Linda Rondstadt fired for supporting Michael Moore! What about freedom of Speech?

[notyoueither]

And I'm continuing to bring up your own words to you.

Do you see them as stupid or something?

I'm trying to tell you what is wrong with the picture, but all you want to do is asert that Ms. R. is a plumber with rights!

Now, maybe Sikander will agree with you that plumbers should be free to spout off profanities while fixing the toilet, or Marx, or show tunes.

The point is, you are not 'free' to do as you please without consequences.

You may disagree with the people who are pissed off all you wish, but that will not change the fact that people get pissed off when their entertainment is interupted by a charged political topic.

[Kuciwalker]

I'll phrase it another way, and I'll use plumbing, since then you can't get caught up in the politics sillyness. According to Sikander, a singer shouldn't do anything but sing, as that's all they're experts on. But singers don't just sing "la la la," they express things in their songs--be it love, politics, or plumbing. So if she wrote a song about plumbing, presumably that would be okay, but if she talked about it, suddenly her message is meaningless. My question is, why? The only reason that would be is if one doesn't care about the expression in the songs at all, which would make me wonder why one would even bother to listen to them in the first place.

They sound nice.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And I'm continuing to bring up your own words to you.

Not very effectively, because it's only showing you're not grasping their meaning and are arguing something that I'm not arguing about. See above.

I'm trying to tell you what is wrong with the picture, but all you want to do is asert that Ms. R. is a plumber with rights!

You're not addressing the problem that I posed to Sikander at all, you're addressing some sort of imagined argument where I'm saying Rondstadt has a right to spout off on her political beliefs as she sees fit sans consequences from employers and audiences. I said no such thing.

Now, maybe Sikander will agree with you that plumbers should be free to spout off profanities while fixing the toilet, or Marx, or show tunes.

And where did I say the plumbers should be free to so on someone else's dime? I would say plumbers should be free to do so without people dismissing their opinions on the matter because they're not 'experts.' That's the heart of the matter--I despise the notion that if one isn't a politician, one's political views are somehow meaningless. That's precisely the problem in our system, I think.

The point is, you are not 'free' to do as you please without consequences.

And where did I say otherwise?

You may disagree with the people who are pissed off all you wish, but that will not change the fact that people get pissed off when their entertainment is interupted by a charged political topic.

And where did I say the people had no right to pissed off about the concert? You're particularly good at the strawmen tonight.

[notyoueither]

So if she wrote a song about plumbing, presumably that would be okay, but if she talked about it, suddenly her message is meaningless. My question is, why?

Did she write a song about Mr. Moore that the owner and half the audience just had to hear?

No. She has a very innocuous reputation based on a life time in music, and no doubt the owner himself was a fan. He was there, right? I am. I love Slap Shot and that song ( I think that was her). I can assure you that I would have been very pissed off if she said that at a concert I attended, let alone paid her to perform.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Not very effectively, because it's only showing you're not grasping their meaning and are arguing something that I'm not arguing about. See above.

Au contraire.

Your own words... right to, and such other truffles, are evidence enough as to your intent, no matter how you may disown them once hoisted upon them.

You wish to speak now of plumbers. I see. The sewers are your escape.

No problem. Swim, swim, be free!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Did she write a song about Mr. Moore that the owner and half the audience just had to hear?

No. She has a very innocuous reputation based on a life time in music, and no doubt the owner himself was a fan. He was there, right? I am. I love Slap Shot and that song ( I think that was her). I can assure you that I would have been very pissed off if she said that at a concert I attended, let alone paid her to perform.

*sigh* You're still not getting it, despite my best efforts. I'm off to bed, but I'll try once more. I can see the plumbing tack didn't work as I'd hope, because rather than addressing it, you've gone back to the argument in which you're the only participant, since that's not at all what I'm arguing about.

Strip away the concert, the audience, the owner, the booker, the Moore stuff, and hell, even Rondstadt. We'll strip it down to a some very generic general things: Singer, songs, speaking, plumbing.

Sikander's view (as far as I can tell):

Singer makes song: that's okay.
Singer makes song about plumbing: that's okay, presumably (since a song is in his realm of expertise, whatever the subject matter).
Singer speaks about plumbing: That's stupid, because he's not an 'expert' in plumbing.

I'm saying that I don't find the third proposition necessarily true at all, and I find little difference between one speaking about plumbing and one singing about plumbing. Now, if you don't like plumbing, then I imagine you won't like the song that well. But that's not the point, as I doubt one would say the singer was outstepping his bounds to write the song.

But suddenly if it's not a song, it's just the words, the singer becomes inexpert about plumbing and his meaning/expression or whatever on it worthless. Just doesn't follow, for me.

Note this has NOTHING to do the singer interjecting a surprise lecture on plumbing at his next gig, lest we start any more diversions that aren't relevant.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Your own words... right to, and such other truffles, are evidence enough as to your intent, no matter how you may disown them once hoisted upon them.

Oh please. You're really full of yourself now. The only time I used the term "right to" is this:

"I was addressing Sikander's objection to singer's expressing themselves through means other than song, as if they had no right to do anything other than sing."

And if you take that in the context of what Sikander said, the meaning is quite clear. You're just incapable of admitting that you were clueless as to what you were talking about and jumped in with a bunch of assumptions about what was being said instead of actually, you know, reading the points being made. So congratulations, you've wasted both of our time and precious typing power arguing about something that was never a bone of contention in the first place (as I said in my very first damned post).

[notyoueither]

Actually, I think he indicated Ms. R. would be an expert at singing, and knew crap about politics (in his opinion).

You seem to have blown that into a craptacular frenzy of rights for plumbers.

Congratulations.

[Tuberski]

You to are killing me, either stop fighting or get a room.



ACK!

[notyoueither]

That actually has been my intent for the last 5 or so posts. I'm sort of glad that Boris stayed up past beddie bye time.

:kiss smilie:

[Mr. President]

Linda Ronstadt, eh? Who'd have thought?

[Tuberski]

It's lik a bad "Who's on First?" routine.



ACK!

[notyoueither]

Somehow, I just know I've got something coming to me.

I don't know what it is, but I'm sure it is being hoped for right this instant.

[Ben Kenobi]

It'll affect your job performance in that it'll limit where you can go in the company.

Just like women have a glass ceiling?

Not my fault, it's theirs, and theirs alone.

You want to keep your employer's opinion of you objective, don't give them anything that can make a bias.

I'd rather have an employer who wants to have me work for them rather than someone who could care less. I'm not out for an 'objective' employer, just as I'm not an objective employee.

I work better for people when I care for them, and for their business rather than maintaining a shroud of objectivity.

nor just idly bringing up "I hate them gays" or "I don't like women makin' any choices!".

Oh shoot. I'll have to be on my best behaviour.

Actually, it would be your loss. Young people fresh out of university with an artsy degree are hardly a rare commodity, you can be replaced easily. Whereas, finding a good job for you is tough.

Arts grads who actually know a thing or two are rare.

And it's not a job after graduation I'm worried about. I already have had several offers.

I just need something in the interim so that I can finish up my school, and pay for the rest myself.

And my employer when I'm done wants me to work for her because of my credentials and my beliefs, so it's all good.

All in all, it'd be your loss.

Someone who shows up to work on time, works hard, gets stuff done, and doesn't show up drunk on the job, or hung over the next morning?

It's their loss, not mine.

It's hard enough finding qualified people without conducting a litmus test.

[Agathon]

Typical of the States. You all whine about free speech and the importance of allowing people to express their ideas to further public debate, and then try to strong arm or organize boycotts against people who say things you don't like. It's not a legal problem or a rights problem, it's a cultural problem with people who aren't prepared to pay the price of what they preach.

A society that values free speech doesn't get its knickers in a twist over what some has been country singer said.

At the SARS concert last year, some of the emcees came out with some typical Islamophobic crap that I can't stand. But did I think that people who disagreed should leave in a huff? No - that would be stupid.