Racism ft Phil Anselmo

[Adami]

They're not destroying his livelihood.They're simply choosing not to employ him for their concerts.

His job is to be a musician. The venues are essentially his workplace. If I showed up to work and screamed WHITE POWER and did a Nazi salute, I would expect to be fired. I would also expect that if other potential employers knew of my actions, that they would be less likely to hire me. This is reasonable.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

Yeah. He has a right to be a racist asshole, sure, but that doesn't mean he has the right to be supported financially in spite of it. His rights aren't being taken away, other people are simply exercising their right to not support racist assholery.

[Prog Snob]

It's very simple. The band he was in is a business venture. Plain and simple. Yes, they're playing music because they love it and all of that. But it's also their livelihood and needs to be handled with unmitigated discretion. Anything to get in the way of that livelihood should be dealt with the same as any other business venture.

[Anguyen92]

I agree.  If anyone in the business world did something that Anselmo did, they would be fired and the company's HR department would have a hell of a headache to go through. 

If anyone in sports did what Phil Anselmo did and it was caught on camera and the video shows up on youtube, there would be a hell of a ****storm coming, where there would be suspensions, legal holdings, fines, a lot of sports news outlets going crazy and every analysts running their mouths off about anything, etc. and then something will get resolved and the matter will die down until the next crazy thing happen.

Heck, WWE blacklisted Hulk Hogan over him saying racist comments in a private video that got leaked and they had to make a swift decision for better or for worst to protect their public image that's under pressure all the time.  Would one argue that WWE is destroying Hogan's livelihood by doing such a thing?  Perhaps, but they have to protect the interests of their investors and their shareholders.

[kaos2900]

I agree.  If anyone in the business world did something that Anselmo did, they would be fired and the company's HR department would have a hell of a headache to go through. 

If anyone in sports did what Phil Anselmo did and it was caught on camera and the video shows up on youtube, there would be a hell of a ****storm coming, where there would be suspensions, legal holdings, fines, a lot of sports news outlets going crazy and every analysts running their mouths off about anything, etc. and then something will get resolved and the matter will die down until the next crazy thing happen.

Heck, WWE blacklisted Hulk Hogan over him saying racist comments in a private video that got leaked and they had to make a swift decision for better or for worst to protect their public image that's under pressure all the time.  Would one argue that WWE is destroying Hogan's livelihood by doing such a thing?  Perhaps, but they have to protect the interests of their investors and their shareholders.

Hulk was screwed over by a business he had a huge part in building. Phil has had a checkered past and deserves the backlash he's getting.

[Plasmastrike]

They're not destroying his livelihood.They're simply choosing not to employ him for their concerts.

His job is to be a musician. The venues are essentially his workplace. If I showed up to work and screamed WHITE POWER and did a Nazi salute, I would expect to be fired. I would also expect that if other potential employers knew of my actions, that they would be less likely to hire me. This is reasonable.

If I brought my guitar to work and played it at volume 10 and yelled FUCK YEAH  to the audience I'd probably be fired too. Can't compare it like that man. Sorry

[Adami]

They're not destroying his livelihood.They're simply choosing not to employ him for their concerts.

His job is to be a musician. The venues are essentially his workplace. If I showed up to work and screamed WHITE POWER and did a Nazi salute, I would expect to be fired. I would also expect that if other potential employers knew of my actions, that they would be less likely to hire me. This is reasonable.

If I brought my guitar to work and played it at volume 10 and yelled FUCK YEAH  to the audience I'd probably be fired too. Can't compare it like that man. Sorry

I am not talking about things that the job entails, such as playing a loud guitar. I was referring to etiquette. Some places have different standards, but most places still have some levels of decency. Yelling white power and doing a Nazi salute, is generally considered a fire-able offence wherever you work in America.


Also, are you arguing that yelling white power and doing a Nazi salute is a necessary part of a rock concert?

[Prog Snob]

They're not destroying his livelihood.They're simply choosing not to employ him for their concerts.

His job is to be a musician. The venues are essentially his workplace. If I showed up to work and screamed WHITE POWER and did a Nazi salute, I would expect to be fired. I would also expect that if other potential employers knew of my actions, that they would be less likely to hire me. This is reasonable.

If I brought my guitar to work and played it at volume 10 and yelled FUCK YEAH  to the audience I'd probably be fired too. Can't compare it like that man. Sorry

I am not talking about things that the job entails, such as playing a loud guitar. I was referring to etiquette. Some places have different standards, but most places still have some levels of decency. Yelling white power and doing a Nazi salute, is generally considered a fire-able offence wherever you work in America.


Also, are you arguing that yelling white power and doing a Nazi salute is a necessary part of a rock concert?

@Plasmstrike, your analogy is terrible. What does your point have to do with what Adami is saying? Saying fuck yeah at a concert is not even in the same ballpark as using racist remarks and symbolism.

[Stadler]

They're not destroying his livelihood.They're simply choosing not to employ him for their concerts.

His job is to be a musician. The venues are essentially his workplace. If I showed up to work and screamed WHITE POWER and did a Nazi salute, I would expect to be fired. I would also expect that if other potential employers knew of my actions, that they would be less likely to hire me. This is reasonable.

But the analogy isn't exactly apt; one, it is highly dependent on whether your employer gets it's revenue from direct sale to the public.  I realize it sounds like a quibbling detail, but it is absolutely CRUCIAL in terms of the legality of it, and there are circumstances where it DOESN'T work out to being "essentially the same thing", but Fortarock should ONLY be able to add/delete Down from the bill if there is a measurable quantifiable impact to their attendance AND their contract with Down allows them to remove them.  They should not have to "lose money" in order to provide a platform for Anselmo, but they also cannot just break their contractual obligation because "they don't like what he said".   Second, if someone else wanted to hire you - Nazi salute or not - they should be free to do so without rancor and without judgment or bullying from the social media masses. 

The problem here is that the waters are murky and we can both be right, but the solution is basically impossible to implement without someone having to make an inordinate compromise.  And I think in today's society the pendulum has swung such that the social media mob has an advantage over the individuals who are testing the limits of (but are not exceeding) constitutional rights. 

[Stadler]

They're not destroying his livelihood.They're simply choosing not to employ him for their concerts.

His job is to be a musician. The venues are essentially his workplace. If I showed up to work and screamed WHITE POWER and did a Nazi salute, I would expect to be fired. I would also expect that if other potential employers knew of my actions, that they would be less likely to hire me. This is reasonable.

If I brought my guitar to work and played it at volume 10 and yelled FUCK YEAH  to the audience I'd probably be fired too. Can't compare it like that man. Sorry

I am not talking about things that the job entails, such as playing a loud guitar. I was referring to etiquette. Some places have different standards, but most places still have some levels of decency. Yelling white power and doing a Nazi salute, is generally considered a fire-able offence wherever you work in America.


Also, are you arguing that yelling white power and doing a Nazi salute is a necessary part of a rock concert?

Except that it's not.  And rightfully so (within reason).

I will bet my DT collection that the WWE either had a clause within their contract with Hulk that allowed them to terminate, or they paid Hulk for a breach of the contract.  I did not find a copy of the WWE contract, though I did find a contract that he signed back in '98.   Under that contract, he could have been terminated but they would have had to pay him the remainder of the contract or THEY would have been in breach.  There was no "morals clause" per se. 

But in general, we can't be loose with the terminology; terminating Hulk under the contract is not the same thing at all as "depriving someone's livelihood" (which really isn't a "thing", per se), which isn't again at all the same thing as a festival opting to add/delete acts based on their ability to bring desired patrons through the gate, which isn't again at all the same thing as what might happen to you or me if we exercised our free expression at the work place. 

Bottom line is, we all have rights to a varying degree, and they are designed to prevent one person from inordinately exercising their will over another without prior consent, and I truly believe that in this day and age of social media bullying, the pendulum has swung a little too far in their direction. 

[Adami]

Except that playing a concert is not a right. It's a job. They chose to not be associated with him and what he may or may not do at their given concert. Lord knows I wouldn't want to organize a concert that may eventually become notorious with someone yelling white power.

You can have social consequences without breaking the law. These promoters don't want to be associated with someone who does a nazi salute. That's their right. Forcing them to allow him to play just because he didn't break the law is denying them of their rights to run their own concerts as they see fit.

Plus, he's playing lots of shows. I know of 2 that cancelled on him. Maybe there were more, I dunno. But I doubt his livelihood is in jeopardy.

[Prog Snob]

Except that playing a concert is not a right. It's a job. They chose to not be associated with him and what he may or may not do at their given concert. Lord knows I wouldn't want to organize a concert that may eventually become notorious with someone yelling white power.

You can have social consequences without breaking the law. These promoters don't want to be associated with someone who does a nazi salute. That's their right. Forcing them to allow him to play just because he didn't break the law is denying them of their rights to run their own concerts as they see fit.

Plus, he's playing lots of shows. I know of 2 that cancelled on him. Maybe there were more, I dunno. But I doubt his livelihood is in jeopardy.

Even if it is, it's of his own volition. I don't feel bad for him one bit regarding anything that might ensue as a direct result of his behavior.

[Stadler]

Except that playing a concert is not a right. It's a job. They chose to not be associated with him and what he may or may not do at their given concert. Lord knows I wouldn't want to organize a concert that may eventually become notorious with someone yelling white power.

We're not in disagreement here.   We really aren't.  This is - if it is done the right way - the way it's supposed to be.

You can have social consequences without breaking the law. These promoters don't want to be associated with someone who does a nazi salute. That's their right. Forcing them to allow him to play just because he didn't break the law is denying them of their rights to run their own concerts as they see fit.

What I disagree with is when it's not done the right way, and it's done via a social media shaming campaign with no checks and balances, no due process for anyone who might have an idea or belief that is a little bit out of the mainstream. 

[Adami]

Of course. I agree.

However, this isn't a case of smearing. There is a video of him yelling white power and doing a Nazi salute. That qualifies, in most countries, as being beyond "a little bit out of mainstream". I mean, if he had said "I Believe that dragons and unicorns are real!" then yes, I'd agree that these negative reactions would have been terrible. But he suggested one race is superior to another and then did an homage to not only a genocidal regime, but also sworn enemies of every country that has banned his concerts.

I would also imagine that if he multiple homages to ISIS and Islamic terror, that he'd face similar social consequences. It just so happens that the people to whom he gave his odd support, are no longer in a position of power.

Edit: He also has a documented history of these kinds of beliefs and statements, and as of now has faced no consequences and has had no impact on his career. This is the first time. It's also doubtful that it will leave a lasting impression. Look at Mel Gibson, that dude did WAY worse and despite tons of social consequences, did not lose his livelihood.

2nd Edit: I would completely agree with you if this was a thing like Hulk Hogan or some of the stuff with Mel Gibson when private recordings were made public. However, he did this at a public concert, knowing full well that people would be filming him. I mean, at some point the guy is just an idiot. I say this as a person who doesn't care about these things.

I'm Jewish and I still love Mel Gibson just as much as I did before I found out about his insanity. Daniel Gildenlow is my favorite musician, and if I found out he wished Hitler would come back from the grave and finish the job, I'd still buy his next album.

[The King in Crimson]

Except that playing a concert is not a right. It's a job. They chose to not be associated with him and what he may or may not do at their given concert. Lord knows I wouldn't want to organize a concert that may eventually become notorious with someone yelling white power.

We're not in disagreement here.   We really aren't.  This is - if it is done the right way - the way it's supposed to be.

What is 'the right way?'

You can have social consequences without breaking the law. These promoters don't want to be associated with someone who does a nazi salute. That's their right. Forcing them to allow him to play just because he didn't break the law is denying them of their rights to run their own concerts as they see fit.

What I disagree with is when it's not done the right way, and it's done via a social media shaming campaign with no checks and balances, no due process for anyone who might have an idea or belief that is a little bit out of the mainstream.

Due process? Checks and balances? The guy wasn't tried, he's not going to prison. He said stupid things in public and he's paying the consequences for them as in, now people don't want to work with him.

If I tell my boss to go fuck himself, how much due process and checks and balances will be between me and my ass getting fired?

[Stadler]

Of course. I agree.

However, this isn't a case of smearing. There is a video of him yelling white power and doing a Nazi salute. That qualifies, in most countries, as being beyond "a little bit out of mainstream". I mean, if he had said "I Believe that dragons and unicorns are real!" then yes, I'd agree that these negative reactions would have been terrible. But he suggested one race is superior to another and then did an homage to not only a genocidal regime, but also sworn enemies of every country that has banned his concerts.

BUT... within certain restrictions, the analysis here should be - SHOULD BE - content neutral.  Meaning, it doesn't depend on WHAT is being said.  That is a HUGE distinction that is made in almost every analysis of the so-called "free speech".  The vast majority of restrictions that we take for granted (I would say "cavalierly") are what are called "TIME, PLACE and MANNER" restrictions. 

The fact remains that, in the United States anyway, he did NOT say any illegal.  I know it's abhorrent to some (and factually incorrect to others, like myself) but it is NOT an actionable offense to suggest that one race is superior to another.   

I would also imagine that if he multiple homages to ISIS and Islamic terror, that he'd face similar social consequences. It just so happens that the people to whom he gave his odd support, are no longer in a position of power.

And it would be just as wrong.   Forcing sex on a child is a hideous, heinous crime; forcing sex on an adult is no less heinous.

Edit: He also has a documented history of these kinds of beliefs and statements, and as of now has faced no consequences and has had no impact on his career. This is the first time. It's also doubtful that it will leave a lasting impression. Look at Mel Gibson, that dude did WAY worse and despite tons of social consequences, did not lose his livelihood.

And why is that not telling?  Again, if he's said it before, and there are no consequences, why is that assumed to be "wrong"?   Though I think you are probably not accurate in that assessment:  I think there HAVE been consequences, just not consequences that show up on Twatter or Facechat.  I know for me, as much as I am a fan of heavy guitar music, heard a LOT of good things about Dimebag, and feel that anyone who tattoos Ace's face on their calf can't be all bad, I refuse to buy any Pantera music, in large part because of Phil Anselmo.  I've long been critical of him, so this is in no way an advocacy of him or WHAT he said. 

2nd Edit: I would completely agree with you if this was a thing like Hulk Hogan or some of the stuff with Mel Gibson when private recordings were made public. However, he did this at a public concert, knowing full well that people would be filming him. I mean, at some point the guy is just an idiot. I say this as a person who doesn't care about these things.

He IS an idiot.  Thankfully for most of America, being an "idiot" is not an actionable offense either.   But you DO see the difference here between "time place and manner", because you're using it.

I'm Jewish and I still love Mel Gibson just as much as I did before I found out about his insanity. Daniel Gildenlow is my favorite musician, and if I found out he wished Hitler would come back from the grave and finish the job, I'd still buy his next album.

And that is a noble thing to say; I don't know that I am as... lenient as you are in that sense.  My beef isn't in rejecting Phil, my beef is when one person makes the effort to tell other what they SHOULD be thinking. 

Anyone who isn't clear in what I'm saying, or thinks that I am somehow supporting what Anselmo did, I feel like my position is very similar to the one taken by John Adams when he defended those British soldiers after the Boston Massacre.  The process is VERY important here.  That it is "White Power", that it is a "Nazi reference", doesn't allow us to cut corners on our response.   It just doesn't.

[Cyclopssss]

Alright, I'll just say this. I don't think Phil's straight up racist. I've seen him do guestperformances with the likes of Living Colour and other coloured artists.
I just think Phil's a dumb, or not too bright, Southern born man, and that there was likely a LOT of alcohol and maybe drugs involved.

It was, however increddibly stupid and he probably lost any credibillity he had with this stupid act. 

[Stadler]

Except that playing a concert is not a right. It's a job. They chose to not be associated with him and what he may or may not do at their given concert. Lord knows I wouldn't want to organize a concert that may eventually become notorious with someone yelling white power.

We're not in disagreement here.   We really aren't.  This is - if it is done the right way - the way it's supposed to be.

What is 'the right way?'

Let each individual make their own determination, their own decision, without rancor, without judgment, and without fear of being tarred a "Racist!" or "Nazi!" because of their choice. 

Without, it should be said, videos like Robb Flynn's, shaming and cajoling the "metal community" into a mode of behavior that fits his moral compass. 

You can have social consequences without breaking the law. These promoters don't want to be associated with someone who does a nazi salute. That's their right. Forcing them to allow him to play just because he didn't break the law is denying them of their rights to run their own concerts as they see fit.

What I disagree with is when it's not done the right way, and it's done via a social media shaming campaign with no checks and balances, no due process for anyone who might have an idea or belief that is a little bit out of the mainstream.

Due process? Checks and balances? The guy wasn't tried, he's not going to prison. He said stupid things in public and he's paying the consequences for them as in, now people don't want to work with him.

If I tell my boss to go fuck himself, how much due process and checks and balances will be between me and my ass getting fired?

On one level, the "job" example is a poor one, because it is a wholly different structure.   Anselmo doesn't "work for" the public; he is selling to the public, a very different arrangement economically, legally, and practically.  Having said that, you WOULD have protections.  Yes, employees are generally "at will" (that is, not working under a specific contract with specific terms of employment) but employers cannot discriminate against you, cannot retaliate against you, cannot disregard company dismissal procedures (which generally require a probation period), etc.  The cases where they can fire you without recourse are likely limited to a strict list of egregious things and if you commit them, it's not about "free expression of ideas" anymore, it's about the failure to follow the law.  This is EXACTLY what I mean about following the process and about the mob mentality of the "social media justice department".    If and when Anselmo breaks the law, I'm with you guys 1000% percent.  Fuck him, no tolerance.  But he didn't.  He offended your sensibilities.  That is not - and SHOULD NOT BE - a crime. 

"Due process" presents a format for determining not just whether there should be consequences, but also, what are the consequences.  Do they fit the crime?  Are they appropriate for the chosen penal strategy of that society (punishment, rehabilitation, retribution, some of the above, all of the above)?  Are they applied fairly? 

You keep talking about "consequences", but when do we decide when enough is enough (like with the death threats to the family of that dentist that killed that lion)?   When do we decide that he has "paid his debt to society (when does he become "Pete Rose")?

I don't trust the mob with those decisions.   

[Adami]

I agree with you. I think at this point we're arguing different things. I am not talking about him breaking the law. I think our actions, even when legal, have social consequences.

Now, I do agree with you on many of the extreme cases. No one should get death threats, no matter how abhorrent I find their actions. However, not everything is so extreme. But society, or even groups of society have voices. I don't believe in a society that tolerates everything that isn't technically illegal. I believe in shutting down things like hate speech as a sign of a society that no longer wishes to support hatred in such a way, however I often which other forms of hate speech (such as the more common homophobia and Islamophobia were shut down too, but we're not there as a society yet). In this case, it's being done without violence or mob mentality. A few of his peers called him out. A bunch more people defended his actions. A few concert promoters cancelled on him. A bunch more didn't.

[Stadler]

I don't believe in a society that tolerates everything that isn't technically illegal. I believe in shutting down things like hate speech as a sign of a society that no longer wishes to support hatred in such a way...

Not attacking, just asking a question of someone who has clearly thought this through a little...  who draws the line?  And more importantly, HOW?   At what point does it go from one person's bias (and please don't be offended when I point out that this is just your bias, whether you feel it justified or not) to something accepted by society?  And then again, when does it go from something that is ostensibly "good" (I hate that word in this context, but...) for society into something less so (need I list them?  Any one of 1,000 things that sounded good at the time, were supported by a majority of the population, but only in hindsight did we see that perhaps our exhuberance got ahead of us).

I'm glad you have your preferences.  Sincerely.  But your preferences conflict with others, and we're at the point where we have to adjudicate between overlapping rights.  And at that point, I'm sorry, but "society" is too blunt an instrument.   I know you feel, deep in your heart, that you are right about this because, well, rights! equality!, but it's not that cut and dry.  We use inflammatory words like "HATE" and they are supposed to make the entire argument a slam dunk, but the fact is, as abhorrent as it is to you (and as lacking in utility as I find it) people ARE allowed to hate.   Even society thinks that, with such "society approved" jackals as Hitler, bin Laden and Hussein.     

[Adami]

But it can't be that binary. It can't be all good or all bad. However, I'm a bit busy so I can't give a long reply to everything but I'll touch on the stuff that I want to....cause....uh....I have an answer lol.

Anyway. Who draws the line? We all do. I personally don't like the idea of Anselmo being banned from any concerts. But that wasn't my call, it was the call of the concert guys. For the case of an organized concert, the line is drawn wherever the people behind it draw that line. Just like a CEO draws the line at their company. If a company X has no problems hiring people who wear shirts that say "Thank god for AIDS" or "Fags die in hell" then that's their line. If a company wants to fire someone for those things, that's their line.

But we, all people, have a voice. We can't be quiet and not say anything about anything. I do think the BIG line is drawn in the courts. Phil didn't do anything illegal. If he got put in jail for his actions, that would be crossing a huge line. So he's not facing any legal consequences. He did break social norms and is facing social consequences. Society draws those lines, for better or worse. Whether or not I agree is meaningless. I guess I'm just a social libertarian. I think people have the freedom to react however, as long as no one's rights are being stepped on. His aren't. He's being denied certain employment opportunities, that's it. If someone tried to harm him or his property, that'd be breaking the law. Etc.

So while I wouldn't personally ban Anselmo from something, I respect that others are. I also respect that Pink Floyd's guy decision to boycott Israel etc. Despite being Israeli. As long as the people doing the consequences aren't breaking the law themselves, then that's where we are as a society. If we are a horrible society, then this just goes to demonstrate it.

Sorry if that made no sense. Typing in class while trying to look like I'm paying attention.

[Cyclopssss]

I don't believe in a society that tolerates everything that isn't technically illegal. I believe in shutting down things like hate speech as a sign of a society that no longer wishes to support hatred in such a way...

I'm glad you have your preferences.  Sincerely.  But your preferences conflict with others, and we're at the point where we have to adjudicate between overlapping rights.  And at that point, I'm sorry, but "society" is too blunt an instrument.   I know you feel, deep in your heart, that you are right about this because, well, rights! equality!, but it's not that cut and dry.  We use inflammatory words like "HATE" and they are supposed to make the entire argument a slam dunk, but the fact is, as abhorrent as it is to you (and as lacking in utility as I find it) people ARE allowed to hate.   Even society thinks that, with such "society approved" jackals as Hitler, bin Laden and Hussein.   

I somewhat agree with this. It has gotten VERY easy to judge people, especially online, safely behind a keyboard. That isn't to say we should be silent or bite our tongues, but it would be nice if we would show a bit of restraint while speaking out.

[Prog Snob]

I don't believe in a society that tolerates everything that isn't technically illegal. I believe in shutting down things like hate speech as a sign of a society that no longer wishes to support hatred in such a way...

I'm glad you have your preferences.  Sincerely.  But your preferences conflict with others, and we're at the point where we have to adjudicate between overlapping rights.  And at that point, I'm sorry, but "society" is too blunt an instrument.   I know you feel, deep in your heart, that you are right about this because, well, rights! equality!, but it's not that cut and dry.  We use inflammatory words like "HATE" and they are supposed to make the entire argument a slam dunk, but the fact is, as abhorrent as it is to you (and as lacking in utility as I find it) people ARE allowed to hate.   Even society thinks that, with such "society approved" jackals as Hitler, bin Laden and Hussein.   

I'm going to chime in here. Adami, while I do think it would be something meaningful to work towards, shutting down hate speech is too idealistic. It's an unrealistic pipe dream. Hatred will always be a necessity in society. It's an abstract delineation instrument.

As much as Phil's actions disgusted me, it IS his right to vocalize how he feels. As long as he's not infringing on someone else's rights then he's free to speak his mind. He can shout all the ethnic slurs he wants. I'm not saying there won't be repercussions for his actions, but he's well within his right to say how he feels. What's the difference between him saying it in public or among friends? Are you going to put people in jail for using racial slurs in the privacy of their own home? There are just too many factors involved that would make it impossible to delineate legal/illegal when it comes to speaking one's mind.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

Adami specifically said that Phil didn't do anything illegal, and obviously should not be put in jail. You seem to be arguing a point that no one is making.

[Prog Snob]

Adami specifically said that Phil didn't do anything illegal, and obviously should not be put in jail. You seem to be arguing a point that no one is making.

He said he believes in shutting down hate speech. That is the point I was arguing. I didn't say that Adami said Phil should be put in jail. I was simply posing a question as to how he would handle shutting down the hate speech. I thought the question mark at the end of the sentence would have made that clear.

[Stadler]

Adami specifically said that Phil didn't do anything illegal, and obviously should not be put in jail. You seem to be arguing a point that no one is making.

He said he believes in shutting down hate speech. That is the point I was arguing. I didn't say that Adami said Phil should be put in jail. I was simply posing a question as to how he would handle shutting down the hate speech. I thought the question mark at the end of the sentence would have made that clear.

Which is the point I'm arguing as well.

I actually have no beef with what Adami said, and in fact, to a point, we are in TOTAL agreement.  I too am a social libertarian in that sense. 

I feel, though, that our words about "we all have the choice" are becoming hollow, because the trend now is to ascribe guilt by association, and guilt by NOT "speaking out loud enough".   If everyone's decision was one of conscience, I wouldn't have anything to say.  But, sadly, it's not.  SOME of those concert promoters are likely distancing themselves from Down not because of sound business principles, or some firm internal moral compass, but rather, they don't want to deal with the fallout. 

I won't lie: I feel like there's probably one or two people here that probably feel "that Stadler; I wish he'd just stop beating around the bush and admit he's a racist too!"   It's the bullying and coercion that seems to come along with the "speaking out" that I have such a problem with.   It's got to be an individual thing, and it's got to be respectful of those that either decide not to exercise their right to dissent, or, further, are in agreement with Anselmo. 

[Adami]

Adami specifically said that Phil didn't do anything illegal, and obviously should not be put in jail. You seem to be arguing a point that no one is making.

He said he believes in shutting down hate speech. That is the point I was arguing. I didn't say that Adami said Phil should be put in jail. I was simply posing a question as to how he would handle shutting down the hate speech. I thought the question mark at the end of the sentence would have made that clear.

If, we as a society have decided that we will not tolerate hate speech, then we shut it down by not tolerating it. As long as those means do not infringe on anyone's rights, then we handle it however we handle it. Once again, just more of a "let people do what they do, to a degree" philosophy.

[bosk1]

Adami specifically said that Phil didn't do anything illegal, and obviously should not be put in jail. You seem to be arguing a point that no one is making.

He said he believes in shutting down hate speech. That is the point I was arguing. I didn't say that Adami said Phil should be put in jail. I was simply posing a question as to how he would handle shutting down the hate speech. I thought the question mark at the end of the sentence would have made that clear.

If, we as a society have decided that we will not tolerate hate speech, then we shut it down by not tolerating it. As long as those means do not infringe on anyone's rights, then we handle it however we handle it. Once again, just more of a "let people do what they do, to a degree" philosophy.

To put a slightly different spin on some of the things Stadler has been saying, and to put it into the terms you used in your post:  I do NOT think it is good or desirable for "society" to decide that we will not tolerate hate speech.  I personally feel it is an incredibly bad decision.  Some of the reasons why:
1.  "Hate speech" is too subjective a term and too often simply becomes a convenient proxy for "speech I subjectively do not like."
2.  Speech is too important a right to be overregulated.
3.  "Society" has no business making such determinations in the first place.  That is basically "mob rule."  Whatever is deemed popular gets a pass, while whatever is deemed unpopular is shunned.  Arguably, this is not much different than reason #1.  But my intent here is to focus on the danger of mob bullying, whereas the focus on reason #1 is the subjectivity aspect.

Anyhow, I have been following the debate and not posting up until now.  But I have found it to be an incredibly good read.  And other than this fundamental point, I find myself agreeing with practically everything Adami has said. 

[Adami]

Very good points Bosk, and you as well Stadler.

Gives me much to think about.

[Stadler]

If, we as a society have decided that we will not tolerate hate speech, then we shut it down by not tolerating it. As long as those means do not infringe on anyone's rights, then we handle it however we handle it. Once again, just more of a "let people do what they do, to a degree" philosophy.

But we haven't decided that.   Not at all.  SOME OF US have, and SOME OF US have unilaterally decided that "tolerate" doesn't mean what it used to mean in the dictionary.   SOME OF US have decided that our "intolerance" of hate speech is such that the laws don't apply anymore.   SOME OF US have decided that ANY consequences are just, even if those consequences subsequently serve to constructively violate others' rights.

I'm not in that group. 

EDIT:  I probably should have read Bosk's reply before I posted mine, and let him have the last word.  I agree with what he wrote completely. 

[Adami]

If, we as a society have decided that we will not tolerate hate speech, then we shut it down by not tolerating it. As long as those means do not infringe on anyone's rights, then we handle it however we handle it. Once again, just more of a "let people do what they do, to a degree" philosophy.

But we haven't decided that.   Not at all.  SOME OF US have, and SOME OF US have unilaterally decided that "tolerate" doesn't mean what it used to mean in the dictionary.   SOME OF US have decided that our "intolerance" of hate speech is such that the laws don't apply anymore.   SOME OF US have decided that ANY consequences are just, even if those consequences subsequently serve to constructively violate others' rights.

I'm not in that group. 

EDIT:  I probably should have read Bosk's reply before I posted mine, and let him have the last word.  I agree with what he wrote completely.

I don't disagree with you at all. I think we're arguing slightly different things. This also feels like something I would be better at communicating in person. Either way, I'm not sure I have much to add. I'll reflect on everything you and Bosk have said though and try to expand my perspective.

[Prog Snob]

He said he believes in shutting down hate speech. That is the point I was arguing. I didn't say that Adami said Phil should be put in jail. I was simply posing a question as to how he would handle shutting down the hate speech. I thought the question mark at the end of the sentence would have made that clear.

If, we as a society have decided that we will not tolerate hate speech, then we shut it down by not tolerating it. As long as those means do not infringe on anyone's rights, then we handle it however we handle it. Once again, just more of a "let people do what they do, to a degree" philosophy.

Most of civilized society speaks of their intolerance of racism. When you speak of not tolerating it, by what means do you propose it be restricted?

He said he believes in shutting down hate speech. That is the point I was arguing. I didn't say that Adami said Phil should be put in jail. I was simply posing a question as to how he would handle shutting down the hate speech. I thought the question mark at the end of the sentence would have made that clear.

Which is the point I'm arguing as well.

I actually have no beef with what Adami said, and in fact, to a point, we are in TOTAL agreement.  I too am a social libertarian in that sense. 

I feel, though, that our words about "we all have the choice" are becoming hollow, because the trend now is to ascribe guilt by association, and guilt by NOT "speaking out loud enough".   If everyone's decision was one of conscience, I wouldn't have anything to say.  But, sadly, it's not.  SOME of those concert promoters are likely distancing themselves from Down not because of sound business principles, or some firm internal moral compass, but rather, they don't want to deal with the fallout. 

I won't lie: I feel like there's probably one or two people here that probably feel "that Stadler; I wish he'd just stop beating around the bush and admit he's a racist too!"   It's the bullying and coercion that seems to come along with the "speaking out" that I have such a problem with.   It's got to be an individual thing, and it's got to be respectful of those that either decide not to exercise their right to dissent, or, further, are in agreement with Anselmo. 

I don't think it makes you racist. It's a controversial opinion to have but it's along the same lines as understanding why people from generations past use words like n*gger with the same nonchalance as using the word water. It's just the way they were brought up in the past. When you're raised a certain way, even if it's in ignorance, are you to blame if you know no other way? Racism can be ingrained in one's mind the same as equality. It's not something that can easily be unlearned.

[Adami]

He said he believes in shutting down hate speech. That is the point I was arguing. I didn't say that Adami said Phil should be put in jail. I was simply posing a question as to how he would handle shutting down the hate speech. I thought the question mark at the end of the sentence would have made that clear.

If, we as a society have decided that we will not tolerate hate speech, then we shut it down by not tolerating it. As long as those means do not infringe on anyone's rights, then we handle it however we handle it. Once again, just more of a "let people do what they do, to a degree" philosophy.

Most of civilized society speaks of their intolerance of racism. When you speak of not tolerating it, by what means do you propose it be restricted?

Not restricted at all. I guess I just have an image of everyone walking away from people like that and not supporting them. That's all. Nothing to restrict their rights to say or hate whomever they please.

[Prog Snob]

He said he believes in shutting down hate speech. That is the point I was arguing. I didn't say that Adami said Phil should be put in jail. I was simply posing a question as to how he would handle shutting down the hate speech. I thought the question mark at the end of the sentence would have made that clear.

If, we as a society have decided that we will not tolerate hate speech, then we shut it down by not tolerating it. As long as those means do not infringe on anyone's rights, then we handle it however we handle it. Once again, just more of a "let people do what they do, to a degree" philosophy.

Most of civilized society speaks of their intolerance of racism. When you speak of not tolerating it, by what means do you propose it be restricted?

Not restricted at all. I guess I just have an image of everyone walking away from people like that and not supporting them. That's all. Nothing to restrict their rights to say or hate whomever they please.

Then we are in agreeance.