Free market much?

I do. I find it hilarious that someone came up with the idea of using a strategy which follows with the conservative talking point/ideology about how the market is the end all be all of everything ever, and that the market can do no wrong to attack one of the right's most ridiculous figures. It would be like getting a black-rights host off the air by hosting sit-ins (though that would be racist).

And then there is the Defend Glenn group. A counter protest group that is alerting Gb fans to ban the advertisers that pulled out of Glenn's show. DefendGlenn.com | Fight the Lies and the Left-Wing Boycott of Glenn Beck

Unintended consequences.

Why is it hilarious? I think even Beck would support this measure, if someone asked him. Regardless of how anyone feels about a particular celebrity, isn't it better for "society" to censor that individual, rather than government (which seems to be the inverse to your intent above, although I may be misreading you)?

I think it is kind of hypocritical to judge Beck here and not the group pushing his advertisers to leave him, Color of Change. They seem to going for pr to promote their own subtle racism.

On the very first page they talk about being united to help ALL regardless of race, class, etc. And yet, when one goes and clicks about this is what they say,

Ummm excuse me, but that doesn't sound like they want to help ALL people, just a select category. Which is fine, but don't tell people you are trying to help everyone when you're not. It's called lying when you do.

Now, if you want to talk racism, to me any group whose purpose is to promote only a select people's agenda is prejudicial to begin with.

I ramble but in all honesty after reading Color of Change's website and seeing what they are about, I am more apt to boycott the companies that support them and bow down to their demands than I am to boycott those that see them for what they are.

It's the same as when the "Moral Majority" used to have boycotts of Hustler, Proctor and Gamble (their trademark sign was "devil worshiping"), and so on.

It's all about power, self promotion and getting your own agendas out and heard. It's one thing to do it in a positive fashion and if it is a good and true cause you don't have to go negative.

However, if what you promote is truly negative and you don't believe in it, you just want the power, then you go after those that speak against you or have big audiences, thus you get noticed and can gain power from those that you sell your bullshit to.

All this has nothing to do with Beck, it's all about power and promoting a true racist agenda from Color of Change.

How would you expect society to censor him?

By not listening to his radio show or watching his tv show

unless you're a Nielsen household, that's not a particularly effective way to boycott the show. letting the advertisers know you'll be boycotting THEM if they support the show has a far greater impact

Agreed

You think color of change is racist and don't like them? Great, feel free to boycott them.

How can anyone have a problem with a boycott of a company that sponsors something that the group or person doesn't agree with is beyond me.

NO!!! Please, we don't need another thread to be about nothing but race. Just let this one slide.

---------- Post added at 11:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 AM ----------

This isn't really a case of "we don't like him", though. Any like or dislike I have for Beck has nothing to do with me emailing Apple requesting that they choose to advertise with another show. This is about incredibly irresponsible behavior. This is about intentionally stirring up the extremists. This is about hate-speech. There's always going to be an audience for hate speech and rallying extremists, but that doesn't mean it should be tolerated. At a certain point, simply not tuning in isn't enough.

in other words, civilian thought police. we don't like that kind of free speech, so we'll make it as unpopular as possible.

"Free speech" is about the government not being able to prevent people from speaking their mind. It has nothing at all to do with the Beck situation. I'm not a member of the government, I'm a consumer contacting a corporation I am loyal to in order to explain that their support of a show like Beck's is making me question my brand loyalty. In what way am I limiting free speech? I'm not.

Anyway, regardless of how hardliners view it, there are limits on free speech. I've posted about this before, about defamation, about false accusation, and about directly putting people in danger. These are all reasoned limits on the right, and all three are routinely broken by Glenn Beck (and to a lesser degree other pundits). As a consumer, I have every right to judge his show as dangerous and act accordingly.

As I said above, I really don't see how anyone can be against boycotts as a tool. Should people be forced to buy from companies that sponsors things they disagree with?

seems to me that conservatives are squealing now that tactics they've no problem with promoting and using so long as they serve a conservative political purpose are being turned on one of their own. this after decades of red-baiting, attempting to squash or marginalize dissent from what was once the left. i find that funny.

so's the implicit assumption that the actual content of arguments presented as if they were coherent on a 24/7 "news" channel are of no consequence, that anything goes, and that what a consumer society really means is that not only do consumers have no power to question the range of commodities they can choose from (their "power" lay only in choosing another from within the range) but that consumers *should* have no power. unless of course they're organized by conservative groups and directed toward conservative-friendly ends.

1) Don't listen to him and let him know you will no longer listen to him (and why).
2) Boycott the businesses that advertise with him and let them know you are doing it.
3) Boycott the radio stations that play him and let them know you are doing it.

If you are in a majority, the free market will eliminate him as a voice.

Incidentally, what exactly is the "hate speech" that you've heard Beck say? Follow up would be a request for a youtube video of said "hate speech".

Um, that's what we're doing. In fact, that's exactly what we're doing.
We'll see.


There are a few more of these floating around, but I think these two videos demonstrate excellent examples.

I don't see how this is a gotcha moment. Companies decided (for whatever reason) they don't want to advertise with Beck. Individuals decided (for whatever reason) they don't want to do business with those companies. Freedom. In the end, things will change, either Beck will tone down; he'll become unprofitable to the network and be pulled from the air; the boycotting companies will lose business and change their advertising; or the boycotting people will pay too much for car insurance and go with Geico anyway. In any case, the government didn't have to lift a finger. Who cares how it turns out. At least, I know that it won't cost me a penny in taxes for this problem to resolve itself.

---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 PM ----------

Yes, I know that. You asked me how should "society" censor Beck. I answered you, and then you told me that's what they are doing. I'm confused.

As to those videos, I don't believe that is hate speech. You might disagree with it, but it's not hate speech. There are SCOTUS definitions of hate speech. I might be wrong, but technically, "hate speech" can't be hate speech if it is based on behavior or unprotected classes (race, color, religion, etc). Beck doesn't dislike Obama because Obama is black. He dislikes Obama because he believes Obama is all of those things in the video - none of which are protected classes. Believing someone else to be a racist doesn't make you a racist. Also, I believe hate speech has to be a call to (illegal) action against a protected class - which hasn't occurred either. Again, I may be wrong about the definition of hate speech, as I haven't looked it up in a decade.

Please don't take this as me defending Beck, I am defending the assertion that what Beck said was hate speech.

What Glenn Beck is doing is called "race baiting". It's a common attack tactic in politics, and it's generally considered to be hate speech. Though it's more subtle than burning a cross or punching a homosexual, it is racist.
Race baiting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So would most of the things that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson say be considered "race baiting"? While I do agree that they are champions against racism, imo they take it too far at times. Not trying to stick up for beck or speak out against sharpton by the way, just curious.

Most? I dunno, I don't really follow a lot of what they say to be honest. I can say that some of the things each of them has said could qualify as race baiting.

Edit: actually, I remember a specific case. Remember Tawana Brawley? Back in the late 80s, a 15-year old black girl named Tawana Brawley accused a group of white men of raping her, and then defecated on her as they yelled out racial slurs. Al Sharpton got involved in defending her/championing her story and he basically lost his mind. He started making Godwins left and right and he even accused a prosecutor of raping the girl, without evidence. It was a perfect storm of race baiting.

Still, what Glenn Beck is doing is really blatant race baiting. He wants white people to not like President Obama because of the incorrect perception that President Obama has a problem with white people. It's a classic method of racists to stir up racism. You can see similar race baiting when Michael Savage went after General Powell for supporting the Obama campaign last year.

would that be akin to MSNBC editing out the skin color of a certain Obama supporter/rifle bearer in Arizona, then discussing how right wing extremists hate a black president?

Please provide a link that shows MSNBC editing out the skin color of an Obama supporter/rifle bearer in Arizona.

I must have missed it. Every report or video I have seen clearly shows the man's race, in addition to showing several others carrying weapons.

Clear manipulation and racism by msnbc.

There were two individuals with AR-15 semi-automatic riffles at the Obama Health Care Town Hall. One of them was a black man that was being paid by a conservative radio talk show host, the other one was a white man in his late 50s that was no affiliated with anyone or anything that we're aware of. Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN all mentioned that there were two, one black man and one white man. Even the Daily Show caught that there were two of them.

I am still trying to understand how that video demonstrates racism or is in any way equivalent to Beck calling the President of the United States a racist.

IMO, raising the MSNBC video is the politics of diversion...an attempt to draw the attention away from Beck's odious and ignorant comment....much like pan's calling Color of Change a racist organization because it's goal is to strengthen the political voice of a minority group.

It's called a
http://musingsandmutterings.com/wp-c...d_herring2.gif

It's because they took the most openly armed person at the rally, and failed to show his skin color while producing an entire segment claiming that these people were racist who were bringing guns to the town hall meetings.

Also Will, where do you get the idea that his presence with the firearm was paid for?

Oops, that may not be 100% accurate (misread an article). Mea culpa.

It was a prank, though.

Neither of the MSNBC hosts called anyone a racist.

They discussed the fact that there is anger expressed at the town halls as well as racial overtones (with some of the signage that appears at every town hall).....combined with bringing weapons to a presidential appearance (and they did not say it was racist or illegal to carry a weapon) raised concern.

It's a prank in the sense that the 'don't tase me bro' guy's stunt was a prank. To do this type of thing you have to have media coverage to do things that are legal but otherwise frowned upon. You have to have this type of exposure to not spend the rest of your life in jail or in a torture chamber. The publicity is what exonerates you instead of what otherwise would make you a criminal for exercising your rights.

I think there's a lot more at stake in both instances to just belittle it as a prank.

It was 'planned'? REALLY?

How else could it of come about? You don't just openly carry a weapon to a protest casually.... You have to be prepared for the consequences...

Pranks are intended to make people look foolish. This was intended to make people against guns seem foolish. This was a prank.

I guess that's true in a sense as the word 'socialism' is now considered a racial slur and even the picture in my avatar has been labeled racist.

Huh?

Who in the media has suggested that refering to Obama "socialism" is a racial slur rather than characterizing it as intentional fear-mongering by those who toss it out there.

Much like your avatar...a silly display.

YouTube - MSNBC Host: Word "Socialist" Code For The "N-Word"

"socialist is becoming the new N'word"

He specifically said....the new N word for some angry birthers.

I would add that the reference was to the same ones with the ugly signs with racial overtones.

IMO, you are really stretching it to further deflect from the issue of Beck calling the President of the United States a racist.

So is it still ok to call the president a socialist, or am I a racist like Beck?

Sure its ok..but more defliection?

Beck did not call Obama a socialist in the incident in question. He called the President of the United States a racist. (i think he did refer to Obama first as a socialist, then as a fascist in earlier shows - for which there were no mass calls for companies to drop their ads).

IMO, calling Obama a socialist or a fascist demonstrates either an ignorant misconception of socialism and fascism or an intentional attempt at fear-mongering, but its your right. :thumbsup:

Just as it is the right of those who were offended by Beck's remark to call for companies to drop their advertising of his show.

Glenn Beck is intentionally race-baiting in order to stir up hatred for President Obama.

Did the right lose their collective shit back in 92 when Clinton came to office? I'm too young to remember.

How blinded you have become now that a liberal is in office.