No Animated GIFs Duck Fuc**** Dynasty has ruined my Christmas!

[Callum]

^^ Oh, because it's a sign of self-loathing and homophobia if a gay man thinks it's okay for someone to hate them on principle of their sexuality? Please. You're joking, right? Let's get more liberal hogwash into the fray -- we need more silliness to read. If someone wants to be a hateful fuck toward me, whether I'm hispanic/Hindu/gay, I am 100% okay with it as it's their constitutional right to within reason. Democracy in action folks. Let's all head off into LaLa-Land where everyone loves everyone and we can all sing Kumbayah and unicorns can frolic around us while we endlessly compliment one another. Riiiiight. 'Cause that's a reality worth striving for.

The man is more than entitled to his opinion. It's a sticky situation for A&E as - despite probably being contractually obligated into one of those absurd "morality clauses" - his family is still selling their brand separate from A&E's. A little hard to punish a group of people already making millions off their own products, who could more than afford to switch networks and make A&E lose millions. I would not be surprised if they hop networks and rebrand themselves alongside their own material (as they're currently doing).

 

[G-Lexington]

Seriously?

Yes.

And the culturally reinforced stereotypes responsible for homeless LGBT youth, 40% of homeless youth in fact.

You are fine with that as well I suppose?

God you people are so fucking naive. How old are you?

OK, where are all these places where I say I'm posting things about loving having gay runaways? I said contrary positions need to be countered, not surpressed. Which is why the proper response to Mr Duck Guy's comments wasn't to ban them (although nobody seems to have trouble with the magazine that printed them, which is how his "message" got out). It's to send the bus of gays to visit the clan, and interact with them. Because that puts our vantage point in front of the faces of those who hold these backwards opinions. Rather than saying "you can't say gays are bad", you put a bunch of gays in front of them and let them find out for themselves that we're just like everybody else.

So when one kid calls a black kid a ni**** in class, the teacher should do nothing because you are giving it the appeal of the forbidden. Nor should the class expect or react or pressure the kid out of calling him that. That would make a civil society, wouldn't it?

Where did I say the teacher should do nothing? I said the simple and complete banning or suppression of viewpoints is wrong. And I further said that the proper response is to offer the counter-argument. I have no trouble with teachers deciding that "the n word" or "the f word" or "the r word" aren't allowed in class, but they'd best explain why rather than simply announce that they're "not welcome".

Maybe you don't realize that what you're saying people "should do" shifts all of the constant burden onto a few groups of people who apparently have the obligation now to sit and have a long debate every single time they experience open and freely tolerated hate or racist rhetoric directed at their group, and perhaps you also overestimate the degree to which anyone calmly trying to talk someone out of that has any effect.

So instead of explaining WHY their opinions are wrong, we should just say "Fuck you - you're too stupid to get it"? And just wait until they magically figure it out on their own? People haven't come around to the idea of homosexuals in their midst because some evil clouds lifted, and they suddenly saw the light and went "oh, I get it now". They got it because people challenged their beliefs. And yes, I'd say it's our obligation. You want the rights, you're gonna have to work for them.

Lex

 

[Alnitak]

OK, where are all these places where I say I'm posting things about loving having gay runaways?

Surely you are intelligent enough to connect the dots between hate speech and consequences.

Or maybe not...

I said the simple and complete banning or suppression of viewpoints is wrong.

And you are exactly the type of gay in the 97% who has never donated time or money to a gay cause in his life, and instead you sit there in your computer chair preaching to the world how progress is really made when you haven't ever actually done it yourself. It shows because you don't have a clue.

 

[G-Lexington]

Surely you are intelligent enough to connect the dots between hate speech and consequences. Or maybe not...

And you are exactly the type of gay in the 97% who has never donated time or money to a gay cause in his life, and instead you sit there in your computer chair preaching to the world how progress is really made when you haven't ever actually done it yourself. It shows because you don't have a clue.

Your sketch of me is pretty fascinating so far. Let's see what else you can get right.

Lex

 

[Rolyo85]

Your sketch of me is pretty fascinating so far. Let's see what else you can get right.

Lex

Translation: "you're totally right and I have nothing to respond, so I'll hide behind irony."

 

[G-Lexington]

Translation: "you're totally right and I have nothing to respond, so I'll hide behind irony."

Sure, let's add that to the picture, too. Let's see what we have - young, naive, unintelligent, never-done-a-thing-for-gay-rights, and uses humor when he's been shamed into being shown how wrong he is. Anything else?

Lex

 

[xbuzzerx]

Where did I say the teacher should do nothing? I said the simple and complete banning or suppression of viewpoints is wrong. And I further said that the proper response is to offer the counter-argument. I have no trouble with teachers deciding that "the n word" or "the f word" or "the r word" aren't allowed in class, but they'd best explain why rather than simply announce that they're "not welcome".

And that's exactly what A&E did.

So what are we here discussing, exactly?

The guy can have any backwards, racist viewpoint he wants. Whether or not he's entitled to a camera and spotlight being provided by a company that presumably makes a living off ad space and marketshare is not a contingency of his right to hold racist views.

 

[xbuzzerx]

And, Buzzer, comparing a school kid calling his neighbor "nigger" isn't even closely related to the adult world. Kids can't drive, drink, smoke, vote, or many other things that are adult prerogatives. Of course a teacher isn't going to teach it, but Duck Dynasty isn't a teaching scenario and it doesn't have the obligation to espouse morality. And, the Robertson guy didn't call names -- he just voiced a couple of backward opinions.

A civil adult world and a civil classroom would spurn those viewpoints for precisely the same reason; they're provocative and illogical and based off an individual's irrational prejudices and not off anything that could be meaningfully discussed or from which anyone could construct a meaningful dialogue. Of course, Pat might disagree.

 

[Musik2400]

See, that's just the thing. Phil Robertson isn't the ignoramus he pretends to be. He actually has a masters degree. As a matter of fact he's something of a college football legend since Terry Bradshaw played second to him. He turned down an offer to play for the Washington Redskins because according to him he wanted to hunt instead of play football.

Ignorant and stupid aren't always the same thing. An educated person can still be ignorant.

What's laughable, is the ignorance exhibited in this post. People with audience who spew hatred openly are catalysts for bigotry that leads to very real emotional and physical abuse. There is a reason for why a disproportionate amount of teen suicides are gay, there is a reason for why a disproportionate amount of homeless kids are gay. If you think that public figures inciting hatred has nothing to do with it, then I envy you your ivory tower.

But he's not a 'public figure'. He is one man, who's life we videotape for entertainment. In 10 years, no one will remember who he is, what he did, or what he said. His opinions are inconsequential, because we don't put him on tv for his opinion. We put him on because his backwoods redneck ways are entertaining. It'd be more accurate to think of him as a fictional character.

Now, those who ARE famous/in the media based on their opinions, and what they say (politicians, activists, etc.)... those are public figures. Those are the people who should be held accountable for their opinions, because that's what we want from them.

All anyone wants from Phil Robertson is for his redneck antics to entertain viewers. That should be all he has to give us.

 

[Kulindahr]

If he is kept off the show, I'd say there's better than an even chance that Wayne LaPierre will invite him to speak at the next NRA national convention.

 

[xbuzzerx]

But he's not a 'public figure'. He is one man, who's life we videotape for entertainment.

That's right, he takes money for being in front of a camera for view by millions.

That makes him a public figure.

 

[G-Lexington]

And that's exactly what A&E did.

So what are we here discussing, exactly?

The guy can have any backwards, racist viewpoint he wants. Whether or not he's entitled to a camera and spotlight being provided by a company that presumably makes a living off ad space and marketshare is not a contingency of his right to hold racist views.

Well, the analogy breaks down somewhere. After all, this guy didn't espouse his views on homosexuality on the TV program - he did so in the magazine. If the analogy held, it'd be like a teacher kicking a student out for what he said in some other class, or at home. But I don't think that really applies.

Here's the thing, though. I'm not arguing A&E's right to kick the guy off the show. I'm not convinced it's the best move, but they're entirely within their rights to do so. But why do we even know this guy's backwards views? Why do we all know what he said? Because this interviewer asked him, and his magazine published his response. (There's apparently other video evidence from outside the confines of the show, but it was the printed interview that brought it to everybody's attention.) But if what was said is tantamount to hate speech, certainly the magazine should be considered culpable for printing it. But I haven't seen any righteous indignation tossed their way. If anything, people sem happy that the magazine "revealed the guy's true colors".

So, a sincere question: Would it have been better if the magazine had NOT printed that part? It would've meant millions of people would not have heard his backward views, but it would also have meant the guy kept his job, and none the wiser.

Lex

 

[Rolyo85]

Yeah, it would have been better. This isn't about some cosmic justice, this is about the atmosphere created in the media. Bigots have always held, hold and will hold good jobs, and the point is not really to take those away from them. It's to create an environment where openly hating on any group of people is simply not ok.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Well, the analogy breaks down somewhere. After all, this guy didn't espouse his views on homosexuality on the TV program - he did so in the magazine. If the analogy held, it'd be like a teacher kicking a student out for what he said in some other class, or at home. But I don't think that really applies.

Here's the thing, though. I'm not arguing A&E's right to kick the guy off the show. I'm not convinced it's the best move, but they're entirely within their rights to do so. But why do we even know this guy's backwards views? Why do we all know what he said? Because this interviewer asked him, and his magazine published his response. (There's apparently other video evidence from outside the confines of the show, but it was the printed interview that brought it to everybody's attention.) But if what was said is tantamount to hate speech, certainly the magazine should be considered culpable for printing it. But I haven't seen any righteous indignation tossed their way. If anything, people sem happy that the magazine "revealed the guy's true colors".

So, a sincere question: Would it have been better if the magazine had NOT printed that part? It would've meant millions of people would not have heard his backward views, but it would also have meant the guy kept his job, and none the wiser.

Lex

Your question implies that I feel such views should be squashed and censored and never allowed to be mentioned, printed or reported. My position is that the only constructive or meaningful response to people holding these views openly is to do exactly as A&E has done. You're not going to calmly debate these people out of their viewpoint, and you're not going to make people more educated about race by trying to fight with them, and you aren't going to take away whatever credence people may feel these viewpoints have by airing them publicly and then trying to debate every uneducated redneck who cheers them on. The most effective response is to show that there is no room in civil society for these viewpoints whether that's by chucking the rabid racist out of the workplace or his congressional seat or his A&E contract or whatever else.

When you give these people a pulpit or a public presence and there's no repercussion for these types of views regardless of "where" they were spouted you're legitimizing them as something perfectly fine, and they're not.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah, it would have been better. This isn't about some cosmic justice, this is about the atmosphere created in the media. Bigots have always held, hold and will hold good jobs, and the point is not really to take those away from them. It's to create an environment where openly hating on any group of people is simply not ok.

 

[Rolyo85]

You quoted me but didn't say anything..

 

[Kulindahr]

You quoted me but didn't say anything..

I said this:

 

[Kulindahr]

And, Buzzer, comparing a school kid calling his neighbor "nigger" isn't even closely related to the adult world. Kids can't drive, drink, smoke, vote, or many other things that are adult prerogatives. Of course a teacher isn't going to teach it, but Duck Dynasty isn't a teaching scenario and it doesn't have the obligation to espouse morality. And, the Robertson guy didn't call names -- he just voiced a couple of backward opinions.

To many people, anyone in the spotlight is an authority figure, so it is a teaching situation -- just not a formal one.

 

[TX-Beau]

This fool can say what he wants (and NO ONE has said otherwise,) then so can I and so can everyone else and there IS NOT ONE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM THE CONSEQUENCES of being a racist, misogynistic, homophobic ASSWIPE!!!!!!

He tossed hate, he gets no pass.

So long as no one is bashing him - fuck him and the horse he rode on on.

Period, end of story, that's all she wrote.


To those of you who commented about it - history has proven there is a correlation between hate speech and hate CRIME!

I wonder how happy you'd be crucified to a fence by homophobes who think that's perfectly fine - because some preacher told them you were non human trash who deserved to die.

Constitutional right to say what you like and all that - except not, you have NO right to speech that incites.

 

[pat grimshaw]

^


That speech sounded like an inciteful speech to me.

…incite...