Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Stone Mountain
I read your post a few times but I don't get your point. Is your point that boycotts really are effective? Is it that it doesn't matter if they are effective because they are right? I have no idea how what you posted relates to the point I made in post 72.

All right. To summarize your points. You said (1)most boycotts are completely counter-productive [Certainly I can say that not all boycotts are productive]. (2) The Last Temptation of Christ would have been a movie that none of us had heard of except for the religious groups that protested it...for the most part, the publicity that boycotts create almost always backfires on the protestors.

You made a near absolute statement: "that boycotts create almost always backfires on the protesters."

If that was the case, any criticism of any horrid play, movie, TV show, book, Web site or supposed piece of art would almost never be justified, because publishing crits would always draw attention in feeding the publicity hounds of these products.

My analogy to Sodom & Gomorrah is that God gave His reacting to blasphemous, unnatural lifestyles and general evil in those communities plenty of press by destroying it.[The Bible is the world's best-seller, so you couldn't give it more press than that!]. In other words, God placed the ultimate boycott upon Sodom & Gomorrah so that no one would do business with that city again!

Are you saying that boycott by God backfired on Him? There are things so provocative that to not react means that we become numb, desensitized, and calloused about evil. When that happens, we all become like spiritual lepers who not only fail to feel and be sensitive to touch and pain, etc, but we spread that disease to others.

God felt that putting certain cities up on a pedastal as a negative example of a way to live [which is, simply put, the partial definition of a boycott], outweighed the fallout of shining a light on dark activity (cause any time you shine a light on dark activity, you also get the attention of the curiosity mongers).

Bad publicity is always two-sided. The curiosity-mongers interested in the latest worldly "revelation" are magnetized to the latest controversy. BUT! Filmmakers of potentially controversial products AND their corporate funders take note as well. Let's face it, network TV would be filled with even more outrageous showings if the networks thought they could do so controversy-free, because corporate America is still skittish to some degree. Attention drawn by lightning rods is not simply an overwhelming negative thing.

98 posted on 10/12/2004 1:00:58 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]


To: Colofornian; Stone Mountain

Another small angle is that crap like "The Last Temptation of Christ" and other similar putrescence already had or have all kinds of raving, positive publicity. What are conservatives supposed to do, lie down and play dead?

Being wimpy, spineless, weakling Mr. Nice guy - or ostriches - has gotten us where we are today.

I guess the real point is whether we consider crap to be detrimental or a positive thing.


103 posted on 10/12/2004 1:08:57 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Marriage is the bedrock of human civilization. Destroy marriage, destroy human civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies ]

To: Colofornian
If that was the case, any criticism of any horrid play, movie, TV show, book, Web site or supposed piece of art would almost never be justified, because publishing crits would always draw attention in feeding the publicity hounds of these products.

I wasn't talking about normal criticism - rather, I was talking about the type of thing (like boycotts, or celebrities like Sean Penn speaking out) that create more publicity for the thing being boycotted than would otherwise have happened. Reviews will always be there, but a bunch of people out protesting something will be news. Michael Jackson got Eminem a bunch of publicity for his new video by threatening to sue him for it.

As for the rest of your post, I disagree that what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah was a boycott in any real sense of the word, and even if it was, isn't relevent to world we are living in now. Not that I'm saying the bible isn't relevent (people can make up their own minds on that) but that comparing a boycott of P&G to what God did to S&G isn't apt, at least to me. Even if the analogy was completely apt, one counter-example from the bible doesn't seem to be a strong refutation of the point I was making.
108 posted on 10/12/2004 1:12:10 PM PDT by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson