Sunday, December 22, 2013

Faith Drivers

Faith Driven Consumer is an "on-line community" (business) that steers the Faith Driven toward businesses that seem compatible with their beliefs.  There's nothing unique about it really, no different than the dating service for farmers,  or directories of gay-owned companies or of environmentally friendly enterprises. Hey, it's a free country - unless of course you ask the people who despise censorship, but still want to dictate to retail stores what language their signage can use (English, of course) or can't use (Spanish or course - it's still OK to call snails Escargot or Dolphin fish Mahi-Mahi.) It's OK When We Do It is as much the foundation for American politics and popular sentiment as it ever was.

I can't say that I reject the idea of putting pressure on private business concerns with regard to all kinds of things per se, but it's as close to being censorship to do so as is the firing of Phil Robertson because of some offensive comments.

I've had it emphatically pointed out to me that with certain exceptions, a business may hire or fire whom they please for any reason they please and this is certainly a right that's staunchly defended by conservatives.  Tell a business it has to hire minorities and we'll certainly hear about freedom to hire and fire as we please. Tell a business it has to send a paycheck to someone who damages the marketability of the product and hear the conservatives quack like ducks - and rightly so.

The FDC folks have put up a website where you're asked to sign a petition demanding that A&E reinstate Robertson, red neck and all.  It's a free country, what can I say?   If they have a right to petition the government they should have the right to petition a company even if  supporting one person's right to self expression while denying it to another would tickle a dead duck with the irony.

As I've said previously, I have certain misgivings about someone being punished for statements made outside of business premises and outside of business hours. I'm irritated, I'm worried when Wal-Mart fires someone for privately discussing a Union.  It worries me that someone has a right to fire me for calling George Bush a dangerous and dishonest delusional.  The whole concept of corporations holding us hostage in that way is irritating, if legal, but  free country means free country and I'm sure conservatives would agree and perhaps that's why the frenzy.  You have to draft them into your mission before they stop to think,


So lets talk, yet once again, about the Framing effect. Frame it in terms of  a man's right to free speech and do it before we remember that the protection is against the government, not against Wal-Mart. Make it about religion and do it before anyone suggests that a man's right to stop sending a paycheck to someone whose actions damage the marketability of his product, because if you frame it as a right to profit, to do business free of regulation?  Do I have to continue?

Such a contradiction might prompt cynicism in certain people. Some might even find it funny to see how an attempt to avoid one boycott has fostered another, that people who "stand with Phil" will start to watch a show they didn't watch before making the show more profitable for the network they're boycotting, that standing up for the right to do dumb things doesn't make sense when you're attacking someone else's right to do dumb things.  I say certain people because, although it may sound arrogant, most people react and are prompted to react the the frame long before they look at the picture and think -- and even then, they don't think all that well.  It's like the people who called me anti-American for criticizing W, yet call themselves "Patriots" for criticizing Obama.

So before we drive this vehicle, let's look under the hood and wouldn't you know - Faith Drivers really is driven by faith and not by truth or logic or even a consistent argument.  It's not a defense of freedom for all, at all but a defense of special rights for special believers.

 

20 comments:

  1. Left a great comment that got lost. Figures.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Blogger has been eating my comments too. Somebody should tell them about freedom of speech.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "As I've said previously, I have certain misgivings about someone being punished for statements made outside of business premises and outside of business hours. I'm irritated, I'm worried when Wal-Mart fires someone for privately discussing a Union."

    Dear Captain, you're mixing apples and oranges. They're both fruits but the similarity ends there. Robertson wasn't speaking as a private citizen expressing an opinion. The only reason that he was approached by GQ, the only reason he had such a widely distributed publication as his forum, is because he works for the A&E network. He is one of the public faces of the network. His position is in no way equivalent to that of an employee at some retail store or other business. He represents the image of A&E network and the agreed to do so when he entered into a contract with A&E to do the reality show, Duck Dynasty.

    A different analysis would apply to an employee whose job had nothing to do with the public image of a business. If you work at Wal-Mart in a sales or management position that has nothing to do with being perceived as the face of Wal-Mart then established law is pretty unified that your private political or personal views are not a basis for firing you. However, if you are in Wal-Mart's television commercials and decide to publicly spout your bigoted views demeaning some group in foul language, then the store can dump you as its spokesperson.

    This is nothing new nor is it radical. Besides, Robertson hasn't been fired. He's been suspended and I doubt his suspension will be permanent. His show makes money for A&E. They're slapping his hands to garner favor with the members of the public who find his views repugnant but they are well aware that he also has a following of folks who chant "Amen" to his every utterance. No doubt they are also using this time to explain to Robertson that he doesn't get to share his bigotry in a public forum available because of his fame for DD.

    And no, I don't think that you support or in any way condone Robertson's foul words. However, I do think that you are making invalid comparisons and that your worry about the potential impact of the free expression of ideas, no matter how abhorrent they may be, is unfounded. No new standards have been imposed. If Robertson had spouted his beliefs at church, or a friend's home or even the corner bar, I would be totally in accord that based on law and precedent, he had a right to argue that his first amendment rights were being violated. He still might lose the argument but at least there would be a valid issue. Robertson knows this. He followed up his homophobic diatribe and racist observations with an apology, no doubt after A&E had a talk with him about his employment contract.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Not having his contract in front of me, I can't know what it stipulated. I just support his right to be a piece of shit, not his immunity from consequences.

    Surely a Wal-Mart greeter either certainly represents the company or surely not depending on which side of the lawsuit you're on. But sad to say, the fellow on the loading dock is still quite likely to be fired for discussing unions at home in his easy chair and that miserable company has been caught spying on employees even off the job and off site and on their own time for that very purpose. A movie was made about it. They get away with it. I worry even if there's little similarity. History makes me worry.

    But yes, it's not the same, but even so, the law may be the law, but the ruling, the verdict has a lot to do with other factors. Public opinion is the goal here, anyway, not the legal outcome. It's a political ploy and I think they've already won this one. Soon, when they manage to pin it on Obama it will be all over but the Rapture.

    For purposes of manipulating public opinion and getting the battle lines drawn, sort of true is as good and maybe better than true. Invalid comparisons and complete nonsense can be best. The public is going to see this as an attack on their freedom and see it as the government curtailing free speech and trying to murder Jesus all over again.. Just frame it in terms of an employers rights and watch them choke I'm having fun with that one, because that's conservative gospel. Just ask them if he should have been suspended for quoting Marx or supporting Affirmative Action -- or being a Muslim and watch them shuffle and twitch like they have to pee, because it sure as hell isn't about freedom of anything. As Salmon Rushdie said of fundamentalism: it's not about religion, it's about power.

    If he's reinstated, the Evangelicals and the Foxrabble will say they won. If he's not or if he just walks away, they'll say he was forced out for his religious views and "we don't have any freedom any more" and they win. Heads they win, tails we lose. They're already winning with the first amendment distortion because you know it's all about the framing and the conversation will stay in the grooves they put it in.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 which Duck for Brains thought he was quoting as though he knew Greek, remains the alpha and omega when it comes to God's opinion amongst Evangelicals who constitute about a quarter of all American Christians -- and don't you dare question the translation or context or that the author had nothing whatever to do with Jesus -- you heretic, you liberal. Oh yes, we love and forgive them, the miserable, corrupt bastards that God hates.

    Of course if there really is a threat to our freedom it comes from these God babbling, snake handling, holy ghost howling barbarians and the ignorance they rode in on. That's precisely the reason they need scapegoats and diversions. That's just what this is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Captain,
      Frankly, I don’t give a damn about Phil Robertson or his defenders, and I no longer consider myself an acolyte of the Patrick Henry School of free speech.

      In Europe, for example, free speech stops at the door of Holocaust denial, and I am perfectly OK with putting on a lid on bigots and shit heads - considering the long and bloody history and trail of human suffering caused by shit heads.

      Under an earlier post, I commented:

      At least political correctness serves a justifiable purpose. We describe the framing effect of language and word-choice in shaping the attitudes and actions of speakers and listeners. In concept, the abuse and misuse of language contributes to negative stereotypes that can restrict the rights, opportunities, and freedoms of people [my bold]. One goal of political correctness is to render pejorative labels as socially unacceptable, thus encouraging us to view individuals on their merits as opposed to stereotypes.

      Are we comparing apples with apples, or bigots with shit heads? This is where I draw the line: When one group abuses and misuses free speech for the purpose of dehumanizing and oppressing another group.

      Which brings me back to my original comment on political correctness:

      After they [the rabid rabble] say something utterly repugnant and offensive, they invoke the PC term to neutralize any criticism of them. IOW, they invoke their right to act as jerks, but revoke our right to call them to task. You see, any criticism, any rebuttal is ohhh sooo PC.

      If homophobia, misogyny, racism, and anti-Semitism are forms of protected speech pursuant to the First Amendment, then political correctness is free speech too; and don’t forgot that
      !

      The rabid rabble has always been adept at playing the victim card, and I categorically reject the idea of “Heads they win, tails they win.” This controversy like so many others – abortion, contraception, healthcare, school prayer, and voter suppression, among others – is merely one more skirmish in the so-called culture wars. Yes, there is a war minus the shooting, and I have no intention of playing by their rules.

      Delete
    2. BTW, the reason why some of us eat snails, i.e. Escargot, is because we don't like fast food.

      Delete
    3. Perfectly said and ethically sound: "One goal of political correctness is to render pejorative labels as socially unacceptable, thus encouraging us to view individuals on their merits as opposed to stereotypes."

      Delete
    4. nobody can win a war against human nature. At most we can only keep it at bay, but we are always us. Tribalism is our nature and our only hope is to bring all into the tribe.

      Clinging to what we think ought to work, what we're told ought to work means failing to explore what has worked, or is working. We are defensive creatures at heart - the good, the bad and the dummy.

      Delete
  5. And by the way, I was doing some shopping today and the store had a whole rack of Duck Dynasty t-shirts. Get 'em while they're hot!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I support everybody's right to be a piece of shit, or not. I also support the right of private non government concerns to fire a piece of shit, or not.

    I'll be damned if I'll support the government should it ever try to stop me from saying whatever the "F" I wish. Screaming fire on a crowded theatre excepted.

    I would love to see Robertson's contract Captain. Therein may lay the substance to quell the tempest in a teapot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm just as touchy about being told what I can say or not, what I can or must believe in. Maybe a bit paranoid at times, maybe unreasonable, but at least I'm just as protective of other people's rights. It's in my own interest.

      Delete
  7. This is what Robertson said in 2010:

    "In a 2010 speech, he [Robertson] thundered that gays are “full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”

    Yes, he has the right to make an jackass of himself and show himself to be the rancid extremist that he is. And we have the right to shun the person who exhibits this sort of despicable attitude toward a minority.

    I don't care if he uses his religion as an excuse for his slander. Religion is the last refuge of a bigot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you read many of the prophets in historical context, you'll smell the bigotry. It's sad that there are places that give refuge to such smug idiocy and get tax breaks for being houses of worship.

      Delete
  8. It's true, escargot are faster than snails -- hey look at that S car go!

    "One goal of political correctness is to render pejorative labels as socially unacceptable, thus encouraging us to view individuals on their merits as opposed to stereotypes."

    Nictdestoweniger, as Nietzsche would have said because he didn't speak English -- nevertheless -- I do not share the American faith in bans, prohibitions and linguistic mandates. Sometimes they strengthen the opposition. Municipalities have come to call those round cast iron things "personnel access covers" yet it seems Ed Norton is still the typical sewer worker. Sic semper those noble goals.

    I'm not saying it's a mistake exactly, I'm not even saying things aren't improving somewhat, but there are many factors at work in a complex way. I recently was sitting next to some huge vehicle with chrome plated wheels like a Conestoga wagon and for a hundred yards all you could hear was"Cause I'm the ni**a, the ni**a - a ni**a, like how you figgya? " Blacked out windows so I don't know what the driver looked like, but makes you cringe, doesn't it? Is our milquetoast piety really changing the culture? I dunno. Take 2 PC's and call me in the morning, but I don't think this headache is going to go away soon.

    The only hope I have for mankind, or at least Homo Americanus to unite as a species is an invasion from Mars. I'm considering using my radio station to broadcast vile insults at the Red Planet in hopes of provoking said invasion. Hear that you sand eating worms?? Your mother was a grizwog!

    Seriously, is it only people who wouldn't use racial epithets anyway that will refrain just because it's socially unacceptable to people they hate? Isn't the urge toward unacceptibility the main reason for facial tattoos and piercings and giant spools in your ears and four ton boom box trucks?

    In my experience of people who have crossed over into the light when it comes to prejudice have done so following personal experience - that being the best teacher. I'm thinking of people who served in the military on an integrated battlefield as one small instance out of many integrating experiences. We won't stop prejudice without more complete integration, culturally, economically, educationally. As one reformed person told me, prejudice doesn't survive a one on one relationship.

    You can tell someone not to use bad words and it can become an act of typical American defiance to use them. It's another thing to think of calling someone you respect and care about that name. Is there a better way to foster acceptance and respect than demanding that you can't say Asiatic or Oriental but only a word that went out of use in the 16th century? Words are only words and you sure as hell can say "African American' with as big a sneer as a less well intentioned word. I hear it all the time. I'd like to make people not want to listen to that rap song from the big truck because it's childish and embarrassing. The way to do that is to arrive at a place that when we hear a nasty comment, we think of the guy next door, that girl at the office, that friend and we get angry on their behalf.

    Can we change people at all? Damned if I know. We have a better chance with children and looking at 20 somethings we don't, I think see the same degree of prejudice. In fact we see white kids wishing they weren't some times. I can understand that. Sometimes I wish I were a pair of giant claws.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well said, Capt. Fogg.

    Oh, and this?:

    "The only hope I have for mankind, or at least Homo Americanus to unite as a species is an invasion from Mars."

    Just a note to inform y'all that on December 24, homard américain will be uniting with our stomachs as we continue our family's tradition of preparing and eating The Feast of Seven Fishes. Why seven? I don't know. If I could I'd have everyone from The Swash Zone join us. And for years we've all said dear old Uncle Bernie IS from Mars. We, his nieces are, of course, from Venus.

    PS. Out of respect for our 8-armed friend, there will be no polpi on the table this year--even if it is true we could "eat him up" with affection.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hell, you can feed multitudes with that much fish, or so I hear. Why waste money on goose or turkey? Don't forget the loaves either and remember, this time of year you actually can walk on water too. But not in Florida, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Same as my deleted comment but without so many typos!

    This America isn't perfect but it is a far cry from the America into which I was born. Change is incremental and I'd certainly like to see it move faster, but I can't agree that drawing attention to bigotry and loudly decrying it doesn't make much of a difference. Some people today use derogatory language and racial epithets but the difference is that the object of the slur can publicly call them on it, and they will suffer the repercussions for using it in civil society. Unlike in my youth when my father had to drop his head and answer with a respectful sir when any white man addressed him as "boy."

    The core of the Civil Rights movement was about societal change and not just legal change. Comparatively, the legal change was a piece of cake. But the societal change has occurred. My great nephew can realistically anticipate that there will be another black president in his lifetime. I never expected to see a single black president in mine. We have come a long way towards a more equitable and civil society when it comes to racial discrimination. Discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity must be held up to the same intense inspection that was given to racism. Anti-LGBT sentiments are today's racial hatred and there is no room for it. That's why Robertson's feet, and those who share his beliefs, must be held to the fire. We can change and we will continue to change and grow as long as those of us who recognize bigotry for the evil that it is reject it absolutely and unequivocally.

    We have to start some place. Dr. King summed it up as he lead the fight against race based discrimination:
    "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." --Martin Luther King, Jr.

    It's not only important; it's progress.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, King had a way of getting right to the point. That's why you concentrate on the sticks and stones before the insults.

    I remember those days. I was born in the 40's. One of my early memories was being at a West Virginia resort, the Greenbriar, with my family and hearing a young person call a man who must have been in his 50's "boy." Dad had a hard time explaining that one to me and seemed surprised I would ask, but I don't think many white people thought twice about these casual insults and certainly not in the deep south.

    Of course if it hadn't been an Insurance company convention, I doubt my family would have been allowed in either. So many such hotels and resorts were WASP only.

    It's not that I think we should let these things slide. Not at all, but it's all in the framing and we so often frame these issues in a way that allow the drama to play out with us as the aggressors and them as victims - as they still do with the Civil War and Reconstruction. Secessionists fired the first shot, but the North were the aggressors just like the liberals are today.

    Telling people "you can't say XYZ" is less effective than to say "you know my (brother, son, best friend) is an XYZ and you're insulting me by saying that." He can't get away with being a victim of Political Correctness if he sees he's just insulted your wife or mother. To me it's a game of "who's the asshole now?" I love winning that game.


    I've seen this played beautifully at a club dinner when a large drunken boor was silenced by a petite woman in her 60's when she quietly said " you know, my brother is gay." It's like you hear your inner Brazilian sports announcer saying "Gooooooooooal!"

    Putting it on a personal basis makes me the offended party. It shows them that they aren't in the presence of someone like them, that they're the alien, that they're alone, because so much bigotry is casual, unthinking habit and you know bigotry needs company.

    I still see more long term hope in education and raising public consciousness and if we see less of this ugly stuff from young people than old people perhaps it's evidence that it's happening. Most of them don't, I think, see it in terms of "you can't say that" but more in terms of perceiving bigotry as a bad smell, an ugly, ignorant and unclean habit.

    Merry Christmas - and there's a new year coming.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.