Quote:
|
For example: Say Pepsi began running a commercial in Afghanistan that featured bin Laden drinking a Pepsi, a message at the bottom of the screen proudly proclaiming "Pepsi: Gives you the burst of energy needed to kill thousands of Americans!". I believe that Pepsi would be boycotted by the majority of America. This is almost perfectly related to the Dixie Chicks situation: business makes statement pandering to a foreign crowd that a group of Americans don't agree with, that group votes with their dollar by organizing a boycott.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by james t kirk
1. It implies that the Dixie Chicks and Osama Bin Ladden are one in the same.
2. It implies that Dixie Chicks by voicing their concern to Bush's actions are somehow aiding terrorists.
3. It implies that the Dixie Chicks are akin to terrorists.
4. It is inflamitory, e.g. "a message at the bottom of the screen proudly proclaiming "Pepsi: Gives you the burst of energy needed to kill thousands of Americans!".
5. It is ludicrous to compare the two.
6. It evokes the tragedy of 911 in a way that meant to stir up emotions
7. Pepsi would never do such a thing.
8. The war on Iraq is quite different than the events of 911.
9. It is disrespectful to the victims of 911
For all of those reasons, and the very fact that it is idiotic, i maintain your comparison is absurd.
|
I'll respond point by point.
1. Perhaps you didn't understand, if you re-read the example I gave I compared the Dixie Chicks to Pepsi, not bin Laden.
2. Wrong. In my example, Pepsi wasn't aiding terrorists, although maybe I should have said that it was an actor portraying Osama bin Laden and not the actual guy. The point of the comparison wasn't the message itself, just the controversial nature of it.
3. Again, I compared the Dixie Chicks to Pepsi, not to bin Laden.
4. This is the controversial statement. Controversial statements tend to be inflammatory.
5. See #3.
6. Again, the point of the example wasn't the message, but the controversy a statement would stir in a certain group of Americans.
7. The "Say" at the very beginning of the example indicates that this is a hypothetical situation. I know that no corporation would put this type of message out there, because they know they would lose a lot of business, which was the point of the example.
8. Again, you're looking too specifically at the example. Examples are generally meant to be taken in a broader manner. Pepsi is a symbol of a corporation. Their message was a symbol of a controversial message.
9. Again, the specific message is not an important part of the example, and the fact that it refers to 9/11 in a roundabout way does not invalidate the entire example.
I'll put the example in simpler terms.
_corporation_ puts a message out in a foreign country that is meant to pander to that country. It is a message that the country they are advertising in would like, but a group of Americans do not like. That group of Americans begin a boycott of _corporation_.
You can insert either "the Dixie Chicks" or "Pepsi" in the _corporation_ slot and it works. The overall point is that if a business says something a portion of their consumers don't like, they can expect to lose business. And yes, the music industry is a business.
So again, I fail to see how it's an invalid example.