Dixie Chicks "joke"

[fgalkin]

The idea of the boycotts is just stupid. Why the fuck would you want to punish someone for excersizing free speech? Isn't that anti-american?

I do agree it was stupid of them to say it, but the backlash was uncalled for. A slip of the toungue shoudn't get you boycotts everywhere. I'm sure if it was any worse, they'd be burning their CDs in a big bonfire.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.h ... 94DB404482 Tractor smashing works, too.

Yet another reason why I oppose the boycotts.

That's what Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority" says about their ideological boycotts too.

Just a nitpick, Mike: the Moral Majority has been dead since 1988. Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition is leading the fundies now.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Keevan_Colton]

That's what Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority" says about their ideological boycotts too.

Just a nitpick, Mike: the Moral Majority has been dead since 1988. Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition is leading the fundies now.

Same shit different label.

[fgalkin]

That's what Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority" says about their ideological boycotts too.

Just a nitpick, Mike: the Moral Majority has been dead since 1988. Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition is leading the fundies now.

Same shit different label.

Like I said: a nitpick.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Stormbringer]

And yours is just rationalization for what is by any definition coercion.

A boycott isn't effective unless it causes change.

No, they've duplicated something. There is technically no material loss, since they would not have purchased it anyway, and their private use of a duplicate of the product does not cause any harm to the seller. As I said, it's no more of a loophole than the one you're using.

It's still theft. It's taking a program (something of value) rather than buying it. That's different from a boycott in which nothing of actual value is taken. The two are not analogous.

It is not a red herring. A boycott is a public campaign designed to encourage people not to spend money that they would have otherwise spent. It is no different than an "attack ad" which slanders a competitor's product rather than extolling the virtues of your own; it crosses the line.

Any value the boycott takes is purely theoretical. There is nothing of actual value taken by a boycott so equating the two is a red herring.

[Darth Wong]

Same shit different label.

Heh heh ... my old school buddy used to say "same shit, different pile". I always liked that phrase.

[Darth Wong]

A boycott isn't effective unless it causes change.

Precisely, and that's the definition of coercion; forcing others to change policies, positions, actions, etc. Concession accepted.

It's still theft. It's taking a program (something of value) rather than buying it. That's different from a boycott in which nothing of actual value is taken. The two are not analogous.

Yes they are. Please quantify the material harm from a person copying a song when he never have bought something in the first place. I'd like to see a number and a justification for that number.

Any value the boycott takes is purely theoretical. There is nothing of actual value taken by a boycott so equating the two is a red herring.

Any value the piracy takes is purely theoretical too, and worse yet, it happens to be zero in the case I described. You still don't get it.

[Stormbringer]

Precisely, and that's the definition of coercion; forcing others to change policies, positions, actions, etc. Concession accepted.

Given. I never argued that a boycott was not change opinions or policy.

Yes they are. Please quantify the material harm from a person copying a song when he never have bought something in the first place. I'd like to see a number and a justification for that number.

I don't know, the price of the single for the simple reason they aquired a product without paying for it.

Any value the piracy takes is purely theoretical too, and worse yet, it happens to be zero in the case I described. You still don't get it.

If they aquired a product with out paying for it's still theft. If because I have no intention of buying one, I steal your car it's hardly theoretical value. Intellectual property is still property so their is something of value stolen.

[Darth Wong]

Given. I never argued that a boycott was not change opinions or policy.

So you feel it's not wrong, and you agree that it's coercive. In other words, you feel that coercive enforcement of ideological purity (aka "tyranny of the majority") is not wrong in an enlightened society. Gotcha.

Yes they are. Please quantify the material harm from a person copying a song when he never have bought something in the first place. I'd like to see a number and a justification for that number.

I don't know, the price of the single for the simple reason they aquired a product without paying for it.

Wrong. Assessment of material harm requires comparison of states with or without the act in question. Without the piracy, the company would not have a sale. With the piracy, the company would not have a sale. Therefore, there is technically no material loss. For the umpteenth time, it's no more of a loophole than your argument.

If they aquired a product with out paying for it's still theft. If because I have no intention of buying one, I steal your car it's hardly theoretical value.

False analogy fallacy. The car is no longer in my driveway. If you duplicated that car, then yes, it would be of purely theoretical loss to me.

Intellectual property is still property so their is something of value stolen.

Yet you cannot establish quantifiable material harm. Hence it's no more of a loophole than the one you're using, and it's arguably LESS of a loophole.

[Nathan F]

The should move to France and start a carreer under a new name.

http://members.aol.com/ov4truth/images/ditzy.jpg

quite funny, lol

[Glocksman]

So you feel it's not wrong, and you agree that it's coercive. In other words, you feel that coercive enforcement of ideological purity (aka "tyranny of the majority") is not wrong in an enlightened society. Gotcha.

In the context of a voluntary boycott, of course there's nothing wrong with it.

I and those of like opinion are simply exercising our freedom to not do business with an entity whose position or positions we disagree with.

I don't buy from Wal-Mart because I dislike how their purchasing policies encourage suppliers to move production overseas.

I don't buy Nike because of the way they produce their product, so I buy Rocky shoes that are made in USA by union labor instead.

By the same token, if I choose not to buy a Dixie Chicks CD, that's my right. It's also my right to encourage those of like mind to do as I do.

It's called free speech.

Those that don't like it have the same right to speak up and encourage people to not listen to me. If more people agree with you than with me, the boycott will be ineffective as a means of change because the business will want to please the majority of its customers.

For the record, I never was a Dixie Chicks fan. They aren't all that talented and they wouldn't be where they're at if Natalie Maines's Dad wasn't a longtime player in the Country Music business. It didn't take a boycott to keep me from buying their latest CD.

Think of Natalie Maines as the Country Music equivalent of Tori Spelling.

[Darth Wong]

By the same token, if I choose not to buy a Dixie Chicks CD, that's my right. It's also my right to encourage those of like mind to do as I do.

It's called free speech.

What part of "yes, you have the right, but that doesn't change the fact that it's immature and unreasonable" do you not understand? And while we're at it, do you recognize the irony of defending free speech while simultaneously trying to penalize those who would exercise it unless they're ideologically pure? And finally, do you consider a verbal remark made about George Bush so heinous that you now consider the person who made it so morally repugnant that you wish to boycott them?

Those that don't like it have the same right to speak up and encourage people to not listen to me. If more people agree with you than with me, the boycott will be ineffective as a means of change because the business will want to please the majority of its customers.

Wow, another person who evasively spouts tautologies in lieu of discussing the morality of coercion to maintain ideological purity

For the record, I never was a Dixie Chicks fan. They aren't all that talented and they wouldn't be where they're at if Natalie Maines's Dad wasn't a longtime player in the Country Music business. It didn't take a boycott to keep me from buying their latest CD.

Then they have lost nothing from you. Doesn't change the fact that the boycott is part of a disturbing trend in which a single remark can be deemed sufficient evidence for a public campaign to reduce, marginalize, denigrate, and financially penalize the offender.

[Glocksman]

What part of "yes, you have the right, but that doesn't change the fact that it's immature and unreasonable" do you not understand?

Immature?
It certainly is. I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion.

Unreasonable?
No it's not unreasonable for political and/or ideological beliefs to affect your purchasing decisions.

And while we're at it, do you recognize the irony of defending free speech while simultaneously trying to penalize those who would exercise it unless they're ideologically pure?

Free speech doesn't mean freedom from conseqences. If your speech pisses people off and they decide to not buy what you sell, then you are bearing the consequences of your actions.

The irony would be there if I were defending a government imposed or encouraged boycott of the Dixie Chicks. A boycott by citizens is merely the people voting with dollars instead of ballots on who they agree with more.

And finally, do you consider a verbal remark made about George Bush so heinous that you now consider the person who made it so morally repugnant that you wish to boycott them?

Even if I were a DC fan, I wouldn't take part in the boycott because I agree with you that it's stupid. I might write a letter to them about the remark, but I wouldn't boycott their CD.

What I am saying is that people do have the right to encourage a boycott for whatever reason and it's not the resurrection of Joseph McCarthy to do so.

Doesn't change the fact that the boycott is part of a disturbing trend in which a single remark can be deemed sufficient evidence for a public campaign to reduce, marginalize, denigrate, and financially penalize the offender.

So if someone or some company says or does something that I vehemently disagree with, I shouldn't try to influence them via organizing like minded people to take part in a concerted action such as a boycott or demonstration?

[Darth Wong]

So if someone or some company says or does something that I vehemently disagree with, I shouldn't try to influence them via organizing like minded people to take part in a concerted action such as a boycott or demonstration?

I think the problem here is that what I think of as things to "vehemently disagree with" are things like Neo-Nazi slogans, white-supremacism, calls for violence against abortion clinics, etc. What THESE fucking thought police think of as things to "vehemently disagree with" are statements like "we're ashamed of George Bush". Treating the latter the way one would treat the former makes them ideological fascists, aka assholes.

[Glocksman]

Treating the latter the way one would treat the former makes them ideological fascists, aka assholes

Agreed.

However even assholes have the same rights to organize and boycott as we would over the Aryan Nations opening a business in your or my area.

As someone once pointed out, it isn't popular speech that needs defending. It's unpopular speech that does.

I'll defend the DC's right to say what they want as much as I would defend Joe Hick's right to boycott them because he disagrees with what they say.

[Kuroneko]

So if someone or some company says or does something that I vehemently disagree with, I shouldn't try to influence them via organizing like minded people to take part in a concerted action such as a boycott or demonstration?

No, you shouldn't. You are perfectly within your rights to do so, certainly, but rights and morality intersect only nominally. For example, I would hold that for a murderer to face up to his just punishment would be the correct thing to do, and failing to do so immoral (e.g., OJ Simpson). And yet, he is still well within his rights not to testify against himself should he not wish to.

[The Yosemite Bear]

does this mean that the other two should be asking McCartney and Ringo Starr how they handeled the "Bigger then God." line?

sure it caused the Beatles to take a hit, but it didn't deminish their overall historical value. Or does everyone else forget HISTORY.

[Sam Or I]

I said this before, but I think I should have made myself more clear. They isolated thier target audience. If they had a different audience I do not think the reaction would have been as large. Celeberities sell thier image, and the core audience that the Dixie Chix sold to was country red neck right-wingers. The Beastie Boys made remarks about GW Bush, but there is not the same kind of backlash as the Dixie Chix. Imagine if some one like Ice Cube said he thinks affirmative action is wrong. I am sure that alot of his albums would be boycotted as well. When you are selling a image to a core audience you do have to walk on egg shells. Yes people are ass holes for not liking the Art for Art, but people also feeled betrayed by the artist when they basically turned thier back on the people who made them stars in the first place.


Anyways Boycott the Dixie Chix for what they claim is music :twisted:

[Keevan_Colton]

I think theres something that should be cleared up here.....

Morality and Politics seem to be getting tangled here....

Being ashamed of George Bush is far more a political in its nature...and has no real moral impact one way or another.....

Being a Nazi asshole calling for the eradication of other races or the like is an issue of morality in the community as a whole.

To boycott someone because if you bought thier products or failed to do so would cause harm, is at least supportable.....as in the case of companies that exploit cheap labour in other countries, or fur manufacturers, or nazi assholes......that, could be explained in rational terms because these "products" themselves represent potential harm to people or animals.

Boycotting someone because they stated thier favourite colour was blue and you think no one should like blue is fuckin' assanine.