Dixie Chicks "joke"

[Steve]

The boycott was immature. They're artists. I don't care what their opinions are, I like some of their music and I'd continue listening to it, no matter what some stupid redneck thinks.

While I support Bush on certain issues, I don't think him to be above criticism (although one could argue that criticism was unneeded), and I certainly don't think it mature to boycott them for it.

Boy.... bet that surprised a bunch of people who would mistake me for another gung-ho superpatriot type.

Its imature to boycott Artists,then its just as dumb for some idiotic Americans to boycott Canadian goods and businesses,or even not to sell us things on ebay or other online services.

You won't hear any disagreements from me. I'm getting tired of the boycott bullshit on both sides of the Atlantic.

And Mike, I know Jefferson would agree with me. It's just that I tend to agree with Marina on a lot of issues relating to foreign policy, and we all know what was nearly done to her by various parties here (and after looking over that thread about the petition to give her a nasty custom title following my reading the Athens-related Appendices to my copy of Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War" made me realize just how eerily similar that thread was to an Athenian trial...).

[Darth Wong]

It's not about eliminating discourse. It's about expressing your own veiws in a tangible way.

"Tangible" as in moving from mere criticism to infliction of material harm, which has the effect of coercively suppressing unpopular viewpoints. You seriously don't get it, do you?

Since when does it have to be evil to disagree with it? I mean seriously, why should they support people who they disagree with?

Go back and read what I wrote again. I never said it has to be evil to disagree with it. I said you think unpopular viewpoints should be PUNISHED, not just criticized, as if they're evil, and you even invoked comparisons to Nazis.

[Darth Wong]

Ideological coercion? You mean the phenomenon that people are going to want to do business with those they approve of? I don't like it, but that's how things work. Life is not fair.

Do you even know what the word "tautology" means?

[Darth Wong]

You won't hear any disagreements from me. I'm getting tired of the boycott bullshit on both sides of the Atlantic.

Fair enough; Frenchies smashing McDonald's is absoluely ridiculous. Although, quite frankly, I think there are many perfectly good reasons to smash McDonald's which have nothing to do with American foreign policy, but that's another issue.

And Mike, I know Jefferson would agree with me. It's just that I tend to agree with Marina on a lot of issues relating to foreign policy, and we all know what was nearly done to her by various parties here (and after looking over that thread about the petition to give her a nasty custom title following my reading the Athens-related Appendices to my copy of Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War" made me realize just how eerily similar that thread was to an Athenian trial...).

And that's bad? The people spoke, their will was done. There was never any threat of material harm (not like these boycotts, designed to drive people out of business and cause job losses/economic hardship if possible).

[RedImperator]

Oh look! The middle of the road...

People have a right to refuse to spend money on people or companies whose opinions they find repugnant (I personally have refused to even listen to Rage Against the Machine or the Beastie Boys since they played a benefit concert for Mumia Abu Jamal). That being said, these organized boycots are just pure assholery and coercion. If the Dixie Chicks lost sales because their audience sponteneously decided not to buy from them, then that's capitalism--too bad, next time keep your mouth shut. If they're losing sales because of an organized boycott, then someone in Texas is being a jingoistic asshole (a jingoistic asshole?! In Texas?!? Never!)

[Stormbringer]

It's not about eliminating discourse. It's about expressing your own veiws in a tangible way.

"Tangible" as in moving from mere criticism to infliction of material harm, which has the effect of coercively suppressing unpopular viewpoints. You seriously don't get it, do you?

Since when does it have to be evil to disagree with it? I mean seriously, why should they support people who they disagree with?

Go back and read what I wrote again. I never said it has to be evil to disagree with it. I said you think unpopular viewpoints should be PUNISHED, not just criticized, as if they're evil, and you even invoked comparisons to Nazis.

And like I said, what obligates a conservative to support people they disagree with? Should Pro-choicers give a tithe to the Catholic Church? It's does harm them, but frankly that's the consequence of pissing people off. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

I don't support boycotts but I think they have every right to use a legtimate tactic.

[Joe]

Oh look! The middle of the road...

People have a right to refuse to spend money on people or companies whose opinions they find repugnant (I personally have refused to even listen to Rage Against the Machine or the Beastie Boys since they played a benefit concert for Mumia Abu Jamal). That being said, these organized boycots are just pure assholery and coercion. If the Dixie Chicks lost sales because their audience sponteneously decided not to buy from them, then that's capitalism--too bad, next time keep your mouth shut. If they're losing sales because of an organized boycott, then someone in Texas is being a jingoistic asshole (a jingoistic asshole?! In Texas?!? Never!)

You might want to add Woody Harrellson to your boycott; he too has been very supportive of ol' Mumia.

[RedImperator]

Damned lack of an edit button...

I can't very well come out in favor of ideaological boycotts because I've raged before about Al Sharpton and his pals threatening to boycott companies for not having enough black executives, or the NAACP threatening to boycott the networks because there weren't enough black TV shows.

[Joe]

Not to mention Robertson and his zombies, boycotting Disney for (gasp!) treating homosexuals like human beings...I guess it's not so black and white.

[Sam Or I]

OK question:


What is the difference between this type of boycott, and your run of the mill pressure group which hurts people economically for thier political views?

[Darth Wong]

And like I said, what obligates a conservative to support people they disagree with?

Nothing. Nothing obligates people to be reasonable or mature. Stop trying to turn this into an issue of oppression; no one is saying people don't have the RIGHT to do this; we're saying that they're being assholes for doing it.

Should Pro-choicers give a tithe to the Catholic Church?

Bad analogy, since the Catholic church does not provide a service for them. Let's put it this way: if you liked the Dixie Chicks' music before they said that, then you probably still like the music itself. So if you suddenly decided not to buy it because of the public calls for boycott, you are not doing so based on the intrinsic value of their product in a free market, but because you're trying to make some kind of political statement and coercively work towards an organized goal of silencing ideological impurity.

It's does harm them, but frankly that's the consequence of pissing people off. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

And "freedom of consequences" does not mean that vindictive assholes are not vindictive assholes.

I don't support boycotts but I think they have every right to use a legtimate tactic.

How many fucking times do I have to point out that there's a difference between "they don't have the right" and "they're being assholes?"

[Darth Wong]

OK question:

What is the difference between this type of boycott, and your run of the mill pressure group which hurts people economically for thier political views?

None whatsoever. As a person who dislikes boycotts in general except for extreme cases (white supremacists etc., where we cross the line from disagreement to plain fucking evil), I don't have to worry about being accused of hypocrisy in matters like this.

[Stormbringer]

One person's asshole is another's hero.

And as to the argument that they're cause them "material loss", that's not so. Nothing obligates them to buy it in the first place. What it does it cut their potential market. It's not stealing from them it's not making a purchase.

[Darth Wong]

One person's asshole is another's hero.

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

And as to the argument that they're cause them "material loss", that's not so. Nothing obligates them to buy it in the first place. What it does it cut their potential market. It's not stealing from them it's not making a purchase.

Wow, resorting to hair-splitting already? Good for you!

[Stormbringer]

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

Probably. It's also true, so what's your point?

Wow, resorting to hair-splitting already? Good for you!

No, you talk about harming them when it does no such thing. It's simply not supporting them. It might be fine distinction but it's an important one.

[Darth Wong]

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

Probably. It's also true, so what's your point?

My point is that unless the target of your boycott is EVIL, it is wrong to use boycotts. The Moral Majority does not seem to understand that. Neither do you.

No, you talk about harming them when it does no such thing. It's simply not supporting them. It might be fine distinction but it's an important one.

Good for you. Next time I need someone to find loopholes to weasel out of moral issues instead of addressing them directly, I'll know where to call.

[Keevan_Colton]

Lets say....overnight....your boss said, "You're now only getting paid half what you did before.", not because your quality of work has changed, but because of political views you hold.....

Now, does that or does it not, make the boss a grade-A asshole?

[Stormbringer]

My point is that unless the target of your boycott is EVIL, it is wrong to use boycotts. The Moral Majority does not seem to understand that. Neither do you.

Why do we have to support any non-evil cause/person/organization?

Good for you. Next time I need someone to find loopholes to weasel out of moral issues instead of addressing them directly, I'll know where to call.

How is that weaseling out of it? Mike, you claimed it causes them material harm which it doesn't. It doesn't harm them, it simply does nothing to support them.

[Darth Wong]

Why do we have to support any non-evil cause/person/organization?

If they are performing a service or product which you found perfectly acceptable before, then they are still providing that service or product. Duh. I also notice how you STILL insist on using your oppression strawman, with phrases like "have to".

How is that weaseling out of it? Mike, you claimed it causes them material harm which it doesn't. It doesn't harm them, it simply does nothing to support them.

Fine, you want me to spell it out? That is PRECISELY the same argument used to support rampant software piracy, and it's bullshit. See Colton's remark on this.

[Queeb Salaron]

On the issue of boycotting, I am divided. On the one hand, I think it is good to make moral judgements on corporations to keep them in check. After all, business should be amoral, apolitical and secular. If such were not the case, and if business ethics (which must, paradoxically, disclude the expression of opinion on certain ethical issues) were artificially created to appeal to the Moral Majority, then the success and failure of business would be determined not by the quality of the product, but the politics of the company. Obviously this is not good for the economy as it promotes SOCIAL monochromaticism as well as exclusivism.

For the same reasons, I oppose people like that company in Georgia who decided not to ship to Canada because they do not support the war. When CORPORATIONS start boycotting the CONSUMER, you know that one of two things has happened: 1) the shit has hit the fan, or 2) the economy has flourished to the point where companies can afford to NOT sell to people who want to buy without their product stock running out.

For some reason, I lean more towards the first one.

[Stormbringer]

If they are performing a service or product which you found perfectly acceptable before, then they are still providing that service or product. Duh. I also notice how you STILL insist on using your oppression strawman, with phrases like "have to".

No, I don't understand why the insistance that the boycott is wrong. As far as I understand your position is, that these people should continue buying disregarding their own views. If that's not the case then, I just don't understand your position.

Fine, you want me to spell it out? That is PRECISELY the same argument used to support rampant software piracy, and it's bullshit. See Colton's remark on this.

Software piracy is a different issues because it's taking a product without paying for it. That's theft straight out.

Not buying a CD or going to a concert is another matter. It's not taking anything from them so it can hardly be said to harming them.

[Steve]

You won't hear any disagreements from me. I'm getting tired of the boycott bullshit on both sides of the Atlantic.

Fair enough; Frenchies smashing McDonald's is absoluely ridiculous. Although, quite frankly, I think there are many perfectly good reasons to smash McDonald's which have nothing to do with American foreign policy, but that's another issue.

One's health? I do eat there on occasion, I'll admit...

And that's bad? The people spoke, their will was done. There was never any threat of material harm (not like these boycotts, designed to drive people out of business and cause job losses/economic hardship if possible).

No, I wasn't comparing the situation with the boycott. Just making a general observation. And I wasn't saying it was bad per se, but you have to admit, the motives of the petitioners looked more like personal vendettas than anything else, and Athenians courts were a tool used by one Athenian against another, used as extortion or to satisfy vendettas, since court outcomes were decided more often by who gave a more popular presentation of his case than by any legal argument, with judges selected not based on their knowledge of law but by lot from the body of voting citizens.

Call it more of an interesting parallel.

[Darth Wong]

No, I don't understand why the insistance that the boycott is wrong. As far as I understand your position is, that these people should continue buying disregarding their own views. If that's not the case then, I just don't understand your position.

No, I'm saying that these people should not be trying to organize a boycott in order to punish people for having different views. Get it? It's one thing for an individual to make a spontaneous decision, but any organized political boycott movement is much more coercive and unreasonable.

Software piracy is a different issues because it's taking a product without paying for it. That's theft straight out.

Actually, they make the same argument: they say that because of the high costs of CD's, they would never have bought the CD legally anyway, so the company is not really losing a sale. No more of a loophole than the one you're using.

[Stormbringer]

No, I'm saying that these people should not be trying to organize a boycott in order to punish people for having different views. Get it? It's one thing for an individual to make a spontaneous decision, but any organized political boycott movement is much more coercive and unreasonable.

Okay, I did misunderstand you. Well, I disagree with you on that but you're entitled to your veiws.

Actually, they make the same argument: they say that because of the high costs of CD's, they would never have bought the CD legally anyway, so the company is not really losing a sale. No more of a loophole than the one you're using.

That's just rationalization for what is by any definition theft. They might not buy it legally but that has no bearing on the fact they have it with out paying for it. It's theft and that's that.

A boycott takes nothing at all and is there for a completely seperate issues so don't drop the red herring of software/music piracy in this.

[Darth Wong]

Okay, I did misunderstand you. Well, I disagree with you on that but you're entitled to your veiws.

Fair enough.

That's just rationalization for what is by any definition theft.

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

They might not buy it legally but that has no bearing on the fact they have it with out paying for it. It's theft and that's that.

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.

A boycott takes nothing at all and is there for a completely seperate issues so don't drop the red herring of software/music piracy in this.

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.

If anything, it causes MORE material harm than software piracy committed by poor people (as opposed to software piracy by people who could otherwise afford to buy the product). You have yet to prove that a boycott causes less material harm than software piracy by people who couldn't afford to buy the product anyway.