uscitizen
Villified User
How about farting in their general direction? Many pundits talk out their ass anyway.
Coulter Bagged by Media Matters
- Thread starter Cancel7
- Start date
How about farting in their general direction? Many pundits talk out their ass anyway.
A boycott organized simply because you do not like someone's OPINION & want that silenced is, by definition, intolerance. People have a right to boycott, but to boycott only for the purpose of intimidating free speech is, imo, anti-American in spirit. I thought that boycott was pathetic.
I'm not going to defend the pie throwers, and I wasn't earlier. But it's kind of ridiculous to point to a couple of malcontents and say "there is a great example of liberal intolerance."
uscitizen
Villified User
Well monkees do fly out of her butt.
I think we had this discussion back when the Ditzy Chicks thing happened. I have never listened to another of their songs. I never bought their CD's anyway but now when they come on the radio (they don't on most of the stations I listen to) I change the station.
I consider it my right to not listen to or purchase products from people I disagree with morally or politically. I don't consider it anti-American. In fact I consider it totally American in that I have a choice.
I have no issue with your personal choice whatsoever.
My issue is with people who took it beyond personal choice, and organized boycotts of radio stations to try to shut them down unless they silenced a different point of view (not to mention the death threats, and the overall tone that they set at that time - to me, it was a chilling time for free speech)
uscitizen
Villified User
Yeah strange to hear those same opressors of free speech now whining about free speech being opressed.
Yeah, I think that's the conclusion came to back then also.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I agree with your second paragraph. That said, if you own a company, are an actor, a singer, a writer etc... and you come out and make a public statement regarding politics/religion etc... people have a right to respond with a boycott of your products/services etc... if they disagree with your position. A boycott is an expression of free speech.
It is not intolerance or trying to intimidate free speech. They did not try to prohibit the Dixie chicks from talking in public. They chose to express their distaste for the comments made. As is their right.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from dissenting opinions or the expression of such.
You're looking at it from a theoretical standpoint. That boycott, and the way it was conducted, sent an absolute chill throughout the entertainment community. It intimidated speech, without any doubt, and it's sole goal was to diminish the marketplace of ideas.
People had the right to do it, but I have the right to say it is anti-American in spirit, which I think is absolutely indisputable.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I disagree completely. It sent a chill through the entertainment industry because they were reminded that there can be consequences when speaking on public policy/religion/politics etc...
It did not intimidate speech, it just made people remember that just because you have the freedom of speech, you have to remember that others may disagree with what you say. If they disagree strongly enough, they may boycott your business.
This is no different than people boycotting Walmarts business decisions, union workers going on strike, protesting oil companies etc... ALL are exercises of free speech that remind businesses, industries and individuals that our actions and words can have adverse consequences.
It is most certainly NOT Anti-American to boycott the product or service of someone you disagree with. It is quite the opposite.
I do agree that 'death threats' and the like goes way over the line. But the boycott does not.
It intimidated the speech of those intent on not losing money from those on the right. They could still talk.......just realizing that there are consequences if you make your fans angry with what you say. Its sole goal was to punish the Ditzy Chicks for dissing the president while abroad.
Other entertainers can do exactly what the Ditzy Chicks did.....change genres if they must speak and what they say offends.
I have to disagree. Onceler is right. Sorry SF.
The boycott basically said "if you disagree with our opinion of Bush & express that, we're going to do everything we can to hurt you." Like it or not, that diminishes the marketplace of ideas, through intimidation. The sole goal of it is conformity of opinion. That may be your America; it ain't mine.
Like I said, I have no problem with people who wanted to personally stop listening to the Dixie Chicks, or write letters to them, or go out & make their own speech saying how much they like Bush & are proud of him. It was the way boycotts were organized & the tone of that whole time period that got to me. Seriously, its goal was the same kind of thing that was the mo of the old Soviet Union.
Like I said, I have no problem with people who wanted to personally stop listening to the Dixie Chicks, or write letters to them, or go out & make their own speech saying how much they like Bush & are proud of him. It was the way boycotts were organized & the tone of that whole time period that got to me. Seriously, its goal was the same kind of thing that was the mo of the old Soviet Union.
I just have to agree to disagree on the overall sentiment here.
Today, bush has a lower approval rating than anal rashes, so I'd say they are better described as ahead of their time, rather than as ditzy.
As is your right. I just don't understand the idea of boycotting someone (which, to me, is intimidation), with the sole purpose of silencing an opinion I simply don't like. I see a boycott as something that is used to stop action that is damaging in some way - like if you like dolphins, boycotting tuna companies that don't use dolphin-friendly nets to get them to change.
But what did the boycotts hope to "change" with the Chicks? Nothing. They just wanted to shut 'em up.
It would never occur to me to boycott a Schwarzenneger or Jon Voight movie. It's just lazy; if you don't like someone's opinion, offer some of your own, and try to persuade people with better ideas.
I'm quite different. I cannot stomach watching something with Alec Baldwin or George Clooney in it because I can't help but think about the things I hold dear that they want to destroy or do away with. But what am I saying? I don't watch anything much nowadays other than some football and Scooby Doo, with the occasional Veggie Tales thrown in.
C
Cancel3
Guest
I disagree. It simply said "If I dislike what you say I will not buy your art". And this is a consequence of artists using their fame and public platform to discuss their personal political beliefs.
Why is Streisand's opinion more valuable than mine? Why is Dennis Miller's opinion more important than mine? The answer is that they aren't. But those people have a public platform at their disposal, and they can use it to speak about their personal views and beliefs.
But Streisand is famous because of her musical talent. The minute she uses that fame to express her political views, she is open to boycott.
It is most certainly NOT unamerican. That musicians and actors think their fame lets them speak out about politics is unamerican.