Jump to content
Hamer Fan Club Message Center

GC Drops Fulltone


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, FGJ said:

Like I said, if I avoided buying from a company with whom I disagreed about one thing or another, I'd be living in a cave and avoiding civilization. It just seems quixotic to expect everyone to agree on everything.

Like we see in music (and other arts & entertainment).  There is certainly a wide assortment of attitudes and behaviors on display there.  People mostly seem to be able to separate/disassociate/overlook in their choices in that arena.  Some even argue for separating the artist from the art, which is harder to do contemporaneously.  Wagner and Michael Jackson will no longer cash royalty checks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, Steve Haynie said:

Nope.  Voting and not buying products are not the same. 

I don't think Joe is suggesting that we not vote in elections. 
Voting with a ballot and with your wallet are not mutually exclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do both.  There are some people who have convinced me not to buy their products.  However, boycotts never last or work.  For the 30 or 40 of us nationwide who actually stop buying a company's product we can hold our heads high.  The other 300+ million will go on to buy products regardless of who runs the company or how the products are made. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Steve Haynie said:

The other 300+ million will go on to buy products regardless of who runs the company or how the products are made. 

Largely explains how both Fender and Gibson survived the 1970s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Steve Haynie said:

Nope.  Voting and not buying products are not the same. 

If Hitler made cookies there would only be a few people who actually would care about the man behind the cookies. 

Gotta disagree with you on that. Every purchase doesn't require a moral assessment, but supporting someone/a corporation you disagree with morally or politically puts money in the campaign coffers of their candidates. Since elections are determined largely by campaign contributions, that's extra weight behind the person and policies you don't want to win.

As for no one caring about the man behind the cookies and boycotts not working, ask Ivanka what happened to her fashion brand. Ask the NRA about getting dropped by banks, insurers, and businesses like airlines and rental car companies who offered members discounts because of their desire to arm all teachers and dismissal of student anti-gun protestors after the Parkland shooting... if boycotts didn't work, we wouldn't be talking about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joshoowah said:

As for no one caring about the man behind the cookies...

Just wondering how often you ask about political views of the chef, who prepared your meal in your favorite ( or any, for that matter) restaurant...or of the guy who changed your frets or fixed your amp? or your uber driver...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joshoowah said:

Gotta disagree with you on that. Every purchase doesn't require a moral assessment, but supporting someone/a corporation you disagree with morally or politically puts money in the campaign coffers of their candidates. Since elections are determined largely by campaign contributions, that's extra weight behind the person and policies you don't want to win.

As for no one caring about the man behind the cookies and boycotts not working, ask Ivanka what happened to her fashion brand. Ask the NRA about getting dropped by banks, insurers, and businesses like airlines and rental car companies who offered members discounts because of their desire to arm all teachers and dismissal of student anti-gun protestors after the Parkland shooting... if boycotts didn't work, we wouldn't be talking about them.

Your first paragraph is why I stopped buying some bands' albums and concert tickets, some actors' movie tickets, and some product manufacturers' products.  We actually do agree. 

The NRA was not dropped by the public.  It was the boards at banks, etc. rather than thousands of consumers.  I saw a product pulled from grocery store shelves (for about a year) because of 200 letters in a coordinated attack on the company.  Most people do not care one way or the other.  I can still buy Martha Stewart towels.  Papa John's Pizza has not shut down.  The NFL is not going out of business.  For all the people Roger Waters has made unhappy with his comments online or in concert, guess what?  He still sells lots of tickets in stadiums for big bucks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the sake of clarity, "voting with your wallet" is simply a metaphor that has nothing to do with voting. 

The Hitler hypothetical scenario is a welcome example because, in fact, there are many evils occurring in regimes like China from which we all buy products, including much of our music equipment. And if one uses a cell phone, there's little difference between using that China-produced product and purchasing Uncle Adolf's Goose-Stomping Scones.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, Kudos to everyone for behaving like adults and having a mature and intelligent discussion that doesn't devolve into the foolishness often found on the web. If more people were capable of engaging in civil, rational, and respectful discourse (even where they disagree), there would be no need to ban topics for fear of it devolving into an ugly mess. This is one more reason I think this is the best forum on the web.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I love and respect all people... I 100% don’t vote with my wallet. I could care less about the political affiliations of the people I buy things from, the corporations that distribute or manufacture and the services I pay for.

People come by their beliefs in organic and meaningful ways... a lot of those beliefs were forced upon them without their awareness at an early age. I’m not going to punish someone because their parent’s sat them down at the dinner table and brainwashed them through ceaseless propaganda... or their religious affiliation forced certain beliefs down their throat.

Besides that, I like living in a varied and dynamic culture which values everyone for what unique view they bring to the mix.

To actively prevent someone from making a living because of their beliefs is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Everyone is equal and everyone is important no matter what they have come to believe... largely since their beliefs are a confluence of many factors out of their control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JustKid said:

Just wondering how often you ask about political views of the chef, who prepared your meal in your favorite ( or any, for that matter) restaurant...or of the guy who changed your frets or fixed your amp? or your uber driver...

As it happens, I know the chefs at three of my favorite restaurants, two are also owners, and with one, I don't see eye-to-eye on anything, politically, but he's a good guy, good to his staff, and generous to his community. Who you are and how you treat others is more important to me than your politics or beliefs (though they are often linked). My best friends don't provide an echo chamber. That would be boring.

1 hour ago, Steve Haynie said:

Your first paragraph is why I stopped buying some bands' albums and concert tickets, some actors' movie tickets, and some product manufacturers' products.  We actually do agree. 

The NRA was not dropped by the public.  It was the boards at banks, etc. rather than thousands of consumers.  I saw a product pulled from grocery store shelves (for about a year) because of 200 letters in a coordinated attack on the company.  Most people do not care one way or the other.  I can still buy Martha Stewart towels.  Papa John's Pizza has not shut down.  The NFL is not going out of business.  For all the people Roger Waters has made unhappy with his comments online or in concert, guess what?  He still sells lots of tickets in stadiums for big bucks. 

The NRA had its partnerships with those companies terminated because of a boycott of companies tacitly endorsing their lobby through promotions and discounts. That was the public forcing the companies' hand through boycott by thousands of consumers. Papa John's still exists because Papa John isn't there anymore. If he was, they would suffer. He acknowledged that and left. Everyone doesn't have to care. There are enough who do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, joshoowah said:

Everyone doesn't have to care. There are enough who do.

By "enough who do," I take that to mean, 'there are enough people who demand cancellation / firing / cessation / disaffiliation / etc., that coercive action on social media is an effective strategy of getting rid of those who hold opposing viewpoints.'  Am I right?  Would espousing these tactics not generate a society of mob rules and stifle free thinking and original thought.  If "enough" disagree with a viewpoint in the present culture, that viewpoint gets exterminated (choose any of the means listed).  Isn't that the opposite of free speech?  Mob-rules is great, so long as one agrees with the mob.

This is what has been going on on college campuses for at least the past five years.  Certain individuals do not hold to the consensus held by a majority of students, so those individuals are disallowed from speaking.  That attitude has now moved to other points in our society (and I will omit specifics for fear of espousing any particular political bent, thereby tainting these pages).  I will say some of the best development I gained in college was from open debate of ideas diametrically opposed to those held by me.  It opened my mind to other viewpoints and forced me to confront viewpoints I had held for many years (including some drilled in from youth, as Zen pointed out, above).  On occasion I came away changed; on others, more resolute.  In no case was I harmed.

Some viewpoints are, well, stupid.  But if we're so sensitive we shriek at their very mention ("NEE"), 1. how will we ever identify the idiots among us? 2. (more seriously) how will we ever evolve in our own personal beliefs?

A problem with the present situation is that the cancellation can come so swiftly as to outrun the facts.  I will not get into specifics, but there are some high profile "cancellations" that have been demanded by the mob, only to find out the mob (or more specifically, those bending to their will) did not have (or perhaps, did not present) all of the facts.  Such is the nature of immediate outrage meeting immediate mass communication.

Personally, I have never been harmed by someone else's belief.  Now, when someone acts on some ridiculous tenant to the detriment of others, that is a different matter, but we should welcome differing viewpoints, shouldn't we?  Personally, I prefer to know the idiots among us rather than be left to guess.  And if Uncle Adolph's Goose-Stomping (wouldn't that actually be "Goose-Stepping?") Scones comes to town, well, I won't buy them, but I'm not about to get on some platform and urge everyone to agree with me.  That's up to them. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, if a company is over the top blatant with their stuff and I don't agree with it, I'll stop patronizing.  For me, an example is Walmart.  They've been rah rah USA for years, but were at the forefront of pushing suppliers to move to Asia for cheap pricing.  There are other examples but I'll spare you guys.  The NRA has basically devolved into nothing but a political organization.   And, from Dachau (and other camps), they did force some folks to produce products like pictured below among other things and sold them in stores to convince people the camps weren't bad.  

Also, I agree with folks earlier.  Thanks for the non-partisan, non epithet laden discussion.  

IMG_3205.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, zenmindbeginner said:

To actively prevent someone from making a living because of their beliefs is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Everyone is equal and everyone is important no matter what they have come to believe... largely since their beliefs are a confluence of many factors out of their control.

Personally I love and respect all people providing those are reciprocal feelings. Having said that, the quoted portion of your post is very naïve and is painted with a very broad brush.

Suppose an individual was raised in Nazi Germany by parents who are anti-Semitic and adopts those beliefs. As an adult he has the ability to reject that philosophy. I don't think there is any reason to support this with love and respect. Is an individual entitled to hold those beliefs, of course. Does society have a right to reject that in every possible way , absolutely. This same logic can be applied to other forms of Racism and bias. Are these individual entitled to make a living? not with my $$

arniez

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, I'm all for people withholding their business from those with whom they disagree. I simply ask that others respect my freedom to do otherwise. And in the end, I think that's the point, i.e., that people be free to agree or disagree and to do so without being mistreated or fired or vilified, otherwise the thought police will eventually come for us. Remember, Robespierre who led the reign of terror in the French Revolution was murdered by that same mob he helped Create. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, velorush said:

By "enough who do," I take that to mean, 'there are enough people who demand cancellation / firing / cessation / disaffiliation / etc., that coercive action on social media is an effective strategy of getting rid of those who hold opposing viewpoints.'  Am I right?  Would espousing these tactics not generate a society of mob rules and stifle free thinking and original thought.  If "enough" disagree with a viewpoint in the present culture, that viewpoint gets exterminated (choose any of the means listed).  Isn't that the opposite of free speech?  Mob-rules is great, so long as one agrees with the mob.

That's only effective if you give a damn about what the 'mob' thinks.  Case in point, Anthony Jeselnik.  Numerous people have attacked him on social media and attempted to tie his jokes to his personal life.  He basically tells them to piss off and doubles down on what they're attacking him for.  Ricky Gervais is a more widely known example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, alantig said:

That's only effective if you give a damn about what the 'mob' thinks.  Case in point, Anthony Jeselnik.  Numerous people have attacked him on social media and attempted to tie his jokes to his personal life.  He basically tells them to piss off and doubles down on what they're attacking him for.  Ricky Gervais is a more widely known example.

I agree only to a point.  In today's culture of cancellation, Mr. Jeslenik (had to look him up - I don't get out much) follows a great tradition of comedic social commentators (Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Sam Kinison, Dave Chappelle) who provided observations many found offensive.  In their day they were castigated (even jailed), but you didn't have social media to provide the mob a platform to expand the castigation to all facets of their lives - providing them a platform becomes an inexcusable offense, such that they are disallowed in any venue and so are disallowed from earning an income / contributing a dissenting voice to society.  

Today there are cadres of people sitting in front of screens all day waiting for someone to make one misstep that allows them to begin the purge.  I suppose it provides them with a sense of power, but it actually ensures stifling of any sort of dissent and (more recently) stifling of salient facts that counter the group-think behind certain movements.  The result so far is anyone of any fame taking steps to prove to these self-elected-arbiters-of-all-that-is-good how virtuous and in-agreement they are vis-a-vis the mob (Virtue Signaling).

It may make some people feel better for a while, but it is not healthy in the long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2020 at 11:56 AM, cmatthes said:

I just picked up a V2.0 and really like it, but I bought it based on hearing Elduave’s and playing others.  I have always heard that Mike is a huge douchebag though.

I had just about every product he'd designed up until the tape echo came out.  Mine was noisy as hell and I played it for him over the phone.  He hung up and refused to warranty it because I bought it from a dealer that he'd pulled the rug from under.  A REAL douchebag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, velorush said:

I agree only to a point.  In today's culture of cancellation, Mr. Jeslenik (had to look him up - I don't get out much) follows a great tradition of comedic social commentators (Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Sam Kinison, Dave Chappelle) who provided observations many found offensive.  In their day they were castigated (even jailed), but you didn't have social media to provide the mob a platform to expand the castigation to all facets of their lives - providing them a platform becomes an inexcusable offense, such that they are disallowed in any venue and so are disallowed from earning an income / contributing a dissenting voice to society.  

Today there are cadres of people sitting in front of screens all day waiting for someone to make one misstep that allows them to begin the purge.  I suppose it provides them with a sense of power, but it actually ensures stifling of any sort of dissent and (more recently) stifling of salient facts that counter the group-think behind certain movements.  The result so far is anyone of any fame taking steps to prove to these self-elected-arbiters-of-all-that-is-good how virtuous and in-agreement they are vis-a-vis the mob (Virtue Signaling).

It may make some people feel better for a while, but it is not healthy in the long term.

I think you nailed it pretty much exactly.  Of course, any of those keyboard warriors only have the power given to them.  I give them none and encourage others to examine the situation and consider doing the same, but the well-known problem with mob behavior is getting it to separate into individuals capable of reflective thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Reflective thought" ... In today's superficial, knee-jerk, reactionary world, there isn't much of that. Consequently, because many lack a world view built on any substantive foundation, when they encounter something that triggers their feelings, there's nothing intellectually resolute to counter-balance their emotions, so they just go with what they feel. Such persons are easily manipulated by sophistry and media legerdemain, and any attempt to further their understanding with facts and/or reasoned discourse is often met with contempt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Winning post for use of “ledgermain” ^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...