« If This Is True, Michael Vick Isn't the Only Person Looking For a New Career | Main | Blue Man Goop »

07/23/2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Instead of mocking these folks, shouldn't you be spending your time ensuring that FA makes the list?

Listen, I can't keep helping you, you're going to have to start figuring these things out for yourself if you ever expect this blog to amount to anything!

So Tom, I suppose you were against the boycott of South Africa, too? How about the people who boycotted Nike (etc.) when it was revealed that they employed child labor? Were you against them and their boycott, too?

Yep, nothin' wrong with giving your money to organizations whose actions you find objectionable.

I'm entirely in favor of refusing to do business with people or companies you find objectionable. What's interesting about this bunch is that they find so many things objectionable. You can't cut yourself off from the world, Squid. Or, more precisely, you can, but don't be surprised if the world finds you nutty.

Part of the assumption of freedom is that people will continue to live in an integrated society even though they don't agree on stuff. It is interesting to me that a segment of the right wants to remove itself from society in order to preserve its purity.

See previous entries on the Right Wing Christian "movement" to take over South Carolina so they won't have to rub elbows with sinners.

Right wingers aren't the only ones who separate themselves from those they find morally objectionable. Examples of Liberals attempting this include Dems refusing to debate on Fox News and pretty much the entire city of San Francisco.

Your definition of "freedom" as inclusive of an integrated society is very interesting--but utterly wrong. It's certainly not representative of what the founders wrote, nor even of, for example, Lincoln's thought (he was opposed to giving blacks equality with whites, and was also opposed to granting them citizenship).

I seem to remember one of the God-given rights enumerated in the First Amendment to be freedom of association. That means the freedom to choose not only who to deal with, but also who not to deal with. Unfortunately, various anti-discrimination judicial fiats emanating from the bench in the past several decades have severely (and unconstitutionally) limited this right.

So yes, I am all in favor of, for example, private clubs and businesses discriminating against--or in favor of--minorities, or any other group, of any persuasion. They are doing no more than exercising a First Amendment right. If that action leads to an unfavorable shift in public opinion towards said club or business, that's OK too. An all-(white/black/fill in the blank) club (or business) may find itself so unpopular that it has no members (or customers)--or it may find people clamoring to be members (or customers). So be it! Let the people decide--not the government.

Laws cannot change human nature, and one of the facts of human nature is that people naturally congregate with others who are similar to themselves. If South Carolinans want to make their state wholesome (however they choose to define it), well, there are 49 other states (and a couple of territories) to choose from. Frankly, we could do with more Andy Griffin and less Jerry Springer.

By deciding to divorce themselves from society -- by exercising their freedom of association -- people who adhere to BoycottLiberalism.com -- and I'm sure there aren't many -- are restricting their own freedom. Certainly, they have a right to do that. I, personally, won't miss them.

An key precondition of freedom is tolerance. You can associate with whoever you like; you just can't suppress people you don't like. That's my point, Squid. And if you don't like anyone or anything that isn't exactly like you, you're not going to have a particularly rich and variety-filled life.

For some people -- hermits, for example -- that's just fine. Maybe it's just fine for you. Me? I like a little variety, and enjoying that requires me to tolerate some things I don't necessarily approve of. Like White Zinfandel, just for example.

I agree with you to a point, Tom. Tolerance of our fellow citizens, in the form of granting them the same rights we expect to enjoy ourselves, is central to a functional, democratic society. (The absence, in all Islamic societies, of this willingness to allow others the enjoyment of their rights is why those societies can never be democracies as we understand the term.)

However, where do you draw the line on "tolerance"? That's something that liberalism cannot tell us, because it has defined its highest good as a process called "tolerance." If tolerance is the greatest good, then everything must be tolerated--an extreme and, ultimately, suicidal position.

A rejection of "tolerance" as the highest value means doing what liberals fear to do: make judgements on good and bad, positive and negative. It means abandoning relative morality (which has been, and continues to be, disastrous) and adopting another standard.

There must something greater than "tolerance," some basis for judging positive vs. negative, some higher good. Traditionally, this has been found in our religion. It's high time we found it there again.

As for "restricting" our own freedoms, I think I'll choose freedom from useless trivia about celebrities, gratuitous violence, and sex reduced to its basest and most vulgar form. I'll choose freedom from dull dialogue whose only spice is profanity. I'll choose freedom from news-as-entertainment and content-free fluff.

What to do, then? Well, few modern movies can hold a candle to classics from earlier years, and no modern stars have the class (or talent) of greats like Cary Grant, Fred Astaire, Jimmy Stewart, and a host of others. That goes double for popular music.

I don't agree with all of Boycott Liberalism's choices, but I think they're on the right track.

The comments to this entry are closed.