Ford boycott threat over gay ads

[Mikkel]

I think I posted some and they are very easy to find since it was a major news story, but why is it necessary are you claiming it didn't happen? If we discuss the war in Iraq do I need to post links to prove there is a war going on?

Well the war in iraq could be considered common knowledge, while a boycott on the Dr. Laura show is not. I'm having trouble finding information regarding an actual boycott. I can only find protests and denouncements, but I can't find any actual evidence that any sort of boycott took place. Let me know if you come up with anything and maybe shoot us a link or two.

 

[Stinger]

Teehee, look! It wasn't a boycott! Protesting and activism against Dr Laura and her show, sure, but nowhere did gay activist groups tell people not to purchase products advertised on her show, like these Christians are doing to Ford.

No it was a boycott, why are you argueing nonsense instead of addressing the core issue?

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]The war over Dr. Laura[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]A gay activist boycott of the conservative radio host backfires when the religious right jumps in.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/06/20/schlessinger/

[/FONT]Boycotts are now much easier to successfully initiate due to the Internet. Examples include the gay and lesbian boycott of advertisers of the "Dr. Laura" talk show, gun owners' similar boycott of advertisers of Rosie O'Donnell's talk show and (later) magazine, and gun owners' boycott of Smith & Wesson following that company's March 2000 settlement with the Clinton administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Of course the people who hate Dr. Laura have a right to say so, and to organize a boycott. At the same time, the tactic raises questions about who decides what can be seen and heard, and how we deal with offensive and controversial ideas.
http://www.ncac.org/cen_news/cn78views.html


[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [FONT=verdana,arial]Gay Magazine Warns Editor
of Psychology Today, "Remember What Happened to Dr. Laura"

[/FONT] November 29, 2002-- When A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality was published last month, the book's publisher, InterVarsity Press, placed an advertisement for the book in the popular magazine Psychology Today. Shortly after the ad appeared, a lesbian activist and psychotherapist named Betty Berzon contacted Psychology Today's editor Robert Epstein to express her outrage.
Berzon was incensed that the magazine would accept an advertisement for A Parent's Guide, a book which views homosexuality as a developmental condition rather than a core identity. Berzon claimed that Epstein's magazine should have refused to print the ad. She threatened to organize a boycott against the magazine, and then followed up by sending out a flurry of postings on gay and lesbian internet sites in order to gain support for an organized boycott.


http://www.narth.com/docs/warns.html

[/FONT]

And again I note the attempt to dodge the core issue with these silly semantical and specious arguements. And I would ask that you go and educate yourself on the matter as I don't have time to waste looking up things which are common knowledge, do your own homework.

 

[Stinger]

No, it is a VERY different thing.

No it's not they are almost idenitical.

If what Dr. Laura had said what she said about an individual, rather than a community in general,

Specious arguement.

she would be sued for slander. There is a BIG difference between a direct attack on a community and a difference of opinion or message.

Not in this case and since she was not targeting an individual a specious arguement.

You appear to lack the subtlety to grasp that difference,

You appear desperate to create a difference which is a moot point to the issue.

So be it, you have proven my position OK for Gays to protest, not OK for Christians.

The Gay publication was promoting its own lifestyle, while Dr. Laura was denouncing the lifestyle of others.

So what?

Find me a case where Gays protest a Christian publication or news outlet simply for promoting Christianity

They protested Dr. Laura for promoting Judeo/Christian beliefs.

You are trying to create differences which do not exist.

The Gay groups oppose the message of Dr. Laura so they can boycott and protest according to you.

The Christian groups oppose the message of the gay magazine they cannot boycott and protest according to you.

Dr. Laura and the gay magazine are both informational media.

A very striking double standard.

 

[Stinger]

Well the war in iraq could be considered common knowledge, while a boycott on the Dr. Laura show is not.

It was covered on the nightly news, the talk shows, the weekly news magazines, Jay Leno, Dave Letterman and on and on and on.

I'm having trouble finding information regarding an actual boycott. I can only find protests and denouncements, but I can't find any actual evidence that any sort of boycott took place.

The mere threat is enough, it worked [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]GEICO, SkyTel Communications, Xerox, Toys ‘R’ Us and P&G all yanked their advertisement.[/FONT]

Let me know if you come up with anything and maybe shoot us a link or two.

I have posted quite enough. If you can't discuss the core issue so be it although it is quite amusing how all of you are dancing on the head of a pin to avoid the core discussion.

 

[vergiss]

No it was a boycott, why are you argueing nonsense instead of addressing the core issue?

And again I note the attempt to dodge the core issue with these silly semantical and specious arguements. And I would ask that you go and educate yourself on the matter as I don't have time to waste looking up things which are common knowledge, do your own homework.

Why are you arguing nonsense? A boycott is when people refuse to buy a product. Show me where the gay groups encouraged people not to buy products advertised on Dr Laura's show... only you can't, can you?

If they're so silly, why can't you back up your claims? I've had a look, and come up with nothing to show it was a boycott. Back it up, or your argument will be nothing but a lie. A so-called "threat" is not a boycott, dear - all they did was write letters to the advertisers in protest.

 

[jallman]

The right to boycott is a right which both gays and Christians have. What instigates a boycott for each group seems to be very different. The religious right (I will not say Christians because the religious right tends to be very non Christian) will call for boycotts on the grounds that a company even acknowledges something that they disagree with. It seems that the RR has a tendency to think in terms of "give us our way or else". It just seems that giving the RR its way tends to be oppressive and insulting to other facets of our culture. Because of this attitude and the social bullying that is prepetrated by them, the RR tends to garner little sympathy or support from other groups. When the topic of the RR comes up in social relations, I believe the same "flinching" happens as when the ACLU is brought up: anyone, anytime, and for any reason can become a target. I am actually very proud of Ford for standing up to the bullying that this particular wing of the RR is trying to instigate.

The boycott of Dr. Laura was an entirely different creature. The homosexual community tends to only advance two core ideals. The first is that everyone should be left alone to live their lives according to their personal choice. The second is that they want equal rights (not special rights) and protections under the law. Dr. Laura has made a career from viciously campaigning against homosexuals and instigating misinformation, ill-intentions, and she has tried to lend a proffessional credibility to the homophobic rhetoric she asserts. The gay boycott of Dr. Laura was an act of social self defense.

Bottom line is this, stinger...when the religious right calls for a boycott, they tend to do so out of aggression against another group. The religious right often places themselves in the position of antagonist. Not too much sympathy or support at all when this happens. The gay boycott of Dr. Laura was faultless in that the gays were simply trying to stop an already threatening and spiteful woman from gaining a bigger following. You are comparing apples and oranges with the two.

 

[26 X World Champs]

The boycott of Dr. Laura was an entirely different creature. The homosexual community tends to only advance two core ideals. The first is that everyone should be left alone to live their lives according to their personal choice. The second is that they want equal rights (not special rights) and protections under the law. Dr. Laura has made a career from viciously campaigning against homosexuals and instigating misinformation, ill-intentions, and she has tried to lend a proffessional credibility to the homophobic rhetoric she asserts. The gay boycott of Dr. Laura was an act of social self defense.

Bottom line is this, stinger...when the religious right calls for a boycott, they tend to do so out of aggression against another group. The religious right often places themselves in the position of antagonist. Not too much sympathy or support at all when this happens. The gay boycott of Dr. Laura was faultless in that the gays were simply trying to stop an already threatening and spiteful woman from gaining a bigger following. You are comparing apples and oranges with the two.

Wow! Well done and spot on! You've articulated the differences beautifully and precisely. Good job!

 

[Stinger]

Why are you arguing nonsense? A boycott is when people refuse to buy a product. Show me where the gay groups encouraged people not to buy products advertised on Dr Laura's show... only you can't, can you?

If they're so silly, why can't you back up your claims? I've had a look, and come up with nothing to show it was a boycott. Back it up, or your argument will be nothing but a lie. A so-called "threat" is not a boycott, dear - all they did was write letters to the advertisers in protest.

I've already given you multiple sources and you failed to rebut any of them. If you are so uninformed as to the issue I have no more interest in what you have to say in the matter and do not have time to continually chase down articles for you to read when they are readily avialable. You choose to try and divert to this silly discussion rather than discuss the core issue, so be it.

 

[Stinger]

Bottom line is this, stinger...when the religious right calls for a boycott, they tend to do so out of aggression against another group. The religious right often places themselves in the position of antagonist. Not too much sympathy or support at all when this happens. The gay boycott of Dr. Laura was faultless in that the gays were simply trying to stop an already threatening and spiteful woman from gaining a bigger following. You are comparing apples and oranges with the two.

Your distinctions are without merit and ignore the core issue. I don't care what she said or what she believed, it has nothing to do with the core issue. The same can be said of both sides as far as the vilifying and spitefulness, but so what. The issue is whether both groups have an equal right to use the same politcal tactic. Do they?

 

[UtahBill]

Your distinctions are without merit and ignore the core issue. I don't care what she said or what she believed, it has nothing to do with the core issue. The same can be said of both sides as far as the vilifying and spitefulness, but so what. The issue is whether both groups have an equal right to use the same politcal tactic. Do they?

Sure they do, and they both deserve to suffer equal embarrassment if they get ignored, as the Religious Right often does. That is why they keep coming back, like a spoiled child who didn't get what he wanted with his first temper tantrum.

The RR is an outgrowth of the typical southern "Christian" practice of hating the sinner as well as the sin, which is how they perceive homosexuality. Funny that CHRIST never said anything about it, isn't it? What He DID say is routinely ignored by "Christians", in favor of whatever others have said that seem to justify their hatred inspired tactics. I was raised a Christian in the south, and am not saying that all southern Christians are bigots, but it is where most of them live. Must be all that home "skoolin".

Concerning equal rights, has anyone noticed that it is only the RR who publicly protests the beliefs and practices of others? If there is a group on the street carrying signs, it is most likely the RR fundies/evangelicals. This is their current means of displaying their ignorance and hatred, as the sheets with eyeholes method as fallen out of favor.

 

[Mikkel]

No it's not they are almost idenitical.

Specious arguement.

Not in this case and since she was not targeting an individual a specious arguement.

So be it, you have proven my position OK for Gays to protest, not OK for Christians.

You are trying to create differences which do not exist.

The Christian groups oppose the message of the gay magazine they cannot boycott and protest according to you.

A very striking double standard.

Jallman did a good job of addressing this issue, but I find it ironic that you are attacking me by saying that my argument is specious when the best retort you can come up with is: "No it's not they are almost idenitical" or "You are trying to create differences which do not exist". Simply because you cannot see a difference doesn't mean one doesn't exist. As I said earlier, simply insisting there is a double standard and that my argument is specious doesn't make it true.

As for "They protested Dr. Laura for promoting Judeo/Christian beliefs," you aren't answering the question. Regardless of her 'beliefs', Dr. Laura directly attacked the Gay community. Find me an instance of Gays protesting a Judeo/Christian publication or news outlet that doesn't attack, or better yet, mention homosexuality at all, and I will say you're right. If not, then you have no evidence that the scenarios are equivocal.

So quit spouting your rhetoric and give me some evidence!

 

[Stinger]

Jallman did a good job of addressing this issue, but I find it ironic that you are attacking me by saying that my argument is specious when the best retort you can come up with is: "No it's not they are almost idenitical" or "You are trying to create differences which do not exist". Simply because you cannot see a difference doesn't mean one doesn't exist. As I said earlier, simply insisting there is a double standard and that my argument is specious doesn't make it true.

Yes it does, the distinctions your side is so desperately trying to make are meaningless but very telling.

As for "They protested Dr. Laura for promoting Judeo/Christian beliefs," you aren't answering the question. Regardless of her 'beliefs', Dr. Laura directly attacked the Gay community. Find me an instance of Gays protesting a Judeo/Christian publication or news outlet that doesn't attack, or better yet, mention homosexuality at all, and I will say you're right. If not, then you have no evidence that the scenarios are equivocal.

ROFL and how many more self-serving stipulations are you going to place on it.

It's all very simple

The Gay groups opposed the message of the Dr. Laura show and told the adveritisers of their feelings and urged them not to sponsor the show.

The Chrisitans groups oppose the message of the gay magazine and the told the advertiser of their feelings and urged them not to sponsor the show.

In your view the former is proper and the latter is not and the only difference of merit is that one is Gay the other is Chrisitian.



So be it.

 

[Mikkel]

Yes it does, the distinctions your side is so desperately trying to make are meaningless but very telling.



ROFL and how many more self-serving stipulations are you going to place on it.

It's all very simple

The Gay groups opposed the message of the Dr. Laura show and told the adveritisers of their feelings and urged them not to sponsor the show.

The Chrisitans groups oppose the message of the gay magazine and the told the advertiser of their feelings and urged them not to sponsor the show.

In your view the former is proper and the latter is not and the only difference of merit is that one is Gay the other is Chrisitian.

So be it.

None of my stipulations were self serving. Perhaps you choose to ignore my stipulations because they don't serve your own argument. Your last several posts have been nothing but rhetoric with no evidence that your argument is founded. If what you say is true, then humor me and find an example of a Gay protest of Christian media that DOESN'T directly attack the Gay community. If you can't, I'm done debating this and you'll be left with your empty rhetoric and mindless babbling.

So be it, indeed.

 

[jallman]

Your distinctions are without merit and ignore the core issue. I don't care what she said or what she believed, it has nothing to do with the core issue. The same can be said of both sides as far as the vilifying and spitefulness, but so what. The issue is whether both groups have an equal right to use the same politcal tactic. Do they?

Without merit and ignore the core issue? You are kidding, right? The core issue really is what sparked the boycott for either side. For the gays, it was a woman who has made a career and a persona out of directly attacking a group of people. Dr. Laura instigated the boycott with her self-serving, vicious attacks and as I said before, the boycott was an act of social self defense.

The RR on the other hand, chose to manipulate a corporation on the grounds that they simply acknowledged a lifestyle that the RR doesnt agree with. The RR acted as an oppressor rather than a liberator. You may ignore the difference all you want, but the difference is still there.

 

[Mikkel]

Without merit and ignore the core issue? You are kidding, right? The core issue really is what sparked the boycott for either side. For the gays, it was a woman who has made a career and a persona out of directly attacking a group of people. Dr. Laura instigated the boycott with her self-serving, vicious attacks and as I said before, the boycott was an act of social self defense.

The RR on the other hand, chose to manipulate a corporation on the grounds that they simply acknowledged a lifestyle that the RR doesnt agree with. The RR acted as an oppressor rather than a liberator. You may ignore the difference all you want, but the difference is still there.

I agree with this completely. Aside from the fact that the two boycotts are on completely different grounds, the two cases are different because of the majority/minority issue as well. When Christians, being a majority, protest the freedom of speech and press of a minority, it is never percieved well as it is an exercise of majority tyranny over a minority. Gays are a minority, and are protesting discrimination against themselves. That generally plays well with the public. If gays were a majority and christians a minority, it would probably play out differently.

 

[vergiss]

I've already given you multiple sources and you failed to rebut any of them. If you are so uninformed as to the issue I have no more interest in what you have to say in the matter and do not have time to continually chase down articles for you to read when they are readily avialable. You choose to try and divert to this silly discussion rather than discuss the core issue, so be it.

What, are you smoking something? Not a single source you said mentioned gay activists telling people to stop buying a specific product. Why? Because the groups didn't.

Admit it, you're a liar making up stories so you can pretend there's actually an argument. You can't back up your claims, so just shut up. :roll: You're like a silly little child.

 

[libertarian_knight]

They're not even calling a boycott on a gay publication, they're calling a boycott on a company that advertised in a gay publication. *coughanalretentivecough*

Whoa, I just realized something because of what yu wrote.

The Christian groups are not boycotting the gay publications! they are boycotting an advertiser. Do you realize the significance? HOW do these christian groups KNOW who is advertising in FagRags? CHRISTIANS MUST BE BUYING THEM :rofl (or maybe they're just stealing them)

They buy the mag, boycott ford, then by the mag some more.

LMAO. The irony. Christians buying gay mags.. ahahaha

I betchya CAST (Chrsitains against Sodomy today) or AFA or whatever has had so many of it's member buy these mags to look at the ford adverts, that the mags wouldn't even need ford's money anymore... ahahah


Ass sex for Jesus anyone?

 

[mixedmedia]

I haven't read this entire thread so I don't want to jump in without knowing what all has been said. And from what I have read, jallman is rocking out....as always.:2wave:

I would just like to comment that, just as with the Disney corporation, I always love it when the religious right comes up against the religion of capitalism....and leaves all mussed up and empty-handed. Welcome to America suckers! :rofl

 

[hecovalot]

Your distinctions are without merit and ignore the core issue. I don't care what she said or what she believed, it has nothing to do with the core issue. The same can be said of both sides as far as the vilifying and spitefulness, but so what. The issue is whether both groups have an equal right to use the same politcal tactic. Do they?

So, stinger, let me get this right. According to you, defending yourself from the lacivious misinformation of another person is the same POLITICAL tactic as agressively intimidating someone because they happen to associate themselves with someone else you don't particualrly like. Is that what you're saying? Sorry, bud, I don't think so. Defense and attack are are two opposite verbs in my dictionary.

Religious groups in the US have a long history of trying to tell everybody else HOW they sould lead their lives according to their "traditions". When they don't get their way they claim that the government is horning in on their territory and their rights. Still, I have yet to see any legislation that dictates HOW a person is required to practice their religion. There's the hypocricy, man.

 

[Stinger]

So, stinger, let me get this right. ....................

Let me help you, according to me the Gay groups who opposed the message of Dr. Laura had a right to protest by urging sponsors to pull out yet according to some here the Christian groups who oppose the message of the Gay Magazine do not.

Don't need your attempt to interpret it otherwise.

 

[Stinger]

Without merit and ignore the core issue? You are kidding, right? The core issue really is what sparked the boycott for either side.

The core issue I am discussing is the right for both sides to protest and use the political process equally. I don't really care what each side's position is my question was and remains does each side have an equal right to voice their opinions to the sponsors or the particular media?

 

[Stinger]

I agree with this completely. Aside from the fact that the two boycotts are on completely different grounds, the two cases are different because of the majority/minority issue as well. When Christians, being a majority, protest the freedom of speech and press of a minority, it is never percieved well as it is an exercise of majority tyranny over a minority. Gays are a minority, and are protesting discrimination against themselves. That generally plays well with the public. If gays were a majority and christians a minority, it would probably play out differently.

ROFl so minorities have a right to protest and boycott to express thier opinions but not majority. Amazing the stretch your side will take.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Let me help you, according to me the Gay groups who opposed the message of Dr. Laura had a right to protest by urging sponsors to pull out yet according to some here the Christian groups who oppose the message of the Gay Magazine do not.

Don't need your attempt to interpret it otherwise.

WHy are christian groups buying Fag Mags?

 

[Stinger]

What, are you smoking something? Not a single source you said mentioned gay activists telling people to stop buying a specific product. Why? Because the groups didn't.

I've already post the cites concerning the boycotting of the sponsor's of Dr. Laura's show.

[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]The war over Dr. Laura[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]A gay activist boycott of the conservative radio host backfires when the religious right jumps in.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/06/20/schlessinger/

That's just one and it's Salon, NOT a conservative site.

[/FONT]

Admit it, you're a liar making up stories so you can pretend there's actually an argument. You can't back up your claims, so just shut up. :roll: You're like a silly little child.

And as far as you childish little personal attack................stick it where the sun don't shine. If you can't discuss this in a civil manner then don't.

But all the side issues and attempts to change the issue are specious. The point remains according to some here the Gay groups have a right to expresst their opinions but not the Christian groups.

 

[jallman]

The core issue I am discussing is the right for both sides to protest and use the political process equally. I don't really care what each side's position is my question was and remains does each side have an equal right to voice their opinions to the sponsors or the particular media?

While I am happy that you have a tenacious grasp on what you are discussing, it is safe to say that the conversation has turned to more poignant issues concerning the boycotts of each respective group. No one has any disagreement that both sides have the right to boycott at any given time. The right to boycott is not at issue here any longer...this discussion now centers on the instigation of the boycotts and whether one side or the other abuses elements of our society with said boycotts. I hold that the religious right is abusive and aggressive in their tactics while the gays simply defended themselves socially.