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
• 
Peter David (in response to the cat-killing):
Why is it that people try to take an argument, stretch it to absurdity, and then pretend that it’s rational?
Wow, that would have made a much bigger impact if you hadn’t done the whole farting analogy.
Anyway, where’s the shock and awe about how Rick Santorum is being treated for his spoken words?
It seems that intelligence will never again intrude into political debate, where it is so clearly unwanted. I think, PAD, that boycots are used because they have been proven effective in getting political results vs. rich fatcats.
I remember the boycots of the 80’s, which I’d bet you weren’t opposed to. For instance, the boycots against tuna that didn’t sport the decal “dolphin safe.” That was a very effective boycot, and I bet you won’t sincerely attack it the way you attack boycots from conservatives.
You can say that is different from boycotting against political stance because of differences in importance of the issues. The difference between most liberals and most conservatives is in what issues they find important. They both end up visably treating symptoms of what they see as much larger problems, thereby exposing themselves to attack for pettiness: they never agree upon what are the larger problems.
In reality, I don’t boycot for those reasons because I don’t take the short term in politics, and in many cases I disagree with the spirit of the boycot itself. Also, the argument is vulnerable to slippery slope in that it becomes very difficult to justify when one does or doesn’t boycot. I will say at times that people blow things out of proportion, but nobody that deep into politics will listen to an opposing opinion. That is the real problem in politics nowadays. Each side, with its own special flavor of media, can inundate itself with reinforcement of its opinions and attacks on the other side as much as it wants, which induces zealotry. That will foil everything good about this political system quicker than anything else. I suppose I will be ignored because I attack both kinds of hypocrites in this post, but you all deserve much more.
Why is it that people try to take an argument, stretch it to absurdity, and then pretend that it’s rational?
Because it’s a good rhetorical trick. Done properly, the person takes an argument, stretches it to absurdity, and then explicitly or implicitly makes the point that the original argument was absurd to begin with, and the absurdity is more obvious when magnified. Admittedly, the trick isn’t always properly executed. I think the intention was to point out that the original phrasing of PAD’s position was stark: boycotts are per se absurd. However, I think we’ve all gotten the point by now that there are valid counter-examples, and PAD has adopted a more nuanced position, so at this point we’re beating a dead horse. A lot.
The only question I have, is how does someone respond in an equalitive level, when someone like the Dixie Chicks use their platform to state an opinion. I mean there’s no way I can get a message to as many people as a celebrity, so I end up having no voice in contrary at all.
I think these boycots in many way are a frustration that the average person gets, that they don’t have the soap box the celebrities have.
So I guess my other question is, when a celebrity becomes an activist, and uses their celebrity to try to move a particular agenda, 1.Is that right of them and 2.What is the correct way for me to respond? If I continue to purchase their products, or watch their shows, aren’t I simply enabling them?
I’m not saying I agree with the boycots. I’m just saying I’m not sure I have the answer, and I haven’t seen anyone else here have the answer either.
It’s easy to gripe about how things are being done, but actually coming up with another solution that works is another thing altogether.
Well, here’s my take. The Dixie Chicks, or anyone in the public eye, can express their views to large numbers of people. They have access to the media.
I don’t.
So, to have a proportionate response, what recourse do I have?
I can’t become famous and newsworthy all of a sudden (unless I do something illegal).
Maybe an organized boycott is wrong – especially if it directed at a corporation (hey, most of the employees don’t dictate the policy, yet they are being economically atacked). But, in the specific case of the Dixie Chicks, what other form of disaproval would you recommend? I don’t think they read your weblog, so I doubt they’ll read this.
For the record, I don’t care who says what. But, as you point out, just because you have the right to do something doesn’t always mean you should.
Oh, and one more thing. I think there is a big difference between a celebrity stating their opinion seperate from their work (like when PAD makes comments on his website), and someone who uses their station and celebrity as a platform to voice an opinion.
If I expected, when I attended a rock concert, that the performers would turn it into an anti-Bush, (or anti-war, or pro-war, or anti-black, or whatever) rally, then chose not to go, would that be a silly, vidictive boycot, or me not supporting the policital wrangling of the artist.
I think their are MANY, MANY, MANY celebrities who have stated unpopluar opinions in interviews, and in books, who recieve no retaliation.
I mean shoot, I sell comics in Oklahoma, and about 98% of my customers disagree with about 80% of PAD’s opinions, and many who met him, for some reason don’t like him, yet they still buy his books. I’ve only met one customer who wouldn’t buy anything PAD because of their personal opinions of him.
I think the reason that the customers don’t care, is that buy your comics don’t translate to supporting your political views. Buying a Michael Moore video or book, or buying a Dixie Chicks does (for right or wrong) equate to actively supporting them.
As I am also a new(er) poster and long time lurker, this probably won’t mean much. In spite of that, I have to say that I completely agree with Peter.
It is your right to choose to boycott. Boycotting against illegal, cruel and criminal behavior/acts/supporters is a good measure — albeit marginally productive unless by MOBs. I believe the term in this thread has been “appropriate, proportional response”. Boycotting a product, or service because of what a person/group/organization said or did that breaks no laws and enlists no one to break the law, is indeed everyone’s right and freedom. It is, however, my opinion that it is childish. It sounds like being in school again. Lola said Tommy’s a jerk, so I better avoid him instead of getting to know him on my own terms. Wrong? Well, I can see what drove Peter to use the word “wrong”. It’s not wrong in the purest sense of the freedoms given us; it just isn’t very productive in the grand scheme of life and living on this ball of dust. It’s also not the most open minded approach to dealing with a person’s opinion (celebrity or not, political or otherwise).
I am reminded of a quote from “The American President” in which Michael Douglas’ character gave a speech. To quote the relevant part, he said, “The symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.”
With that in mind, my feeling is hey if you want to take a hardline stance by boycotting products, that’s your perogative. To take it to the degree that most of those defending the opposing view on this blog take it: I highly doubt that you could maintain such a stance on every product produced by someone who has a political opinion opposite of yours. In fact I would wager it to be near impossible. I mean when does it stop? First, the Dixie Chicks, then Country music, oh and let’s not forget SUVs, and hey while we’re at it automobiles… Absurd much? It’s childishness.
Now let’s see… to wrap up, I believe I still need the obligatory tangent example. If you pull through a McDonald’s and order a cup of coffee to go; accelerate a little too fast out of the exit to beat the traffic and whoop… the coffee spills all over you scolding (sp?) two-thirds of your leg. Well, that’s certainly McDonald’s fault for making that coffee so friggin hot! You gonna sue McDonald’s? Dare I say boycott them? Is that not childishness? In point of fact, I do believe that actually happened if I recall my news correctly. I can certainly understand boycotting buying coffee at a drive thru, but not McDonald’s entire menu. (And just for the record, I really detest McDonalds.)
Well, I’m sure this topic could be pummled with endless scenarios and each side will still adamantly disagree. So be it. For Peter’s sanity though, I’d just like him to know there are those of us out their that really do understand your frame of mind.
Why are some of you using the “invisible” text to hide your names? Are you all the same person? Or you just don’t want to be quoted?
Ðámņ, my name came out “invisible” too. Peter or Glenn, I think that there appears to be one person who is just out to bait you (Peter) into getting pìššëd øff. Since s/he cannot get away with flaming, s/he has resorted to goading you.
Btw, is this invisible name thing something that’s been recently implemented?
-Andrew C.
Someone said: If someone said or did something you really disagreed with then why would you buy their cd or comic or anything?
PAD said: Because I’m able to separate the person from the work.
I’m saying: I’m a writer (novels and short fiction), and I don’t believe there’s any way to separate the person from the work, especially not when its a creative endeavor. When I write, that’s *me.* I pour myself into it; it’s personal. Work is personal. It’s where you choose to spend your time and your effort. You can’t say that someone’s work is separate from their opinions, because an artist’s whole being goes into whatever they create– that’s the point, it comes out of something special that they have. So I don’t think you can separate a person and the product at all.
And unfortunately, for this reason, it now means I can no longer separate Peter David the writer from Peter David the man who believes the fall of the world trade center meant the end of American freedom to disagree. On the contrary, sir– I think it woke up a lot of people who never before realized exactly what that freedom cost. And now that they appreciate it, they don’t want to see it abused. They aren’t going to force you to respect it, but they aren’t going to support the people who don’t, either. Because the people who don’t respect the freedoms they’ve been given are the ones who will lose it for us all.
–Haydee
“… 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.”
Hey, I don’t even care about his war stance. Even if it means raising his sales, I support any and all means of destroying the works of Billy Ray Cyrus. 😛
Someone said: If someone said or did something you really disagreed with then why would you buy their cd or comic or anything?
PAD said: Because I’m able to separate the person from the work.
Haydee said: I’m a writer (novels and short fiction), and I don’t believe there’s any way to separate the person from the work, especially not when its a creative endeavor.
Well, I certainly can’t agree with that. Personally, from what I’ve seen him say in the media, I think John Byrne’s a schmuck, but, I like a lot of his work. I think Alex Ross is often a big spoiled crybaby, but, he shore do draw purty. [personal opinions for example, folks, not something I’m willing to waste time even arguing about]
Haydee said: When I write, that’s *me.* I pour myself into it; it’s personal. Work is personal. It’s where you choose to spend your time and your effort. You can’t say that someone’s work is separate from their opinions, because an artist’s whole being goes into whatever they create– that’s the point, it comes out of something special that they have. So I don’t think you can separate a person and the product at all.
I think you’re assuming everyone artistic person puts the whole of their being into their work. Even if that were true (which I’m sure it isn’t for some), what’s that mean to me as a consumer? That someone with different views than me can’t entertain me? It’s perfectly easy to seperate the two. Just don’t pay attention to the producer’s views while you enjoy their work. Some people can do this, and some people can’t.
Haydee said: And unfortunately, for this reason, it now means I can no longer separate Peter David the writer from Peter David the man who believes the fall of the world trade center meant the end of American freedom to disagree.
Meaning what? That you can’t enjoy his work because he has a view that differs from yours that has absolutely no bearing on said work? Seems kind of petty and narrow-minded to me, but, that’s just me.
‘Dox out.
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”?
I would certainly consider some comprehension of what the topic at hand was to be appropriate.
We were talking about free speech. At least I know I was. I was referring to actions people take in retaliation for others exercising free speech, a practice I consider inexcusable.
Someone then felt compelled to bring up Dominos in order to muddy the waters. I felt that boycotting Dominos was idiotic and boycotts in general are idiotic because they’re usually unrelated to the action, are given little-to-no thought, and have little impact on the actual target. And considering it turns out the Pro-Life guy hasn’t owned Dominos for five years, not only was I right that boycotting Dominos is stupid, but we’re well into mega-stupidity.
But I obviously now have to spell out–because I thought that since we were primarily discussing free speech, people would be able to stay on track with that (but obviously not)–that endeavoring to bring economic pressure to bear on someone WHO IS ACTIVELY HURTING SOMEONE ELSE or TAKING ACTIVE STEPS TO HURT SOCIETY is an entirely different matter.
That I have to spell that out, frankly, staggers me. I was writing about boycotts in relation to free speech (the Dixie Chicks) or because someone didn’t like someone else’s opinions (Dominos). Taken to its ludicrous extreme, the suggestion is being put forward that I disapprove of everything from the Boston Tea Party to the Civil Rights movement. Obviously I don’t. Obviously different situations have to be considered individually, and the greater good must be judged as actions are taken.
What I was talking about was knee-jerk punitive measures being taken against people whose opinions were disliked, and there even seemed to be annoyance that they’d dared to state them. And a number of the responses have only highlighted a shocking state of mind: They’re actors/singers/performers. They should just shut up and entertain us.
My God. Oh. My God.
How can people who claim to be patriotic Americans have so little comprehension for, and hatred of, fellow Americans?
Oh, and this is the best part: Now I’m accused of saying this because I’m being self-serving. Christ. Do you guys have ANY idea how many people have bìŧçhëd me out about this, that and the other thing and ended with, “And I’m never buying your work again, even though I like it!” You think I sweat that? I just feel sorry for them, and wonder about how many noses they have to sever to spite their faces.
PAD
“Why is it that people try to take an argument, stretch it to absurdity, and then pretend that it’s rational?
Because it’s a good rhetorical trick. Done properly, the person takes an argument, stretches it to absurdity, and then explicitly or implicitly makes the point that the original argument was absurd to begin with, and the absurdity is more obvious when magnified. Admittedly, the trick isn’t always properly executed. I think the intention was to point out that the original phrasing of PAD’s position was stark: boycotts are per se absurd. However, I think we’ve all gotten the point by now that there are valid counter-examples, and PAD has adopted a more nuanced position, so at this point we’re beating a dead horse. A lot.”
or maybe Pad has always had a nuanced opinion and some people can’t or won’t see it?
“I’m talking about pure, simple, appropriate, proportional response: “
this was copied form the start of the blog.
“Someone said: If someone said or did something you really disagreed with then why would you buy their cd or comic or anything?
PAD said: Because I’m able to separate the person from the work.
I’m saying: I’m a writer (novels and short fiction), and I don’t believe there’s any way to separate the person from the work, especially not when its a creative endeavor. When I write, that’s *me.* I pour myself into it; it’s personal. Work is personal. It’s where you choose to spend your time and your effort. You can’t say that someone’s work is separate from their opinions, because an artist’s whole being goes into whatever they create– that’s the point, it comes out of something special that they have. So I don’t think you can separate a person and the product at all.
And unfortunately, for this reason, it now means I can no longer separate Peter David the writer from Peter David the man who believes the fall of the world trade center meant the end of American freedom to disagree. On the contrary, sir– I think it woke up a lot of people who never before realized exactly what that freedom cost. And now that they appreciate it, they don’t want to see it abused. They aren’t going to force you to respect it, but they aren’t going to support the people who don’t, either. Because the people who don’t respect the freedoms they’ve been given are the ones who will lose it for us all. –Haydee “
so the latest captain marvel held which opinions of mr david’s?
by the way in regards to freedom’s and losing them I would worry more about the president passing acts that negate constitution rights much more than a country singer making a comment
Peter,
I really think most of us can seperate the artist from their views. For example, I’ll go see a Susan Sarandon movie because I think she’s a heck of a good actress. I might pass on a Tim Robbins film because he’s a stiff actor. I don’t buy Dixie Chicks music because I don’t like their version of country or crossover country music. In fact, even though we disagree on the topic of boycotts, I’ll be at Barnes and Noble the week the next New Frontier book comes out with cash in hand. Why, because I like what you’ve done with the series.
This has nothing to do with their political views. In fact, I don’t want to hear about their political views other than in their art. Sarandon may act in an anti-war movie, you may write a story about being pro-choice, and I’ll probably go see her movie and read your story. I might not agree with the artist on their views, but I’m pretty sure I’ll get a good product. By purchasing a CD, a concert ticket or a book, I’m hiring that artist to entertain me.
And can it really be called a boycott if it’s an individual person chosing not to buy a product? NARAL urging it’s members to boycott Domino’s (I don’t know if they did or not…just an example) or Bill O’Reilly urging viewers to boycott French products (which he is doing) seems different than Joe Sixpack deciding not to buy a Dixie Chicks CD. Is there a national organized boycott of the Dixie Chicks? I know a lot of people have been complaining about Clear Channel (which I agree about the complaints), but I wouldn’t think any boycott is coming from them, rather from individual stations.
-Jeff
“Oh, and this is the best part: Now I’m accused of saying this because I’m being self-serving.”
Well, while I didn’t post it anywhere, the thought was running around in my mind. While I won’t repeat my reasons for why I DO believe in the use of boycotts, will point out what I see as the major difference in our views. You seem to believe that the ONLY reason (or at least the primary one) people boycotted the Dixie Chicks was to be mean and spiteful, and to cause them some monetary damage. I can’t rule that out as the major motivation for some people, but I believe it was mainly the FASTEST and SUREST way fans felt they could register their views and be heard. Money talks and this one spoke loud and clear. It certainly got a response from the Dixie Chicks.
I view a boycott as the same as I view a protest where people lay down in the road and block traffic for a couple of hours. I didn’t like it. Thought it was stupid, and it had nothing to do with the war. But it got attention, which is what I thought it was designed to do.
Where is all this “organized boycott” stuff coming from, anyway? Far as I can tell, a bunch of people decided to retaliate against the Dixie Chicks in the only way they could. A couple radio stations joined the bandwagon (and since the DC ARE played on Clear Channel stations, and a poster mentioned a CC DJ was told to play whatever his listeners wanted to hear, I think that shoots the idea that the big bad apparently government run radio conglomerate (who most likely had a hand in Kennedy’s assassination) is behind this atrocious assault on free speech…well, shoots it down.
Tell you a story.
Several years ago, Ethan van Scrier ripped Peter David over the first three pages of Young Justice. Anyone remember that? Talking AOL DC board history here. After a week or so of watching him insult PAD, I decided I wasn’t going to listen to him anymore because I thought he was a spoiled, immature, stuck up little punk. So I dropped Impulse when he took over a couple months later, and I dropped New X-Men because he was the guest artist. I wasn’t going to support someone I didn’t like. Now, let me make this clear. PAD NEVER asked anyone not to buy his work. And to be honest, he’d probably be horrified that I decided to stay away from anything van Scrier drew. But, according to the logic on this board, since it was done (tangentially) in support of PAD, he must be the mastermind behind this boycott. Boycotts can’t be an individual’s choice, apparently. There HAS to be an insidious puppet master, and therefore it must be PAD. Shame on you.
I mean, if I choose to not buy a Dixie Chick album, I’m part of an organized boycott that is trying to suppress free speech! And if I choose not to watch a tv show, am I part of an organized boycott against it? Jesus. CHOICE. CHOICE. CHOICE. My choice. No government or group tells me what to think, and just because a radio station puts out a barrel for people to throw their CDs in, that doesn’t mean they’re ORGANIZING a boycott. That’s called publicitiy. Prove to me that this is a directive from on high. Or read your first amendment. That might clear up the situation too. Has anyone actually SUPPRESSED the Dixie Chicks? They’re still free to say whatever they want. But now they know that if 70% of the country disagrees with them, they’ll hear about it.
Oh, and you know what, didn’t Natalie Maines apologize? She said that she didn’t mean what she said. So, it’s a good thing the boycott forced her to come clean. Either that, or she’s lying in her apology. That would make a nice story.
Oh, and the death threats she receieved? According to Entertainment Weekly, on a message board someone wrote that they hope the Dixie Chicks eat Earl’s peas. Yeah. Yeah, that’s terrifying.
Tim Robbins threatened the reporter that interviewed Susan Sarandon’s Republican mother with specific bodily harm, and he gets a pass. Some guy makes a play on a Dixie Chicks song and ohmigod! Death threats!
Where’s the Santorum column?
boycotts in general are idiotic because they’re usually unrelated to the action, are given little-to-no thought, and have little impact on the actual target.
Oh, I can agree with that wholeheartedly. I currently work customer service for a major food company owned by a rather well-known tobacco company–for legal reasons I’m technically not allowed to name the company, but your first guess is probably correct–and we’ve gotten a lot of threats of boycott recently, largely by email, which I primarily work on. They are one of the few types of emails that we don’t respond to.
Think about this. The emails announce that Mr. Joe Consumer will no longer buy the company’s products because the company contributed to the Bush campaign. (Never mind the fact that they also contributed to the Gore campaign.) The Bush administration then led this military action into Iraq, so the logic appears to be that the company contributed to Bush, so the company supports and funded the war.
It gets better. The emails come in rashes, and when they do, they’re usually the same email, hundreds of times, from hundreds of different people. People slap their name on the email and send it off to us. The letter is very passionate, but the people sending it clearly aren’t, because if they were, they’d write their own email. The best part is, the most recent form email was sent in by hundreds of people with the same typos in each and every one.
So what we’ve got is, people on some sort of list are told to complain to the company and given a letter to send, which they don’t even bother to actually read before they send it in, on the apparent theory that not giving money to a food company will end America’s military presence in Iraq.
I’m positive the company doesn’t take this seriously. We sure don’t. These people can boycott the company all they want (though good luck to them in avoiding each and every product the company makes–many people say “I’ll buy Brand X instead,” unaware the same company makes Brand X, too) but they’re not hurting the company, they’re not hurting the presidential administration, and they’re sure not having any impact on Iraq. Sending the letter and threatening boycott makes them feel like they’ve taken action, but they’re not accomplishing a dámņ thing.
I’ll say it again.
If you are a lefty and protest/boycott…you are an activist.
If you are anywhere else on the political spectrum, you are categorized as a simple whiner.
Luigi Novi: 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?
Peter David: 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.
Luigi Novi: It doesn’t mean it is, either. The two can most certainly be mutually exclusive. Why assume that you can read the mind of someone making a personal choice? Couldn’t that possibly be considered petty or intolerant on your part, Peter?
I just got done responding to a poster on the imdb boards for a really badly-made science fiction film, who gave me the usual flame treatment that fans of dumb movies do when they read someone explaining why they don’t like a particular movie that they did like. This person was trying to tell me that oh, I have to put my opinions in a different category because it was just an escapist science fiction film, I don’t have a life, yadda, yadda, yadda. I tried to explain to this person that one’s reaction to any film of ANY genre is an unconscious reaction that they have little control over, which stems from intrinsic aspects of their personality, their tastes, their emotional makeup, etc.
Similarly, if someone chooses not to go to a movie or buy a CD for reasons other than the quality of the work, perhaps the person isn’t trying to punish the artist, but it’s just that he/she simply doesn’t feel comfortable patronizing that work. Why assume that it’s anything other than an intrinsic reaction, and not something diabolical or immoral like pettiness or intolerance?
Yes, they are mutually exclusive. The one is morally neutral. The other requires a moral judgment, and requires you to assume that you know what that person is thinking or feeling.
It’s easy to say that one should do it with words when one is a successful author with a public forum. Not so when one is not.
That said, yeah, I do think it’s petty and retaliatory when a radio station pulls the CD from airplay, because the station IS trying to keep the individual listener from making their own decision. The individual is just following their heart, and I think it’s condescending to act like I know that that person is trying to be punitive simply following it. This all such bûllšhìŧ anyway, because the media only chose to report the part of the Chicks’ statement that was offensive. They didn’t mention that right after Maines’ statement, one of the others (I think MacGuire) spoke up and said that they support the troops. And I guess we’re also supposed to think it’s logical to punish the entire trio for what one of them said.
<
PAD
>>
The Dixie Chicks had a right which was not prevented to express their views. They did so in another country which made them look cowardly and petty. Thier fans reacted to the apparent cowardice by boycotting them. That is thier right. Do I think it’s a good responce? Nah, but it makes as much sense to me as complaining about the US in London. Don’t two stoopid actions cancel each other out?
Don’t two stoopid actions cancel each other out? —Mike Bass.
Obviously not, Mike.
My father said please, my mother said okay, and nine months later, I was born.
I’ve noticed a distinct pattern in the political messages here. PAD posts something bashing conservatives, then he gets a lot of angry responses from conservatives. He then picks the worst opinions from all of those responses, combines them into a straw man, bashes it apart with his defense, and then attacks the conservatives for being inhuman, stupid, etc. This does not make a discussion, is not intelligent, and really serves no benefit to anything. Why are these boards here? Better yet, why am I reading this dribble? I frequent a lot of comics message boards, but this board is nothing but a whine-and-bark pulpit. I’m in science, and we can’t get enough web space and web people to distribute real knowledge. Thinking about the positive uses that web space can be put to, this board has finally succeeded in disgusting me.
I’ve noticed a distinct pattern in the political messages here. PAD posts something bashing conservatives, then he gets a lot of angry responses from conservatives. He then picks the worst opinions from all of those responses, combines them into a straw man, bashes it apart with his defense, and then attacks the conservatives for being inhuman, stupid, etc. This does not make a discussion, is not intelligent, and really serves no benefit to anything.
I agree, which could be why I haven’t actually been doing that. I never used the word “conservatives.” Others have, but I haven’t.
There’s a perception (again, stated by others) that the Dixie Chicks target audience is a conservative political base, but I don’t know that for a fact and haven’t commented on that either way.
Since you’re asking, it’s been my experience that liberals are just as prone to anti-free speech thought and deed as conservatives. The desire to punish those who disagree with you crosses all political boundaries. Again, I refer you to books by Nat Hentoff, who has described some of the most liberal colleges in the country where the student bodies have adopted policies and an atmosphere against free speech so repressive that it makes Bob Jones College look like Romper Room.
Indeed, retaliation for free speech and intolerance of opinions may be one of the few things on which conservatives and liberals agree. *Everyone* is in favor of free speech…for themselves, and for opinions they favor. When it comes to the other guy, though…
PAD
I’ve disagreed with a COUPLE of things PAD has said lately, but I’ve never felt bashed.
But, if he starts talking about how Jasmine is the pawn of the military-industrial complex in his Angel reviews, I’ll probably start boycotting his books.
“Oh, and this is the best part: Now I’m accused of saying this because I’m being self-serving.”
Well, while I didn’t post it anywhere, the thought was running around in my mind. While I won’t repeat my reasons for why I DO believe in the use of boycotts, will point out what I see as the major difference in our views. You seem to believe that the ONLY reason (or at least the primary one) people boycotted the Dixie Chicks was to be mean and spiteful, and to cause them some monetary damage. I can’t rule that out as the major motivation for some people, but I believe it was mainly the FASTEST and SUREST way fans felt they could register their views and be heard. Money talks and this one spoke loud and clear. It certainly got a response from the Dixie Chicks.
I view a boycott as the same as I view a protest where people lay down in the road and block traffic for a couple of hours. I don’t like it. Thought it was stupid, and it had nothing to do with the war. But it got attention, which is what I thought it was designed to do. I didn’t think the protesters were just being mean-spirited and tying up traffic. Some may have been, but if so, I think it was a very small minority.
I’m staying well out of the “boycott” issue, but I wanted to respond to one point on a related note:
Someone asked why there’s no “shock and awe” about the response to Rick Santorum’s comments, in comparison to the flap over the boycott of the Dixie Chicks.
The big difference as I see it is that Santorum is in a position to make his beliefs (that homosexual activity is akin to incest, bëšŧìálìŧÿ, and all sorts of other interesting ideas lurking in the recesses of his R-complex) part of the law of the land. He’s a senator — he deals with legislation. Given enough support, he can directly affect the life of many of my friends.
The Chicks don’t. Even if everyone they talked to agreed with them, all those agreeable people could do is agree.
Therein lies the difference. (Well, one of them, anyway. I’m also inclined to believe that Santorum hasn’t gotten nearly the flak he SHOULD be getting for his comments, but that’s another matter entirely.)
TWL
P.S. On another note, the board’s gotten a lot harder to read in the last few days thanks to the shift in background color — any names w/o links are coming up as invisible, for instance. Peter or Glenn, anything that can be done here to ease readability?
Oh, and as for conservative bashing on PAD’s part, I don’t think so. In my view, PAD’s a liberal. In the past , both on AOL and now here, we’ve been at odds on everything from the environment and guns to the death penalty and free speech. He’s been wrong on all of it. 🙂
Still, he’s never said anything that would make me stop buying his books. Some of them, like Captain Marvel, I just don’t like, and I personally thought he dragged out the Linda’s Quest for Supergirl saga too long (it was boring me), but those are the only times I’ve ever made a conscious decision to not buy his work.
And there are only four actors whose movies I won’t go see. Susan Sarandon, Madonna, Sean Penn, and Robin Williams.
Two of them can’t act, and two of them just bug me.
**The big difference as I see it is that Santorum is in a position to make his beliefs (that homosexual activity is akin to incest, bëšŧìálìŧÿ, and all sorts of other interesting ideas lurking in the recesses of his R-complex) part of the law of the land. He’s a senator — he deals with legislation. Given enough support, he can directly affect the life of many of my friends.
The Chicks don’t. Even if everyone they talked to agreed with them, all those agreeable people could do is agree. **
No single Senator can enact legislation on his own, so your fears are unfounded, unless you have absolutely no faith in either the Constitution or your fellow man.
The Dixie Chicks have the ear of America which is all they need. And as you said about Santorum, Given enough support, they could affect legislation that could directly affect your life and that of your friends. Remember, Santorum got to his positon because he convinced enough people to put him there. Is there some reason the Dixie Chicks couldn’t trade in on their fame to do the same?
And you’re right about the background color, but the white text font color needs to be changed to a darker color.
Mike Bass: They did so in another country which made them look cowardly and petty.
Luigi Novi: What it in the world does where the person makes the statement have to do with cowardice? I mean, I just don’t get this “It was cowardly because it was in England” silliness? She said what she said there because she was there when she was asked. What indication is there that Maines would’ve been any less reluctant to say what she did if she were in say, New Jersey or California? I mean, we’re living in the age of instantaneous communication, so she knows whatever she says will shoot around the globe faster than the Flash looking for a bathroom in Mexico.
EClark1849 writes:
“No single Senator can enact legislation on his own, so your fears are unfounded, unless you have absolutely no faith in either the Constitution or your fellow man.
The Dixie Chicks have the ear of America which is all they need. And as you said about Santorum, Given enough support, they could affect legislation that could directly affect your life and that of your friends. Remember, Santorum got to his positon because he convinced enough people to put him there. Is there some reason the Dixie Chicks couldn’t trade in on their fame to do the same?”
Theoretically correct, but a massively specious argument.
Supposing that each camp here wanted to enact something controversial, the Dixie Chicks would need to convince millions of people it’s a good idea. Santorum would need to convince 50 other senators (or 49 + Cheney), plus a majority of the House and Bush. That’s a few hundred, many of whom agree with him already.
You’ll forgive me if I don’t stay up nights worrying whether any given celebrity is going to seriously affect my life. (That applies on either side of the political spectrum: I’m not worried about the Dixie Chicks *or* Arnold Schwarzenegger. Unless Arnold actually runs for governor, I suppose.)
And as for “your fears are unfounded, unless you have absolutely no faith in either the Constitution or your fellow man,” … I have plenty of faith in the Constitution. I have very little faith in those currently involved in upholding it. And my fellow man is all well and good, but I’ve got a lot of serious doubts about whether they can do a dámņ bit of good to influence anything right now. I think our voting system is seriously screwed up, and until something like instant-runoff voting (preference voting, whatever you want to call it) is put into effect I have doubts that the common citizen’s opinion is going to mean a thing.
Cynical, ain’t I?
TWL
The big difference as I see it is that Santorum is in a position to make his beliefs (that homosexual activity is akin to incest, bëšŧìálìŧÿ, and all sorts of other interesting ideas lurking in the recesses of his R-complex) part of the law of the land. He’s a senator — he deals with legislation. Given enough support, he can directly affect the life of many of my friends.
So…since almost half the Senators hold beliefs that I disagree with, and since they have the theoretical power to enact on them…
By God, they must all resign! I might be affected by something they believe in!
Okay, “Bashed Conservative” … if you can point to me saying that I’m demanding (or even asking for) Santorum’s resignation, then that scathing remark’s justified. Otherwise, you’re basically just being a dork.
The question was raised why the alleged “backlash” against Santorum’s remarks is somehow more acceptable than it is against the Dixie Chicks. I answered. Pretty much end of story.
But please, feel free to mischaracterize me all you like.
TWL
Tim Lynch said: On another note, the board’s gotten a lot harder to read in the last few days thanks to the shift in background color — any names w/o links are coming up as invisible, for instance.
I don’t see any difference in the background color. I also do not have the problem of the names being invisible. Maybe it’s your server?
I’ve always thought my mother managed to put a certain amount of style into a one-woman boycott of her alma mater. A regular source of alumni donations for twenty years, stopped as soon as the school introduced speech codes. For the five years until the school dropped the codes, they still recived regular envelopes from her. She sent pollite letters explaining her problems with the policy- and copies of cancelled checks written to various First Amendment legal funds.
I’ll admit I’m a bit confused.
If I don’t like what a company does politically, and their are alternative companies that produce the same quality product, why shouldn’t the politics of the company come into play?
The subject of Domino’s is brought up. If I don’t like their politics, and choose to express that by buying only Papa John’s pizza…why is that wrong?
Furthermore, I find it a bit confusing that apparently SUPPORTING a group for their views financially is good (going out and buying the Dixie Chicks album just to support their views), while choosing NOT to support a group is bad (not buying Domino’s because you don’t like their politics).
I don’t necessarily disagree…I just find some of the statement contradictory here.
To clarify my last statement…
I’m not opposed to anything said by PAD. I’m just trying to state that when identical sources of a product are available, I think making a decisions based on such issues is fine. It’s literally a step above flipping a coin (or finding which place has a better coupon).
I’m pretty much a free speech and first amendment absolutist. In law school, I even made an argument deconstructing the “Fire in a crowded theatre” issue.
(Y’see, you’re allowed to say what you want, but you’re responsible for any injury that causes. There’s no real harm in shouting that, but it would be the proximate cause for the issue. It’d be like the cartoon example of yelling ‘fuzzy bunnies’ on a mountain slope and causing an avalanche…it wasn’t a crime to say ‘fuzzy bunnies,’ but the action was an intentional proximate cause of the harm that followed.)
…and while I do see it contradictory to not buy from a supplier because of a political stance, and to support someone because of a political stance, I do support companies and artists for being pro-first amendment. But I’m also uncreative enough to personally boycott companies when I do disagree with them.
A quick f’rinstance I can give is back in the early eighties, Omni magazine was a cutting edge science and SF magazine. I bought it for both aspects. However, when the editorial slant changed to reporting what used to be mocked in the ‘antimatter’ section as pseudo-science and quackery became the ‘science’ reported by the magazine, I gave up on it. I’m not going to support a magazine that perpetuates that sort of thing. That means I no longer bought the ‘best of’ story collections and the like. That’s my personal loss, but I felt that even though the SF collections were separated from the context of bad science, I couldn’t honestly give my money in good conscience to support a magazine that did just that.
I didn’t call for other people to stop buying the magazine. I did write a letter explaining why I was stopping my subscription. I wasn’t disagreeing with their right to say what they wanted…I just wanted nothing to do with a magazine that said the things it said.
The incredibly exaggerated and unrealistic comparison I can draw (this is a gross exaggeration and not really part of my argument, just extending my small difference of opinion to a large scale): if the KKK started publishing a well-put together magazine with terrific fiction, even if the content had nothing to do with the KKK (thereby separating the product from the producer’s views), I would not buy it because it was affiliated with the KKK. That’s a political choice. I fully support the right of the KKK to spew their hate verbally…that’s the flip side of free speech…but that doesn’t mean I have to support any of their commercial ventures.
That example is hugely magnified, but is done so to try to magnify my feelings on those issues. No, Omni commits no political sin in the same manner or level of the KKK in my opinion. I’m not equating the situation.
Just further thoughts. Sorry to ramble…
Furthermore, I find it a bit confusing that apparently SUPPORTING a group for their views financially is good (going out and buying the Dixie Chicks album just to support their views), while choosing NOT to support a group is bad (not buying Domino’s because you don’t like their politics).
I don’t necessarily disagree…I just find some of the statement contradictory here.
Hmmm…
I’m sitting here thinking… thinking and thinking.
The one thing that I believe in, more than anything, is Freedom of Speech (shows what having a journalist as a father does)…
Statement: Me purchasing a Springsteen or Dixie Chicks album in support of their views is not a problem. Someone not purchasing a Springsteen or Dixie Chicks album against their views is not a problem.
People who organize book/cd/magazine burnings to oppose the views of the Dixie Chicks or Springsteen or Ezra Pound or Oscar Wilde or anyone… now that is a problem.
People who wish to prevent celebrities from exercising their free speech because they disagree with their politics (and yes, there is a movement right now that is doing that)…. now that is a problem.
Let’s talk about activism. Good activism vs. Bad activism.
Newman’s Own is good activism. You buy a product; the proceeds go to a charity. You like product? You continue to buy product, more money goes to charity.
Bad Activism – publicly held book burnings.
Good Activism:
BillRitter:
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.
Bad Activism:
Happened to a friend of mine. She had a Darwin fish on her car…
She pulled into a store… fifteen minutes later, as she left, she found a four page letter, explaining to her why evolution is wrong, why she is going to hëll since she believes in evolution, and if she wants to avoid this she needs to… etc. etc.
Lesson: A good activist does not need to jump up and down and say “here am I… agree with me… DC bad… CH good…”
If you’re that insecure about your beliefs that you have to have a crowd to enforce it… well, you have issues.
Now… do you have the right to protest… organize a protest? Of course… and I support that right… now whether it is tactful or not is another question.
On separating the artist from the art: If you can’t do that… stop reading, looking at art and listening to music.
Most artists, especially the classic ones, have things in their lives that you can’t live with… so just remember the line: ignorance is bliss.
Travis
I wonder what all the people defending the Dixie Chicks here think about Michael Moriarty getting fired from “Law and Order” for being critical of Janet Reno.
As for myself, I was considering getting the latest Dixie Chicks CD but for the time being I won’t be buying it. It’s not because I disagree with anyone’s political views but because I think the lead singer is a jerk. The remarks were, as Natalie Maines herself later admitted, disrespectful at a time and place where disrespect was inappropriate. So I won’t be buying the CD for the time being. I might change my mind later, and I think some of the reaction has been over the top, but for now I just don’t want it.
If the Bush administration is behind a Dixie Chicks boycott, I would definitely have problems with that, but I have seen no evidence that that is the case. If this was the previous administration we’d have James Carville running around calling the Chicks “white trash” or some other names approved by the so-called progressives in this country.
Mr. David …
“I just feel sorry for them, and wonder about how many noses they have to sever to spite their faces.”
Bingo.
There were a couple of *big names* in the comics industry who showed themselves to be real jerks and generally caused us [organizing committee of conventions in Ottawa, Canada] some real headaches. Did I stop buying or enjoying their books? No. Because their work either had me [intentionally] doubling over laughing, or marveling at how they could point out what should have been obvious about the series, but no one else in the many years it ran ever seemed to piece together.
I avoid Woody Allen movies and Michael Jackson CDs. Oh, I must be outraged at the tabloid-fed bits about their home lives. Actually, I could care less. There are legal organizations created to investigate and deal with such things.
The former’s films bore me (I stopped going after friends dragged me to two of them several years back) and the latter’s ‘music’ annoys my auditory sensors.
Conversely, while I find a couple,of things Charleton Heston did as head of the NRA (not everything, mind you), I went out and bought the BEN HUR and THE TEN COMMANDMENTS DVDs because I have long loved those spectacular epics and thought everyone involved were superb.
“I believe it was mainly the FASTEST and SUREST way fans felt they could register their views and be heard. ” EClark
The problem, as far as the girls were concerned wasn’t the possible loss of income. They weren’t worried about not being able to make the rent. What really hurt them was the hate, villification, and general intolerance being directed at them. Oh, and let’s not forget the death threats. If this is your idea of valid ways of getting a point accross in a supposedly civilized society …
“She sent pollite letters explaining her problems with the policy- and copies of cancelled checks written to various First Amendment legal funds.” Wade
I LIKE her! That’s a class way of getting the point across.
” I wonder what all the people defending the Dixie Chicks here think about Michael Moriarty getting fired from “Law and Order” for being critical of Janet Reno.” – Robert
I didn’t much care for it. Mind you, since he has arrived in Canada, Moriarty has shown himself to be something of a questionable individual. Nothing to do with his politics, just the actions in his personal life.
But I still watch L&O reruns, even his. Good show. And his getting drunk and hitting people doesn’t change that. I would NOT, however, invite him to my home.
For the record, I don’t think it is wrong to boycott someone because you disagree with them. If your principles require this, go for it. Try to organize if you want, as long as there is no compulsion.
I don’t boycott myself, because I don’t see the point. HOWEVER, I will stop buying or seeing something if the artist in question has become so ‘noisy’ that I CAN’T seperate the artist from the work.
For example, Susan Sarandon has never been a favorite. I’d still see her movies if the movie looked good. Now, however, I can’t watch a movie without Sarandon (or Maclean, for that matter) preventing me from entering the world of the film. I always see Sarandon. Robbins, on the other hand, still wins me over.
A comic book example would be PAD’s Young Justice ‘dark arrow’ issue which took a credible story, then shoehorned a ridiculous anti-gun stance that seemed out of character and clunky. I enjoy PAD’s writing a great deal except when he gets the need to write a political issue comic that intrudes on his story. I may not buy those issues, but I wouldn’t drop the title. I won’t buy any Eric Larsen books, though, because every line reminds me of the pompous jerk I went to college with.
So, sometimes an artist can shoot themselve in the foot by becoming louder than their art (though that wouldn’t be a boycott in the sense that it’s the work that is failing me).
I wonder what Peter would do if the Dixie Chicks criticized his hero Bill Clinton.
Indeed, retaliation for free speech and intolerance of opinions may be one of the few things on which conservatives and liberals agree. *Everyone* is in favor of free speech…for themselves, and for opinions they favor. When it comes to the other guy, though…
PAD
Now that’s something we can agree on. Everyone loves other peoples opinions (especially Celebes) as long as it agrees with theirs. And unfortunately the Dixie Chicks are in a business where they are dependent on the general public liking them and spending their hard earned money buying their albums. They get paid by a company who gets paid by Americans buy albums, they had to expect their comments about the president (which were personal and tacky and had nothing to do with the war) would not bold well with the people.
response/reaction is fine; death threats are not
also, labeling those whose opinions differ from yours as “un-american” or “unpatriotic” closes off the debate
pointless
I see that most of these comments have drifted from rational and logical to infuriated, overly emotional and sensitive. I think that the whole issue is that PAD believes that boycotts are unreasonable actions that do not distinguish between an artist’s beliefs and their works. 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? The other issue is that the artists usually don’t even read the mail they get because they get so many fan letters, and the effort is basically wasted (as compared to PAD who actually is kind enough to answer his fan-mails personally, which I truly admire–hats off to you PAD for that). So I was wondering what people thought about that in an objective perspective on this. And I concur with everyone who says that death threats are unpatriotic. They are also completely missing the point and going way too far.
Chris
” I wonder what all the people defending the Dixie Chicks here think about Michael Moriarty getting fired from “Law and Order” for being critical of Janet Reno.” – Robert
For the record, Moriarty wasn’t fired from L&O, he quit to protest what he saw as censorship in the arts.
I think that the whole issue is that PAD believes that boycotts are unreasonable actions that do not distinguish between an artist’s beliefs and their works.
IMO, Chris hit on what has caused the real issue here. I don’t think PAD is biased due to being liberal. But maybe there is a chance of personal bias as an artist?
PAD, you have clarified that you don’t necessarily think that boycotts are wrong, but you do think boycotts such as these are disproportional. I’m guessing that opinion is driven on some level by the fact that you, too, are an artist (and a dámņ good one, as we all agree, or we wouldn’t even be here), and probably take such boycotts more personally than us averages joes and janes with no creative outlet.
And I’m not even disagreeing with you on that. The fact that you are anti-war doesn’t mean I’m any less eager for the next “New Frontier” book, and the fact that the Barenaked Ladies seem to be anti-war on their blog doesn’t mean I don’t want them to hurry up and release their next CD.
What I disagree with is the idea that such boycotts are automatically petty or irrational. Whether or not one agrees with the intent, or the result, there are people out there who believe strongly enough about that issue to intentionally deprive themselves of music they enjoy. To decide that such action was taken to be petty and vengeful, or without considered thought, is to assume more than we can know about the individuals involved.
Coming in sort of late in the game, but…
I guess what it comes down to for me is, who cares what the Dixie Chicks or Susan Sarandon or anyone in the public eye has to say about any given political topic. Does anyone think that whatever Maines said is going to cause a groundswell that changes the opinion of her listeners? Or that Charlton Heston’s “…from my cold, dead hands” NRA speech is going to convince people who haven’t already decided to be pro-gun (or anti-legislation, depending on your interpretation)?
When my brother spouts off his far-right conservative beliefs, I smile politely and let him rant on; similarly, when Tim Robbins spouts his liberal beliefs, I smile politely and let him rant on, too (not that I could stop him, but that’s not the point…). And I don’t love my brother any less for the fact that I disagree with some (okay, most) of his politics, any more than I dislike Robbin’s movies any less because I disagree with some of his politics.
Because, in the end, they aren’t going to change my mind about anything I’ve already reached a conclusion on. At the most, contrary views will challenge me to try to understand their perspective, thus better strengthening my own perspective.
And, really, would you want someone who’s that easily swayed on your side of the fence, anyhow?
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.
Seriously, Peter saying it’s like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face if you boycott…well, I like my nose (well, maybe it’s a little lopsided on the left, but I think it gives me personality). I, however, don’t much like the Dixie Chicks, so how exactly is this causing me pain? And don’t say it’s because I’m supressing free speech, and I should feel the symbolic pain, because, no, I’m not and I don’t. Now, if all music ended because I don’t buy a Dixie Chicks album, then I’ve obviously been wasting my superhuman powers of suggestion on petty things when I could have been tracking down Mia Kirschner.
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. Tim Robbins doesn’t speak just to be heard (although maybe he does want the attention…he hasn’t had a hit in awhile); he speaks to get people to do things his way. Oh, and he speaks in order to threaten reporters and try to quash their right to report, because, you know, his rights are the only ones that matter.
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.
Shame on you!