This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
That's exactly what I said.
Here, let's break it down:
A) Limiting sale of product due to demand. (capitalism)
B) Limiting sale of product due to dissenting viewpoint. (fascism)
You tell me which category they fall in.
Also, a new article to see... a hilarious one by the way.
Post by
gamerunknown
B) Limiting sale of product due to dissenting viewpoint. (fascism)
Sure, if the state is involved (well, authoritarian would be more accurate). I'd also call is lynching if they actually committed physical acts against the product (without purchasing it), producer or distributor.
Post by
MyTie
So it isn't entirely fascism, since the group isn't utilizing the state (yet), but it is nothing like capitalism at all. The reasoning here is because this has nothing to do with Superman comics, and everything to do with dissenting opinions. I'm amazed by how quickly people excuse this kind of behavior when they agree with the aggressor's point of view. If some Christian were to boycott a business because they employed a homosexual person, I wouldn't explain it away as good capitalism. That's awful. That's selfish. I am a Christian, and I don't agree with homosexuality, but there are certain ways to treat people and society, and there are ways not to.
I wish that people would hold views complimentary of their own to the same standard they hold dissenting opinions to. The tend trends to go in sync with social views. 40 years ago, when homosexuality was frowned upon, it was the brave thing to do, to stand up against homosexuality. Now, when homosexuality is becoming more and more "mainstream", people more often call people who stand up for homosexuality "brave". Ironically, the opposite is true. It was brave 40 years ago to stand up for homosexuality, and it takes an increasing amount of bravery to stand up now and say "homosexuality is wrong". Back then, a person would have been socially eviscerated, and take it from me, the opposite is often true now.
But, again, homosexuality isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the double standard society places on views it agrees with. Ones it agrees with are "brave", "tolerant", and "trendy". Ones it disagrees with are "bigoted". What is the lemon juice in my cut about all this is that the views are often EXACTLY THE SAME VIEWS, but at one point brave, and another time bigoted.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think that the reason that it's treated differently is that most people don't think that the act of boycotting for personal beliefs is in and of itself right or wrong regardless of what you believe. It's a tool. If someone was using that tool to try and achieve an end you feel is morally admirable, then it's a right action. If they are using the tool to push something you consider immoral, it is ridiculous because the cause, in your eyes, is ridiculous.
If I had an ice cream truck, and I felt it would be a good thing to drive around an impoverished area and hand out free ice cream and other treats to kids who maybe couldn't afford them, and with them had a little note about how we need to all treat each other with kindness, most people would say that my intent was nice, and it was a nice thing I did. If I went around with that same truck, and handed out pornography to underage people because I disagreed with age of consent laws, then everyone would be disgusted that I thought that such a thing was appropriate, and would say I should be locked up.
In both cases, my tools and methods of getting my message across were the same. I wanted to deliver a specific message to a specific area, and I did. But in one case most people would agree that my message was helpful, and nice, and appropriate. On the other, it would be seen as harmful and inappropriate. And so in one case people would think I was right, and in the other they would argue that I was wrong. It's not because there is inherently anything right or wrong about handing out free stuff from a truck, but the end result of what you are handing out is what the judgement is based on.
I don't believe that the government should be able to dismantle peoples business for having unpopular opinions. That's fascism. I feel that part of the responsibility of people in a community, though, is to speak out against and refuse to associate with things that they feel are objectionable. That includes boycotting. People who believe that other people who boycott gay-owned establishments don't think that it's absurd because they should not make shopping decisions based on morality- they believe it is absurd because the opinion that they are trying to push seems to these people so immoral, that it offends them that this kind of immorality has a voice and a presence. And people who want to boycott a comic because of the comments of the lead writer have every right to do so. They have every right to use their individual and collective voices and choices to tell this person what they think of his morality. But if the message that they are sending seems to be just, then the boycott will be justified. If the message they send seems to me immoral, the the boycott seems immoral. It has nothing to do with the nature of boycotting, and everything to do with a movement towards something you consider immoral and wrong.
I once said that I found there to be no sense in the idea that someone was a hypocrite for being intolerant of intolerance, because if you dislike intolerance then you should stand your ground and not worry about verbal technicalities. In this instance, I think that again about the overall idea- should you have a voice against things you find immoral, and should you have the right to buy things from people who are not contributing negatively to society? I think you do. Is it hypocritical to say that to stand for things you consider moral, you should not stand against things you consider immoral on the chance someone else might think they ARE moral? Not a chance. It make no sense that in order to support things you think are moral, you should support other people when they support things that you find immoral because otherwise you're a hypocrite.
I think people have the RIGHT to speak against things they find immoral, and to shop where they want. If I think the things they are supporting are disgusting, I may think they are being horrible in the way they exercise that right, and may have something to say about how vehemently they are for something I think is terrible, but being mad about the things they support with that right doesn't mean that I don't think that they have it, or shouldn't have it. It just means that when they use a tool to support something I consider morally wrong, I will not be silent about whether what they support is wrong or not, because I have that right too.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
"People who have viewpoints which I consider immoral, should not be allowed to have a job."
Post by
Adamsm
Isn't that a loaded statement there MyTie?
Since they can have a job, be it working with the public or not, and i have every right to not interact with them because of their viewpoint. I don't care if their restaurant serves the best home cooked pizza in the world; if they were against basic human rights, I wouldn't step foot in there.
Post by
MyTie
Isn't that a loaded statement there MyTie?
Since they can have a job, be it working with the public or not, and i have every right to not interact with them because of their viewpoint. I don't care if their restaurant serves the best home cooked pizza in the world; if they were against basic human rights, I wouldn't step foot in there.
That's not a loaded statement at all, and I'm beginning to resent the strawman arguments being thrown around here. The guy wasn't handing out porno to kids. He didn't DO anything, other than voice his opinion.
I entirely reject the notion that a person should be forcibly removed from employment/home/society/family (whether that be through government or social pressure) simply for an OPINION, no matter how heinous that opinion is. If that person DOES nothing negative to society, other than saying what he feels (on his own time I'd like to add, not at work), it is an immoral thing to take up a moral cause in an immoral way.
For example, I believe that abortion is wrong. I believe, Adamsm, that the right to life is a
BASIC HUMAN RIGHT
. However, if someone were of the opinion that abortion were right, I wouldn't demand they get fired if they worked at a business I frequented. If they moonlighted as an abortion doctor, I would. There is a difference between action and opinion. People have a right to their opinions, no matter how extraneous. People do not have a right to action. And, again, it would be wrong of society to pressure someone out of their livelihood because of their opinion.
Post by
Adamsm
Yes people do have a right to their opinion...and like good adults, they should understand when they make comments, be they good or bad, that will be held against them and will impact how the public interacts with them in regards to those who are above the 'norm' and are in the celeb spectrum.
However, in regard to the article here: So he loses out on working for DC, that doesn't mean his livelihood is broken...the guy is a &*!@ing world famous author, not being able to write one storyline for Superman is not going to ruin anything for his life.
So yes; if someone wants to boycott him, and stop buying his books or reading his work, they have every right to do so. If something causes so much of a $%^& storm that it is easier to let the ^&*! storm causer go then try to placate the user base, so be it; that's the choice of the company.
To me MyTie, that's a freedom of choice people do have: I sure as hell wouldn't go to a doctor who did nothing but made racist/sexist comments the entire time I'm in his office, no matter how good he is when it comes to healing the sick.
Post by
MyTie
To me MyTie, that's a freedom of choice people do have: I sure as hell wouldn't go to a doctor who did nothing but made racist/sexist comments the entire time I'm in his office, no matter how good he is when it comes to healing the sick.
This is where you and I differ. If there were two brain surgeons available in my area, and my wife had a brain tumor that had to be operated on, or she would die, I would be more concerned about which brain surgeon was a more effective brain surgeon, not their political views. I'm always shocked when people say this stuff... "I'd put my doctor's political views ahead of my health". I mean... really? You really believe that? Seriously? That's so counter intuitive to what I consider to be common sense, that the viewpoint is literally incomprehensible.However, in regard to the article here: So he loses out on working for DC, that doesn't mean his livelihood is broken...the guy is a &*!@ing world famous author, not being able to write one storyline for Superman is not going to ruin anything for his life.
This is another thing that you do, quite often. You trivialize something that you don't/won't/can't defend morally. I've seen you do it... in quite a few arguments. Imagine if all the Christians in my town got together and rounded up the wiccians, tied them to railroad ties, and then sent them on the next train outa town. Then, you were to ask me what I thought about it, and I were to try to defend Christian's rights to their opinions. When that didn't work, I insisted that it was "no big deal", because the wiccians can just get jobs and houses, etc, in the next town over, so it isn't really "that big of a deal". Let me tell you what, this is a big deal. If people learn that they can pressure people out of jobs simply for their opinions, we will cease to be a free society, and instead be a place where the majority opinion supresses the minority, forcing dissidents into silence, hiding, or exile. This is, at it's heart, an issue not about a guy's job, much like running Wiccians out of town wouldn't be about a train ride. This is about personal freedom.
If you are such a good liberal, and liberals are all for personal liberty (
right?
), then act like it and stand up for this guys liberty. Don't trivialize his liberty, or justify the actions of his would be oppressors.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
"People who have viewpoints which I consider immoral, should not be allowed to have a job."
The thing here is that publishing words IS an action. This isn't a person who I went in and found out from their diary that they believed something horrible. He made a public statement, to get a public response, about something. He can't then complain that the public doesn't have the right to react.
I have zero obligation to buy a thing from his company, or any other, whether it be because I don't like the product or I don't like the employees. I have every right to take my money wherever I wish, and I don't owe him anything. I have the right to publicly say that the reason I won't patronize his business is because he made that statement. And if there are enough people like me, then the business can make a choice between losing our money or firing that person. I am allowed to put my money where I want, and they are allowed to protect their interests.
This person used publicity that he was afforded specifically because of his job to make statements that some people felt were immoral and hurtful. As a result, people won't support the business who gave him the clout to get that message as widely distributed as he did. They are making a statement that if your publicity is funded on their money, and you are going to use it to publish things that are damaging to society, then you forfeit their money. They have more of a right to decide where to spend it than he has to tell them where to spend it.
I think an immoral person is allowed to have a job, but that doesn't mean that I should have to supply the funding to pay him. And if he can't keep a job without the money from me and the people who he is being hateful towards, then he's done it to himself.
Post by
Adamsm
Let me tell you what, this is a big deal. If people learn that they can pressure people out of jobs simply for their opinions, we will cease to be a free society, and instead be a place where the majority opinion supresses the minority, forcing dissidents into silence, hiding, or exile.Uh huh...so how come it's now, and not when a politician, celebutard, actress, actor is pressured out of their jobs that you start to complain? Because really, the 'precedent' is already out there, so why should this author be held to different standards then any other famous person before him?
And hate to tell you MyTie, but the Majority Rule already runs rampant through out our society when it comes to what you should eat, wear, watch, listen to, believe in etc etc etc.
I think an immoral person is allowed to have a job, but that doesn't mean that I should have to supply the funding to pay him. And if he can't keep a job without the money from me and the people who he is being hateful towards, then he's done it to himself.
This many times this.
Post by
MyTie
I have zero obligation to buy a thing from his company, or any other, whether it be because I don't like the product or I don't like the employees. I have every right to take my money wherever I wish, and I don't owe him anything. I have the right to publicly say that the reason I won't patronize his business is because he made that statement.No one is arguing against your right to boycott or not buy a product. This is the same argument I countered, about, what was it, 2 pages ago? This is just a distracting tangent argumentI think an immoral person is allowed to have a job, but that doesn't mean that I should have to supply the funding to pay him. And if he can't keep a job without the money from me and the people who he is being hateful towards, then he's done it to himself.
Would it therefore be moral of me to not purchase from any business that employs homosexuals, wiccians, alcoholics, divorcees, liars, etc, or anyone that approves of these actions, and demand that company fire them, because they did/approve of something I PERSONALLY CONSIDER immoral? Is that a productive way for me to protest something I see as wrong?
Again, don't argue that that is my right. That's not the issue. People can spend their money any way they want. My argument is that it isn't moral to bend to social pressure to fire someone for their viewpoint, no matter how publicly known that person is. Your argument is that because someone is prominent, ostensibly they aren't allowed to have unpopular public opinions.
This is a tangled web of social justice constructs in this thread that I'm getting pretty tired of trying to sort out, and too many tangent arguments and straw men. I'm gonna go crochet a hat. I'm outa here.
Post by
Adamsm
Your argument is that because someone is prominent, ostensibly they aren't allowed to have unpopular public opinions.No they are allowed to have them...just as they are allowed to deal with the fall out from having those opinions.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@MyTie
I would consider it immoral to boycott on immoral grounds, and moral to boycott on moral grounds. The specific act boycotting has nothing to do with the morality of the situation- just the objective.
I believe that intolerance of homosexuals, divorcees, wiccans, etc is immoral, and so if you were to boycott in the name of that immorality I would consider you immoral. I think to do anything with the intent of promoting something immoral as being moral is immoral.
I believe that not wanting to deal with liars is morally correct, and I would consider you boycotting a business because someone was a liar to be moral. I believe that this would be an effective and suitable form of protest if you wanted to bring attention to this persons immoral behavior.
If by boycotting an alcoholic you mean someone who as a result of his alcoholism is drinking and driving, getting violent or rude, stealing, not paying debts, etc. then I would agree with that morally. If you would boycott someone based on drinking alone, with no actual extensions of that that affect other people, I might not agree with you, but I don't think that promoting the idea that drinking his harmful is specifically immoral, so I would have no specific issue one way or the other if you wanted to boycott based on that.
The bottom line is that I think that boycotting is a completely valid and effective way to stand up for your beliefs, and the only time I have an issue is when the end result of the boycotting is something that I consider an immoral end. I consider the act of boycotting to be neutral with regard to morality, until it is attached to either a moral or an immoral goal.
EDIT: Also immoral =/= unpopular. There are plenty of things that I consider immoral in which I am in the majority. There are certain things I consider immoral which would make my opinion unpopular. Lets not confuse immorality with unpopularity.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
Squishalot
Would it therefore be moral of me to not purchase from any business that employs homosexuals, wiccians, alcoholics, divorcees, liars, etc, or anyone that approves of these actions, and demand that company fire them, because they did/approve of something I PERSONALLY CONSIDER immoral? Is that a productive way for me to protest something I see as wrong?
To be fair, following Elhonna's argument, you would be morally entitled to do that, in line with your moral code, and many people would agree with you. It would, however, be considered immoral by those people who would disagree with the immorality of the actions of homosexuals, divorcees, liars, etc..
Post by
MyTie
@Elhonna-
I'll say this one last time.
Because homosexuality is immoral, doesn't mean it becomes moral to demand a homosexual not have a job. Exerting public pressure to get someone fired over their opinion, IS IMMORAL, regardless of their opinion. Is it your right to do that? Sure. Should you? If you believe that the majority rules and minority opinions should be silenced, then yes you should. Silence people who have dissenting opinions.
There is something immoral about that, at its core.
Post by
Squishalot
MyTie - who's demanding? I thought we're talking about boycotting.
Post by
Monday
MyTie - who's demanding? I thought we're talking about boycotting.
The news article. People are demanding that he be fired.
Post by
Adamsm
No kidding; while it trues some fans of DC have said they are going to boycott the comics till DC get's rid of Card and a gay rights activist group is talking to them, it doesn't mean DC is going to listen...or you know, Card is even going to be on a story line for Superman that deals with gays at all.
Seriously, this is just a case of media stirring things up to front their agenda's: Fox News is running with it because his views fall in line with theirs and so do that groups that are supporting him, and that gay right's group is after free publicity.
Of course, this line is priceless from the article:NOM President Brian Brown told Fox News he was simply stunned that gay rights activists are trying to destroy a man’s career.Yeah, because not writing one story line for DC is going to take away
all of the books he's already written
over the years.
Post by
MyTie
No kidding; while it trues some fans of DC have said they are going to boycott the comics till DC get's rid of Card and a gay rights activist group is talking to them, it doesn't mean DC is going to listen...or you know, Card is even going to be on a story line for Superman that deals with gays at all.
This is another thing that you do, quite often. You trivialize something that you don't/won't/can't defend morally. I've seen you do it... in quite a few arguments.... ....This is, at it's heart, an issue not about a guy's job... ...This is about personal freedom.
If you are such a good liberal, and liberals are all for personal liberty (
right?
), then act like it and stand up for this guys liberty. Don't trivialize his liberty, or justify the actions of his would be oppressors.
In this case you are trivializing the actions of the oppressors because "nothing will happen anyway". Imagine if they came out with a law that made it illegal for Wiccians to breath. Would it be ok for me to vote in favor of that law, with the justification that it wouldn't be enforced and therefore would have no net effect? Of course not. Why?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.