Re: Let me repeat myself..

[usenet%agate.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (USENET Administrator)]

Path: garnet.berkeley.edu!deadman
From: deadman@garnet.berkeley.edu (Ben Haller)
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Subject: Re: Let me repeat myself..
Date: 14 Nov 91 00:56:17 GMT
Organization: Stick Software
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <ki3idhINNlhg@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <m0khREw-000238C@chinet.chi.il.us>
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <m0khREw-000238C@chinet.chi.il.us> katefans@chinet.chi.il.us
   (Chris n Vickie) writes:
>a) I DIDN'T SAY that labels themselves were "censorship"
>     ^^^^^^
Well, I don't have the original post any more, but I think we
disagree on more than just this, so I'll skip it, that's not
really important compared to the difference of opinion we
still have.

>c) Labels ----CAN---->LEAD---->TO---->CENSORSHIP
>                      ^^^^
Sure, so can any human being making any choice about what they
want to see, hear, talk about, sell, produce, etc.  Choice is
a natural part of life.  I think there are other things that
are much more likely to lead to censorship than labelling.  Like
implicit faith in the government, Christianity and other noxious
religions, etc.  These are the things I worry about.  If somebody
wants to label records, I express my disapproval by not shopping
at stores that don't sell those labelled records.  But this is
no different than not shopping at supermarkets that don't carry
Canada Dry Ginger Ale, simply because I *like* Canada Dry Ginger
Ale, and want to be able to buy it.  I think censorship has nothing
to do with it.  They are conceptually completely different, despite
the misleading fact that the end results might appear similar.
  Stores generally do what is most profitable for them.  If they
think they're going to lose customers, get bad publicity, etc., by
selling labelled records, then they will stop selling them.  And
the simple, sad fact is that there is a small, vocal minority in this
country that is trying to affect the bottom line profits of stores
that sell labelled records.  This is *not* censorship, and has
*nothing* to do with censorship.  It is a consumer boycott, more or
less.  Nestle stopped the stuff they were doing in Africa after
consumers started writing letters and refusing to buy their product.
Was that something that "can lead to censorship"?  If so, does that
mean the boycott was wrong?  If not, why are records any different?
Just because they are art?  Why, logically, is that relevant?
  People should be allowed to buy what they want and sell what they
want.  Given this, I cannot condemn the PMRC or the stores that
refuse to sell labelled records for anything more than foggy thinking,
and even that is only my opinion.  I think trying to keep people
from doing what they want is a lot closer to censorship than what
the PMRC does.  I think Vickie is essentially espousing a view as
foggy as the PMRC's when she condemns them.  Sure, *I* don't like
them either, but I recognize a fact that Vickie doesn't seem to:
I don't have to deal with them if I don't want to, and I have no
right to expect them to change.
  I think that Vickie and I agree that the PMRC and such groups,
and the stores that don't sell labelled records, have moral codes
that we find repugnant.  I think our fundamental difference is,
Vickie seems to think that she should *do* something about it.
I think it's wonderful, and wouldn't change it for all the world.

>d) Personally, I think that many stores have, and will continue to,
>   use labels as an ---EXCUSE---- for censorship. ****IMHO****
Huh?  By "excuse" do you mean "substitute"?  If not, you must mean that
when a store decides not to sell labelled records, *that* is
censorship.  Which is what I was trying to address in my last post,
and what you seem to be trying to deny in the beginning of your
reply, above.  Is this or isn't this what you think, you're being
unclear or I'm being dense.

>Still, people who are worried about the future of liberty in this country
>would do well to at least keep an eye on, and speak out if they feel it's
>necessary, trends that **point to the possibility** of "real" censorship, or
>else we're all going to wake up one day wondering why no one said anything
>when there was a chance. 
Oh, certainly.  But I don't feel that labels, or stores refusing to sell
labelled records, has anything to do with censorship at all.  I fully
support their freedom of choice in all matters that don't use physical
force on another person's property.  I think Vickie's attitude is
hypocritial inasmuch as it is akin to the exact kind of pseudo-
censorship she is trying to speak out against.  She's saying "I have
an opinion, which is that other people's opinions are bad.  Since
my opinion is more right than theirs, I would like them to stop
exercising their right to self-determination and start acting
according to my opinion."  This is baldly ridiculous.  Vickie,
they are saying the exact same thing about you.  You aren't
changing your mind.  Why do you wish that they would change
their minds?  Personally, if nothing else I admire their determination
and their integrity in not compromising their beliefs.
  If you really want to prevent censorship from becoming a reality,
I recommend you:
  1. Join the ACLU
  2. Do everything you can to discredit Sen. Jesse Helms
  3. Realize that the NEA is *real* censorship that is happening
     today, and write to every political figure you can think of
     and tell them so.
  4. Don't vote ever again, or at least vote Libertarian
  5. Speak out against the "gag rule" *whether or not* you're pro-choice
  6. Vote your Senator or Rep. out if they voted for the flag-
     burning amendment (it only lost by 4 votes, isn't that more
     scary than the PMRC by a *long* shot?)
  7. Condemn the press black-out during the Gulf war and the
     disinformation fed the public by the governement every day
  8. Send your child to a private school if you can possibly afford it
  etc., etc., etc.
  and most of all, *support* the rights of the PMRC and record stores
to do whatever they damn well please, while exercising that same
right yourself at all times.
  Of course, most of these assume one believes in the morality (not
to mention the effectiveness) of working within the system (voting, etc.)
I, on the other hand, just sit back and laugh like hell.

-Ben Haller (deadman@garnet.berkeley.edu)
"I had to laugh like hell" - Kurt Vonnegut, _Hocus Pocus_