It's funny because it's true. The people that are boycotting the Dixie Chicks are doing so because the Dixie Chicks utilized their right to freedom of speech. The boycotters have a right to boycott and the Chicks have a right to say whatever they want. But what the boycotters are taking a stand against is virtually the same thing they are fighting for, freedom to make your own decisions.
I can just see you singing along to the Dixie Chicks in your luxury sedan.... Maybe some air guitar and drums...
While I see your point, RM95, I would argue that boycotting against those who express opinions contrary to our own has a pretty long history in this country. Yes, the opinions that usually lead to boycotts are more often opinions which are widely considered to be "wrong" opinions, things such as racist attitudes and whatnot, and this is a case where there really is no "right" answer. And we have seen such boycotts before in our history.
No, they're saying because the Dixie Chicks offended them in some way with their free speech, I'm going to fight back with the powers I have in my arsenal - my freedom of speech, my ability to spend my paycheck however I want to, etc. I don't know how many of you would continue supporting financially someone withy whom you disagreed. If the person's opinion angered you enough, I'm sure you might well express those opinions by doing the same thing these people are doing.
Well, maybe we can realize that someone is more than just one opinion. I disagreed with Bruce Willis when he called Al Gore the devil and couldn't understand how any sane person would vote for him, but I still went to see <I>Tears of the Sun</I> and bought the <I>Die Hard</I> trilogy. Should my parents have stopped financially supporting me when they realized that I was much more liberal than they liked?
Of course, after seeing <I>Tears of the Sun</I>, I'm still contemplating burning said DVDs. What a horrible piece of crap movie.
Probably. It's a matter of degrees for everyone. Some people just can't look passed a particular event or opinion. They see that person or hear that song or whatever and all they think about is the opinion they disagree with. Others can look past that. I can watch Martin Sheen or Tim Robbins or whoever and not be bothered by the opinions they hold. Others can't. So they do what they do to express that.
You are right, To stand up for what we think is right is a freedom we are all entitled to. But, to me, what the DC's did and the boycotters are doing are practically the same, they are exercising their right to personal freedom.
Well, I would agree with that sentiment. And anyone who is boycotting the Dixie Chicks by saying the group shouldn't be allowed to say those things is being hypocritical, in my opinion. But if they're expressing their opinions (either through words or boycotts) to counter the opinions of the Dixie Chicks, then there's nothing particularly ironic to me about that.
Pretty much. Sick huh? Anyone who wants to be a public figure has to be insane. We humans are so fickle.
Hmmm, it was funny because it made me laugh. Anyways, I see a difference. We all give our opinions here, we disagree and that's that. I can't hurt your pocket book, I can't get you fired. I seperate a celeb's opinion from the service of entertainment that they provide. I still watch Fox even though that means I'm lining Ruport Murdoch's pocket by the minute. Bruce Willis is still one of my favorite stars and IMHO, one of the coolest guys around even though he called Gore the Devil (similar to the chicks being ashamed of Bush). I think the word I'm looking for is condemnation. What she said isn't something that we consider a universal wrong, yet, she and her probably innocent (wrong word) bandmates have to pay for this. I don't know, I just think people are overreacting. This is one step away from book burning.
and ....... didn't you know all French books and art are going to be burnt next week!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To take it another way, though, what if Natalie came on stage in Texas and said she just wanted the crowd to know that she thinks the Mexicans should go back to Mexico? Within minutes, LULAC, et al would be calling for a boycott, and we wouldn't think twice about it. This stuff may seem different to us because politics is something that reasonable people often disagree on. You and I might not be willing to boycott over a political opinion (no matter how it's phrased), but wouldn't think twice about supporting a boycott over a larger issue (I'm assuming for you. I know I would join a boycott over something I strongly believed in). I mean, I think about the boycotts that we've seen over the years, and I could see several that I could support and several that I would not support. But I don't think the ones I wouldn't support are any less legitimate no matter what I think of the opinions expressed by the boycott. To me, it's still just a matter of degree.... or at least finding the issues or opinions that set you off.
I think that the blacklash towards the chicks is because of the rather personal nature that the attack came. Fine, she can disagree....I voted for him and I disagree too, but no one deserves that kind of treatment, even Clinton.
