she really disagreed with? Okay so it would be petty if it’s just out of some attempt just to get back at them and I agree with everyone being entitled to their point of view, but there is surely a natural form of boycotting?
Could do with someone a little more eloquent saying all of the above, but hopefully you get the idea.
Oh, I see Luigi Novi did say all of the above with far more eloquence than I could ever muster, I really should wait until I read all of the comments before posting. 🙂
If you started shouting ‘Death To All Kittens’ on this site Mr David, then why would I continue to buy Captain Marvel, even if there were no cat hating remarks or pro dog storylines? Wouldn’t I be more inclined to spend my hard earned money on something else?If the Dixie Chicks were being boycotted for saying that paedophiles were great people really would you disagree with radio stations not wishing to give them airplay?
Death Threats are wrong and should be dealt with strongly. But in the contrast of the debate, we have missed a point of issue: Even before the Chickie Poos comment, they get death threats. If you are even moderately famous you will get the threats. I have security firm in a middle level market. It is not the crazy Americans or warmongers just your same percentiles of nuts.
Question to PAD, what is the responds from Joe America? If 60 Minutes does not return my call. If I help someone become successful even in the smallest way and I start to disagree with comments, style, well, anything. It is wrong to try to influence my circle of influence to stop with their support? I been doing that for years with X-men, I think it’s working too. (Tongue in cheek)
The truth about Domino’s:
http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/domino.asp
\\Peter covered that already with
I’m talking about pure, simple, appropriate, proportional response:
(emphasis mine.) when something is aggregiously out of line then certainly some actions like a boycott are appropriate.
but even when they are they still lack style.
Posted by Jason K\\
Jason, with all due respect, Peter spent two paragraphs saying that if he didn’t say something, he didn’t mean it:
“”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?”
Peter never said that the Selma Bus Boycott, Or the South African Boycott, or for that matter the “unpatriotic” Boston Tea Party, were appropriate or proportional responses. He just said boycotts are “petty and unimaginative”. Which pretty much rules out ever using it for anything.
Look, I think I understand where Peter is coming from. I just flat out disagree with him, and my reasoning is simply this: As long as no one is forced or coerced to participate in one, I have no problems with them. That, of course, is why I DO have a problem with union strikes like SAG, WGA and UAW. It’s one of the reasons I haven’t joined the Writer’s Guild, although I expect I’ll have to sooner or later if I keep trying to break into writing.
Why does it necessarily have to be “punitive”? Or “retaliatory”? Or petty and intolerant? Why can’t it simply mean that I’m making a personal decision?
They’re not mutually exclusive. Just because it’s your personal decision doesn’t mean it’s not punitive, or retaliatory, or petty, or intolerant.
PAD
But it’s still a matter of choice. You choosing to purchase seems to be in favor of their political views, with a secondary interest in the music.
No, it’s in favor of *my* view that artists should be free to state their opinions without people being so intolerant that they cease supporting music they’d previously enjoyed. It has to do with me feeling compelled to pick up the slack of those “right-thinking” Americans who believe an appropriate way to respond to an opinion they don’t hold is to get back at the person who holds it.
PAD
Boycotting something is using your right as a consumer to place your money where you want, for whatever reason you want.
Aw Keee-rist…
I mean, really: What part of the following was unclear when I first said it?–
“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?”
PAD
It really seems like you’re saying it’s OK for individuals to express disagreement with the band by not buying them as long as they don’t tell others why they’re doing it or try to persuade others to do the same, which is all a boycott consists of.
Really? See, I thought what I was saying was that it’s a shame people are so unable to separate artist from opinion that they cease supporting the artist’s work because they disagree with their opinion.
PAD
I agree with you Peter, individuals boycotting the Chicks is a non-issue. The real issue is the systematic corporate promotion of the Chick boycott by Texas radio station, and by default, advertisers and sponsers who all of sudden, treat the Chicks like lepers because Natalie Maines exercised her BASIC AMERICAN right, and spoke her mind. When did having an opposing viewpoint become an un-American thing?
When the World Trade Center fell.
PAD
If someone said or did something you really disagreed with then why would you buy their cd or comic or anything?
Because I’m able to separate the person from the work.
PAD
If you started shouting ‘Death To All Kittens’ on this site Mr David, then why would I continue to buy Captain Marvel, even if there were no cat hating remarks or pro dog storylines? Wouldn’t I be more inclined to spend my hard earned money on something else?If the Dixie Chicks were being boycotted for saying that paedophiles were great people really would you disagree with radio stations not wishing to give them airplay?
Why is it that people try to take an argument, stretch it to absurdity, and then pretend that it’s rational?
Free speech is not absolute, Sparky. You can’t falsely shout fire in a crowded theater and take two stars out of petty cash. The examples you’re using both involve inciting or endorsing criminal acts. Animal cruelty is a crime. Sex with children is a crime. Inciting people to commit crimes is outside of the boundaries of free speech.
I am saying that it is incredibly thin-skinned to try and stab back at someone financially because you disagree with their politics. The political opinion held by one of the Dixie Chicks about a Texan who, until the Towers fell, was seen as a dunce…well, let’s face it, that opinion’s a pretty benign animal. That is simply not the same thing as actively endorsing cruel and criminal acts.
I think perhaps *one* person on this thread seemed to comprehend the word “proportional.” Everyone else is dragging in civil rights and now child sex and animal slaughter. I don’t know *where* that crap’s coming from.
PAD
I’ve been lurking on this board for quite some time now, overjoyed that Peter David has a blog where fans can both offer feedback and bicker with him to their heart’s content, yet horrified at the choice of background color, which can only be described as “periwinkle.” I know this because when I was in grade school, “periwinkle” was the only crayon left untouched in my box at the end of the year. But I digress. I merely wanted to be polite and introduce myself before wading in here. I’m Dan, and I’d shake hands were it possible.
I’ve had one question about this whole mess since it hit the press: Why is it so important that the Dixie Chicks know that you are displeased with their political views? It alwas seems spoken of as an imperative: “How else can we get our displeasure across, save but for a boycott?” is a question I’ve seen asked here more than once. I might get into a heated debate with a spouse or immediate family member, but my anger decreases with distance so that by the time it gets to complete strangers like the Dixie Chicks, I can barely manage a shrug. Why does this matter? Is there really a signifigant number of people out there who say, “I too now dislike President Bush now that the Dixie Chicks have finally weighed in?” I personally doubt it. I don’t care about the politics of anyone but politicians. Let them make their pop/bluegrass/whatever, and we can go back to buying their stuff based on its own merits, or if our friends are listening to it, and save our anger for targets that truly matter. For instance, some bonehead who wanders in out of the blue and starts talking to everyone like he’s smarter than the lot of them while using run-on sentences and too many commas. Guys like that really cheese me off.
Dan,
You said: Why is it so important that the Dixie Chicks know that you are displeased with their political views?
ME: I’m holding a press conference in an hour in regards to my opinion on Canada’s position on the war. Oh, whats that. The press unavailble as they are too busy at the Robbins/Sarandon home as they recreate the Lennon/Ono bed in. Darn. Its too bad I am just a no nothing citizen.
On the up side, I like the cover work I’ve been seeing for Fallen Angel. Not sure if I’ll pick up the series, but it sure looks perty.
I also like Buffy and Angel, especially how Angel has picked up even more toward the end (travelling ot yet another alternative dimension. So much fun, and no one is wearing a little black Van Ðÿkë to signify they’re evil.
Oh: I don’t care in any way about the war, about boycotts or protests. For this reason, I try not to complain about them. I know I will never do anything one way or another to change the political atmosphere of my country except vote (which is debatable as to whether my vote actually counts anymore) or move to Canada someday. I will not post on boards trying to change other people’s opinions that they have oviously spent some amount of time formulating (especially not the guy who runs the board). I will never call myself a patriot because even the patriots in 1776 were just angry farmers who didn’t like paying taxes. If I hear one more cry for the US to bring freedom to other countries and then start restricting it here, I will burst my own ear drums.
I’ll just wait, and post about the important stuff: television, comics, and the oddball fun stuff.
Stuff that matters.
By the way…..
The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
Robert,
Don’t move to Canada. We have enough of your kind! 🙂
Peter David said:
“Really? See, I thought what I was saying was that it’s a shame people are so unable to separate artist from opinion that they cease supporting the artist’s work because they disagree with their opinion. “
To be honest, no I can’t separate it. I have a moral issue with financially supporting the work of someone I disagree with. It would be viscerally unpleasant to me. At the same time, i’d tell people of like mind what I felt, and why, to save them from the experience. I can’t watch a movie with Alec Baldwin because I’ve heard words he has said that have left a completely disgusting taste in my mouth, and I can’t see him on screen without recalling those words; therefore, I don’t get any joy, but actually some discomfort from seeing him. The same reaction I now get to the Dixie Chicks music. If someone does something to strongly upset me, they can expect I won’t have much to do with them in the future.
Peter (and others who agree with him),
What are your thoughts on the very successful boycotts of segregated businesses in south during the civil-rights struggles of the 50-60’s… or, the successful boycott of Paramount by gays, lesbians, their friends, family and loved ones, when she said (among many other like-minded things): “If you are gay or lesbian, you are a biological error”… and, please note, to make it all the worse, she said “you” not “your orientation!” … and, finally, what are your thoughts on that overly dramatic, grandstanding little tea party up in Boston a few centuries ago?
Do I sense a man with a compelling interest (which would definitely impact someone’s impartiality on a given subject) in there NOT being boycotts levied against businesses or the work of certain individuals?
You also seem overly defensive when people start speaking of the inherent “rights” involved with this topic. I would get defensive too, if I were in a position of denigrating as “useless, petty and intolerant, etc.” someone’s constitutional rights… and, for the record boycotts are a First Amendment right: (i.e. The Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., that nonviolent boycott activity is constitutionally protected.
Marco
**I think perhaps *one* person on this thread seemed to comprehend the word “proportional.” Everyone else is dragging in civil rights and now child sex and animal slaughter. I don’t know *where* that crap’s coming from.
PAD **
I dragged in civil rights because you didn’t exclude in in your condemnation of boycotts. Are you now making an exception for such? What WOULD you consider “appropriate and proportional”?
The Dixie chick boycot was dumb. We all should argue about Chrissie Hynde instead. She said onstage that not only did she want the U.S. to loose the war, but she wished for heavy casualities as well. That’s ghastly.