Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We had a military funeral that we helped with when I was with the fire department.

The crazies were there, freedom of speech and all.

We stood in front if them with a giant fire truck and saluted the procession as they came buy. Freedom of speech for us as well.

Our big freedom truck just made the crazies hard to see...

 d-usa wrote:
We had a military funeral that we helped with when I was with the fire department.

The crazies were there, freedom of speech and all.

We stood in front if them with a giant fire truck and saluted the procession as they came buy. Freedom of speech for us as well.

Our big freedom truck just made the crazies hard to see...

Exalted. Good job, you.

Relapse wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 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.

Relapse wrote:

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 believe he is still suspended, so it seems more like a case of hedging one's bets.

That said, this is interesting.

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.

 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.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

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 believe he is still suspended, so it seems more like a case of hedging one's bets.

That said, this is interesting.

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".

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

Relapse wrote:

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.

This is the family's official statment.

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.

Relapse wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 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.

 Ouze wrote:

 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:

 Ouze wrote:

 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?

Of course not, corporations are people*.


*unless they commit a crime, in which case no one goes to jail.

 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!

You don't get to claim elite social warrior status thinking like that, dude.

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

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.

Take that for what is it is worth....

 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!

Best thing said in this thread. Have an exalt!

Merry Christmas!!!

As if anti-gay bigots and people that are against bigotry are in any way morally equivalent.

 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.

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.

Yes. Remember childrens, if someone disagrees with you they have to be bigots.

 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.

Sure.

The fact that you keep referring to this as "curtailing freedom of speech" shows just how blinkered you are.