7 ms·

Incredibly well said. Reminds me of one of my favorite movie quotes, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, w

Incredibly well said. Reminds me of one of my favorite movie quotes, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." - The American President (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112346/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112346/)

smakz 17y ago
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. [might not be Voltaire]
- pg 17y ago
  IIRC it wasn't Voltaire who said this.
  - rms 17y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall She was a biographer of Voltaire and came up with the quote as an illustration of his beliefs.
    - gruseom 17y ago
      Nice catch.
- ctbarna 17y ago
  Voltaire never actually said that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations)
  - apotheon 17y ago
    On the other hand, it was a summation of Voltaire's perspective on freedom of speech.
- mighty 17y ago
  I'm sorry, but the idea that the boycott is somehow threatening freedom of speech is utterly absurd. > A boycott is a ban and bans on other people’s opinions are stupid and childish. I don't know if this was a massive logical slip-up on Berkun's part or what, but: nobody's banning Mackey's opinion. As far as I'm aware, copies of the Wall Street Journal containing that article are not being burned, nor is the website being hacked to prevent anyone from reading it. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with guaranteeing that people should keep patronizing your business if you say something that rankles them.
  - smakz 17y ago
    Absolutely and I agree. I don't usually post ambiguous quotes but the grandparent reminded me of that quote which I liked. I'd also say banning whole foods is somewhat analogous to people who are 'banning' non-organic products by shopping at whole foods in the first place. They are speaking with their dollars about a position they are against (genetically engineered products). If Whole Foods the company has a culture/leadership which is against health care reform, people are certainly free and rational to ban Whole Foods if they feel strongly about the issue.
    - mighty 17y ago
      Voted you back up. Fwiw, I was trying to respond to the general sentiment that this was a free speech issue, and the quote made for a good place to do so. Thanks for clarifying your stance. In retrospect, I should have used less strong language--"utterly absurd" wasn't necessary, as I can see how one might regard it a free speech issue.
amalcon 17y ago
I agree that it's pretty stupid, but the people doing this boycott aren't restricting anyone's rights. They're just exercising their own right to choose where to shop based on whatever factors they like, even if those factors happen to be stupid (which they are). Free speech isn't about freedom from consequences. It's about letting people say what they like, if they're willing to accept the natural consequences. One of those consequences is that, if people disagree with you, they can choose to take their business elsewhere. Problems arise when the consequences are things that private individuals would not be permitted to do, like imprison or harm the speaker. To put it more simply: I may disagree with what you boycott, but I will defend to the death your right to boycott it.
halo 17y ago
This isn't a free speech issue, and equating it to a free-speech issue is fallacious. People can say anything they like, even if they are standing centre-stage and making my blood boil, but that doesn't mean I'll want to buy something from them afterwards.
- itistoday 17y ago
  Couldn't agree more, and somehow the author seems to have missed the notion that boycotting also happens to fall under the umbrella of "free-speech". I find it odd that he finds their reaction "ridiculous" and that instead they should've had a debate with him. Really? How will they do that? Call him on his cellphone and tell him they don't like what he said? Send him emails? I mean, even if they were able to find out what his email address is, I seriously doubt they're going to change his mind or even illicit a response. Instead, they chose to do something that seems to be having great results for them. And considering that Mackey essentially said "fuck the 45 million uninsured", their reaction is well measured, I think.
- hughprime 17y ago
  It's not a free speech issue, but it is an issue of basic civility. I agree that if someone's speech makes your blood boil then it's reasonable not to buy anything from them. But rational people should always be able to listen to reasonably sensible discourse with which they disagree without having their blood boil. Civil society is poorly served when people can't even bear to listen to any opinion differing from their own.
ibsulon 17y ago
I absolutely believe in free speech. I would be the first to yell if he was censored by the government, or was unable to make his logical appeal in the appropriate forum (which it was.) However, as a consumer, I also try to patronize companies that share my ideals and do not actively work against what I work for. Many progressives do the same, and were shocked to find out that the CEO/founder was a libertarian. I am not boycotting Whole Foods (though I do not shop there on a regular basis to start), but I do not feel that such an action is censorship.
- philwelch 17y ago
  Here's the funny thing: Mackey actually was a progressive before he tried to actually run a company. That's why I can't take these political disagreements seriously. What makes you so sure you're right about politics and Mackey is wrong? I used to be wrong about quite a few political issues--maybe I used to be right, and I'm wrong now. How do you get so confident in your political opinions that you want to get in the way of people expressing a contrary viewpoint?
  - ibsulon 17y ago
    Let's take an example of which I do boycott. I boycott Rockstar energy drinks. I do so because the owners of the company actively contribute to causes that are anti-gay, and the founder is a man who has said all sorts of vile things about LGBT people and their community, and the company is held by his family (though they have publicly disavowed current official affiliation -- it's his son and wife, for crying out loud!) Why in the world would I give money to them? Or Hyatt, who would use my hotel money to fund a ballot measure to demote me to second class citizenry? And if they feel as strongly about health care as I do about LGBT issues, that's what informed capitalism is about.
    - philwelch 17y ago
      The difference is that these companies actually contribute money towards something. I don't buy Rockstar either. I don't buy Sony because they put rootkits on CD's. Writing a well-reasoned editorial that I disagree with doesn't rise to that level. If Whole Foods contributed their profits to fund anti-health-reform PACs I guess that would be comparable, but they don't. They pay $1 in salary to a CEO who wrote one editorial in one newspaper expressing his personal opinions and experiences. That's akin to getting ticked off at something Paul Graham wrote and refusing to do business with any YCombinator-funded startups. Actually it's even worse, since I'm pretty sure Paul Graham makes more money from YCombinator's investments than Mackey makes from Whole Foods at this point. And, unlike Mackey, Paul Graham's made some recent political contributions, so the money he makes from YCombinator actually goes to "the bad guys" (depending on your perspective) while Mackey's money either stays with him or goes to charity. (OpenSecrets.org lets you search for political contributions. John Mackey's made some political contributions, but not since 2000 and even then, only to fringe nutjobs, which is the most harmless type of political contribution possible.) The problem with politics is that people feel too strongly without thinking strongly enough. It should not be blood-boilingly offensive for someone to express the contrary viewpoint about most political issues.

smakz 17y ago

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. [might not be Voltaire]

pg 17y ago
IIRC it wasn't Voltaire who said this.
- rms 17y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall She was a biographer of Voltaire and came up with the quote as an illustration of his beliefs.
  - gruseom 17y ago
    Nice catch.
ctbarna 17y ago
Voltaire never actually said that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations)
- apotheon 17y ago
  On the other hand, it was a summation of Voltaire's perspective on freedom of speech.
mighty 17y ago
I'm sorry, but the idea that the boycott is somehow threatening freedom of speech is utterly absurd. > A boycott is a ban and bans on other people’s opinions are stupid and childish. I don't know if this was a massive logical slip-up on Berkun's part or what, but: nobody's banning Mackey's opinion. As far as I'm aware, copies of the Wall Street Journal containing that article are not being burned, nor is the website being hacked to prevent anyone from reading it. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with guaranteeing that people should keep patronizing your business if you say something that rankles them.
- smakz 17y ago
  Absolutely and I agree. I don't usually post ambiguous quotes but the grandparent reminded me of that quote which I liked. I'd also say banning whole foods is somewhat analogous to people who are 'banning' non-organic products by shopping at whole foods in the first place. They are speaking with their dollars about a position they are against (genetically engineered products). If Whole Foods the company has a culture/leadership which is against health care reform, people are certainly free and rational to ban Whole Foods if they feel strongly about the issue.
  - mighty 17y ago
    Voted you back up. Fwiw, I was trying to respond to the general sentiment that this was a free speech issue, and the quote made for a good place to do so. Thanks for clarifying your stance. In retrospect, I should have used less strong language--"utterly absurd" wasn't necessary, as I can see how one might regard it a free speech issue.

amalcon 17y ago

I agree that it's pretty stupid, but the people doing this boycott aren't restricting anyone's rights. They're just exercising their own right to choose where to shop based on whatever factors they like, even if those factors happen to be stupid (which they are). Free speech isn't about freedom from consequences. It's about letting people say what they like, if they're willing to accept the natural consequences. One of those consequences is that, if people disagree with you, they can choose to take their business elsewhere. Problems arise when the consequences are things that private individuals would not be permitted to do, like imprison or harm the speaker. To put it more simply: I may disagree with what you boycott, but I will defend to the death your right to boycott it.

halo 17y ago

This isn't a free speech issue, and equating it to a free-speech issue is fallacious. People can say anything they like, even if they are standing centre-stage and making my blood boil, but that doesn't mean I'll want to buy something from them afterwards.

itistoday 17y ago
Couldn't agree more, and somehow the author seems to have missed the notion that boycotting also happens to fall under the umbrella of "free-speech". I find it odd that he finds their reaction "ridiculous" and that instead they should've had a debate with him. Really? How will they do that? Call him on his cellphone and tell him they don't like what he said? Send him emails? I mean, even if they were able to find out what his email address is, I seriously doubt they're going to change his mind or even illicit a response. Instead, they chose to do something that seems to be having great results for them. And considering that Mackey essentially said "fuck the 45 million uninsured", their reaction is well measured, I think.
hughprime 17y ago
It's not a free speech issue, but it is an issue of basic civility. I agree that if someone's speech makes your blood boil then it's reasonable not to buy anything from them. But rational people should always be able to listen to reasonably sensible discourse with which they disagree without having their blood boil. Civil society is poorly served when people can't even bear to listen to any opinion differing from their own.

ibsulon 17y ago

I absolutely believe in free speech. I would be the first to yell if he was censored by the government, or was unable to make his logical appeal in the appropriate forum (which it was.) However, as a consumer, I also try to patronize companies that share my ideals and do not actively work against what I work for. Many progressives do the same, and were shocked to find out that the CEO/founder was a libertarian. I am not boycotting Whole Foods (though I do not shop there on a regular basis to start), but I do not feel that such an action is censorship.

philwelch 17y ago
Here's the funny thing: Mackey actually was a progressive before he tried to actually run a company. That's why I can't take these political disagreements seriously. What makes you so sure you're right about politics and Mackey is wrong? I used to be wrong about quite a few political issues--maybe I used to be right, and I'm wrong now. How do you get so confident in your political opinions that you want to get in the way of people expressing a contrary viewpoint?
- ibsulon 17y ago
  Let's take an example of which I do boycott. I boycott Rockstar energy drinks. I do so because the owners of the company actively contribute to causes that are anti-gay, and the founder is a man who has said all sorts of vile things about LGBT people and their community, and the company is held by his family (though they have publicly disavowed current official affiliation -- it's his son and wife, for crying out loud!) Why in the world would I give money to them? Or Hyatt, who would use my hotel money to fund a ballot measure to demote me to second class citizenry? And if they feel as strongly about health care as I do about LGBT issues, that's what informed capitalism is about.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    The difference is that these companies actually contribute money towards something. I don't buy Rockstar either. I don't buy Sony because they put rootkits on CD's. Writing a well-reasoned editorial that I disagree with doesn't rise to that level. If Whole Foods contributed their profits to fund anti-health-reform PACs I guess that would be comparable, but they don't. They pay $1 in salary to a CEO who wrote one editorial in one newspaper expressing his personal opinions and experiences. That's akin to getting ticked off at something Paul Graham wrote and refusing to do business with any YCombinator-funded startups. Actually it's even worse, since I'm pretty sure Paul Graham makes more money from YCombinator's investments than Mackey makes from Whole Foods at this point. And, unlike Mackey, Paul Graham's made some recent political contributions, so the money he makes from YCombinator actually goes to "the bad guys" (depending on your perspective) while Mackey's money either stays with him or goes to charity. (OpenSecrets.org lets you search for political contributions. John Mackey's made some political contributions, but not since 2000 and even then, only to fringe nutjobs, which is the most harmless type of political contribution possible.) The problem with politics is that people feel too strongly without thinking strongly enough. It should not be blood-boilingly offensive for someone to express the contrary viewpoint about most political issues.