Garrison Keillor of A Prairie Home Companion, a radio presenter I previously found delightful, is apparentlynotquite so delightful.
Damn it, I can still like the work the A Prairie Home Companion does as a show right?
Sure. I probably won't listen to him any more because the sound of his voice will instantly invoke the rememberance of his idiocy, but that is just a personal issue. If you can still enjoy it and don't mind supporting the show even though you don't like the guy, then why not? Everyone has their personal lines and just because yours don't line up with someone else's doesn't mean that you are necessarily correct, incorrect or that the idea of "correctness" even applies.
Yep, and PHC is pretty much scripted. It's not like he's going to go off on a rant about gay parents on the show.
Plus, it's not like he's promoting hate crimes. He may spout casual bigotry, but most of what I read was pretty much along the lines of "I disagree with your sense of entitlement and your complaints, and here is what I think is the best way for things to be." Most of his writing left me with a sense of "so what?" Even if everything he said was true, so what? It's just an opinion. It's not like he's throwing out false supposed "facts" that support an argument against gay marriage...he's just saying what his opinions are. So he's a bigot, and maybe a bit fucked up, but from what I read he's not actively inciting violence or legislation against the things he disagrees with. He's just bitching about them.
Also, Dan Savage got a little too excited about some of the things Keillor said and misconstrued them. It's kind of silly to yell at someone for applying stereotypes to all gay men when they in fact specifically say that their description is stereotypical. Generally when someone says "the stereotypical gay man," they are acknowledging that it is a stereotype and not applicable to all gay men. That said, I still agree with Savage's general "fuck you" sentiment. I disagree with Keillor's opinions on what is "the best," and I think it's completely fallacious to say that any one way is objectively the best way in every situation. Particularly when that "best way" hasn't exactly suited Keillor well himself, with his three marriages and CPOS non-consensual non-monogamy.
I remember Twisty saying that she hopes Garrison Keillor goes to special folksy hell, where he is incessantly fed lutefisk by old Lutheran church ladies.
How would that be a hell for him?
Plus, it's not like he's promoting hate crimes. He may spout casual bigotry, but most of what I read was pretty much along the lines of "I disagree with your sense of entitlement and your complaints, and here is what I think is the best way for things to be."
True. I don't see much to get worked up about here. How is what Keillor said that much different from Scrym's statements about how they cannot respect people who believe in God because their belief means that they are crazy?
Separate the art from the artist. Lots of artists are douchebags, but they make good stuff (see Walt Disney thread.)
I actively don't do that. I don't want to give money (in particular), time, and attention to people that I dislike. It is my right to do so. Walt Disney is dead, so I don't mind watching content he created because not a single dime goes to him directly. There are many musicians, actors, etc. whose work I like on its own merit, but I will not give a single cent to them. Case-in-point: Mel Gibson. There is plenty of good content made by people that I don't mind giving money to, so why not be choosy? I am not advocating this for anyone else (see my post above), but this is how I live my life and it is equally valid.
There are many musicians, actors, etc. whose work I like on its own merit, but I will not give a single cent to them. Case-in-point: Mel Gibson. There is plenty of good content made by people that I don't mind giving money to, so why not be choosy?
Because when you use such things as a basis for your choice of content, you severely limit yourself and you set yourself up for constantly marking artists and entertainers off your "approved" list. I believe that, if you dig deep enough, everyone has something in their closet that is likely to offend.
What artists do you like? I'm going out on a limb and saying a name at random . . . Johnny Mathis. I'll bet if you looked hard enough, you'd find some horrible thing Johnny Mathis either did or said that would make you stop liking him if you have such a strict limitation on your enjoyment of content. So why limit yourself in that way? I like Johnny Mathis. If I find out today that he made a little girl cry, that won't affect my liking of him one bit.
Take your Mel Gibson example. Sure, Mel is a lunatic. I would not want to meet him or have a drink with him. However, when I watch a Mel Gibson movie, I am not watching him, I am watching the character he is portraying. He portrays his characters well, so I am happy to give money to see him perform. What he does with that money is his business, as long as it doesn't actually hurt someone else and, considering that his share of my X dollars I've spent on his movies is most likely vanishingly small, I'll bet he couldn't hurt anyone with his share of my money, so it is not a worry to me whatsoever.
There's a difference between flagrantly flaunting your views (and impacting society) and having your own personal bigotries. Keillor writes his views in a public setting, and Mel Gibson used commercial film to get his own views out to the public. There's a difference between not wanting to support that public speech and digging into someone's personal thoughts that they haven't made public.
For all I know, Dar Williams might like to kick puppies. She might personally feel that kicking puppies is a great pastime, but she hasn't made it public or used her status to support the delivery of the message. Therefore I have no problem buying her music, regardless of any private preferences she might have that I disagree with.
I'm a big fan of voting with your dollar. It's a perfectly legitimate consumer practice to discriminate in buying products on a basis of what the seller publicly fronts. For instance, Wal-Mart has a pretty shitty track record when it comes to not offending me. Because of that, I prefer not to shop there if I can help it. I don't care what their CEO's opinions are; I care what their public policies and actions are.
There are many musicians, actors, etc. whose work I like on its own merit, but I will not give a single cent to them. Case-in-point: Mel Gibson. There is plenty of good content made by people that I don't mind giving money to, so why not be choosy?
Because when you use such things as a basis for your choice of content, you severely limit yourself and you set yourself up for constantly marking artists and entertainers off your "approved" list.
Like I said before, my biggest beef is paying for or supporting said content in a way that is monetarily beneficial to the offending creator, because I don't want to give the offending person any money (no matter how minimally they will personally benefit). If it is something that is really worth consuming, then I don't mind consuming it at no cost if I can get past looking or listening to someone I genuinely dislike or have no respect for. I usually can't. Keep in mind that there are a few and very specific issues that put creators on my shit list. There really is plenty of content created by people that do not offend me (or at least don't broadcast and advocate their offensive opinions in a public forum), so it really isn't putting any major dents in my media consumption. Also, Mel Gibson is, in my opinion, not a brilliant actor. He is watchable, but a lot of that is based on his charm - which has worn off for me. Being an open, active bigot has a tendency to wear away at one's charm. I feel the same way about PHC and Garrison Keillor. All it has going for it is quaint charm (it isn't that great of a show), so if that charm is damaged, there isn't much to recommend it or him (again, in my personal opinion).
Time is money, don't forget, so voting with your time is equivalent to voting with your dollar.
I don't pay for music. I find other ways to monetarily support the artists I like (t-shirts, concerts, etc). However, just because music is free doesn't mean I'll listen to absolutely any band. Thor's Hammer is a National Socialist black metal band. Despite the fact that their music would cost me no money and the lyrics are otherwise unintelligible, I will not spend any of my time listening to them because their views are repugnant. Spending any quantity of my time listening to them would give them more credence than not listening at all.
It is perfectly within one's right to stop supporting a given artist for any reason, so long as the reason can be argued. If you don't have a good reason, or your reasoning itself is shaky and unsupported, then of course it should be questioned.
It's one thing to dig, but when a given artist is putting themselves out there, their views are subject to scrutiny and people may approve or disapprove as a result. It's perfectly valid. We may question the extent of a given reaction, but to be honest, I found some of Keillor's stuff so repugnant that I'm not interested in supporting him in any context. Dan Savage did go a little overboard (which is to be expected - Dan Savage is known for being firey), but GK is still a big bag of dicks.
It is perfectly within one's right to stop supporting a given artist for any reason, so long as the reason can be argued. If you don't have a good reason, or your reasoning itself is shaky and unsupported, then of course it should be questioned.
A person has a right not to support a given artist for any reason - regardless of their ability to "argue" it or not.
A person has a right not to support a given artist for any reason - regardless of their ability to "argue" it or not.
Well, of course you can still not support the artist. If you can't argue it, your reason is less valid, I would say. I should clarify: you always have the right, but you may not always be "right" in your reasoning.
A person has a right not to support a given artist for any reason - regardless of their ability to "argue" it or not.
But do we have a right to view their media without paying them? Is it OK to pirate, say, a Roman Polanski movie, on these grounds?
Who said pirate? If it I am at someone's house listening to something or watching something that they paid for, then I am consuming it without paying for it and without pirating. I do pirate content, but not avoid paying someone I dislike. As I said before, I usually avoid the content all together.
I remember Twisty saying that she hopes Garrison Keillor goes to special folksy hell, where he is incessantly fed lutefisk by old Lutheran church ladies.
How would that be a hell for him?
I've never had lutefisk, but being fed by old Lutheran church ladies for an eternity wouldn't be so bad. From my experience they tend to be really delightful, quiet people who make a lot of casserole. The question remains; if an old lady believes that an invisible man is in the sky, can I in good conscience consume her casserole!?
Lutefisk and only lutefisk would be pretty hellish.
For us that may be true, but this was supposed to be a hell for Garrison Keillor. Based on what I know about him, I think he would like that sort of thing.
I was supposed to get my first paycheck today, but because RIT requires a real birth certificate (not a certificate of live birth or a copy), I need to wait until it comes in the mail. In January. RIT thinks I'm from Kenya.
EDIT: Also, gotdamn was Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow a shitty movie. Are there any good steampunk movies?
I was supposed to get my first paycheck today, but because RIT requires a real birth certificate (not a certificate of live birth or a copy), I need to wait until it comes in the mail. In January. RIT thinks I'm from Kenya.
EDIT: Also, gotdamn wasSky Captain and the World of Tomorrowa shitty movie. Are there any good steampunk movies?
You do not understand how much I wanted to like that movie.... Only good part was the camera running joke :-p
I'm trying to photograph some of my artwork as so that I can apply for an internship for this coming summer, but some of the artwork I was going to use has gotten rolled/folded up and I now need to try to straighten them out as much as possible.
Well I've just gotten back from my job interview @ Radioshack and...I was really nervous...like more nervous than I should have been. Then again it's my 3rd interview ever, so I guess I can't expect myself to be perfect. But nevertheless, despite how nervous I was, I answered well enough to where I could tell that the manager was somewhat impressed by me, my interest in technology, my previous work experience, as well as my extremely flexible work hours. The final thing he said was that he'd go through the interviews, and if I was one of the few chosen for the job I'd get a call after X-Mas.
I'd rate my interview a 7.5 out of 10. I really hope I do get to work there, well here's hoping I get "the call".
Regarding this post, I have sort of a confession to make. The truth is, I got my last job was through a work study program (which I consider cheating in a way as I didn't actually get the job myself) so I never really had a real interview before. I was too prideful to admit it was the first real interview I ever really had. So I guess you can add prideful, to the list of bad traits I seem to possess (along with boastful, braggart, and clueless) and exhibit. I did mean what I said about being really nervous. In fact there were some questions I couldn't answer because they were different than I expected and prepared for. At the moment, I'm actually quite melancholy and down about how badly I think I did. While it was true that there appeared to be some level of impression on the manager's face (reasons and all), but I got the feeling it was mitigated by my nervousness. I'll deal with it and I know that it'll take a few times till I get it right. I also know it happens to everyone, but I just needed some place to vent my frustrations out. Sorry if I've wasted any of you forumites' time with my emotional and pubescent rantings and attitude.
Just about any Merchant Ivory movie, if you can be satisfied with all steam and no punk.
There are the many The Time Machine movies, the best of which is probably Time After Time. If pure, straight fantasy suffices for the "punk" part, you might like Somewhere in Time.
Comments
Plus, it's not like he's promoting hate crimes. He may spout casual bigotry, but most of what I read was pretty much along the lines of "I disagree with your sense of entitlement and your complaints, and here is what I think is the best way for things to be." Most of his writing left me with a sense of "so what?" Even if everything he said was true, so what? It's just an opinion. It's not like he's throwing out false supposed "facts" that support an argument against gay marriage...he's just saying what his opinions are. So he's a bigot, and maybe a bit fucked up, but from what I read he's not actively inciting violence or legislation against the things he disagrees with. He's just bitching about them.
Also, Dan Savage got a little too excited about some of the things Keillor said and misconstrued them. It's kind of silly to yell at someone for applying stereotypes to all gay men when they in fact specifically say that their description is stereotypical. Generally when someone says "the stereotypical gay man," they are acknowledging that it is a stereotype and not applicable to all gay men. That said, I still agree with Savage's general "fuck you" sentiment. I disagree with Keillor's opinions on what is "the best," and I think it's completely fallacious to say that any one way is objectively the best way in every situation. Particularly when that "best way" hasn't exactly suited Keillor well himself, with his three marriages and CPOS non-consensual non-monogamy.
There are many musicians, actors, etc. whose work I like on its own merit, but I will not give a single cent to them. Case-in-point: Mel Gibson. There is plenty of good content made by people that I don't mind giving money to, so why not be choosy?
I am not advocating this for anyone else (see my post above), but this is how I live my life and it is equally valid.
What artists do you like? I'm going out on a limb and saying a name at random . . . Johnny Mathis. I'll bet if you looked hard enough, you'd find some horrible thing Johnny Mathis either did or said that would make you stop liking him if you have such a strict limitation on your enjoyment of content. So why limit yourself in that way? I like Johnny Mathis. If I find out today that he made a little girl cry, that won't affect my liking of him one bit.
Take your Mel Gibson example. Sure, Mel is a lunatic. I would not want to meet him or have a drink with him. However, when I watch a Mel Gibson movie, I am not watching him, I am watching the character he is portraying. He portrays his characters well, so I am happy to give money to see him perform. What he does with that money is his business, as long as it doesn't actually hurt someone else and, considering that his share of my X dollars I've spent on his movies is most likely vanishingly small, I'll bet he couldn't hurt anyone with his share of my money, so it is not a worry to me whatsoever.
For all I know, Dar Williams might like to kick puppies. She might personally feel that kicking puppies is a great pastime, but she hasn't made it public or used her status to support the delivery of the message. Therefore I have no problem buying her music, regardless of any private preferences she might have that I disagree with.
I'm a big fan of voting with your dollar. It's a perfectly legitimate consumer practice to discriminate in buying products on a basis of what the seller publicly fronts. For instance, Wal-Mart has a pretty shitty track record when it comes to not offending me. Because of that, I prefer not to shop there if I can help it. I don't care what their CEO's opinions are; I care what their public policies and actions are.
Also, Mel Gibson is, in my opinion, not a brilliant actor. He is watchable, but a lot of that is based on his charm - which has worn off for me. Being an open, active bigot has a tendency to wear away at one's charm. I feel the same way about PHC and Garrison Keillor. All it has going for it is quaint charm (it isn't that great of a show), so if that charm is damaged, there isn't much to recommend it or him (again, in my personal opinion).
EDIT: Nuri, I am in complete agreement.
I don't pay for music. I find other ways to monetarily support the artists I like (t-shirts, concerts, etc). However, just because music is free doesn't mean I'll listen to absolutely any band. Thor's Hammer is a National Socialist black metal band. Despite the fact that their music would cost me no money and the lyrics are otherwise unintelligible, I will not spend any of my time listening to them because their views are repugnant. Spending any quantity of my time listening to them would give them more credence than not listening at all.
It is perfectly within one's right to stop supporting a given artist for any reason, so long as the reason can be argued. If you don't have a good reason, or your reasoning itself is shaky and unsupported, then of course it should be questioned.
It's one thing to dig, but when a given artist is putting themselves out there, their views are subject to scrutiny and people may approve or disapprove as a result. It's perfectly valid. We may question the extent of a given reaction, but to be honest, I found some of Keillor's stuff so repugnant that I'm not interested in supporting him in any context. Dan Savage did go a little overboard (which is to be expected - Dan Savage is known for being firey), but GK is still a big bag of dicks.
EDIT: Also, gotdamn was Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow a shitty movie. Are there any good steampunk movies?
There are the many The Time Machine movies, the best of which is probably Time After Time. If pure, straight fantasy suffices for the "punk" part, you might like Somewhere in Time.
That is all.