July 30, 2007
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Boycotts and Ostracism
Roger L. Simon writes of MoveOn and DailyKos:
Whoa! Let’s put it simply: attacking sponsorship is at base a sneaky way of suppressing free speech and essentially anti-democratic and reactionary. Brave New Films? Brave New World is more like it. Gilliam’s company’s name echoing Huxley’s dystopia seems like some kind of unconscious admission of a creepy truth.
In my book they have a right to make their views known to sponsors in any legal way they wish (as long as they remain privately funded). But it is hysterically funny to see organizations of this ilk adopt the techniques of Jerry Falwell or the American Decency Association.
It's fair to say these techniques typically rebound on the boycotters.
One of the commenters makes a good point as well, although the phenomenon is hardly as restricted in practice as he suggests:
This relates to one of my hobby horses regarding the left side of the blogosphere: their overuse of ostracism as a politcal (sic) & social tool.Trying to cast a person (or company) out of polite society is a radical tactic, but it's not always wrong. The way the left uses this tactic, though, is troubling. They regularly use it, or threaten to use it, against people who disagree on purely political matters.
But if you try to cast out someone who disagrees on something like social security reform, for example, what social sanction is left for those who truly should be shunned by society, like neo-Nazi's and NAMBLA members? The left turns to ostracism so much that the tactic could loose its power. That would be a bad thing.
At the school parent gatherings Tigerhawk and I attend, his "W" bumper sticker has provoked screaming and name-calling from otherwise sedate suburbanites, and one of my neighbors became suddenly unfriendly when we enrolled our kids in the Charter School. Posted by Mindles H. Dreck at July 30, 2007 2:43 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links
Actually, I've recently replaced the "W" sticker with one that says "Peace had a chance." I eagerly await the first potluck supper of the new school year.
Lefties never actually want to discuss anything. It has all been decided (by them of course) and anyone or anything to the contrary must be silenced.
This of course is a time honored tactic started by the Bolsheviks.
"W" is one thing. I generally think less of those sporting "W" bumperstickers, but I also think less of drivers who have Democratic bumperstickers. What's the point?
"Peace had a chance", however, is utterly idiotic. You might as well stick "I'm a jackass" and/or "key this car" on your vehicle.
But if you try to cast out someone who disagrees on something like social security reform, for example, what social sanction is left for those who truly should be shunned by society, like neo-Nazi's and NAMBLA members? The left turns to ostracism so much that the tactic could loose its power. That would be a bad thing.Good point and I think it actually dovetails well off a comment in Jane’s last post regarding the left’s internal debate over rebranding themselves:
The most accurate description is accomplice to genocide. They celebrated Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, the various "liberation" movements in Africa, Allende, Chavez, the Shining Path, Fidel, Mugabe, Hamas, Hezbollah and the grand-daddy of them all. Molotov-Ribbentropp was the purest example of socialism/liberalism/progressivism. Their policies are killing millions in Africa thanks to their ignorance of science and their animistic fear of chemisty. They mean to do unspeakable evils here in pursuit of their better way. They deserve nothing more than the respect they gave to the millions they killed in vietnam.To those on my side who agree with Hey’s statement – if we’re really going to tar everyone on the Left who calls themselves a “liberal” or a “progressive” with the idiocy of a relatively few nutters who did cheer on the aforementioned Bad Guys, then it’s pretty much the same kind of over-reaching Dreck’s talking about. And like the over-reaching in threatening to boycott or ostracize anyone who doesn’t tow the left's party line, it winds of backfiring and becoming ineffective in the long run.
Just a thought.
Oh, I don't know...backfiring can be a good thing in context, and depending on who you are. One example would be like a smaller fire controlling a larger fire; maybe a handfull of Islamo-types firing a half dozen shoulder-mounted explosive devices at the capitol dome when a full Congress is in session, or at the WH when the CIC is going from chopper to house, or vice versa. In the case of the jihadis, the small 'backfire' squad would think it a good thing to get rid of a leader or two, squelching what they consider to be a war-Fire against them.
Still, the Progressive-Left is trying their darndest to ostracize or hit anybody they can, including the FNN advertisers. Overused? No doubt. Effective? Most of the time it's not. It worked in South Africa, and to a degree, the Gay groups against conservative TV/radio people, but it requires a 'head' to keep it focused and working.
The Left is pretty much all over the board these days, and focus is not their current strong point.
"Peace had a chance", however, is utterly idiotic. You might as well stick "I'm a jackass" and/or "key this car" on your vehicle.
Or, you can post the above comment in a forum, to similar effect.
My experience has been that this tendency to use ostracism closely parallels their management of left-oriented forums. They won't *ban* you, because that's sort of like enforcing a property right against you, or denying you your right to free speech. But they will, however, ignore you except to post vile personal attacks.
I read some liberal blogs, and I'm pretty sure they don't think they are employing the tactics of Jerry Falwell etc.
Why? Because they think Jerry Falwell & co. promote wholly illegal methods: http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/352982.html
I quote: "Liberals fantasize that some day they'll find a way to persuade all of their enemies. Conservatives fantasize that some day they'll find a way to murder all of their enemies."
I wonder whether it's even the same liberals or conservatives being talked about here...
Person, there are places that will 'ban' you. One lucianne.com I was a member. This is considered a conservative website by Lucianne Goldberg and her staff. However, I managed to get under their skin by simply stating my views.
As it turned out, during the illegal immigration run up, there were a number of us who were not happy with the President's actions. We were told, IN WRITING and on the blog, that this was a site that supports President Bush.
Because we did not agree with that, we continued stating our true opinions. After two warnings I said it seemed kind of fascist/dictatorial to do it that way. I and several others were banned.
It is her site, after all, but...
From what I have seen, blogs everywhere will ban you for really aggressive, nasty comments if you are stating them from the opposite side of the spectrum. If you do so from the "correct" side, it is ignored at best, and encouraged at worst.
I have been banned from a few left-leaning sites for just taking a contrary position, and I have always taken these positions civilly. Of the non-liberal sites I visit, I can't say that I have seen anyone banned for simple, polite disagreement, but maybe I have just missed it. It is certainly my perception that libertarian-leaning sites are far more tolerant of differing views, but the truth is that those offering differing views on such sites are significantly more civil than what you find in the rabid left and right blogosphere.
Key this? What's with the silencing and cowardly destruction of the property of those with whom you disagree?
It's a little too reminiscent of the origins of National Socialism for my tastes.
If that's progress, I want no part of it.
Thorley: From all of the liberals/whatevers I know and from their political leaders, support of Mugabe, Chavez, Fidel is VERY common. There are all those kids running around with Che shirts/posters. People who make their candidacies for President based on their assistance of genocide in Vietnam and Cambodia. Communist stormtroopers from West Germany made it as German Foreign Minister.
You may forgive and forget, but for me any assistance to genocide is unforgivable and a permanent stain on someone's character. Being a young progressive means that you HAVE to support one genocide as part of your rebellion. Supporting Greenpeace or any of the other campaigners against DDT use in Africa is just as morally culpable.
I illustrated the fact that the Left has always and continues to support genocide, but people are responsible only for their own actions. Ezra is only responsible for the genocides that he has personally assisted, and not for the crimes of Durranty, but the historical track record is interesting and informative. One must question severely anyone who would willingly associate themselves with such a movement of malevolent bloodthirsty criminals.
Comments are Closed.