Laura Ingraham's Stalinism

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

If sponsors directly sponsor her show, then there is a connection between their products and her show.

Correct, but not the opinions she gives on her show. Because drinking coca-cola has nothing to do with conservatism.

This is not a YouTube arrangement where an ad may come up on a video in an arbitrary fashion.

I think the sentiment around the early years of google ad-sense is just a good example of how advertisements should be approached, in this day and age.

There is nothing dangerous about people refusing to buy products from a company that takes a political position they disagree with.

These products aren't actually taking a political opinion, though. This is exactly my point. People have the 'perception' of them taking the political positions of someone by letting their ads run on that person's show.

[Science Fan]

But it does have something to do with her opinions. That's in fact why companies advertise with certain shows, they want their product associated with the image of the show. Under freedom, a company has the right to stop advertising with a show that it no longer feels is a good image for its product. Just like under the principles of freedom customers have the right to stop buying a product when a company supports a political position they dislike.

This is how freedom works. The fact a supposed "conservative public intellectual" is now taking the position that these acts, which are the hallmarks of freedom, should be considered Stalinism, just shows how far the right-wing has sunk. The GOP can no longer claim to be the party that supports free speech or free markets.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

It's called freedom.

'Freedom to complain' is a freedom people have as well. In fact, I was trying to articulate it before, but I just couldn't quite put my finger on what it was I was sensing so wrong, here; what you're saying is hypocritical. If people have the right to demand advertisers to drop any association with a person, why can't people demand those same advertisers remain in their association? Why do you find the former to be anti-free speech and anti-free market, but not the latter? I mean, I think they're both technically within freedom as long as no one brings forced regulation to the table.

[Science Fan]

Because calling people who exercise their freedom, "Stalinists" is an affront to freedom. That's why my position is not in any way hypocritical. It is hypocritical for Ingraham to claim that she supports freedom while calling those who exercise their freedom in a manner she does not like Stalinists. That's the hypocrisy.

I have no problem with her arguing why people should stick with her. I do, however, have a problem with her hypocrisy and her misleading statements about free-speech and free-markets.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

But it does have something to do with her opinions. That's in fact why companies advertise with certain shows, they want their product associated with the image of the show.

I've been telling you that I know that's the case in the sense of the companies that have to consider it, but it's the case only due to fear of public perception and not the reality of who a product like coke is more likely to be bought if advertised to. And it's a catch 22, the perception of association is only there because more and more companies are setting the precedent for that to be what's perceived.

As a product, it doesn't stand anywhere. Coke is a flippin' drink. It has, and always will have nothing to do with politics, or the opinions of a conservative commentator. Conservatives need to sip some fizzy, too.

Under freedom, a company has the right to stop advertising with a show that it no longer feels is a good image for its product.

They're not pulling out because they genuinely believe the image is relevant to the sale of their product though, the desire for them to pull out is there because of an association that's being artificially created by a group of people. And as I keep saying, that's a very bad precedent to set for the future, because it's just not correct. There are genuine connections to be made between an advertisement and its advertiser, but the connection should be related to a concern of profit and relevancy that isn't societal pressure. For example, a birth control ad being aired on a catholic television show isn't likely to appeal to many of the people watching.

Just like under the principles of freedom customers have the right to stop buying a product when a company supports a political position they dislike.

The reason why people stop funding companies that have made a political statement they disagree by refusing to buy their products, is because there definitely is a strong case to be made that the purchaser of that product is much more directly funding the interests that purchaser is against. He almost becomes responsible, in a way. The exact moral equivalence to this in this scenario is not to get other people to stop funding Laura Ingraham, but stop funding her yourself by choosing to just not watch her show.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Because calling people who exercise their freedom, "Stalinists" is an affront to freedom.

Well, she said their efforts were stalinist, in the quote that I've provided. But humorously enough, it's not an affront to freedom to criticize the way other people choose to use their freedom.

It is hypocritical for Ingraham to claim that she supports freedom while calling those who exercise their freedom in a manner she does not like Stalinists. That's the hypocrisy.

Pretty sure freedom still encompasses the ability to be able to call someone else's efforts against you 'Stalinist'. Maybe if that was an indication that meant she wanted to impede that freedom by force, but as far as I can interpret it, it's even an exaggeration.

[Science Fan]

Freedom does not preclude hypocrisy, which is what Ingraham has demonstrated. It's not Stalinism to use free-markets and free-speech to protest against her. In fact, all she did when it came to the kid was personally insult him. She couldn't even formulate a rational argument. Why anyone is following her is beyond me. She's an ignorant theocratic bigot, nothing more. And she has no clue what Stalinism even is. That right there should cause everyone to stop listening to her opinions, since even a third-grader knows more history than she does.

[henry quirk]

...who seems to have taken up residence in your head.

Admit it: you wanna love her up and give her Sci babies.

[Science Fan]

Following that "logic" of yours Henry, I can claim that you are obsessed with me.

[henry quirk]

[vegetariantaxidermy]

When you have a large and powerful lobby group with vast resources it's easy to see how the media can be 'persuaded' to cow tow to it, with threats of boycotts and withdrawn advertising. Newspapers have shut down for no less, hence the epidemic of forced and insincere 'apologies' we have to endure on a regular basis.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Freedom does not preclude hypocrisy, which is what Ingraham has demonstrated.

The problem is you're calling her hypocritical about freedom based on her own practice of freedom. Again, if she resorted to call for legislation, I could see your point, but she's not.

Freedom includes the ability to call out other people, even if it's for being against the spirit of freedom.

In fact, all she did when it came to the kid was personally insult him. She couldn't even formulate a rational argument. Why anyone is following her is beyond me. She's an ignorant theocratic bigot, nothing more.

I agree. Trust me, it pains me to have to defend someone from fox news, but I just agree with her on this specific issue.

[Science Fan]

She's not engaging in freedom though. When she states that people are being Stalinists, she's saying that they should not be exercising their freedom, since it harms her. She is the same person who had no problem with boycotts against Kathy Griffin after she made a joke about Trump. So, why is she objecting when she gets a dose of her own medicine? You are defending a person who is making an idiotic comment that is not even remotely true regarding people exercising their personal freedoms in protesting against her. And she doesn't even get it. She is being boycotted because she insulted a kid, as opposed to making a substantive argument, and then turns around and personally insults those who boycott her, as opposed to making a substantive argument. She's made a career out of engaging in immature name-calling, and now it's finally catching up with her.

[-1-]

A company should be trying to maximize their profits, not putting forth a bad precedent for the future where a product being advertised is indistinguishable from the person promoting it.

"The Medium is the Message." - Can't remember the name of the person who coined this maxim.

Did Maxim Gorki create any maxims? His father did, Gorki the Elder.

[-1-]

1. Freedom includes the ability to call out other people, even if it's for being against the spirit of freedom.

2. Why anyone is following her is beyond me.

1. Ah, the slippery-sloppery, thin ice of freedom of speech.

2. You never know why people do what they do. I used to go gaga over the lady governor of Alaska, the one that ran for presidency. Sara something or other, if I remember right. Tapin, or Lapin, or something. Boy, is my rote memory horrible. But I did it for the right reason: she was a babe. She was HOTTTT.