Coulter Bagged by Media Matters

[leaningright]

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.

I agree with this.

 

[Cancel7]

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.

Did you support the Iraq war?

 

[meme]

Hmmmm.

someone who speaks words about blowing something up..should be banned from shows.

someone who actually does blow things up, AOK to speak on shows..

got it

 

[Cancel7]

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.

Here is the problem - you and Leaning are not taking into account the atmosphere purposefully created by the right during those days. The president's press secretary telling us "Americans need to watch what they say" and all of the cries of anti-americanism and supporting terrorists if you disagreed with bush policy.

Onceler is absolutely correct, it was a dark time and there was a chilling effect on speech and it's pretense to play the "I don't remember" game.

 

[Cancel7]

Hmmmm.

someone who speaks words about blowing something up..should be banned from shows.

someone who actually does blow things up, AOK to speak on shows..

got it

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

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.

LMAO... right, just like the Soviet Union... I suppose you have the same problem with Media Matters trying to organize a boycott of Coulter?

 

[Cancel3]

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 wouldn't boycott someone with whom I disagreed.

But there are celebrities that have turned into activists. I do not watch Rosie O'Donnell because of her hack job interviewing Tom Selleck a few years ago. She ambushed him just to get HER political view across. I am not going to support someone like that.

Boycotting is not necessarily an "anti" thing. It is also a concious choice to spend your money to support things that you believe are positive.

Tom Cruise has spent a good bit of money and effort to speak out against certain children's medications. My wife firmly believes if it weren't for those meds she would have had to institutionalize her son. Should she go see Tom Cruise movies and thereby give him more money? Her boycott will not do any harm to him, but she cannot, in good faith, support someone who has said the things he did.

 

[leaningright]

Did you support the Iraq war?

Lorax and I had several discussions about this from the start of the Iraq war. I was unsure about whether I supported it or not the first week or so after it began. I came to the conclusion that I supported the efforts in Afghanistan but that Iraq was a mistake. And this was long before the really negative stuff (no WMD's, yellow cake, etc.) started coming out of Iraq. So after careful deliberation, no, I did not support the Iraq war.

 

[Onceler]

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.

Like I said, personal choice is fine. The way those boycotts were organized & the tone that they set was the opposite of what it means to be an American, at least how I view it.

There is such resentment toward celebrities who voice their opinions. I voice my opinion everywhere, and I'm not a celebrity, nor am I resentful that their opinions sometimes get more "air time." I write to newspapers, I take part in town hall discussions, I talk loud at cocktail parties. We're Americans, and putting our opinion out there is practically a duty in my book. Just because someone is a celebrity doesn't mean that they should NOT do that. I have always found that attitude weird, and it smacks of nothing but envy.

Everyone should speak, all the time, about whatever they want, using whatever forum is available to them. There was a concerted effort during the war to portray those opposed to it - who, as it turned out, were right - as traitors, and silence their valuable opinions on the matter.

 

[Onceler]

LMAO... right, just like the Soviet Union... I suppose you have the same problem with Media Matters trying to organize a boycott of Coulter?

I do. I don't like boycotts that are for nothing but silencing opinion.

Oops; your "they do it too!" didn't work this time, SF.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

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.

So because YOU don't do it, no one else should? Give me a break. You said yourself they had the right to boycott as it is an expression of free speech. They have that right.

So boycotting is only ok, when you say so? IF you don't like the particular tuna company because they net flipper, then you should just not buy their product as an individual according to your standards.

The boycott of the chicks was designed to let them know that their words had consequences. That IF the chicks pissed some people off, those people who were pissed would no longer support the Chicks financially by buying their albums, going to concerts etc...

 

[Cancel3]

Here is the problem - you and Leaning are not taking into account the atmosphere purposefully created by the right during those days. The president's press secretary telling us "Americans need to watch what they say" and all of the cries of anti-americanism and supporting terrorists if you disagreed with bush policy.

Onceler is absolutely correct, it was a dark time and there was a chilling effect on speech and it's pretense to play the "I don't remember" game.

The effect of the Bushites and their "you are not a good american" game was most certainly chilling. And scary as hell because people bought into it.

But that is not the same as the boycott. The boycott is simply choosing where to spend your money. Just like I wouldn't buy tuna without the "Dolphin Safe" label, I would not want my money to go to people who are harmful.

And also, the famous movie star or musician that stands up and spouts their political views may be changing some people's mind. Which means, they are using their fame in another area to effect the outcome of a political race. And that outcome could be harmful to me.

I should continue to put my money in their bank account?

 

[Onceler]

"The boycott of the chicks was designed to let them know that their words had consequences. That IF the chicks pissed some people off, those people who were pissed would no longer support the Chicks financially by buying their albums, going to concerts etc... "

Think about that. Your words, a.k.a. your opinions, have consequences. If you express them, it will hurt you.

Go America!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

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.

I agreed with you right until that last sentence. They have every right to express their opinions via any available medium. The fact that they have more access than you or I is not their fault. That said, for them to pretend that they can use such a platform without any consequences is what is pathetic.

 

[Damocles]

"The boycott of the chicks was designed to let them know that their words had consequences. That IF the chicks pissed some people off, those people who were pissed would no longer support the Chicks financially by buying their albums, going to concerts etc... "

Think about that. Your words, a.k.a. your opinions, have consequences. If you express them, it will hurt you.

Go America!

Duh.

They catered to the group most likely to get bent over such remarks. I didn't care. I never liked their music anyway and didn't have anything to burn. If I had liked their music I would have been depressed when they took them off the airwaves but would understand.

If I were a performer I simply wouldn't work to hack off half of my audience, and in the Chick's case probably more like 90%... If I make money on ticket sales why would I want to do that?

 

[Onceler]

"I didn't care. I never liked their music anyway and didn't have anything to burn and stuff."

Cool. I'm glad that you didn't care that a chilling tone was set in America regarding dissent, because you don't buy their records anyway. Very big perspective you have there.

 

[Damocles]

"The boycott of the chicks was designed to let them know that their words had consequences. That IF the chicks pissed some people off, those people who were pissed would no longer support the Chicks financially by buying their albums, going to concerts etc... "

Think about that. Your words, a.k.a. your opinions, have consequences. If you express them, it will hurt you.

Go America!

Plus, every one of the people who were mad were simply expressing an opinion. They never suggested they go to jail, just that they didn't want to give them money and a platform to use to speak against their own beliefs. They were mostly upset that the money they gave in support for one purpose was used to negate their own beliefs.

 

[Onceler]

I should continue to put my money in their bank account?

Not if you don't want to.

But again, you're arguing personal choice. I'm arguing organized boycott.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Here is the problem - you and Leaning are not taking into account the atmosphere purposefully created by the right during those days. The president's press secretary telling us "Americans need to watch what they say" and all of the cries of anti-americanism and supporting terrorists if you disagreed with bush policy.

Onceler is absolutely correct, it was a dark time and there was a chilling effect on speech and it's pretense to play the "I don't remember" game.

Again I call bullshit on the assertation that it 'chilled speech'. The Chicks didn't stop commenting on Bush, they didn't apologize for what they said, nor should they have had to as that is what they believed.

Here we are today with the left laughing about mediamatters getting Coulter booted off of NBC.... how is that ANY friggin different?

 

[Cancel3]

"The boycott of the chicks was designed to let them know that their words had consequences. That IF the chicks pissed some people off, those people who were pissed would no longer support the Chicks financially by buying their albums, going to concerts etc... "

Think about that. Your words, a.k.a. your opinions, have consequences. If you express them, it will hurt you.

Go America!

When businesses started saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", it was mainly to avoid offending customers who may not be christian.

They didn't make that change because they were actually concerned about offending customers. There made the change to keep from LOSING customers. It is the way of business.

What the Dixie Chicks sell is their music. But they also sell their image. And if they want to avoid offending their customers (fans) they should be aware of who their fans are and cater to them. They basically work for the music buying public.

Both of those scenarios are the same issue. Its funny that the more conservative people understand the boycott of the Dixie Chicks, but are shocked that stores could say "Happy Holidays". And the more liberal people understand why the stores use "Happy Holidays" but are amazed at the boycott of the Dixie Chicks.