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.

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

Okay... blinker on dude.

 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.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

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:

You know who likes Katy Perry? Men.

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.

Yeah man. Agreed on all points.

Especially on Katy Perry.

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.

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.

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.

He didn't say anything homophobic or bigoted.

In fact he said the opposite. Again, those quotes haven't been aired by the media because they don't fit the desired narrative.

 cincydooley wrote:
He didn't say anything homophobic or bigoted.

In fact he said the opposite. Again, those quotes haven't been aired by the media because they don't fit the desired narrative.

Have you read the article?

 cincydooley wrote:
He didn't say anything homophobic or bigoted.

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)

 cincydooley wrote:
He didn't say anything homophobic or bigoted.

"I don't see a Panda. That's just what the media wants you to think, that there's a Panda in here."

I agree on the later, I dont vote because I dont care, but voting because you think Salt Lake city is safer.

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.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I agree on the later, I dont vote because I dont care, but voting because you think Salt Lake city is safer.

Way to perform your civic duty.

I generally stay out of large chain stores.

I'm a hipster like that.

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.

Mod-approved OT in the pit?

Oh Lordy...

 RiTides wrote:
But at the moment I just want to enjoy Christmas!

I'm sure there will be some fresh outrage we can discuss a week or so from now.

 whembly wrote:
Yeah man. Agreed on all points.

Especially on Katy Perry.

The thread bears good fruit...

Mesmerizing, isn't it?

I'll be in my bunk.

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.

Glad I delivered!

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 see your Katy Perry and raise you a Kate Upton: