• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Activists call for Capital One to drop Alec Baldwin over homophobic tweets

I guess I can stand by my original post. It's clear from reading the article that her ratings were already down, with no particular relationship to the uproar caused by her alleged racism. The network was just cutting their losses by not renewing her contract, choosing to go with more popular cooking competitions and reality shows. Seems this network wants to attract more younger viewers who are indoctrinated, rabid consumers so as to get more advertising options and income. Perfectly reasonable business decision.

Soooo, I can stick to my basic concerns regarding free speech censorship in response to boycott threats from special interest groups, even though it appears Ms. Deen may not have been "canned" as a result of it.

Apparently in libertarian land free speech doesn't apply to my choices as a consumer.
 
Apparently in libertarian land free speech doesn't apply to my choices as a consumer.

Excuse me? I don't understand the comment. Free speech and "choice as a consumer?":confused:

As a "consumer" you can choose to buy a product (or watch a show), or not buy a product (refuse to watch a show). What has this got to do with "Libertarianism" or "free speech?"

I'm of the "George Carlin" variety of free speech advocate: if you don't like what you are hearing on the radio or seeing on TV, tune into another station or turn the thing off. If you don't like what you are hearing or seeing in some public place, feel free to move elsewhere. In any case where the activity is a clear disturbance of the peace, feel free to contact your local police. How does this limit your choices as a consumer?
 
Excuse me? I don't understand the comment. Free speech and "choice as a consumer?":confused:

As a "consumer" you can choose to buy a product (or watch a show), or not buy a product (refuse to watch a show). What has this got to do with "Libertarianism" or "free speech?"

I'm of the "George Carlin" variety of free speech advocate: if you don't like what you are hearing on the radio or seeing on TV, tune into another station or turn the thing off. If you don't like what you are hearing or seeing in some public place, feel free to move elsewhere. In any case where the activity is a clear disturbance of the peace, feel free to contact your local police. How does this limit your choices as a consumer?

But it's not ok for me to organize a boycott and pressure the organization to change?
 
But it's not ok for me to organize a boycott and pressure the organization to change?

Ahh, but thats not really a "consumer" choice, thats a freedom of expressin choice. Of course you can. My compaint is against a business, organization, or government agency that would respond to punish a person for freely expressing his opinions simply because your organize a protest. So maybe you do and you and your supporters stop using Capitol One cards. This could very well be balanced by an equal number of people who LIKE the individual you protest against and who would suddenly start using Capitol One cards. I just think it's silly to act merely because some group threatens you.

They can do whatever, but to me its just a slippery-slope allowing a popular view-of-the-moment to dictate long-term freedom of expression policies. This can easily backfire on the very people who push for the censorship of others, when similar tactics end up silencing them.
 
Doesn't really matter how much her book sales went up, because her publisher dumped her.

It matters in the previous conversation because the contention was made that she would be bad for business for those that dumped her. This contention is what was being refuted. I proved that she wasn't in fact "bad for business" since her book sales increased extensively after the scandal.
 
Ahh, but thats not really a "consumer" choice, thats a freedom of expressin choice. Of course you can. My compaint is against a business, organization, or government agency that would respond to punish a person for freely expressing his opinions simply because your organize a protest. So maybe you do and you and your supporters stop using Capitol One cards. This could very well be balanced by an equal number of people who LIKE the individual you protest against and who would suddenly start using Capitol One cards. I just think it's silly to act merely because some group threatens you.

They can do whatever, but to me its just a slippery-slope allowing a popular view-of-the-moment to dictate long-term freedom of expression policies. This can easily backfire on the very people who push for the censorship of others, when similar tactics end up silencing them.

Quite right. These people aren't just attacking the person for their point of view, they are attacking their livelihood and their right to make a living. That is not healthy in any society.

The late Rodney Dangerfield used to talk abut how tough his football team was by saying they didn't just sack the quarterback, they went to his home and sacked that too.

That's what these jerks are doing, and it's not a joke
 
How about we just stop ruining people over stupid comments they make?

Nah, I guess it's just too useful of a political tool.
 
Say no more...and why I consider the rest of your post irrelevant to the point I originally made in reply.

You were not "being fair" in your "to be fair" statement. You were expressing an opinion based upon your (now quite obvious) highly emotional world-view of racism in relation to the incident.

Fully entitled to do so though, no argument there. In MY opinion, theme parties can be as racist, sexist, or any other "ist" you can think of as part of free expression.

I, of course, am free not to attend.
Wait, your quarrel with my post is that I wrote "in my world" to indicate that my position was coming from my perspective? Who would've thought that your chief criticism of my opinion would be that it is an opinion? LOL! Would you have preferred that I pretend that opinion was a fact? LOL

Oh and thanks for letting me know that I should never debate with you again. Whenever a poster takes the time to write out a thoughtful argument and another poster takes 3 words out of that argument and dismisses everything because of some nonsensical criticism, that poster has demonstrated that they aren't interested in or worthy of serious debate as you have done here. Notice how you just abandoned your argument about films and theme parties once I pointed out that they receive similar criticism. Joke.
 
Last edited:
Your use of the phrase (something I’ve seen from time to time), is a naked appeal to our sense of fair play; for us to understand and agree with your position simply because it’s the "right thing to do."
No, I was using it to indicate that there was more to the story than what roguenuke was saying. That's actually what the phrase tends to be used for - expressing that their is more information to be considered. You seem confused.
 
How about we just stop ruining people over stupid comments they make?
Eh, she'll get a second chance - most people usually do. Mel Gibson made racist, misogynist and antisemitic comments on top of threatening his wife and he's already making a comeback. Regardless, I find arguments like yours to be quite interesting as the implication is that the desire of people to not have individuals who exhibit behavior they disapprove of be supported by businesses they patronize is illegitimate. It isn't.
 
Wait, your quarrel with my post is that I wrote "in my world" to indicate that my position was coming from my perspective? Who would've thought that your chief criticism of my opinion would be that it is an opinion? LOL! Would you have preferred that I pretend that opinion was a fact? LOL

Oh and thanks for letting me know that I should never debate with you again. Whenever a poster takes the time to write out a thoughtful argument and another poster takes 3 words out of that argument and dismisses everything because of some nonsensical criticism, that poster has demonstrated that they aren't interested in or worthy of serious debate as you have done here. Notice how you just abandoned your argument about films and theme parties once I pointed out that they receive similar criticism. Joke.

Actually, I took three words simply to alert you that I was responding to your post. I didn't think I needed to respond to everything you wrote about. I suppose I could have, but I didn't think your examples needed individual responses because my two-part reply (sorry, the forum system wasn't working properly) clearly indicated while you found the acts offensive in each example of free expression you selected, I did not. At least I think that was pretty clear in my replies.

That aside, whether you think someone is worthy of debate or not is your free choice, another example of free expression in action. More power to you. :peace
 
That aside, whether you think someone is worthy of debate or not is your free choice, another example of free expression in action.
All of your posts just amount to stating the obvious. First, you state that my opinion was my opinion. And now, you state that my opinion is an example of free expression. No ****. LOL
 
All of your posts just amount to stating the obvious. First, you state that my opinion was my opinion. And now, you state that my opinion is an example of free expression. No ****. LOL

Perhaps, one day, if you ever learn to take off your rose-colored glasses so you can read for comprehension, you'll discern more than your side of any position.

My position is that words or other non-violent expressions of bias, personal prejudice, or "ism" only carry the capacity to harm that we grant them, we are always free to tune them out and move on with our lives.
 
Eh, she'll get a second chance - most people usually do. Mel Gibson made racist, misogynist and antisemitic comments on top of threatening his wife and he's already making a comeback. Regardless, I find arguments like yours to be quite interesting as the implication is that the desire of people to not have individuals who exhibit behavior they disapprove of be supported by businesses they patronize is illegitimate. It isn't.

I find the implication that the utterance of one phrase at some point in one's life makes one illegible to participate in the economy.

Perhaps the expectation isn't so much that people support individuals they find reprehensible as much as they just get over their hypersensitivity.
 
I find the implication that the utterance of one phrase at some point in one's life makes one illegible to participate in the economy.
I find both the simplification and hyperbole that you've employed here as a failed criticism of my arguments to be a great illustration of how weak your position truly is. If you had a strong position, then you would not feel the need to reduce Deen's behavior to merely "the utterance of one phrase" while purposely ignoring all of the other things she has said and is accused of saying and doing. If you had a strong position, then you wouldn't describe a wealthy person being fired and losing endorsements with the laughably hyperbolic phrase "illegible to participate in the economy," particularly when that person owns her own restaurant (I'm assuming, by the way that you meant "ineligible".)

Perhaps the expectation isn't so much that people support individuals they find reprehensible as much as they just get over their hypersensitivity.
For someone who seems so apt to point out the obvious, it's surprising that you missed it in this case so I'll point it out for you. "Hypersensitivity" is subjective. What you perceive as hypersensitive may be perceived as just the right amount of sensitivity or even not enough sensitivity by others. For those people, your opinion on whether or not they are "hypersensitive" is irrelevant and holds no power for anyone but you and those who agree with the sentiment. Therefore, your "expectation" that people not behave in the way you want them to is irrational unless you intend to convince them to adopt your perspective.

I will also say, just as a personal observation, that I find the juxtaposition of how you dismiss concerns about Deen as "hypersensitive" while expressing your own concern about how others have treated her extremely funny (I'm smiling as I type this). It's amusing - and yet not all surprising - that you would dismiss the concerns people have about how middle to lower class black people are treated in their workplace as "hypersensitive", but that you would find the concerns that people have about an upper class white woman who is accused of creating a hostile environment for black workers as legitimate. It is - of course - the people who are tired of seeing racism in their society who are "hypersensitive". It could not, of course, be those who characterize a wealthy person merely losing endorsements as making her "illegible to participate in the economy" who are the hypersensitive ones. Oh, no. That could never be.

:lol:
 
Last edited:
Read more: Activists call for Capital One to drop Alec Baldwin over homophobic tweets | Fox News

so tell me liberals how is it that Paula Deen has her career decimated for something she said 30 years ago, but Baldwin gets a pass for saying something much worse. he just didn't use a homophobic slur he threatened violence against the gay reporter that is a hate crime at least it would be if a conservative did so. the hypocrisy never seams to end with the left

Why is Baldwin - a man who lives up to the Hollyweird status quo politics endorsing banks in the first place?
 
I find both the simplification and hyperbole that you've employed here as a failed criticism of my arguments to be a great illustration of how weak your position truly is.
Is that so?

Can you think of any phrases that would greatly impact one's life if spoken publicly, regardless of the context? I can think of a few.

If you had a strong position, then you would not feel the need to reduce Deen's behavior to merely "the utterance of one phrase" while purposely ignoring all of the other things she has said and is accused of saying and doing.

Well, I wasn't specifically taking about her case, in fact in my initial post I was responding to the OP's criticism of Alec Baldwin. Regardless, from the Paula Deen case I understand she was asked in court if she ever used the N word and she said she did, back when the word was socially acceptable. She's also being accused by a former employee of other things, but the validity of those claims have yet to be determined. So as far as I see, the only thing that is known in the case is that she uttered a phrase and that's enough to stir controversy.

If you had a strong position, then you wouldn't describe a wealthy person being fired and losing endorsements with the laughably hyperbolic phrase "illegible to participate in the economy," particularly when that person owns her own restaurant (I'm assuming, by the way that you meant "ineligible".)

Thanks for pointing out the typo.

When I say "ineligible to participate in the economy," I'm referring to the notion that no one should give them business, which I understand was your point. I apologize if I misunderstood you.


For someone who seems so apt to point out the obvious, it's surprising that you missed it in this case so I'll point it out for you. "Hypersensitivity" is subjective.

Yes, and I'm saying people need to adjust their perceptions. They care about long time ago comments too much and too often it stirs controversy.

Using some sense of subjectivity is just lazy arguing. I could respond to your long paragraphs with "well that's just subjective" too, but then there would be no more point in debating. I'm aware people's perceptions are different, there's no need to pull it out as though it changes anything.

What you perceive as hypersensitive may be perceived as just the right amount of sensitivity or even not enough sensitivity by others. For those people, your opinion on whether or not they are "hypersensitive" is irrelevant and holds no power for anyone but you and those who agree with the sentiment. Therefore, your "expectation" that people not behave in the way you want them to is irrational unless you intend to convince them to adopt your perspective.

I'd be happy to try to convince them of my position if I had even the smallest inkling that they would listen. I've concluded however, that people like being offended too much to consider the issue fairly.

I will also say, just as a personal observation, that I find the juxtaposition of how you dismiss concerns about Deen as "hypersensitive" while expressing your own concern about how others have treated her extremely funny (I'm smiling as I type this).
You have a weird sense of humor but okay.
It's amusing - and yet not all surprising - that you would dismiss the concerns people have about how middle to lower class black people are treated in their workplace as "hypersensitive", but that you would find the concerns that people have about an upper class white woman who is accused of creating a hostile environment for black workers as legitimate.
I'm addressing the known issues. You're jumping to conclusions and assuming that the hostile work environment occurred. The only evidence for this hostile work environment is disgruntled employee who could just be trying to cash out. Perhaps you should wait for the facts to come in before concluding that someone is an evil racist. I don't give a crap how much money they have; I don't know why you keep feeling the need to point it out.

It is - of course - the people who are tired of seeing racism in their society who are "hypersensitive". It could not, of course, be those who characterize a wealthy person merely losing endorsements as making her "illegible to participate in the economy" who are the hypersensitive ones. Oh, no. That could never be.

:lol:

Well, it's more the people who want to see racism everywhere they can. You're jumping to conclusions is an example of that.
 
Back
Top Bottom