Oh look reality TV is being outrageous. Nothing new here. Honestly I'm surprised that this is the first time a show about red necks actually mentioned homosexuality.
LordofHats wrote: Oh look reality TV is being outrageous. Nothing new here. Honestly I'm surprised that this is the first time a show about red necks actually mentioned homosexuality.
Sad part is that his statements really weren't that slanderous. Sure they weren't PC, but it's not like he called homosexuals the servants of satan or that it's their fault US troops die in Iraq or anything.
LordofHats wrote: Sad part is that his statements really weren't that slanderous. Sure they weren't PC, but it's not like he called homosexuals the servants of satan or that it's their fault US troops die in Iraq or anything.
The internet wants to freak out about a redneck duck call maker not being a GLAAD board member. Your rationality has no place here.
The funniest part is that the gay magazine which rallied the troops to march on A&E is the same magazine that nominated the Pope as their "person of the year." I don't think they appreciate the irony (or is it hypocrisy?).
Probably just selective memory. Duck guys opinions was pretty much the same one voiced by Francis from what I can tell. But Francis isn't on national TV, and given previous Popes opinions on the subject, Francis is easily taken as an improvement.
When I first heard what duck dynasty was, I thought it was idiotic. I still think it is from seeing product on every shelf. This reinforces my opinion that I don't give a rats ass.
The reason that it has become so "scandalous" is that he has comments such as this in there:
Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
As far as Phil is concerned, he was literally born again. Old Phil—the guy with the booze and the pills—died a long time ago, and New Phil sees no need to apologize for him: “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”
As far as "being a hatemonger" goes, Phil isn't that bad but the controversy surrounding the statements is justifiable. I should also say that he seems like a perfectly nice guy, but with the views he espouses in the article are questionable.
The funny thing is that he was asked his opinions and he gave them. He was then jumped all over.
I have never seen the show, but he must not have out of the blue made comments like that before since it's been on a number of years.
To my understanding, the interview was a few months ago. If that's the case, why get worked up now?
One of the big comments I've heard going around is what do people expect to hear from a 60+ year old Duck hunter in the swamps of Louisiana when his opinion is asked on such issues?
One of the big comments I've heard going around is what do people expect to hear from a 60+ year old Duck hunter in the swamps of Louisiana thinks when his opinion is asked on such issues?
Basically this. Hell, he's not as harsh on the issue as I would've expected. I obviously don't agree with his views, but I'm not even the littlest bit surprised that that is what he believes.
The interview might have been done months ago, but it was recently published(according to the GQ site I linked, it's the January 2014 issue). Remember that magazines do have a lead time.
That is why people are getting "worked up now".
And what's more, I think that a lot of the "outrage" is coming up now as a reaction to the movements to keep Robertson on A&E.
You have people like Palin and Cruz talking about how the removal of Robertson violates "freedom of speech" and how it's an "attack on Christians".
It's the whole "start with gays, no better than people who feth animals" slant of his statements.
It is ironing that people are mad that a person who is on a fake reality show about yuppies acting like rednecks can't be "real".
Where are the same people defending "I'm gonna get AIDS in Africa. kidding, I'm white!" lady and trying to keep her from getting fired because freedom of speech.
I explained this to my cousin, If you say something stupid, get ready for consequences. I cant say racist stuff at work and expect to get away with it. This is the same. You can say what you want and the government cant stop you. But your boss.....
Kanluwen wrote: You have people like Palin and Cruz talking about how the removal of Robertson violates "freedom of speech" and how it's an "attack on Christians".
It's not as clear cut as that.
Mr. Redneck McBiggotedstien is perfectly free to say whatever the hell he wants. It is freedom of speech and he is entitled to that. What freedom of speech does not give him is the platform from which to say his views, meaning that while he has every right to say what he wants to, A&E is under no obligation to give him the opportunity to say those things on their show. He can say 'em on his own time.
It's not violating freedom of speech. If the government came in and removed him from the show for his views, yeah, that might be freedom of speech. But when you say something like that on a major TV network, you can't be surprised when they boot you off the show. I admire the guy for having the stones to say what he really thought in the interview, but he should have realized that there would probably be consequences to his actions.
The people getting freaked out need to realize there are still a lot of people like this. Having the interview is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. There's an interview one show did with a gay black man near where the Duck Dynasty guys live and he basically said "This is good, people need to see this interview. Many people down here still think like this, and it needs to be aired out in the open. We shouldn't just sweep it under the rug because we disagree." I live in the south and I can tell you that many people have no idea how entrenched ideas like what the Duck Dynasty guy has are. It's not so bad in the big cities, but any of the smaller towns have it pretty bad. Instead of hiding it because it's politically incorrect, people need to be exposed to it so they can realize what's going on.
But honestly, we're causing a major uproar over an old duck call maker with a TV show. Everything about this is stupid
If you are gay and you somehow think that his remark equating gays to people who practice bestiality is aimed at you in particular, perhaps you have the problem.
d-usa wrote: It's pretty much not the "gay is a sin" remark.
It's the whole "start with gays, no better than people who feth animals" slant of his statements.
It is ironing that people are mad that a person who is on a fake reality show about yuppies acting like rednecks can't be "real".
Where are the same people defending "I'm gonna get AIDS in Africa. kidding, I'm white!" lady and trying to keep her from getting fired because freedom of speech.
And, to no surprise, you cut off his quotation--like the media--with bestiality and remove the part where he lumps them with adulterers, the drunks, and the swindlers.
The point of his statement is that all sin is the same. Not that homosexuality is as perverse as bestiality.
If you are gay and you somehow think that his remark equating gays to people who practice bestiality is aimed at you in particular, perhaps you have the problem.
“It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man’s anus," Robertson told GQ. "That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.” Calling Homosexuality Illogical.
“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine," he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.” Using a slippery slope saying that homosexuality will lead to bestiality. And claiming to believe the bible, but ignoring many historical context.
hotsauceman1 wrote: “It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man’s anus," Robertson told GQ. "That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
Calling Homosexuality Illogical.
While I don't think being gay is a choice (I believe it's biological) there is no evolutionary purpose to homosexuality, as it cannot result in procreation.
Additionally, if you're not an idiot is pretty clear that he's being a bit glib or tongue in cheek with that quite.
“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine," he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
Using a slippery slope saying that homosexuality will lead to bestiality.
No slippery slope there, and the only people claiming it is are ones SEARCHING for a problem. He's saying that all sin is equal in the eyes or his god and paraphrasing Corinthians to do so.
And claiming to believe the bible, but ignoring many historical context.
Meaning what? Elaborate.
But then again, I actually read the GQ article, unlike what appears to be about 85% of the people commenting on it on the Internet. In fact, the worst thing he said, and I'm paraphrasing here, was his likening Muslims as a whole to the Nazi regime.
But that doesn't fit nearly as well in the atheist narrative.
I wasnt talking about the Anus Part, I was talking about calling it Illogical. There are many things that are illogical, Hell duck hunting can be called that. Why go hunting when you can buy it? Illogical =/= wrong
"Start from Homosexuality and Morph from there"
Pretty clear slippery slope to me, says that you start with homosexuality and it turns into other things. Like bestiality and orgies.
And ignoring much in the bible is defunct, the selling of your daughter into slavery, the whole reason Sodom and Gammorah fell wasnt the gay sex, but inhospitality.
d-usa wrote: It's pretty much not the "gay is a sin" remark.
It's the whole "start with gays, no better than people who feth animals" slant of his statements.
It is ironing that people are mad that a person who is on a fake reality show about yuppies acting like rednecks can't be "real".
Where are the same people defending "I'm gonna get AIDS in Africa. kidding, I'm white!" lady and trying to keep her from getting fired because freedom of speech.
And, to no surprise, you cut off his quotation--like the media--with bestiality and remove the part where he lumps them with adulterers, the drunks, and the swindlers.
You start with homosexuality, then bestiality. His words.
The point of his statement is that all sin is the same. Not that homosexuality is as perverse as bestiality.
Cheating on your wife is as bad as fething a dog.
Being a drunk is as bad as fething a dog.
Being a swindler is as bad as fething a dog.
Being homosexual is as bad as fething a dog.
Yeah, doesn't make it any better.
But again, not surprised.
I'm not surprised that people are defending the guy that said that being gay is as bad as being a dog fether and that there is something wrong with you if you choose a mans anus ofer a woman's vagina.
There is a difference between thinking stuff is a sin and being judgemental. And not recognizing that difference is what results in situations such as these.
hotsauceman1 wrote: “It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man’s anus," Robertson told GQ. "That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.” Calling Homosexuality Illogical.
While I don't think being gay is a choice (I believe it's biological) there is no evolutionary purpose to homosexuality, as it cannot result in procreation.
There have been a few studies showing an evolutionary benefit to being homosexual. I'd have to dig them up though to get the details.
Additionally, if you're not an idiot is pretty clear that he's being a bit glib or tongue in cheek with that quite.
And if you got nothing else worthwhile to say you start throwing the idiot word around.
And if you are being "glib or tongue in cheek" and it backfires then it's because you made a stupid joke, not because everybody else is wrong.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I wasnt talking about the Anus Part, I was talking about calling it Illogical. There are many things that are illogical, Hell duck hunting can be called that. Why go hunting when you can buy it? Illogical =/= wrong
Moronic statement, and if you knew anything about the robertsons, you'd realize it. The family is about land to plate, and they hunt to eat.
I mean, Based on this I'm not sure you know what illogical means.
"Start from Homosexuality and Morph from there"
Pretty clear slippery slope to me, says that you start with homosexuality and it turns into other things. Like bestiality and orgies.
And ignoring much in the bible is defunct, the selling of your daughter into slavery, the whole reason Sodom and Gammorah fell wasnt the gay sex, but inhospitality.
So an orgy is akin to bestiality in your mind? Interesting.
Further, the stories in the Bible are there to teach broader themes and lessons. The fact that selling your daughter into slavery is defunct has no bearing on that.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I wasnt talking about the Anus Part, I was talking about calling it Illogical. There are many things that are illogical, Hell duck hunting can be called that. Why go hunting when you can buy it? Illogical =/= wrong
Moronic statement, and if you knew anything about the robertsons, you'd realize it. The family is about land to plate, and they hunt to eat.
You'd also realize that they adopted a persona for TV to appeal to a broader audience and that they are staring in what is basically a scripted reality show.
Yes I understand that about the Robertsons. But my statment is not moronic. They can do that, no skin of my back, but when you own a giant company you dont NEED to do that, so it is Illogical, but not wrong, Homosexuality may be Illogical, but not wrong.
And why is the Selling daughter into slavery defunct but not hatred of homosexuality isnt?
hotsauceman1 wrote: I wasnt talking about the Anus Part, I was talking about calling it Illogical. There are many things that are illogical, Hell duck hunting can be called that. Why go hunting when you can buy it? Illogical =/= wrong
Moronic statement, and if you knew anything about the robertsons, you'd realize it. The family is about land to plate, and they hunt to eat.
You'd also realize that they adopted a persona for TV to appeal to a broader audience and that they are staring in what is basically a scripted reality show.
Im starting to agree with D-usa.......*Goes outside* Huh, IT is raining cats and dogs.
You start with homosexuality, then bestiality. His words.
Being a drunk is as bad as adultery
Being a swindler is as bad as adultery.
Being homosexual is as bad as being an adulterer.
THIS is the point. Biblically, all sin is equal, and all is equally forgivable. The "levels of sin" wasn't introduced by the bible, but by Dante.
.... is something wrong with you if you choose a mans anus ofer a woman's vagina.
He didn't say that. He said to him it was illogical.
I think smoking is illogical. Doesn't mean I think there's something wrong with smokers.
There is a difference between thinking stuff is a sin and being judgemental. And not recognizing that difference is what results in situations such as these.
Where was the judgement here? Again, had you read the article he even said it wasn't his place to judge, but rather gods.
There have been a few studies showing an evolutionary benefit to being homosexual. I'd have to dig them up though to get the details.
Looking forward to that. Is it a natural culling of populations?
And if you got nothing else worthwhile to say you start throwing the idiot word around.
And if you are being "glib or tongue in cheek" and it backfires then it's because you made a stupid joke, not because everybody else is wrong
Maybe you prefer to substitute "idiot" with "being obtuse?"
It's pretty clear he was joking. Is it a bad joke? Maybe, but that's purely subjective.
You'd also realize that they adopted a persona for TV to appeal to a broader audience and that they are staring in what is basically a scripted reality show.
The earth to plate part isn't scripted. They operate a huge plantation and pretty much live off their own land
In fact, the GQ article mentions it. The author calls it "some real pre-hipster gak".
But again, you'd have had to read the article and not just the selective blurbs the media is feeding you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Yes I understand that about the Robertsons. But my statment is not moronic. They can do that, no skin of my back, but when you own a giant company you dont NEED to do that, so it is Illogical, but not wrong, Homosexuality may be Illogical, but not wrong.
And why is the Selling daughter into slavery defunct but not hatred of homosexuality isnt?
.
Not sure what some of this means. I think maybe you and I have different definitions for illogical.
Additionally, Duck Commander is hardly "giant", with their 15 whole employees.
Still, the make alot of money. They doont need to hunt for survival, they choose to. So it is illogical to do all that work when you can drive down to the store. If that is what they like, good for them, but it doesnt make sense. Illogical =/= wrong.
And IMO when people say "IT is not my place to judge them, it is gods" Right after saying something they are trying to say something they believe and know is wrong, but says something afterwords to defuse it
There have been a few studies showing an evolutionary benefit to being homosexual. I'd have to dig them up though to get the details.
Looking forward to that. Is it a natural culling of populations?
Actually the oposite. While the gay male is less likely to have children, female relatives on the maternal side of the gay male are more likely to have more children and have a higher rate of fertility and reproductive success.
So my statement was slightly incorrect that there is a evolutionary benefit to being homosexual and it should have said that the evolutionary beneficial genetic trait that results in more reproductive success in women also seems to be a genetic cause for homosexual behavior om select males along the maternal line.
I remember the actual study, and I have to do some more diggint to find it. But here is one summary of it.
And if you got nothing else worthwhile to say you start throwing the idiot word around.
And if you are being "glib or tongue in cheek" and it backfires then it's because you made a stupid joke, not because everybody else is wrong
Maybe you prefer to substitute "idiot" with "being obtuse?"
It's pretty clear he was joking. Is it a bad joke? Maybe, but that's purely subjective.
And if you tell a bad joke then you can't really get upset when people get angry at your bad joke. What about this lady:
"Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!"
Where are the protests and angry people that are fighting for her to get her job back because she was clearly just joking?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Still, the make alot of money. They doont need to hunt for survival, they choose to. So it is illogical to do all that work when you can drive down to the store. If that is what they like, good for them, but it doesnt make sense. Illogical =/= wrong.
Somebody is killing whatever they eat no matter how much money they have though. I don't really think it's any more illogical for them to hunt and kill their own food than to pay somebody somewhere to drive a bolt through a cows head before picking up the meat at the store. For me hunting makes you appreciate the animal and the whole process of something dying to feed you more. Food doesn't become just a thing, it's attached to a life.
For me the only "illogical" hunting is trophy hunting. Eat what you kill or don't kill it is my philosophy.
The weirdest thing about all of this in my opinion is that people watch a show where millionaires dress up as hillbillies and pretend to do hillbilly things as if they don't know damn well how phony the whole thing is, as if the guy in question doesn't have a masters in education.
And good pun with that take wing comment, I didn't catch it till HBMC pointed it out.
The reason that it has become so "scandalous" is that he has comments such as this in there:
Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
As far as Phil is concerned, he was literally born again. Old Phil—the guy with the booze and the pills—died a long time ago, and New Phil sees no need to apologize for him: “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”
As far as "being a hatemonger" goes, Phil isn't that bad but the controversy surrounding the statements is justifiable. I should also say that he seems like a perfectly nice guy, but with the views he espouses in the article are questionable.
hotsauceman1 wrote: “It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man’s anus," Robertson told GQ. "That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
Calling Homosexuality Illogical.
As a man... I think it's illogical too.
If I was gay... then it'd be logical.
This ain't scandalous...
“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine," he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
Using a slippery slope saying that homosexuality will lead to bestiality.
And claiming to believe the bible, but ignoring many historical context.
Also yeah. I was incorrect
He's not saying homosexuality will lead to bestiality. Far from it. Only that it's act is a sin according to the bible.
My wife works at cracker barrel, the are apparently co-op'd with A&E so pulled all duck dynasty products with his face on it, and took the other stuff and put it on sale.
Ouze wrote: The weirdest thing about all of this in my opinion is that people watch a show where millionaires dress up as hillbillies and pretend to do hillbilly things as if they don't know damn well how phony the whole thing is, as if the guy in question doesn't have a masters in education.
And good pun with that take wing comment, I didn't catch it till HBMC pointed it out.
Thanks. I've just been sitting around thinking about what a badass I am(favorite hobby ) for coming up with that one. I'll probably be immobilized, laughing at my own joke, through the rest of the Christmas season.
Ouze wrote: The weirdest thing about all of this in my opinion is that people watch a show where millionaires dress up as hillbillies and pretend to do hillbilly things as if they don't know damn well how phony the whole thing is, as if the guy in question doesn't have a masters in education.
Ouze wrote: The weirdest thing about all of this in my opinion is that people watch a show where millionaires dress up as hillbillies and pretend to do hillbilly things as if they don't know damn well how phony the whole thing is, as if the guy in question doesn't have a masters in education.
Ouze wrote: The weirdest thing about all of this in my opinion is that people watch a show where millionaires dress up as hillbillies and pretend to do hillbilly things as if they don't know damn well how phony the whole thing is, as if the guy in question doesn't have a masters in education.
If anything, isn't that proof that he's not at all bright?
d-usa wrote: It's pretty much not the "gay is a sin" remark.
It's the whole "start with gays, no better than people who feth animals" slant of his statements.
It is ironing that people are mad that a person who is on a fake reality show about yuppies acting like rednecks can't be "real".
Where are the same people defending "I'm gonna get AIDS in Africa. kidding, I'm white!" lady and trying to keep her from getting fired because freedom of speech.
And, to no surprise, you cut off his quotation--like the media--with bestiality and remove the part where he lumps them with adulterers, the drunks, and the swindlers.
The point of his statement is that all sin is the same. Not that homosexuality is as perverse as bestiality.
If you are gay and you somehow think that his remark equating gays to people who practice bestiality is aimed at you in particular, perhaps you have the problem.
Yup.
This is nothing new. It happens all the time on dakka.
I have personally been a victim of this overly sensitive "can't say anything negative about homosexuality or you are a bigot" mentality. It's good that some people get it
hotsauceman1 wrote:Still, the make alot of money. They doont need to hunt for survival, they choose to. So it is illogical to do all that work when you can drive down to the store. If that is what they like, good for them, but it doesnt make sense. Illogical =/= wrong.
And IMO when people say "IT is not my place to judge them, it is gods" Right after saying something they are trying to say something they believe and know is wrong, but says something afterwords to defuse it
You've apparently never had meat that you hunted/fished yourself. There's a lot that can be said for knowing EXACTLY where that food came from, and that you earned it yourself. When they take those ducks to eat, they know that they were the ones that hunted it, an animal that got to live a free life in the wild and not in some megafarm, cleaned it themselves, and ultimately prepared it the way they wanted. In a world where one of McDonald's key ingredients in it's hamburger was a pink slime and chicken McNuggets are literally the worse parts of the animal ground up to look like an edible food, knowing that you killed, cleaned, and cooked your meat is a pretty good feeling. Not to mention it's probably healthier and is a good skill to have in general if you're poor.
I'm surprised the idea of hunting over buying your meat in a supermarket has taken on more with more "liberal" (really cant think of a better term at the moment sorry) areas. Instead of that meat possibly coming from some sort of horrible megafarm with inhumane conditions, by hunting you allow the animal to live in a natural environment, and if you're a good shot, a far more humane death than it would ever get in the wild. Not to mention that if you hunt, you can get your meat much cheaper than buying it in a store.
Plus, you know, their whole business revolves around duck calls and hunting accessories. Would you buy hunting equipment from guys who never hunted and instead bought their meat from a supermarket? It would be like buying a tabletop game by a guy who's never played a game in his life, or buying a car from a designer who only uses the bus to get around town. I would think they "need" to hunt, if only to keep their image and to keep a good idea of what the average hunter will want to buy.
That is not what im arguing, I respect those who eat what they kill. What im saying that is that just become something doesnt make logical sense, doesnt mean it is bad. I was using their hunting as an example.
This is a stereotypical hyper-exaggerated queen, who finds "love" at the end of the episode by hooking up with a hot young hustler who will ignore his advanced age in exchange for upkeep and money.
What about Alec Baldwin? As far as I know, he is still a Capital One pitchman.
Why is making fun of this topic okay? And yet what Phil Robertson said is allegedly "horribly offensive" and should suffer actual economic consequences for expressing them... nevermind that those where his opinions that no one should EVER be surprised about.
This is a stereotypical hyper-exaggerated queen, who finds "love" at the end of the episode by hooking up with a hot young hustler who will ignore his advanced age in exchange for upkeep and money.
What about Alec Baldwin? As far as I know, he is still a Capital One pitchman.
Why is making fun of this topic okay? And yet what Phil Robertson said is allegedly "horribly offensive" and should suffer actual economic consequences for expressing them... nevermind that those where his opinions that no one should EVER be surprised about.
This is a stereotypical hyper-exaggerated queen, who finds "love" at the end of the episode by hooking up with a hot young hustler who will ignore his advanced age in exchange for upkeep and money.
What about Alec Baldwin? As far as I know, he is still a Capital One pitchman.
Why is making fun of this topic okay? And yet what Phil Robertson said is allegedly "horribly offensive" and should suffer actual economic consequences for expressing them... nevermind that those where his opinions that no one should EVER be surprised about.
I guess it matters which team you're on...eh?
My guess? The SNL skit is comedy, not meant to be taken seriously.
Alec Baldwin used a small slur probably in the heat of a momeny
Robertson has an agenda, saying homosexuals are sinful and wanting us to turn our backs on our godlessness.
This is a stereotypical hyper-exaggerated queen, who finds "love" at the end of the episode by hooking up with a hot young hustler who will ignore his advanced age in exchange for upkeep and money.
What about Alec Baldwin? As far as I know, he is still a Capital One pitchman.
Why is making fun of this topic okay? And yet what Phil Robertson said is allegedly "horribly offensive" and should suffer actual economic consequences for expressing them... nevermind that those where his opinions that no one should EVER be surprised about.
I guess it matters which team you're on...eh?
My guess? The SNL skit is comedy, not meant to be taken seriously.
My retort... so?
Alec Baldwin used a small slur probably in the heat of a momeny
He's done this for years... this isn't an isolated incident. And yet... he's still working.
Robertson has an agenda, saying homosexuals are sinful and wanting us to turn our backs on our godlessness.
That's not an "agenda"... nor it's an "attack"... all he's done is expressed a viewpoint.
1: Comedy is not exactly harmful, It is there to poke fun at, not demean
2: Fair point, I just did a cursary glace at his wiki
3: I think he does, he says that america is a godless country and wants us to go back to the old days and follow the bible, one which equates homosexuality with bestiality
hotsauceman1 wrote: 1: Comedy is not exactly harmful, It is there to poke fun at, not demean
2: Fair point, I just did a cursary glace at his wiki
3: I think he does, he says that america is a godless country and wants us to go back to the old days and follow the bible, one which equates homosexuality with bestiality
LordofHats wrote: Sad part is that his statements really weren't that slanderous. Sure they weren't PC, but it's not like he called homosexuals the servants of satan or that it's their fault US troops die in Iraq or anything.
Thats because everyone knows its cat lovers that are the servants of Satan.
Freedom of Speech is Larger Than the First Amendment
Or: “Duck Dynasty Collides With the Fourth Wall”
Strap yourselves in, because this is a long one. So everyone has been talking about Duck Dynasty, and how A&E has indefinitely suspected Phil Robertson, one of the show’s stars, for some anti-gay remarks.
Let me start by saying I don’t like this show and don’t watch the show. The truth is I hate virtually all reality TV. And in a weird way all of this controversy had really helped me put my finger on the reason why.
The one time I sat through an episode gives a good illustration. My parents were in town and my father does enjoy it, so he roped me into watching it, even though as I noted above I hate most “reality” TV. Mind you, Duck Dynasty was no better and no worse than most of the other shows as far as I could tell, but for all the reasons why I categorically hate most reality TV, I hated this show.
The plot of the episode had its amusing moments. One of the two brothers, who honestly look so much alike I doubt I could pick them out of a lineup, got a katana in the mail from someone or other. If I understood correctly, it was a real and therefore priceless artifact, having been folded thousands of time to give it the right amount of flexibility as genuine samurai swords are. So then he played with it a bit, and then forbade the other brother from doing so. So the moment he was gone, you know what happened: the other brother played with it. And then broke it. And then spent most of the rest of the episode trying to find a way to fix it right, and then doing a weak job on it himself—good enough to pass a brief glance, but likely to be detected on closer inspection. At the end a young girl, I think the first brother’s daughter, asks to play with it and the repair breaks and the poor girl thinks she broke it. And the brother who broke it just kind of shuts his mouth and lets her think that.
Which is clever and all, until you remember at some point the first brother—the one who got the sword—is probably going to find out what the second brother did. Or the girl the break was pinned on. I mean, even if they don’t actually watch the show, you figure friends and neighbors do, so... the whole plan is bound to unravel and the first brother might end up being angrier than if the second brother just owned up to it at the time. And none of his buddies watching the second brother do all of this, breaking the sword and then trying to repair it, mention that this might happen: “Oh sure, your plan to lie to your brother as it is broadcast on national TV is foolproof.”
See there is a concept in art called The Fourth Wall. It comes from the stage plays where you would often see, say, a person’s living room and there would be three walls you could see, but the last wall, is removed, like the image here. Because how can you see a play if you can’t see into the house where it is happening? It’s emblematic of a central conceit in all fictional storytelling: that no one knows they are in a story. The people on stage don’t know they are on a stage: they think they are in a living room, or wherever. The lovers you see on screen in a movie are not typically exhibitionists happy to show the whole world as they are making love. Part of the conceit is that actors are pretending there are no cameras around, that they are a couple who are utterly in the privacy of their own homes (or wherever they happen to be).
There are exceptions to that, and we call that, in turn “breaking the fourth wall.” Famously the Marvel character DeadPool does this often. You'll see two examples on the side (enlarge as necessary):
Or for a more famous example, do you remember all the times that Ferris Bueller spoke directly into the camera? Who was he talking to, but us? So either Ferris was actually insane (which is possible) or he was “breaking the fourth wall.” And sometimes that works, and sometimes it just kind of leaves you flat.
But here you have sort the opposite: the false erection of a fourth wall. Everyone on a reality program knows they are being filmed, but they go to great lengths to pretend they are not being filmed. A true reality show would have people going back and watching themselves on TV and everyone else and responding to how they were behaving. And that might actually be interesting. Imagine you had an argument with someone and then you could see yourself later having the argument? Would you continue to believe you were right? Would you decide the argument was silly in the first place? Or imagine that a star asks the camera operator if he or she saw something pertinent to the plot of the episode? That could be interesting.
And that is pretty much the dividing line between “reality” shows I like and the ones I hate. I enjoy an American Idol or similar show because the existence of cameras is part of their reality. It’s un-intrusive, but everyone knows it is there. But most “reality” shows erect a false fourth wall that makes no sense and in turn the existence of cameras alters their reality in ways they never acknowledge (except in those confessional moment when they talk directly to the camera, of course). Has there ever been a moment on a reality show where someone said, “Snooki is just acting like that because the cameras are there, and she wants to be famous for being crazy”? No, not that I know of. They pretend that the camera is not there, they pretend the fact they are on television has no influence on their behavior.
And that is kind of getting at a really important point.
Let’s start with the basics. First, there is the facts. Reading from this Howard Kurtz article you see Robertson saying the following:
“It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical…
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”
And I have read fuller versions of that statement that make it exceedingly clear he finds a great deal of this justification—if not all of it—in the Bible. And later on, Kurtz has this comment:
Robertson offered a more tolerant statement to Fox411, saying he is a reformed sex-drugs-and-rock-‘n-roll guy who found Jesus and “would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me.”
So he is not saying he is in favor of any kind of discrimination against gay people. He is just saying that he thinks it is a sin. He doesn’t like it. That’s all he has said so far. Which is the point of the meme I posted at the beginning.
And let’s talk about something else really basic, here. I am hearing a lot of people saying that this is not a matter of free speech. Here’s Howard Kurtz saying it:
Despite all the rhetoric you’ll hear, this is not a free speech issue. Robertson is entitled to say whatever he wants, as he did in the GQ interview, and A&E is entitled to pull him off the air if it deems the comments offensive. There is no First Amendment right to appear on a television show.
And here’s an article by “Forward Progressives” (whatever that is) linked to by the lovely, albeit incorrect, Alyssa Milano:
Freedom of Speech: The legal means to say almost anything you want. Meaning that as private citizens, we’re allowed to say nearly anything (with a few exceptions of course) that we want without fear of legal prosecution for it.
Unless I’ve missed something, Mr. Robertson faces no legal ramifications for what he said. That’s what freedom of speech means. Freedom of speech does not mean we can say anything we want without ramifications for what we say from our peers or employers.
And I got a lot of attention (including from my civil co-defendant Twitchy) with this pointed question:
so if there is nothing wrong w firing a person for political beliefs, what was wrong w the Hollywood blacklist of communists? @Alyssa_Milano
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) December 20, 2013
I remember growing up hearing about it. Supposedly the Hollywood blacklist was considered a dark time, where a person who was a communist, or merely suspected of being one, could get no work in Hollywood. Isn’t that pretty much the same thing? Private companies refusing to employ people who held views that they didn’t agree with? What exactly is the difference?
Or consider another example that I famously dealt with. A few years back there was a protest called “Everyone Draw Mohammed Day.” The reason for this was because we saw a threat to freedom of speech—not from the government, but from private individuals who said that if you dared to depict Mohammed, however benignly, that they would execute you. They specifically threatened the creators of the show South Park and hundreds of thousands of ordinary people vowed to draw Mohammed too, to make it clear that if they were going to kill anyone who depicted their prophet, they would have to kill all of us. (My mission statement in the site I created to participate in this protest is attached as an exhibit to the memorandum embedded here.)
The right of freedom of speech—indeed freedom of expression in general—is greater than just the edicts contained in the Constitution. That greater, super-Constitutional right might not be a “right” in the sense of a legal right that can be enforced in a court of law, but it can be a moral right that is recognized in the hearts of the people and fought for by informal methods, like the Everyone Draw Mohammed Day protest, boycotts and the like. And it is not limited to the concern that that the government will put its jackboot on one side of an argument, skewing our debate. It is a belief that freedom of expression and inquiry needs to be defended from all opponents, private or governmental, that the only thing that should influence the marketplace of ideas is the persuasiveness of the argument.
And maybe it should be expanded as a legal right.
For instance, should a company be allowed to say to its employees “either register as Republicans or leave the company”? Most people would recoil at the thought, whatever party they belong to. And I think most of us get that if a woman works as a waitress by day and at night writes a blog that tells us how much she hates the governor (be that person a Democrat or Republican), I think most of us would think it is wrong to fire her for that off-the-clock speech. As long as it doesn’t directly affect her job, her speech on her time should be her business. It isn’t generally the law that prevents this sort of thing from happening, but the market. We hold in our hearts the belief that this would be wrong, to the point that a company that behaved this way would harm its own competitiveness: people wouldn’t want to work for them.
And some states have experimented with the idea of forbidding viewpoint discrimination in employment.
But all of those rules change when we get to companies who engage primarily in expression: that is, movie studios, television networks, newspapers and so on. We instinctively understand that the freedom of an actor or actress to speak out is curtailed. It is from that perspective that the idea that “Robertson has the right to speak, but A&E has the right to fire him” seems to make the most sense. Matt Damon, and for that matter, Alyssa Milano, are rightfully limited in their right to speak without repercussions in their employment.
This is the most obvious on the set. If Matt Damon is staring in an adaptation of the Fountainhead, one of Ayn Rand’s books, and the line is, “The age of the skyscraper is gone. This is the age of the housing project. Which is always a prelude to the age of the cave” that is what he has to say. He is not allowed to instead say, “gosh, aren’t housing projects great and swell?” He has a line and he is supposed to deliver it and if he won’t, he is rightfully fired.
And outside of the set, the actor/actress is rightfully supposed to watch their mouths. If Alyssa Milano is promoting a television show set during World War II, and she suddenly decides to tell everyone that she thinks Hitler was right about the Jews after all, that is a problem. She can be rightfully fired from that show.
(All of that is purely hypothetically speaking, by the way. She never said anything like that. On the other hand, I am not sure Matt Damon would be caught dead in a reverent depiction of any of Rand’s works.)
And even if in my hypothetical, Ms. Milano doesn’t say it in public, but only quietly over a drink with the producers, it is cause for concern. After all, if she is not sufficiently sensitive to the plight of Jews during WWII, she might not be able to convey what she needs to show to the audience. After all, the company has a right to create art that contains the messages it wants. And if it wants to make a movie praising Ayn Rand, then it can hire and fire whomever it needs to, to find the people who will bring that message to life. And if it wants to show the horror of the holocaust in a way that acknowledges the humanity of the Jews and the cruelty of the Nazis and their collaborators, then they can hire and fire whoever they need to, to accomplish that goal.
So that is the best argument for suspending or perhaps permanently firing Phil Robertson. In announcing the suspension, A&E said that “A&E Networks... have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.” So A&E wants to send the message that being gay is okay and not at all sinful, and they are willing to suspend—maybe even fire Phil Robertson—for undermining that message. And so far it seems most of the left is cool with that.
Which is funny, because what they are really saying is that A&E, as a corporation, has a right to freedom of expression, too. And part of how they express themselves, is to fire people who don’t tow the line. I mean would it surprise you to learn that at the same Forward Progressive site that Milano linked to, there is a denunciation of Citizens United? Yeah, me neither. But here they are praising what amounts to an act of corporate self-expression.
One exception to this, interestingly, is Andrew Sullivan. He writes:
But look: I come back to what I said at the beginning. Robertson is a character in a reality show. He’s not a spokesman for A&E any more than some soul-sucking social x-ray from the Real Housewives series is a spokeswoman for Bravo. Is he being fired for being out of character? Nah. He’s being fired for staying in character – a character A&E have nurtured and promoted and benefited from. Turning around and demanding a Duck Dynasty star suddenly become the equivalent of a Rachel Maddow guest is preposterous and unfair.
What Phil Robertson has given A&E is a dose of redneck reality. Why on earth would they fire him for giving some more?
It’s a tempting argument because it reeks of unfairness. Hey, he was just some guy on an unscripted show and suddenly you want him to fit some Northeast corridor liberal script? C’mon, guys. You knew when you hired him you weren’t going to get a Greenwich liberal, why act all shocked? I mean what is next? Is Comedy Central going to fire the creators of South Park for using curse words in their show? Is HBO going to cancel Game of Thrones for having too many nude male appendages?
It is attractive, but it requires you to buy into the fundamental conceit that this is reality you see on reality television. But iss it? This whole fourth wall problem I mentioned above makes me wonder. Is this like watching two boxers go at it in the ring, where anything could happen and the outcome can be guessed at but never predicted? Or is Duck Dynasty and most of reality TV more like pro wrestling?
I mean remember back when they pretended pro wrestling was real? In fact, one wrestler was so mad when John Stossel said wrestling was fake, that he brutally assaulted the man:
That clip is admittedly watchable because, unlike pro wrestling, it was real. Stossel sued the crap out of his assailant and rightfully so. And these days everyone admits it is fake. Which makes that scene even dumber than it was when it first aired.
(And by the way, wasn’t that literally an assault on free press? Even if the government didn’t do it, don’t you think the next reporter would have been scared to ask the same question?)
So the question is what is Duck Dynasty like? Is this like a boxing match? Or is it like a pro wrestling match? If it’s pro wrestling, then this looks more like the examples involving Matt Damon and Alyssa Milano above, and morally their freedom of speech can be greatly reduced. Firing Robertson is fair if the show is more scripted than they let on
But we see it as being a mostly spontaneous slice of their lives, then even if there is a morals clause, Robertson might have some recourse. A judge might find that implied into the contract of a reality star is the right to speak freely, that the whole idea is that he is not the voice of the network, but a voice that the network finds interesting if not necessarily one it endorses. I mean there is something inherently contradictory in saying to Robertson, “be yourself, let us film it, and we’ll pay you,” and then suddenly saying “don’t you say that.”
Which might have interesting ramifications down the road. Suppose this turns into a lawsuit? A&E might find itself arguing before the court that in fact the show was pro-wrestling and therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to pretend they can go off script, which in turn could undermine the entire reality TV industry.
What is dumb, here, is that they are missing an opportunity. Instead of suspending him, why not use the issue on the show? I’m not sure we should see Robertson subjected to the hell of “sensitivity training,” but maybe have him deal with a gay man, on the show, who confronts him about what he said. If done right, maybe they could come to some kind of understanding and maybe it could even be a ratings win (which is much easier to arrange if the show really is pro wrestling). That would seem like the obvious win-win scenario here. But will anyone be smart enough to do that?
I also flirted with the idea of passing laws to protect people from workplace discrimination based on viewpoint, but even if such a law was a good idea, I think it shouldn’t apply to companies in the business of expression like A&E and in other workplaces I am not convinced that a law would do more good than harm. For now, let the market and our own freedom of expression work it out. And certainly in the case of A&E, that is what should happen. A&E wants to suspend Robertson. Well, okay, then viewers can suspend watching A&E if they are so inclined. But anyone who felt it was wrong to drive communists out of Hollywood in the 1950’s is a hypocrite if they think it is okay to drive anti-gay voices off of television. I mean either that or they are just communists. Private consequences meet private consequences.
(I myself won’t be boycotting the show not because I don’t necessarily sympathize with those urging a boycott, but because you can’t boycott a show you weren’t watching in the first place. But there is something creepy about firing a man for merely having an opinion they don’t like in the name of “tolerance.”)
But more than ever freedom of speech is under siege in America, and I am really getting scared that it doesn’t live in the hearts of the people. We see liberals responding, for instance, to threats to murder a person for blaspheming Islam, by getting angry at the alleged blasphemer. We see liberals spout nonsense like “hate speech is not free speech.” We see them declare that corporations should be silenced because they don’t like the messages they think they would expound—oh, except for newspapers, movie studios and other kinds of media companies they conveniently dominate. And we see too many liberals stand silent as thugs like Brett Kimberlin try to silence people by intimidation, by false criminal charges, threats and abuse of the courts.
Freedom of expression is larger than the First Amendment. And it has to live in the hearts of the people to survive. And, yes, I am afraid it is dying.
I agree with the author... in some ways, "freedom of expression" is dying in this country.
Look no further to what happened with Nakoula Basseley Nakoula over his anti-Islam YouTube video who was made into a patsy over the Benghazi incident.
Its funny because he says liberals are the only ones assaulting free speech. It is a Two way street, conservatives do it aswell, like demanding companies say "Marry Christmas" not "Happy Holidays"
hotsauceman1 wrote: Its funny because he says liberals are the only ones assaulting free speech. It is a Two way street, conservatives do it aswell, like demanding companies say "Marry Christmas" not "Happy Holidays"
Who is demanding that?
I mean, it's not like "conservatives" are putting up a billboard in Times Square that says "Take Christ out of Christmas" or are even picketing it.
If a conservative group paid to have a billboard that said "Gays are Sinners" in Times Square, you can bet your sweet ass you'd be hearing about it in the media and from every liberal interest group in existence.
Fox news was really trumpeting free speech when Martin Bashir said someone should gak in Sarah Palin's mouth... oh wait they demanded he be fired and.. oh ya, he was fired...
If the first amendment guaranteed every american their own reality show I'd say his rights were being infringed upon. This is exactly like the Paula Deen situation, if you cost your employer money; they’re likely to fire you, pretty simple.
Crablezworth wrote: Fox news was really trumpeting free speech when Martin Bashir said someone should gak in Sarah Palin's mouth... oh wait they demanded he be fired and.. oh ya, he was fired...
If the first amendment guaranteed every american their own reality show I'd say his rights were being infringed upon. This is exactly like the Paula Deen situation, if you cost your employer money; they’re likely to fire you, pretty simple.
Because so many super liberals and GLAAD members were watching Duck Dynasty in the first place right?
Because you're more likely to find some Duck Dynasty merch at Urban Outfitters than Bass Pro Shops, right?
Crablezworth wrote: Fox news was really trumpeting free speech when Martin Bashir said someone should gak in Sarah Palin's mouth... oh wait they demanded he be fired and.. oh ya, he was fired...
If the first amendment guaranteed every american their own reality show I'd say his rights were being infringed upon. This is exactly like the Paula Deen situation, if you cost your employer money; they’re likely to fire you, pretty simple.
So...wait... you want your news commentors to say that on their company's show?
Secondly... Phil R was interviewing for GQ... this was shown on the A&E show (as far as I know).
Well let's see...
You start off with calling a blog post an "article" and the overall parts of it where rather than actually link to the GQ article like I did pages ago, the "author" of this blog post links to a Fox News. What's more, you choose to link to Aaron Walker's blog.
hotsauceman1 wrote: And yes, I have seen conservatives complain about free speech, like that Santa should be a penquin article the fox news blasted.
Did anyone get suspended or lose their jobs?
Of course not. You know why?
Because the only people who really got in a tizzy about those articles are working at the Outrage Factory within Fox News. Just like the only people who really gave a gak about this whole situation to begin with are people who fell for Palin and Cruz's "rallying cry" about how this whole thing was an "assault on the First Amendment" and "part of the systematic persecution of Christians in the United States".
Do I personally think that Robertson should have been suspended or fired? No. But can I sympathize as to why A&E made their original decision? Yes.
Crablezworth wrote: Fox news was really trumpeting free speech when Martin Bashir said someone should gak in Sarah Palin's mouth... oh wait they demanded he be fired and.. oh ya, he was fired...
If the first amendment guaranteed every american their own reality show I'd say his rights were being infringed upon. This is exactly like the Paula Deen situation, if you cost your employer money; they’re likely to fire you, pretty simple.
Because so many super liberals and GLAAD members were watching Duck Dynasty in the first place right?
Because you're more likely to find some Duck Dynasty merch at Urban Outfitters than Bass Pro Shops, right?
Because conservatives were watching msnbc...
Bashir fethed up, his employer fired him and while I thought what he said was funny I really don't care that he got fired, nor am I surprised he got fired.
Crablezworth wrote: Fox news was really trumpeting free speech when Martin Bashir said someone should gak in Sarah Palin's mouth... oh wait they demanded he be fired and.. oh ya, he was fired...
If the first amendment guaranteed every american their own reality show I'd say his rights were being infringed upon. This is exactly like the Paula Deen situation, if you cost your employer money; they’re likely to fire you, pretty simple.
So...wait... you want your news commentors to say that on their company's show?
Secondly... Phil R was interviewing for GQ... this was shown on the A&E show (as far as I know).
See the difference?
As to your first post, I don't recall saying I want anything.
I'm not sure I follow, are you suggesting magazine interviews occur outside of recorded history and or objective reality?
Baldwin's actions did not occur on his show but they were enough to get him suspended and eventually fired from the show, was his freedom of speech infringed upon?
The drunk donkey-cave research in motion executives who made a huge drunken scene and caused a plane to be diverted also got the axe from their employer, but wait, it didn't happen while they were at the office so it doesn't count right? They should be able to keep their jobs obviously...
Hell, fox doesn't have a leg to stand on here, we all remember glenn beck.. who totally still must work there right? Oh wait...
Crablezworth wrote: Fox news was really trumpeting free speech when Martin Bashir said someone should gak in Sarah Palin's mouth... oh wait they demanded he be fired and.. oh ya, he was fired...
If the first amendment guaranteed every american their own reality show I'd say his rights were being infringed upon. This is exactly like the Paula Deen situation, if you cost your employer money; they’re likely to fire you, pretty simple.
So...wait... you want your news commentors to say that on their company's show?
Secondly... Phil R was interviewing for GQ... this was shown on the A&E show (as far as I know).
See the difference?
As to your first post, I don't recall saying I want anything.
Merely pointing out that Bashir said that ON HIS SHOW.
What Phil R said was during an interview for GQ... His views wasn't aired on one of A&E's Duck Dynasty shows.
See?
I'm not sure I follow, are you suggesting magazine interviews occur outside of recorded history and or objective reality?
You're misunderstanding me... see above.
Baldwin's actions did not occur on his show but they were enough to get him suspended and eventually fired from the show, was his freedom of speech infringed upon?
Baldwin had done that on MULTIPLE occasion. This wasn't a heat-of-the-moment one time thing...
The drunk donkey-cave research in motion executives who made a huge drunken scene and caused a plane to be diverted also got the axe from their employer, but wait, it didn't happen while they were at the office so it doesn't count right? They should be able to keep their jobs obviously...
I don't even know what to say...
What Phil R. said/done isn't even close to was that drunk donkey-cave did. O.o
Let me write it slowly.
A) A&E filming a conservative, deeply religious show and making feth ton of money
B) Phil Robertson quotes the fething bible regarding what he believes are sins in an interview for GQ
C) faux-outrage ensues
Did I sum that up easily for you?
Frankly, if anyone is outrage about that... I'd question their intelligence.
Hell, fox doesn't have a leg to stand on here, we all remember glenn beck.. who totally still must work there right? Oh wait...
What does Fox/Beck have the feth to do with all this?
All I know is at this moment Im not looking forward to Christmas with my cousin, I have to spend 6 hours smoking rips with him, and I know this will be all he talks about
d-usa wrote: We have had people lie in this thread and say that nothing happened to Baldwin. Are people going to ignore the fact that he got fired?
He's still a Capital One dude...
Wait... step back... Baldwin had a show on MSNBC? o.O
Yeah, msnbc cancelled it after he had a much publicized altercation in which he called a photographer a bunch of homosexual slurs. And it's worth pointing out baldwin is all for homosexuality, still, his actions were deemed to be too much by his employers. gak happens.
d-usa wrote: We have had people lie in this thread and say that nothing happened to Baldwin. Are people going to ignore the fact that he got fired?
He's still a Capital One dude...
Wait... step back... Baldwin had a show on MSNBC? o.O
Yeah, msnbc cancelled it after he had a much publicized altercation in which he called a photographer a bunch of homosexual slurs. And it's worth pointing out baldwin is all for homosexuality, still, his actions were deemed to be too much by his employers. gak happens.
I just did some google-fu... you're right.
o.O
Holy gak... I think I'd watch some news cast with Alec fething Balwin... just think of all the materials for comedy coming from that show.
hotsauceman1 wrote: All I know is at this moment Im not looking forward to Christmas with my cousin, I have to spend 6 hours smoking rips with him, and I know this will be all he talks about
Smoking ribs sounds awesome.
And it's interesting were likening the Robertson situation to Alec Baldwin. Are we now saying Robertson used any slurs?
People brought him up because they said Baldwin got away without punishment while Robertson got punished. We established that this was not the case.
Now people might say that he didn't get punished enough because he still peddles Capital One. But Robertson still peddles gak with his face on it in tons of stores.
So the lesson is: conservatives and liberals say stupid stuff, get punished some, life goes on.
The real question is this: Should media companies, of all institution, be in the business of using coercive tactics to compel a particular mode of belief and expression? (am I saying this right?)
If Mr Robertson really is a good Christian and all concerned about who get into heaven, he should sell all his possessions and give his money to the poor, for it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven.
And that's straight from the Son of God, not some hardcore gamer who wrote some gak down years after the fact and got his dodgy fanfic into the BRB.
A) A&E filming a conservative, deeply religious show and making feth ton of money
B) Phil Robertson quotes the fething bible regarding what he believes are sins in an interview for GQ
C) faux-outrage ensues
Did I sum that up easily for you?
You left out the part where he said, essentially, that black people were ruined by welfare and that they were better off during the Jim Crow era.
A) A&E filming a conservative, deeply religious show and making feth ton of money
B) Phil Robertson quotes the fething bible regarding what he believes are sins in an interview for GQ
C) faux-outrage ensues
Did I sum that up easily for you?
You left out the part where he said, essentially, that black people were ruined by welfare and that they were better off during the Jim Crow era.
wut? That's not what he said dude.
Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”
No where there saying blacks were ruined by welfare and that they were better in Jim Crow era... he's just giving his anecdotal experience.
It's like some folks are trying really hard to make him look bad as much as possible.
First off, the time frame he is talking about what before the civil rights movement. We're talking about a time when black people were beaten for the "crime" of trying to vote, when there were still lynchings. This is a fact and not an opinion, yes?
So, all the blacks were happy back then, working. Sure, they were second class citizens - up until Mr. Robertson was 8 he attended segregated schools, Ms. Parks didn't refuse to give up her seat until he was 9, and so on - but they were "happy".
He then goes to - pre entitlement, pre-welfare. He's somehow leapt to the fact that "blacks" as a group get welfare and entitlements (despite the fact that the average welfare recipient is a single, working white mother, but lets put that to the side) which is in itself pretty shady. Right? Still not really a leap from what he said.
He then says "they were godly, they were happy, no one was singing the blues". Pre-welfare, pre-entitlement. Now that "the blacks" have welfare and entitlements, they are less godly, less happy, singing the blues. Welfare, in his mind, ruined black people. They were happier and better off when he was growing up, in the late 40s and early 50s. This is not exactly some strangled interpretation of a cryptic enigma here, he spoke plainly.
To paraphrase you, "It's like some folks are trying really hard to make him look innocent as much as possible."
I have no skin in this game. I've never watched the show. I knew nothing whatsoever about this guy 48 hours ago. My only interest in this thread is limited to the fact there aren't any better threads to argue in floating at the top of the OT currently and I'm stuck at work on my day off. So when I tell you what he said was actually a pretty crappy thing, probably worse than what he said about gays, believe me what I say I have no malice towards the guy.
Ouze wrote: First off, the time frame he is talking about what before the civil rights movement. We're talking about a time when black people were beaten for the "crime" of trying to vote, when there were still lynchings. This is a fact and not an opinion, yes?
So, all the blacks were happy back then, working. Sure, they were second class citizens - up until Mr. Robertson was 8 he attended segregated schools, Ms. Parks didn't refuse to give up her seat until he was 9, and so on - but they were "happy".
He then goes to - pre entitlement, pre-welfare. He's somehow leapt to the fact that "blacks" as a group get welfare and entitlements (despite the fact that the average welfare recipient is a single, working white mother, but lets put that to the side) which is in itself pretty shady. Right? Still not really a leap from what he said.
He then says "they were godly, they were happy, no one was singing the blues". Pre-welfare, pre-entitlement. Now that "the blacks" have welfare and entitlements, they are less godly, less happy, singing the blues. Welfare, in his mind, ruined black people. They were happier and better off when he was growing up, in the late 40s and early 50s. This is not exactly some strangled interpretation of a cryptic enigma here, he spoke plainly.
To paraphrase you, "It's like some folks are trying really hard to make him look innocent as much as possible."
I have no skin in this game. I've never watched the show. I knew nothing whatsoever about this guy 48 hours ago. My only interest in this thread is limited to the fact there aren't any better threads to argue in floating at the top of the OT currently and I'm stuck at work on my day off. So when I tell you what he said was actually a pretty crappy thing, probably worse than what he said about gays, believe me what I say I have no malice towards the guy.
I am also firmly in the "Who the F is this guy?" boat, but it seems like there are two different readings to this - a lot of people seem to think he was referring to all black people, but my reading is he was simply talking about those with whom he had personal experience, a small, rural population I'd believe.
I see what you mean. I think my interpretation was correct when in context with the others things he said; but I will agree that limiting the scope of it as you did is also a legitimate reading.
Ouze wrote: I see what you mean. I think my interpretation was correct when in context with the others things he said; but I will agree that limiting the scope of it as you did is also a legitimate reading.
Yeah... what Bromsy said.
I read it as his personal experience and not painting all blacks with a huge brush. And yes, I'll rephrase that it's like some folks are trying really hard to make him look as bad much as possible.
I actually disagree with him quite a bit... I have good friends who happens to be gay.
Look... I simply despise these coordinated efforts to shut these people up over something simple as a belief.
That's unacceptable... to anyone who values freedom of thought, belief, speech, and conscience.
Ouze wrote: I see what you mean. I think my interpretation was correct when in context with the others things he said; but I will agree that limiting the scope of it as you did is also a legitimate reading.
That's unacceptable... to anyone who values freedom of thought, belief, speech, and conscience.
In my estimation, if you're a television executive, freedom of thought, belief, speech and concscience come after keeping sponsors happy and making money.
Ouze wrote: I see what you mean. I think my interpretation was correct when in context with the others things he said; but I will agree that limiting the scope of it as you did is also a legitimate reading.
I think he is switching between personal experience, and general commentary, but I don't think anything he said regarding blacks was outright hateful; merely ignorant.
What I got from the comments is that the guy doesn't really know anything about the history of blacks in the US, and that he doesn't like entitlements. Pretty much your standard blue collar, old, Southern man.
whembly wrote: That's unacceptable... to anyone who values freedom of thought, belief, speech, and conscience.
I do value those things. I think he should be able to say whatever the hell he wants, and am grateful I had the good fortune to be born in one of the relatively few countries where I also have those rights with nearly no restrictions.
I also feel just as strongly that A&E has the right to decide that they don't want to subsidize his views, either, just as my job is free to choose to release me if I say something offensive to management that makes clients unhappy (for example).
That's unacceptable... to anyone who values freedom of thought, belief, speech, and conscience.
See, I argue that a coordinated effort to shut anyone up is a necessary consequence of public dialogue, which is itself necessary in a society that involves all of the freedoms you mentioned.
Put differently, you're free to say, believe, and think anything you want. But you must accept that other people are as well, and that this will inevitably lead to confrontation. Welcome to the marketplace of ideas.
Man, I gotta tell you, I was so conflicted about the Westboro funeral protesting. I agree they have a right to do it and I think the supreme court made the right call, but if a mourner casually went over and started stabbing them, I wouldn't be able to convict if I were on that jury.
Ouze wrote: I see what you mean. I think my interpretation was correct when in context with the others things he said; but I will agree that limiting the scope of it as you did is also a legitimate reading.
That's unacceptable... to anyone who values freedom of thought, belief, speech, and conscience.
In my estimation, if you're a television executive, freedom of thought, belief, speech and concscience come after keeping sponsors happy and making money.
Judging from all the reversals and the Duck Dynasty marathon for Christmas week, they decided it was a bad move to try to shut the guy down.
Ouze wrote: I see what you mean. I think my interpretation was correct when in context with the others things he said; but I will agree that limiting the scope of it as you did is also a legitimate reading.
That's unacceptable... to anyone who values freedom of thought, belief, speech, and conscience.
In my estimation, if you're a television executive, freedom of thought, belief, speech and concscience come after keeping sponsors happy and making money.
Judging from all the reversals and the Duck Dynasty marathon for Christmas week, they decided it was a bad move to try to shut the guy down.
I'm sure his mia culpa on ellen or anderson cooper is only a week or two away. I'm cynical enough to think the a&e execs saw what happened with the family guy brian stunt and hatched the whole thing.
Robertson Family wrote:“It is our understanding that when the TV executives came up with the concept for the show they wanted it to be a case of people laughing at a bunch of backward rednecks,” the source is quoted as saying. “But when it didn’t turn out like that and people actually started identifying with the way the family behaved and were laughing with them, not at them, they became uncomfortable. It did not sit well with the New York TV types.”
I don't necessarily agree, but well played none the less.
Robertson Family wrote:“It is our understanding that when the TV executives came up with the concept for the show they wanted it to be a case of people laughing at a bunch of backward rednecks,” the source is quoted as saying. “But when it didn’t turn out like that and people actually started identifying with the way the family behaved and were laughing with them, not at them, they became uncomfortable. It did not sit well with the New York TV types.”
I don't necessarily agree, but well played none the less.
This is true irony if what I read on this thread about the backward redkneck ways of this family being manufactured is correct. I have never seen the show, but it sounds like a 21st century version of "The Beverly Hillbillies".
Crablezworth wrote: I'm cynical enough to think the a&e execs saw what happened with the family guy brian stunt and hatched the whole thing.
Cheap populism moved a lot of chicken sandwiches not long ago.
And hate still hasn't tasted as good.
Also D, in a similar vein, a local service member was buried a few years ago, and during the hour or so of his burial, a local radio station played Chicken Fried (his favorite song), and asked anyone nearby to park their cars in front of the WBC, and crank the volume up. I believe it worked relatively effectively.
This is true irony if what I read on this thread about the backward redkneck ways of this family being manufactured is correct. I have never seen the show, but it sounds like a 21st century version of "The Beverly Hillbillies".
Going back and reading the article again, my interpretation was incorrect. It was not the Robertson family itself making the claim, but a source "close to the family" whose statements were being reported by the Daily Mail that was making the claim. So it is possible that the source has nothing at all to do with the Robertson family. This is the original article.
We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E's decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phil’s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Phil would never incite or encourage hate. We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.
Ouze wrote: I see what you mean. I think my interpretation was correct when in context with the others things he said; but I will agree that limiting the scope of it as you did is also a legitimate reading.
That's unacceptable... to anyone who values freedom of thought, belief, speech, and conscience.
In my estimation, if you're a television executive, freedom of thought, belief, speech and concscience come after keeping sponsors happy and making money.
Judging from all the reversals and the Duck Dynasty marathon for Christmas week, they decided it was a bad move to try to shut the guy down.
The Duck Dynasty marathon was scheduled for Christmas week to begin with. It takes a lot to change programming especially around the holidays.
whembly wrote: That's unacceptable... to anyone who values freedom of thought, belief, speech, and conscience.
I do value those things. I think he should be able to say whatever the hell he wants, and am grateful I had the good fortune to be born in one of the relatively few countries where I also have those rights with nearly no restrictions.
I also feel just as strongly that A&E has the right to decide that they don't want to subsidize his views, either, just as my job is free to choose to release me if I say something offensive to management that makes clients unhappy (for example).
First... I've never argued the A&E doesn't have the right to do this... they do.
The argument is not that they can... but should they do this.
Let me rephrase my earlier question: Should media companies, of all institutions, be in the business of using coercive tactics to compel a particular mode of belief and expression?
whembly wrote: Should media companies, of all institutions, be in the business of using coercive tactics to compel a particular mode of belief and expression?
That depends on whether publishing/supporting the belief/expression in question would be good or bad for profits. If I was a shareholder I might have some questions about the decision and want to see some profit-based justification for the choice.
If you're trying to make some kind of moral issue out of a company declining to provide, at their own expense, a platform for people they disagree with to speak from then no, there is no issue.
whembly wrote: That's unacceptable... to anyone who values freedom of thought, belief, speech, and conscience.
I do value those things. I think he should be able to say whatever the hell he wants, and am grateful I had the good fortune to be born in one of the relatively few countries where I also have those rights with nearly no restrictions.
I also feel just as strongly that A&E has the right to decide that they don't want to subsidize his views, either, just as my job is free to choose to release me if I say something offensive to management that makes clients unhappy (for example).
First... I've never argued the A&E doesn't have the right to do this... they do.
The argument is not that they can... but should they do this.
Let me rephrase my earlier question:
Should media companies, of all institutions, be in the business of using coercive tactics to compel a particular mode of belief and expression?
Should media companies be forced to act against their own interest and be forced through coercive tactics to air believes and expressions that they do not believe in and give up their own first amendment rights?
d-usa wrote: He has the freedom of speech to tell everybody what he thinks.
A&E has the freedom of speech to decide what the message is they want to send and give people the platform if they agree with them.
People have the freedom of speech to tell A&E what they think.
Advertisers have the freedom of speech (money edition) to not sponsor stuff that they don't agree with.
Referring to your last line- or to sponsor stuff, since that is what Cracker Barrel is now doing.
I've lurked this thread for a few days. Something that personally really bothers me is the "politically correct free speech double standard".
Chik-fil-A CEO says he thinks homosexuality is a sin. Shocker, right? He's a Christian, who gives up tons of money for his business by being closed on Sundays. From what I've seen, employees love the weekend day off, and generally like working there, for fast food. A model business.
Starbucks CEO says he is pro same sex marriage. Like the above, he runs a fantastic business that people seem to love working at.
I regularly still go to both. But the outrage over one comment and not the other was comical, to me, when both statements offend a large portion of the country. And I say this as someone who voted to legalize same sex marriage in Maryland.
Give the outrage a rest, will you guys? He's a hillbilly, and some of the things he says about himself / whites he was with (white trash) are also offensive. I wish people could be honest and not tip toe around so much that they're not saying anything.
Example: Happy Kwanzaa / Christmas / Holidays. It's fine to say "Happy Hanukkah". But to say everything at once is saying nothing. Have the guts to be honest, and open, and people will have more meaningful conversation and get to know one another. Rather than saying basically nothing to not offend anyone.
Just my thoughts after lurking. I don't care about DD, but might actually watch one episode now to see what the fuss is about . Get some thicker skin, folks though... seriously! Not everybody believes homosexuality is right, they have every right to say so, just as people have the right to practice it. It's a free country for a reason, nobody's controlling what the other person does.
All that said, Merry Christmas that's all I wanted to add to this thread.
RiTides wrote: Referring to your last line- or to sponsor stuff, since that is what Cracker Barrel is now doing.
I've lurked this thread for a few days. Something that personally really bothers me is the "politically correct free speech double standard".
Chik-fil-A CEO says he thinks homosexuality is a sin. Shocker, right? He's a Christian, who gives up tons of money for his business by being closed on Sundays. From what I've seen, employees love the weekend day off, and generally like working there, for fast food. A model business.
Starbucks CEO says he is pro same sex marriage. Like the above, he runs a fantastic business that people seem to love working at.
I regularly still go to both. But the outrage over one comment and not the other was comical, to me, when both statements offend a large portion of the country. And I say this as someone who voted to legalize same sex marriage in Maryland.
The outrage in regards to Chik-fil-A wasn't solely about the comments that the guy made, but rather that the Chik-fil-A operated charity the Winshape Foundation(a 501(c)(3)private foundation) was making significant contributions to anti-gay groups, most notably the group "Exodus International" which is a big advocate of "gay conversion therapy".
So bypass their delicious chicken if that truly bothers you. Personally, I'll be enjoying my delicious Grande salted caramel hot chocolate with a spicy chicken deluxe this holiday season. As far as I know, both companies donate to opposite causes. I really don't care, I'm there to eat!
The exception is an excellent BBQ in SC which was owned by a known racist. It even made it's way into his ads. He finally died or retired, his son got rid of all that gak, so I've now eaten there for the first time when visiting family at Thanksgiving.
But sorry, people agreeing or disagreeing, respectfully, with the practice of homosexuality is not going to determine what I eat or buy. I think it's a discussion worth having! Discriminate and I will boycott your business... disagree and I have no problem. Of course, this guy's comments were whacky... I'm using this to talk more generally as this is an issue I've been thinking about, regardless of this specific case.
Vive la Starbucks and Chik-fil-A . Maybe if a right wing conservative could sit down with a left wing liberal over a latte and box of chicken fingers, we'd all learn more... And maybe end up in the middle, having friends who feel both ways and not being so polarized all the time!
There have been a few studies showing an evolutionary benefit to being homosexual. I'd have to dig them up though to get the details.
Looking forward to that. Is it a natural culling of populations?
Actually the oposite. While the gay male is less likely to have children, female relatives on the maternal side of the gay male are more likely to have more children and have a higher rate of fertility and reproductive success.
So my statement was slightly incorrect that there is a evolutionary benefit to being homosexual and it should have said that the evolutionary beneficial genetic trait that results in more reproductive success in women also seems to be a genetic cause for homosexual behavior om select males along the maternal line.
I remember the actual study, and I have to do some more diggint to find it. But here is one summary of it.
And if you got nothing else worthwhile to say you start throwing the idiot word around.
And if you are being "glib or tongue in cheek" and it backfires then it's because you made a stupid joke, not because everybody else is wrong
Maybe you prefer to substitute "idiot" with "being obtuse?"
It's pretty clear he was joking. Is it a bad joke? Maybe, but that's purely subjective.
And if you tell a bad joke then you can't really get upset when people get angry at your bad joke. What about this lady:
"Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!"
Where are the protests and angry people that are fighting for her to get her job back because she was clearly just joking?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Still, the make alot of money. They doont need to hunt for survival, they choose to. So it is illogical to do all that work when you can drive down to the store. If that is what they like, good for them, but it doesnt make sense. Illogical =/= wrong.
Somebody is killing whatever they eat no matter how much money they have though. I don't really think it's any more illogical for them to hunt and kill their own food than to pay somebody somewhere to drive a bolt through a cows head before picking up the meat at the store. For me hunting makes you appreciate the animal and the whole process of something dying to feed you more. Food doesn't become just a thing, it's attached to a life.
For me the only "illogical" hunting is trophy hunting. Eat what you kill or don't kill it is my philosophy.
I remember the study mentioned. It was done 5 years ago.. The most important thing to remember about it is this....
Other researchers have not been able to replicate these findings.
When others following in their footsteps are able to replicate the finding of a study it begins to become acknowledged fact.
When others following in their footsteps are not able to replicate the finding of a study it still is in scientific limbo.
Organizations can quote non-replicated studies all they want, no law against it. Just do not blur often quoted with hard science.
Vive la Starbucks and Chik-fil-A . Maybe if a right wing conservative could sit down with a left wing liberal over a latte and box of chicken fingers, we'd all learn more... And maybe end up in the middle, having friends who feel both ways and not being so polarized all the time!
RiTides wrote: Vive la Starbucks and Chik-fil-A . Maybe if a right wing conservative could sit down with a left wing liberal over a latte and box of chicken fingers, we'd all learn more... And maybe end up in the middle, having friends who feel both ways and not being so polarized all the time!
Yeah, let's all just meet in the middle. We should all have friends who are non-racists and friends who are KKK members and not be so polarized all the time.
skyth wrote: As if anti-gay bigots and people that are against bigotry are in any way morally equivalent.
I have a problem with this statement. One can believe things are a sin or are wrong morally without being hateful or intolerant, defining characteristics of bigotry.
In fact, I'd argue some of these vocal atheists denouncing Robertson are far bigger bigots than he is.
skyth wrote: Bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry. Not to mention saying that blacks were better off and happier under Jim Crow laws is reprehensible.
That someone can be a bigot in another way no way excuses someone else's bigotry.
Were did he say "blacks were better off and happier under Jim Crow laws"? If he said that, then yes it's truly reprehensible.
Is this going to be another thread like that godawful healthcare one, where one faction asks the same questions over and over again, the other faction answers the same answers over and over again with the same answers over and over again until they get tired of doing so and gives up, and then the first faction turns it into an unceasing circle jerk echo chamber?
Ouze wrote: Is this going to be another thread like that godawful healthcare one, where one faction asks the same questions over and over again, the other faction answers the same answers over and over again with the same answers over and over again until they get tired of doing so and gives up, and then the first faction turns it into an unceasing circle jerk echo chamber?
Dunno... I'm just wondering where "Jim Crow" came into the conversation.
Is it because, when he's regaling his own anecdotal observation pre-Civil Rights era is the same as complicit approval of Jim Crowinsm? If so, then this is why we can't ever have an honest discussion.
As for that "godawful healthcare" thread... is it because the naysayers were right?
He's indicating life were better for blacks in a period of time when I daresay the average black American might not feel the same way and he seems to think most blacks, at least in his anecdotal experience, are on welfare and entitlements and that's why they're so unhappy and ungodly now. I mean, we already had this exact discussion a page back so I'm surprised we're having an innocent, doe eyed aw-shucks what do you mean discussion one page later.
Frazzled wrote: Yes. Remember childrens, if someone disagrees with you they have to be bigots.
Tell you what. I'll agree that there are at least some percentage of people who do this if you agree sometimes you disagree with someone's point of view because they are actually bigots.
Ouze wrote: He's indicating life were better for blacks in a period of time
remember, from his own perspective working in the fields with them as a poor white trash person.
when I daresay the average black American might not feel the same way
Of course, I agree with you there.
and he seems to think most blacks, at least in his anecdotal experience, are on welfare and entitlements and that's why they're so unhappy and ungodly now.
If anything, THIS is what he should be criticized for... stereotyping of the worst order there.
I mean, we already had this exact discussion a page back so I'm surprised we're having an innocent, doe eyed aw-shucks what do you mean discussion one page later.
So, since you said your piece, the conversation is over?
I've NEVER said he was this "innocent, doe eyed aw-shucks" dude... I'm only asserting that folks are making a mountain out of an anthill over his remarks that EVERYONE should've seen miles away.
Frankly, the real ISSUE with me is A&E's handling of this faux-outrage:
1) he has every right to say it.
2) he should suffer any criticism... that's fair game.
3) A&E does have a right to terminate him for any reason (as long as it doesn't break laws or contractual reasons)
4) The question SHOULD be this:
It's not that A&E can terminate him... it's SHOULD they do this? In other words, SHOULD they use whatever coercive means to curtail the spirit of "free speech" on their shows. ESPECIALLY since the what he said should come to no surprise.
They've could've stated that his views by no means are reflective of A&E's view, blah, blah, blah... just like every other media companies does in their disclaimer.
See my drift?
This is why I had so much problem with this Administration's response to condemn Nakoula Basseley's anti-muslim film that was supposedly sparked the protest in Cairo. They should've articulated what free speech means instead of issuing a simple condemnation.
Frazzled wrote: Yes. Remember childrens, if someone disagrees with you they have to be bigots.
Tell you what. I'll agree that there are at least some percentage of people who do this if you agree sometimes you disagree with someone's point of view because they are actually bigots.
whembly wrote: So, since you said your piece, the conversation is over?
No, not at all. But you're not countering my points with new facts or a new argument, you're just repeating the question as if no one had answered it. Might I add, you are doing so even while mostly agreeing with the thrust of the answer! You're agreeing that it's "stereotyping of the worst order" while dismissing the claims this is bigotry.
You ask "should A&E do it"? The answer really lies with whether or not it costs them money to do so, or not. Since a corporation is a legal fiction and it's obliged to seek whatever avenue returns the best return for it's shareholders, morality doesn't have an angle in this. They're not curtailing his speech or even the spirit of his speech, they're simply going to take whatever avenue they have that either maximizes revenue or at the minimum mitigates harm.
You ask, do they have the right to do this, but I think the other side of the coin - the A&E shareholder and stakeholder side - might find a fair question to be, do they have the right to NOT fire him?
I don't think a first amendment unencumbered by any consequences will lead to a workable society. As whole, we've decided we're comfortable with the fact someone can be fired from their job for non-work-related comments if they reflect poorly on their employer, all else being equal. That will change when enough people want it to, I imagine.
*yes, I know he wasn't "fired" and wasn't even really an A&E employee per se, but lets simplify it a little for arguments sake.
whembly wrote: So, since you said your piece, the conversation is over?
No, not at all. But you're not countering my points with new facts or a new argument, you're just repeating the question as if no one had answered it. Might I add, you are doing so even while mostly agreeing with the thrust of the answer! You're agreeing that it's "stereotyping of the worst order" while dismissing the claims this is bigotry.
Where did I dismiss it's bigotry? o.O
If it's my comment about this is folks making a mountain out of an anthill... then, so be it. But I assure you that's not the case.
You truly wanna know my reaction to this? I rolled my eyes.
You ask "should A&E do it"? The answer really lies with whether or not it costs them money to do so, or not. Since a corporation is a legal fiction and it's obliged to seek whatever avenue returns the best return for it's shareholders, morality doesn't have an angle in this. They're not curtailing his speech or even the spirit of his speech, they're simply going to take whatever avenue they have that either maximizes revenue or at the minimum mitigates harm.
Alright... fair enough. I'd posit that it'd be against A&E shareholder's interest to do anything that may cause this show to shut down. The family has stated that if he isn't reinstated, then the show stops.
Right? So that argument sorta falls flat. As did the Chick-fil-A incident.
However, let's expand this a bit if you will...
As between one of two possible worlds, since there doesn't seem to be a middle ground here unfortunately.
One world, in which freedom of thought and expression is generously and broadly encouraged not only by the state... but by other powerful institutions, such as your employers, permitting a wide latitude in speech and respecting large zone of personal autonomy.
Or another world, in which freedom of thought and expression is sharply curtailed and discouraged by the threat of economic coercion against anyone dissenting against this week's folly or whatever outraged-flavor-of-the-month?
Which world would we prefer to live in? I know I'm being bombastic... but bear with me here.
You ask, do they have the right to do this, but I think the other side of the coin - the A&E shareholder and stakeholder side - might find a fair question to be, do they have the right to NOT fire him?
Of course.
But if we're purely talking about the almighty dolla... this is the #1 rated cable show. It's their cash cow and doing anything to disrupt that may make the shareholder/investors unhappy.
So... which is it? Is this a Moral Stand? Or purely a business decision? In this case, I'm not convinced it can be both.
I don't think a first amendment unencumbered by any consequences will lead to a workable society. As whole, we've decided we're comfortable with the fact someone can be fired from their job for non-work-related comments if they reflect poorly on their employer, all else being equal. That will change when enough people want it to, I imagine.
*yes, I know he wasn't "fired" and wasn't even really an A&E employee per se, but lets simplify it a little for arguments sake.
Agreed... and I've never advocated as such.
Criticize Robertson's comments all you want.
But fire him for it? That's a bit much. That's all I was saying...
Automatically Appended Next Post: In the interest of civilty to cool the debate, I give thee the glorious Katy Perry gif:
I think there is a middle ground. When this guy said the things he said, there were no, as far as I know, calls for a giant boycott of all the duck crap these guys make. Whistles and stuff, I guess? I dunno. Anyway there was no, like, Al Sharpton march on Washington to demand... whatever. There was no, as you say, sharp curtailing of his economic freedom in the face of politically correct groupthink.
As is this generations wont, the protests consisted of a like, 2 day Facebookgasm of images with words on them and then it subsided. I think that A&E's choice to fire the guy really just fueled a Streisand effect here, and like the others who have said so earlier, I also wonder if that wasn't the intended effect. We know from this thread that they have been duplicitous in other aspects of the show, with the faux-censoring nonexistent profanity and such.
The more I see my atheist friends post condescending anti religious gak on facebook, the more I get frustrated with this situation (and the anti-religion posts were plentiful this holiday season).
I just hate how homophobe and bigot have been, IMO, inappropriately tossed around in regards to this.
cincydooley wrote: The more I see my atheist friends post condescending anti religious gak on facebook, the more I get frustrated with this situation (and the anti-religion posts were plentiful this holiday season).
I just hate how homophobe and bigot have been, IMO, inappropriately tossed around in regards to this.
Shhh, Miss Perry speaks.
His comments went over the line, but I can't begrudge the guy for speaking anecdotally. As someone pointed out in this thread (I believe), did we really expect the rich redneck from the backwoods of Louisiana to not harbor such thoughts?
Don't post imgaes with profanity on Dakka.
Reds8n
Phil Robertson said something outdated and ignorant and in a 'private' setting. I'm sure that the interviewer didn't just turn on a tape recorder and Phil started going, "DEM GAYS ARE LIKE ANIMAL FETHERS!" I'm sure he led him into the question like, "So what do you think about the gay rights situation in our country?" or something along those lines, and Phil answered casually as you might think he did. And yes, his comments about pre-civil rights blacks were probably more out of line than his line of thought about homosexuals and those that sin in terrible ways.
And I agree with Ouze on the 2 day facebookgasm of images for support and calling him out. It's blown over, and he'll quietly wind back up on the show in a season or so.
Now that I'm not typing on my phone, I can have a more complete thought.
As a celebrity, certain people take his words as having a certain 'truth' to them. (Whether they should or not isn't in question). By having a platform to spew bigoted information, he is hurting people. Equating homosexuality with bestiality (And I don't care if he was supposedly quoting a holy book.) Equating homosexuality with bestiality IS an attack on homosexuals. Especially considering the history of saying they are all child molesters and it is the same as bestiality. That it's from your religion doesn't mean it isn't bigoted. This is especially true when he picks and chooses what part of the religious teachings to follow. There is a difference between saying it's not for you and demonizing people who do it.
Same with his 'personal observations' of blacks being better off under Jim Crow laws. Those weren't just personal observations. Consider the environment they were made in with the constant attacks on homosexuals (Especially in the are where he's from) and trying to deny them equal rights, take away their children, or even to consider them less than human. This is especially true coming from a celebrity with a platform. Much like politicians in the south being for 'state rights' as a code word to say that they were against equality for blacks.
With power comes responsibility. And he abused the responsibility by being a bigot. If there wasn't consequences of his speech, then that is passive complicities in bigotry. Same as not speaking up when a guy at a party makes a racist joke or your friend tells the story about how he got away with sexually assaulting a woman. There needs to be push back that shows that this sort of behavior and speech is not acceptable.
In fact he said the opposite. Again, those quotes haven't been aired by the media because they don't fit the desired narrative.
And you just pretend that we didn't read the article because us not getting the information spoon fed to us by the "media" doesn't fit your desired narrative.
I read the article, and my opinion is that what he said was homophobic and bigoted. You can repeat your "he didn't say anything homophobic or bigoted" statement all you want, that doesn't change the fact that plenty of people feel that his statements were just that.
No amount of people telling you that they were offended by his statements is going to change the fact that you don't think his statements were homophobic or bigoted.
But I guess it's easier to go through life thinking that everybody but yourself is getting manipulated by the media than it is to admit that people might say somethingthat other people find offensive even though you don't.
Plenty of people were offended. Plenty of people think that there was nothing to be offended about. That's how speech goes.
I'm not pretending. It's pretty clear about half the folks participating in this thread, present company excluded, didn't.
But in the end, you're right. The easily offended are going to be offended. Others won't be. I'll at least agree it isn't a freedom of speech per the 1st amendment issue.
But I'll maintain he didn't say anything bigoted or homophobic, especially when put in context with the whole. But then again, I adhere to the whole "prejudiced intolerance" part of the bigoted definition and "prejudiced and fearful" part of the homophobic definition.
I read the whole 3 page, un-spoonfed Article. And he said some stupid stuff(Like why he voted for Romney over Obama, just stupid IMO) And What h said was bigoted and homophopic. It is up for debate whether he said bestiality is the same as gay sex, But it is clear he does not like homosexuality and thinks it is a sin.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I read the whole 3 page, un-spoonfed Article. And he said some stupid stuff(Like why he voted for Romney over Obama, just stupid IMO) And What h said was bigoted and homophopic. It is up for debate whether he said bestiality is the same as gay sex, But it is clear he does not like homosexuality and thinks it is a sin.
You can love the person and dislike the act. It's actually a pretty common teaching of Christianity.
And quite frankly, I refuse to hear anyone get butthurt over anyone's reasons for voting for Romney when there are an umpteen number of documented cases of people voting for Obama because he's black or because he "seemed cooler." (And for clarity and disclosure, I think all of those reasons are wrong, including voting for Romney because he's white; I voted for neither)
If I actually thought the social justice warriors in this thread weren't simply trolling I might engage.
What I've taken from this whole fiasco is that Duck Dynasty is apparently a much larger phenomenon than I had ever imagined. Apparently I don't go to walmart often enough.
You apparently havent gone anywhere. IT is everywhere. Barnes and Noble had an entire shelf dedicated to them, not even full of books, but Bobbleheads.
I was hoping for a more considered, less name-calling discussion. Guess I'll stick to talking about these kinds of things in-person rather than here... should've known better!
However, d-usa, Ouze, I feel we could have a great discussion on this sometime via text, as I appreciate your thoughtful posts. I'd say we could try it in the DCM forum sometime... But at the moment I just want to enjoy Christmas!
I also feel the real discussion I want to have is being clouded by the DD persona, as well as the history some posters apparently have with each other here. This is an issue I have gone back and forth on quite a bit, and still find myself in the middle on... But with less and less folks to talk to about it in a moderate way.
Cheers for the thoughtful responses, those of you who did give them.
Well I'm apparently not in the thoughtful response club, but whatever.
Is Phil Robertson probably bigoted? Yeah. I'd be surprised if the dude that lives on a backwater Louisiana plantation making hunting paraphernalia wasn't.
But I just don't think THESE comments were when taken as a whole. His off-color joke about donkey-caves and vaginas was borderline, I guess, but to me it wasn't homophobic. But I do think he was being glib.
Is his paraphrasing of Corinthians bigoted? I guess if you consider Corinthians to be bigoted then yes, it is. I think when taken in full context of his conversation in the article, it's pretty clear he's talking about the nature of sin in general. Gay rights advocates are just much louder than the national prostitutes union, so it obviously takes the forefront.
Again, I think the worst thing he said (likening Muslims to the Nazi regime) is being strangely UNDERREPORTED in this whole situation. But I guess it makes pretty clear where that persecution sits in terms of importance In the American zeitgeist.
Cincy- You are, sorry... I was just referring to two people who in some ways I was disagreeing with but felt we could have a fruitful discussion. I have definitely appreciated some content from your posts here, too.
I’m still new here so I’ll go out of my way to tread as lightly as I can without getting too much heat drawn towards me because this is a hot button topic. Well that goes without saying to as with anything remotely political anymore in this country.
This is a stereotypical hyper-exaggerated queen, who finds "love" at the end of the episode by hooking up with a hot young hustler who will ignore his advanced age in exchange for upkeep and money.
What about Alec Baldwin? As far as I know, he is still a Capital One pitchman.
Why is making fun of this topic okay? And yet what Phil Robertson said is allegedly "horribly offensive" and should suffer actual economic consequences for expressing them... nevermind that those where his opinions that no one should EVER be surprised about.
I guess it matters which team you're on...eh?
A solid point.
It does matter which team you’re on as now days if you tote a party or ideological line there will be those to take care of you if you frak up. The media anymore enjoys these little distractions by shining the spotlight on anything controversial just to get ratings. I notice many of you picked up on this whole “spoon feeding” routine the media is so keen on these days. I suppose there is still hope for this country yet. It does not help matters any when there are sudden knee-jerk reactions emanating from both sides of the political spectrum.
This is a stereotypical hyper-exaggerated queen, who finds "love" at the end of the episode by hooking up with a hot young hustler who will ignore his advanced age in exchange for upkeep and money.
What about Alec Baldwin? As far as I know, he is still a Capital One pitchman.
Why is making fun of this topic okay? And yet what Phil Robertson said is allegedly "horribly offensive" and should suffer actual economic consequences for expressing them... nevermind that those where his opinions that no one should EVER be surprised about.
I guess it matters which team you're on...eh?
My guess? The SNL skit is comedy, not meant to be taken seriously.
Alec Baldwin used a small slur probably in the heat of a momeny
Robertson has an agenda, saying homosexuals are sinful and wanting us to turn our backs on our godlessness.
SNL is equal opportunity when it comes to comedy but I think this is debatable as their skits tend to learn towards attacking traditional Americans as of late than before. Jury is still out on that one.
Alec Baldwin makes an anti-gay slur and he was canned only because the pressure was too much for the mainstream media to simply blow it off. I guess his actions are catching up with him, who knows?. The man has anger issues and personally needs a royal kick in the fundament.
Robertsons have an agenda, wow that one made me laugh. So I guess A&E has an agenda too with all its reality shows too I bet? That last one was a bit ridiculous don’t you think? The Robertsons had their own thing going on before they were even considered to be on A&E. What agenda would that be? What is YOUR agenda?
GLAAD is one of these militant gay organizations that enjoy attacking any modicum of traditional American Christian values. They’re the first ones to scream “bigot!” in the same fashion these Jesse Jacksons and Al Shaprtons scream “racist!” for attention. Has anyone figured these GLAAD militants are about as bigoted for attacking the Christian tenets as the ones they blame for being bigoted for quoting scripture? Ask not yourself who is the bigot but who is the most intolerant and the most bigoted by proxy? In my experience the ones in this shouting contest on who is more bigoted the victor goes to the loudest and yet the loudest ends up being the most hypocritical.
We lost sense of having a debate anymore because one side wants to shut the other side’s argument down thus we can’t have a debate thus having the gnashing of teeth and flaring tempers. Both sides are equally guilty of these bully tactics only now the liberal side has the advantage of manipulating the argument better than conservatives at the moment. Take that as you may.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Its funny because he says liberals are the only ones assaulting free speech. It is a Two way street, conservatives do it aswell, like demanding companies say "Marry Christmas" not "Happy Holidays"
It is a two way street indeed however the liberals get away with it a lot more than their conservative counterparts for the most part. It still boils down to the reality I think people are getting burnt out on this political correctness being shoved down their throats. Sure people have been saying “Happy Holidays” for a long while now from the secular parts of society versus Merry Christmas but it hasn’t been really been pushed or enforced onto society until 10 or 15 years ago. That to me appears to be more agenda related than anything when it is “pushed” rather come about naturally some all walks of life.
There was a point and time in this country (the US in case you Euros and Canucks are listening in) we didn’t get so offended by these trivial matters. We didn’t have all “outrage factories” as one person stated back then to stoke the fires between two debating sides of these hot button issues such as homosexuality, illegal immigration, gun ownership, socialized medicine and what not. We can’t have a civil debate in this country anymore without someone or one side being so hostile the debate is shut down before it can be properly resolved.
Crablezworth wrote:Fox news was really trumpeting free speech when Martin Bashir said someone should gak in Sarah Palin's mouth... oh wait they demanded he be fired and.. oh ya, he was fired...
If the first amendment guaranteed every american their own reality show I'd say his rights were being infringed upon. This is exactly like the Paula Deen situation, if you cost your employer money; they’re likely to fire you, pretty simple.
It’s all about money and imagery, however look how much pressure it took to pull Martin Bashir off the air versus Paula Dean.
Having said that it was stupid from both their parts for what they said only thing is Paula’s problem came from what occurred 30 YEARS AGO versus what transpired a month ago. Martin Bashir’s comments were out of pure malice while Paula’s was something coming from the times in the south many years ago. That isn’t the case today as that kind of language went away over time and people who still stuck on this whole “waah, the south is so racist or Jim Crow still exists there” needs to crawl out of the rock they’ve been living under or pull their heads out of their butts.
Phil Robertson’s first amendment rights weren’t violated as the knee-jerking Sarah Palins will have you believe. HOWEVER! It does not take away from the fact he is being persecuted for not only his freedom of expression but for his religious views as well from the opposite sides. Sure how he said the sin of homosexual acts (not homosexuality in general) was a bit crude and I disagree with the part of homosexuality is on par of bestiality and all the other things stated in the article but he still quoted scripture in some parts of the op-ed and his religious views are being persecuted. Don’t tell me A&E had no idea he would say such things. A&E knew dang good and well where Phil was coming from, heck there has been multiple cases of him quoting scripture and giving remarks regarding homosexuality in previous interviews before this controversy started. All it is a knee-jerk reaction from the cowardice and sycophants of A&E, nothing more and nothing less.
Ahtman wrote:I wonder what the response would have been if he had compared Fundamentalists or Evangelicals to terrorists.
Nowhere near the amount of manufactured outrage emanating from the media now, that’s for sure. It all seems a bit lopsided don’t you think? Believe me if the shoe was on the other foot the liberals will be screaming bloody murder that his freedom of speech was being violated and probably wouldn’t hear no more than a peep coming from the likes of GLAAD or other militant liberal organizations.
Kanluwen wrote:Sure the Liberals might have "outrage factories", but many of them are so blatantly obvious that they get ignored by sensible people.
Fox News on the other hand gets taken fairly seriously by their audience.
Fox News is another opinion versus what is projected by the mainstream. Then again that’s a personal preference since I find it hard to take CNN seriously anymore but still watch it for the sake of getting both sides of the issue. I’m afraid these sensible people are becoming far and few between these days.
cincydooley wrote:Honestly, I hope the Robertsons say feth A&E and go to either a Fox Affiliate like FX or Nat Geo.
Nothing's a bigger feth you than costing a station tons of money.
Agreed. Perhaps that will be the best move is to have DD tell A&E to eff-off. Make the network lose money for their stupid knee jerk reactions because the Robertsons have plenty of money, it won’t be a major loss to them versus what A&E will lose.
Monster Rain wrote:If I actually thought the social justice warriors in this thread weren't simply trolling I might engage.
What I've taken from this whole fiasco is that Duck Dynasty is apparently a much larger phenomenon than I had ever imagined. Apparently I don't go to walmart often enough.
Social justice is about as fake as the liberal agenda. It’s all about manipulating people’s emotions in order to get the response desired. Ironic when the social justice warriors outrage over an issue they actually bring more attention towards those they outrage over than hurting them which was originally intended. I still find it hard to believe they’re that stupid though.
Then again the ones the social justice warriors try to help they forget about those they hurt in the process then again they probably don't care as long as they get their agenda through or get whatever amount attention they desire. Who knows? I'm not inclined to get entrenched on the subject matter anymore than I have now.
Heavy Metal wrote: Having said that it was stupid from both their parts for what they said only thing is Paula’s problem came from what occurred 30 YEARS AGO versus what transpired a month ago. Martin Bashir’s comments were out of pure malice while Paula’s was something coming from the times in the south many years ago.
2007 is neither what most people consider to be "many years ago", and it's most certainly not 30 years ago by any math known to me*.
Ouze wrote: Looks like those branding attempts paid off, eh, Dogma?
Who's branding whom?
This is a little obscure at this point, but of those high noise, low signal types was apparently repeatedly using the phrase "social justice warrior" in the OT. Dogma pointed it out and asked "trying a little branding, are we?". Well, it appears to have paid off.
Hell if I know what it means, though. From it's use by Heavy Metal, it appears to encompass anyone who isn't saddened by the consequences suffered by someone who says something like:
“Well what I would really like is a bunch of little n***ers to wear long-sleeve white shirts, black shorts and black bow ties, you know in the Shirley Temple days, they used to tap dance around,”
As Mrs. Deen is alleged to have said in a 2007 conversation, according to a sworn statement.
*although in all fairness very little math is known to me.
Heavy Metal wrote: We can’t have a civil debate in this country anymore without someone or one side being so hostile the debate is shut down before it can be properly resolved.
America has never had a civil debate in all its history. Hell, the first debate we ever had ended in a war
Relapse wrote: Thus leaves the safe for work rating of this thread...
Is that NSFW?
Huh.
Where I work, old bean, that on a computer will land you in HR if the wrong person sees it. A good choice of vid on your part, though, this thread is the better for it.
Heavy Metal wrote: We can’t have a civil debate in this country anymore without someone or one side being so hostile the debate is shut down before it can be properly resolved.
America has never had a civil debate in all its history. Hell, the first debate we ever had ended in a war
I beg to differ sir, you forgot how the Civil Rights came about although there was voilence but did not end in war.
That is in the extreme cases which is indeed true what is happening now. The scary thing is the amount of animosity are at levels that were prelude to the war of northern aggression or the Civil War back in 1861. We had plenty of civil debates in the past that invoked voilence but not so much it shut down or led to massive bloodshed. Prohibition, Women's Sufferage, Worker's rights just to name a few that has been resolved. I know those aren't the best examples but bear with me here.
It seems to me now days one side is more interested in manipulating people's emotions to get them riled up to fuel an agenda benefiting their party and screwing everyone else than actually resolving the issue entirely. Take that as you may.
Ouze wrote:
Heavy Metal wrote: Having said that it was stupid from both their parts for what they said only thing is Paula’s problem came from what occurred 30 YEARS AGO versus what transpired a month ago. Martin Bashir’s comments were out of pure malice while Paula’s was something coming from the times in the south many years ago.
2007 is neither what most people consider to be "many years ago", and it's most certainly not 30 years ago by any math known to me*.
Ouze wrote: Looks like those branding attempts paid off, eh, Dogma?
Who's branding whom?
This is a little obscure at this point, but of those high noise, low signal types was apparently repeatedly using the phrase "social justice warrior" in the OT. Dogma pointed it out and asked "trying a little branding, are we?". Well, it appears to have paid off.
Hell if I know what it means, though. From it's use by Heavy Metal, it appears to encompass anyone who isn't saddened by the consequences suffered by someone who says something like:
“Well what I would really like is a bunch of little n***ers to wear long-sleeve white shirts, black shorts and black bow ties, you know in the Shirley Temple days, they used to tap dance around,”
As Mrs. Deen is alleged to have said in a 2007 conversation, according to a sworn statement.
*although in all fairness very little math is known to me.
This alledged statement that caused all the media rage back then was back in 2007? That's a new one on me.
Funny how people have short memories over things such as WWII, 9/11 and Benghazi but their memories are quite fresh over something trivial over what a (now former) cook show host said 30 years ago. Nevermind the person in question who brought this up was white and probably had more interest in getting money out of the law suit than being mentally distressed over racial inneundo. I mean, really?
I've travelled nearly over the continental US and I hear more racial slurs in supposedly more liberal states like California than I have in the deep rural areas of Alabama and that was more than just truck stops too...
Either way it is hard to bring any level of civility these days without someone diving head first into hysterics. A sad case indeed.
whembly wrote: Or another world, in which freedom of thought and expression is sharply curtailed and discouraged by the threat of economic coercion against anyone dissenting against this week's folly or whatever outraged-flavor-of-the-month?
But that's not even close to what we have here. This isn't a corporation intruding into an individual's private life and telling them what to say, it's a case of an employee giving an interview in their role as an employee and saying something that makes the company look bad. This is no different than firing a customer service employee for being rude to a customer.
Heavy Metal wrote: GLAAD is one of these militant gay organizations that enjoy attacking any modicum of traditional American Christian values.
Poor traditional bigots. Maybe if they don't want to be attacked they shouldn't keep yelling so loudly about how you're going to be tortured for eternity if you do the "wrong" things in bed, or throwing tons of money at campaigns to insist that the only legal form of marriage is the one that obeys the commands of their god.
Has anyone figured these GLAAD militants are about as bigoted for attacking the Christian tenets as the ones they blame for being bigoted for quoting scripture?
This makes about as much sense as saying that someone is a racist and a bigot for attacking the KKK tenets.
Sure people have been saying “Happy Holidays” for a long while now from the secular parts of society versus Merry Christmas but it hasn’t been really been pushed or enforced onto society until 10 or 15 years ago. That to me appears to be more agenda related than anything when it is “pushed” rather come about naturally some all walks of life.
This is a joke, right? The whole "secular war on Christmas" is nothing more than a bunch of conservative media people generating fake (but very profitable) outrage every time someone doesn't celebrate the Christian version of the holiday loudly enough. The only time anyone is "pushing" a secular version on anyone is when it's a case of the government endorsing a particular religion, something that was banned all the way back when the country was first created.
HOWEVER! It does not take away from the fact he is being persecuted for not only his freedom of expression but for his religious views as well from the opposite sides.
I don't think you understand what persecution means. Nobody is trying to take his rights away, they're just declining to give him a paycheck or buy his products. You don't get to complain about persecution until you have real persecution, like throwing him in jail for what he said. Until then it's nothing more than yet another case of conservative Christians in the US inventing "persecution" so that they can feel like proper martyrs.
Believe me if the shoe was on the other foot the liberals will be screaming bloody murder that his freedom of speech was being violated and probably wouldn’t hear no more than a peep coming from the likes of GLAAD or other militant liberal organizations.
And they would be just as stupid if they did. Freedom of speech means that the government can't censor you or punish you for saying something. It does NOT mean that nobody can disagree with you or act differently based on what you've said.
I've travelled nearly over the continental US and I hear more racial slurs in supposedly more liberal states like California than I have in the deep rural areas of Alabama and that was more than just truck stops too...
I've witnessed cross burnings in Louisiana, but I've still seen more racism in St. Louis then I did there. It's just racism that's given a pass.
I've travelled nearly over the continental US and I hear more racial slurs in supposedly more liberal states like California than I have in the deep rural areas of Alabama and that was more than just truck stops too...
There is a difference between having an area with racists and having institutionalized racism, not that this is really a factor in what is happening in this particular scenario.
Heavy Metal wrote: This alledged statement that caused all the media rage back then was back in 2007? That's a new one on me.
Yes, it's readily apparent that you aren't familiar with the facts of the situation, and should perhaps reconsider using it as an analogy for the larger picture until you familiarize yourself with the details. The deposition (in May, 2013) in which this was revealed in was part of a civil lawsuit filed back in 2010; and recounted, among other things, that conversation from 2007. The deposition was leaked to the media about a month after it occurred.
The lawsuit covers a timeframe from 2005 to 2010, and actually was about sexual harassment; the racial elements were pretty secondary.
Heavy Metal wrote: Funny how people have short memories over things such as WWII, 9/11 and Benghazi but their memories are quite fresh over something trivial over what a (now former) cook show host said 30 years ago.
No matter how many times you repeat the (incorrect) 30 years ago line, it's repetition does not improve it's veracity.
Peregrine wrote: This makes about as much sense as saying that someone is a racist and a bigot for attacking the KKK tenets.
Is it your position that the Duck Dynasty guy is as bad as the KKK?
No, I'm saying that the reasoning behind the accusation (the one Heavy Metal made about people calling anti-gay Christians bigots being bigots themselves because of that "attack") is just as bad. It isn't bigotry to point out that a bigot is being a bigot.
Seaward wrote: But is it bigotry to accuse someone of bigotry when they're displaying none simply because you dislike what they have to say?
Irrelevant as it was bigotry in this case. It doesn't matter if it's because of religious ideas, it is STILL bigotry and hate. If your religious views are that you shouldn't do something because of your religion, that's all fine and dandy. You are making a choice that is yours to make. If you start applying that to other people, then there is a problem. You don't get a free pass on bigotry just because the idea 'came' from your religion. It boils down to anyone saying that someone else being a homosexual is wrong IS bigotry no matter how you try to spin it.
skyth wrote: Irrelevant as it was bigotry in this case. It doesn't matter if it's because of religious ideas, it is STILL bigotry and hate. If your religious views are that you shouldn't do something because of your religion, that's all fine and dandy. You are making a choice that is yours to make. If you start applying that to other people, then there is a problem. You don't get a free pass on bigotry just because the idea 'came' from your religion. It boils down to anyone saying that someone else being a homosexual is wrong IS bigotry no matter how you try to spin it.
I disagree. It's not bigotry to state that a given religion regards homosexuality as a sin. It's simply fact.
Most flavors of Christianity would consider me to be a sinner multiple times over, perhaps even a mortal one, depending on where it comes down regarding killing during wartime and the like. As an atheist, this does not affect me in the slightest. Couldn't care less, really. I remain deeply, deeply confused as to why others of an apparently like mind wind up in such a tizzy over what someone believes an imaginary sky-god said.
This is a joke, right? The whole "secular war on Christmas" is nothing more than a bunch of conservative media people generating fake (but very profitable) outrage every time someone doesn't celebrate the Christian version of the holiday loudly enough. The only time anyone is "pushing" a secular version on anyone is when it's a case of the government endorsing a particular religion, something that was banned all the way back when the country was first created.
I mean, there was the "Take Christ out of Christmas" billboard in Times Square American Atheists, Inc funded the past two weeks. Not to mention how vile, belittling and condescending their Facebook page is. I realize they're not the official representation of Atheists everywhere, but they're loud and get a lot of press and a lot of my atheists friends seem to share their garbage on FB.
Irrelevant as it was bigotry in this case. It doesn't matter if it's because of religious ideas, it is STILL bigotry and hate. If your religious views are that you shouldn't do something because of your religion, that's all fine and dandy. You are making a choice that is yours to make. If you start applying that to other people, then there is a problem. You don't get a free pass on bigotry just because the idea 'came' from your religion. It boils down to anyone saying that someone else being a homosexual is wrong IS bigotry no matter how you try to spin it.
No, it isn't.
I think smoking is gross and disgusting and would never do it personally, but I don't discriminate against my pals that do. Do I wish they'd stop so they smelled better and be healthier? Yeup. Do I occasionally tell them that? Yeup. Is it bigotry? feth no.
Irrelevant as it was bigotry in this case. It doesn't matter if it's because of religious ideas, it is STILL bigotry and hate. If your religious views are that you shouldn't do something because of your religion, that's all fine and dandy. You are making a choice that is yours to make. If you start applying that to other people, then there is a problem. You don't get a free pass on bigotry just because the idea 'came' from your religion. It boils down to anyone saying that someone else being a homosexual is wrong IS bigotry no matter how you try to spin it.
No, it isn't.
I think smoking is gross and disgusting and would never do it personally, but I don't discriminate against my pals that do. Do I wish they'd stop so they smelled better and be healthier? Yeup. Do I occasionally tell them that? Yeup. Is it bigotry? feth no.
It's the same deal here.
No, not really. People choose to smoke. Generally, people don't choose their sexual orientation, any more than they choose their gender, height, or melatonin levels in their skin. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is bigotry.
I think smoking is gross and disgusting and would never do it personally, but I don't discriminate against my pals that do. Do I wish they'd stop so they smelled better and be healthier? Yeup. Do I occasionally tell them that? Yeup. Is it bigotry? feth no.
It's the same deal here.
No, not really. People choose to smoke. Generally, people don't choose their sexual orientation, any more than they choose their gender, height, or melatonin levels in their skin. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is bigotry.
This. Also homosexuality is not dangerous to anybody's health, neither the gay man nor any straight person around them. There's no such thing as "second-hand gay."
Unless of course a religious person believes homosexuality is a detriment to the health of the eternal soul, but that is such a quagmire of utterly impossible debate and philosophy it seems like a good thing "eternal health of the soul" isn't something our government has ever seemed too interested in, or felt the need to guarantee as a right. There have been exceptions of course.
Seaward wrote: I disagree. It's not bigotry to state that a given religion regards homosexuality as a sin. It's simply fact.
But that religion also doesn't conflate homosexuality with bestiality or terrorism. If I said premarital sex lead to bestiality, or was akin to terrorism, I would be laughed out of the room, but you can say it about homosexuals.
Heavy Metal wrote: We can’t have a civil debate in this country anymore without someone or one side being so hostile the debate is shut down before it can be properly resolved.
America has never had a civil debate in all its history. Hell, the first debate we ever had ended in a war
I beg to differ sir, you forgot how the Civil Rights came about although there was voilence but did not end in war.
That is in the extreme cases which is indeed true what is happening now. The scary thing is the amount of animosity are at levels that were prelude to the war of northern aggression or the Civil War back in 1861. We had plenty of civil debates in the past that invoked voilence but not so much it shut down or led to massive bloodshed. Prohibition, Women's Sufferage, Worker's rights just to name a few that has been resolved. I know those aren't the best examples but bear with me here.
The joke went right over your head. And if you are not having a civil debate, then you are ot trying hard enough or debating with the wrong people
This alledged statement that caused all the media rage back then was back in 2007? That's a new one on me.
Funny how people have short memories over things such as WWII, 9/11 and Benghazi but their memories are quite fresh over something trivial over what a (now former) cook show host said 30 years ago. Nevermind the person in question who brought this up was white and probably had more interest in getting money out of the law suit than being mentally distressed over racial inneundo. I mean, really?
I've travelled nearly over the continental US and I hear more racial slurs in supposedly more liberal states like California than I have in the deep rural areas of Alabama and that was more than just truck stops too...
Either way it is hard to bring any level of civility these days without someone diving head first into hysterics. A sad case indeed.
No, not really. People choose to smoke. Generally, people don't choose their sexual orientation, any more than they choose their gender, height, or melatonin levels in their skin. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is bigotry.
While I agree that homosexuality probably isn't a choice but is rather genetic/biological, there's little to no empirical data supporting that claim.
. Get some thicker skin, folks though... seriously! Not everybody believes homosexuality is right, they have every right to say so, just as people have the right to practice it. It's a free country for a reason, nobody's controlling what the other person does.
