What's your thought about the Dixie Chicks comments?

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by GForce: i'm not a country music fan but i do like that one song "wide open spaces". today i will buy one of their Cd to show my support for freedom of speech AND of course the Dixie Chicks for still standing up and not bowing out. I also like the fact that their tour is almost sold out. yeah! Anyway, thanks everyone for your comments which is one of the reasons i posted this. everyone counts IMO whether we agree or disagree. [img]smile.gif[/img]

It's also popular knowledge that they aren't offering refunds either, so anyone who decided not to go to a concert due to the comments loses out completely, in most locations concert tickets go on sale well in advance of the concert, and so people have not been able to change their minds, I also have only heard 2 or 3 songs by them (including repeat playing of the same song) since a few days after the "comment". Personally I believe they have a right to say what they want, but i don't have to like it or patronize their music selection at the local music
shop.

[Thoran]

My thoughts about their comments... hmmm... well you asked. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I thought she had the right to comment about whatever she felt like commenting about... and I have the right to think she's an idiot.

I further think while they have excellent voices, their songs are derivitive garbage.

I'll go on to add that they're mysandrist bigots who promote hate between the genders with assenine songs like "Goodbye Earl".

I then add a comment about how I think they've shown contempt for their fans by assuming that wagging their equipment in front of a camera will make us all forget about the contempt they've shown for their fans (not bloody likely).

I'll wrap by saying that I especially like how one of them got on CNN last night and started CRYING... ooohhh... we're all such bad evil people for making the poor little woman cry. Maybe they felt that since the sex angle certainly wouldn't work for all of us... they'd have to pull out the "we're victims so feel sorry for us" angle. PUKE!

[Attalus]

Originally posted by antryg: In th early '70's "hippies" were arrested because they wore American flags on their clothing. The charge was inappropriate use of the flag (not to be used as decoration or for personal gain). Since they were against the war this was obviously the appropriate thing to do. Of course those who proudly supported Nixon and the war could wear the flag because they were being patriotic. Banks and other businesses proudly advertised using the flag as their selling point. This present situation seems to me to be exactly the same. If you are for the war you can say and do anything, twisting our freedoms to fit your own viewpoint. ie "They are entitled to express their opinion and I am free to punish them for expressing it in a monetary and emotional fashion." Now, admittedly our government isn't making threats or doing anything to affect this situation. Yet if radio stations won't play their songs (when they would previously) and people who "loved their music" are now on the boycott bandwagon, then how is this different than McCarthyism? Disagree if you want. I do. It wasn't a well expressed (as to issue) or articulated viewpoint. Many Presidents, Govenors, and government officials have made the same or worse towards other nations (ex. Chirac rebuking the nations who supported Bush and were applying for EUC membership). To threaten their livilhood and life is totally unacceptable and unAmerican in my opinion.

It isn't "McCarthyism" at all, which was the government chivvying the commies. This is the right of private citizens to be disgusted by their words and attitudes an exercize or right to not buy their records. Radio stations are private enterprises, too, and they can play or not play any music they like. Like it or not, Natalie Maines offended her core listeners, and now she has to pay the price. This is called "taking responsibility for your actions," a quaint concept in modern society. It is in the same realm as calling someone an SOB and getting punched in the nose for it.

[Iron_Ranger]

Do they have a right to say it? Yes

Should they have said it in London? No

Lets look at the facts, they were doing a concert infront of an audaince that about 80% or more did not support the war, so she is just trying to be more 'crowd friendly'. Non the less it was a stupid thing to do.

Also, that interview she did with, hmm, who was it? Diane Sawyer? I cant remember, any who, she said 'Am I sorry I question things and not blindly follow? No.'

WTF? Since when is saying that they are ashamed the commander in cheif is from Texas questioning?

I think they hurt their careers pretty badly. But at least they arent saying their freedom of speech is being violated for being critized.

On the subject of stupid things said by celebrates, did anyone here Madonna said 'We are too materilistic.' ?

[antryg]

Att, I'm sure you noted that I explicitly stated that private citizens were taking these actions and not the government.
My point is that I feel it is an abuse of our freedoms when we stifle any dissent. Ms. Maines did not offer support to Iraq or denigrate our troops in any way. She expressed a personal viewpoint in a very emotional way, which may not actually represent the other members of the group or even Maines if she had articulater her position in a better way. (It wouldn't be the first time that solidairty within a group took presedence.)
If I don't use your services as a doctor because you like paladins that is my personal choice. It doesn't give me the right to issue death threats. If I instigate a general boycott of that "paladin lover" then I think that is also an abuse of my freedoms.
It is against the law to boycott someone because of their religion, race, or sex but disagree (or in some cases) agree with the government and that is just "exercizing my rights." If you disagree with this political view then don't buy the cd's. It is the extra effort of organizing oppostition that I find offensive.

[Attalus]

I didn't say anything about death threats, which are illegal. I'm speaking of private citizens not buying and encouraging others to not buy the commercial products of a group one of whom they feel to have acted in a condescending and arrogant way. Why can leftist groups like LULAC organize boycotts on grapes and lettuce just because some growers were acting in a way that they did not like, and also hurting growers that had done nothing similar? It is a right protected by the First Amendment. That is all that we are doing. It is also your right to buy grapes and listen to the Dixie Chicks' screeching as often as you like.

[Timber Loftis]

I agree with Attalus on this issue - but not on the suckiness of the Chicks.

Doing something illegal is crossing the line, for whatever reason, and we have laws to protect the DixChix from death threats, etc. However, we must remain free to boycott someone based on political speech, else we have our own political speech freedom diminished.

The government is there to protect the minority view from being abused or attacked by the majority, but not to ensure its prominence. It really would, as Atty pointed out, come back to bite us in the ass if we disallowed boycotts against the Chix. Because the same rule would apply to keep me from telling you
DON'T BUY MONSANTO - THEY RAPE THE ECOSYSTEM AND HIJACK FOREIGN POLICY.

See.

This is a PR snafu, and they will likely bounce back. But, we should not protect them from the consequences they suffer for playing to a crowd in one place that offended their fans at home.

If I can boycott Fredie Prinze Jr. because I like or dislike his wife, or Proctor & Gamble because they animal test, or Madonna because she offends my Southern Baptist beliefs, then why do the Chix get special treatment?

[Thoran]

Originally posted by antryg: Att, I'm sure you noted that I explicitly stated that private citizens were taking these actions and not the government. My point is that I feel it is an abuse of our freedoms when we stifle any dissent. Ms. Maines did not offer support to Iraq or denigrate our troops in any way. She expressed a personal viewpoint in a very emotional way, which may not actually represent the other members of the group or even Maines if she had articulater her position in a better way. (It wouldn't be the first time that solidairty within a group took presedence.) If I don't use your services as a doctor because you like paladins that is my personal choice. It doesn't give me the right to issue death threats. If I instigate a general boycott of that "paladin lover" then I think that is also an abuse of my freedoms. It is against the law to boycott someone because of their religion, race, or sex but disagree (or in some cases) agree with the government and that is just "exercizing my rights." If you disagree with this political view then don't buy the cd's. It is the extra effort of organizing oppostition that I find offensive.

Antryg... don't you think you're trying to stifle our opinions by telling us that we can't object to her dissent?

If we all agreed with her there wouldn't have been a problem. SHE has a problem with the fact that we DON'T agree with her and are acting on that disagreement by telling HER about it.

If there wasn't support for an organized response... there wouldn't be one. How can the "little guy" be heard in this country if not by ORGANIZING. I find it FAR MORE offensive that a star with entertainment purchased visibility would use that as a podium for political rhetoric than the idea of a million citizens banding together to tell her she's wrong.

[Masklinn]

Bush, whether you voted for him or not, support him or not, IS YOUR PRESIDENT (to them) and should be RESPECTED, whether or not you agree with him.

Phew, I'm glad he is not MY president then. I'm not forced to respect him.

[Attalus]

Now, if I had posted that about Jaques Chirac, it would be considered flaming. Interesting double standard. I will confine myself to saying that I voted for GWB twice and hope to again.