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

[gsdx]

Break free from TV in general gsdx. It is not worth it. Let is not rule your life...

You apparently don't know my life. Trust me. You wouldn't want.

If you knew anything about my life, you would know how vital television is to my sanity.

 

[figjam]

You apparently don't know my life. Trust me. You wouldn't want.

If you knew anything about my life, you would know how vital television is to my sanity.

That is OK - just do not let it take over your life and perception of happiness.... Good luck.

 

[Kulindahr]

If a silly little white trash reality show affects you this much (or in any way for that matter) - life is gonna knock you down. Toughen up and ignore what needs to be ignored...

Huh?

The rednecks around here don't need any bigoted input from people like Duck-dude. Little pushes like this tend to encourage them to beat up gays or vandalize their property. I think we're past the days when sheriff's deputies can be counted on to affirm that any incident resulting in a gay's death was definitely an accident, but we're certainly not past finding car windows broken or tires slashed, or gays finding themselves "encouraged" to "trip" and fall smashing their faces into the pavement.

Or are you saying that gays should just ignore that stuff because it doesn't really affect them?

 

[Kulindahr]

You're right - they won't go out looking for a counterpoint. And that's why I keep harping on my desire to make an episode where gay people show up to visit. Because it would put a counterpoint in front of them, in a forum they're already tuned in to. Removing him from the show simply makes the ignorant feel that they're under attack. (Which they are - just not for the reasons they believe.) I can't imagine anybody who thought as he did had their mind changed by having him suspended. "I used to think gays were bad people, but now that the network suspended this guy for saying so, I guess they're not so bad"? No, I don't think that happened anywhere.

But the stars of the show are upfront about how the show works. "The network comes up with ideas on what we can do, and then we just do them." Perfect. Have a busload of gay guys go visit. Force interaction. Have them see the humanity behind the vilified name. And no, not everyone watching will rush out to join PFLAG. But I'm guessing it'll do a lot more than simply booting him off the show would accomplish.

Lex

This would be a great opening:

Of course he has the right to express his beliefs. And it is their right, and privilege, to tell him to go express them somewhere else.

Or they should require him to take Chris Cheng, the Season 4 Champion of the History Channel's Top Shot, on the show at least once a month.

Then I'm sure they could find a Pink Pistols chapter close enough to be willing to join the show.

There's no way these duck dudes are going to stop believing gays are header for hell. But they can be set up to demonstrate that gays should be treated with respect in spite of that.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I have to disagree about the "two camps"...it is far more complex that that.

Free speech is a principle and I think people forget that restricting free speech opens a Pandora's Box because what people define as "obscene" or "a threat" can change drastically in a few generations and as gay men we should know better...look at what has happened recently in Russia...and now India....gay men have been considered a threat to society across the world and existing in silence has been necessary historically and in many places in the world it still is.......

I think allowing people to express whatever opinion they have is essential. ...and that includes the response to the opinions...free speech goes both ways.

I have long defended the Westboro Church even though I hate them and I firmly believe that they have helped public opinion shift more in favor of Gay marriage than anyone else. Hatred like theirs is a much needed mirror for a lot of people who need to see who they are...or what they have become.

When you bring something out in the open and put it on the table it opens up much needed dialogue...like this one...

....many things do not grow in the dark...and that would include public opinion. These people serve as catalysts for everyone....let them. If we seek to restrict their right to free speech we create a sympathetic figure and that is exactly what the right wing wants us to do...let's not help them.

I did not propose that laws should force Duck Dynasty off the air as a result of the comments.

I do however condemn A&E for, by default, supporting these views through putting money and a paycheck behind someone obviously watched and related to by millions of Americans voicing these views on their network in their program with no consequence. And I do hold them as being partially responsible for enabling/empowering homophobic viewpoints in so doing, even though their only concern is financial and even though he has the "first amendment right" to any viewpoint he wanted. But him having it on national airwaves on their dime makes them partially responsible for the shaping of attitudes in the greater mainstream, no matter how much they or anyone would try to argue that's not the case.

Firing someone as an employee or spokesperson because they voiced controversial, discriminatory or racist personal opinions while under your pay or reflecting on you is not a violation of freedom of speech. Nor did I propose any restriction on freedom of speech. There are five million of this guy from Duck Dynasty sharing his views all over the internet, facebook and message board forums and news article comment areas--- 50 million maybe. So I disagree with your supposition that this dialogue can't be had or wouldn't be happening if it weren't for this guy having his job on Duck Dynasty and spewing homophobic and racist remarks. This dialogue never really even goes away, it just occasionally comes to a head when some big news article breaks.

 

[eastofeden]

I did not propose that laws should force Duck Dynasty off the air as a result of the comments.

I do however condemn A&E for, by default, supporting these views through putting money and a paycheck behind someone obviously watched and related to by millions of Americans voicing these views on their network in their program with no consequence. And I do hold them as being partially responsible for enabling/empowering homophobic viewpoints in so doing, even though their only concern is financial and even though he has the "first amendment right" to any viewpoint he wanted. But him having it on national airwaves on their dime makes them partially responsible for the shaping of attitudes in the greater mainstream, no matter how much they or anyone would try to argue that's not the case.

Firing someone as an employee or spokesperson because they voiced controversial, discriminatory or racist personal opinions while under your pay or reflecting on you is not a violation of freedom of speech. Nor did I propose any restriction on freedom of speech. There are five million of this guy from Duck Dynasty sharing his views all over the internet, facebook and message board forums and news article comment areas--- 50 million maybe. So I disagree with your supposition that this dialogue can't be had or wouldn't be happening if it weren't for this guy having his job on Duck Dynasty and spewing homophobic and racist remarks. This dialogue never really even goes away, it just occasionally comes to a head when some big news article breaks.

My bottom line of course is defending free speech and I absolutely HATE that people like Palin, Cruz, Jindal, Huckabee...and all the rest of those nutjobs...are defining this as a matter of free speech when the real issue should be attacking the message...and if we allow them to define the battle as one of free speech the message gets lost.

I resent that the far right has successfully defined so many things in the past 12 years and I prefer not to help them.....

As far as the dialogue...I prefer to attack the message and let the messenger be who he is. I realize that the people who believe as he do will ALWAYS believe as he does but it is the other people who maybe are open that have a chance to see the vile comments and evolve on the issue.

 

[xbuzzerx]

My bottom line of course is defending free speech and I absolutely HATE that people like Palin, Cruz, Jindal, Huckabee...and all the rest of those nutjobs...are defining this as a matter of free speech when the real issue should be attacking the message...and if we allow them to define the battle as one of free speech the message gets lost.

I resent that the far right has successfully defined so many things in the past 12 years and I prefer not to help them.....

As far as the dialogue...I prefer to attack the message and let the messenger be who he is. I realize that the people who believe as he do will ALWAYS believe as he does but it is the other people who maybe are open that have a chance to see the vile comments and evolve on the issue.

I do understand that point of view. I also can easily imagine the flipside, where some gay guy works in an office where all of his coworkers watch Duck Dynasty in some craphole in Kentucky or something, and the message from this whole fiasco now is "what he said was no big deal, just some liberals got their panties in a twist over it."

 

[gsdx]

My bottom line of course is defending free speech

There is an enormous difference between defending free speech and defending the people who hide behind it. It's a double whammy when they combine it with religion and hide behind both. Religion is an opinion, but many Christians believe it is the ONLY opinion which matters. They are quick to use their freedoms of speech and religion, but they are just as quick to deny those same rights to those who don't 'meet their standards'.

 

[eastofeden]

I do understand that point of view. I also can easily imagine the flipside, where some gay guy works in an office where all of his coworkers watch Duck Dynasty in some craphole in Kentucky or something, and the message from this whole fiasco now is "what he said was no big deal, just some liberals got their panties in a twist over it."

I do understand your point as well and I don't necessarily disagree....

- - - Updated - - -

There is an enormous difference between defending free speech and defending the people who hide behind it. It's a double whammy when they combine it with religion and hide behind both. Religion is an opinion, but many Christians believe it is the ONLY opinion which matters. They are quick to use their freedoms of speech and religion, but they are just as quick to deny those same rights to those who don't 'meet their standards'.

I am in no way defending what they say...I am defending their right to say it.

 

[Musik2400]

... reinforce the cultural attitude that LGBT prejudice is perfectly tolerable and should be on television...

It was never on television. It was a magazine interview.

... someone having views like these, expressing them publicly/on-air, and having them tacitly supported via a church or network paying them money to be on the air voicing them...

Once again, it wasn't on air it was in an interview. And brought up by the interviewer. He was not being paid for his opinion on gays.

I do however condemn A&E for, by default, supporting these views through putting money and a paycheck behind someone... voicing these views on their network in their program with no consequence... But him having it on national airwaves on their dime

Not A&E's network, or their program. These opinions wer eonly voiced in an interview, where Phil was asked about his views on the subject.

And yet, let's just fly off the handle and look for someone to roast. Phil, A&E, whoever we need to. Someone needs to be blamed. We demand blood.

I have a hard time seeing the seriousness of an issue in which so many don't even know simple facts...

 

[xbuzzerx]

Not A&E's network, or their program. These opinions were only voiced in an interview, where Phil was asked about his views on the subject.

And yet, let's just fly off the handle and look for someone to roast. Phil, A&E, whoever we need to. Someone needs to be blamed. We demand blood.

I have a hard time seeing the seriousness of an issue in which so many don't even know simple facts...

Yes. I will roast someone making money off someone they put into a nationally televised show who is happily spouting off rhetoric lumping gays or blacks with terrorists in every interview or appearance they're making while milking their 15 minutes of fame, especially if that's part of the overall image they're profiting off of. This show is capitalizing off these guys being rednecks.

The problem with this is what, exactly? Your nitpick changed what about this discussion, exactly? Nothing.

I guess you haven't paid attention much if you think that only things people say or do while actually being broadcast on a TV show can or should ever impact their professional lives as public figures, whether we're talking about actors or anyone else. Mel Gibson, Charlie Sheen, Tom Cruise anyone?

 

[Kulindahr]

I think some people here lead sheltered lives.

 

[paintact]

You don't get a pass on your ignorance just because you invoke your holy book or religion to back it up.

 

[xbuzzerx]

You don't get a pass on your ignorance just because you invoke your holy book or religion to back it up.

I think of ignorance as just not knowing any better. Like when straight people don't really understand how gay couples work or ask something like "so ... like, is someone the woman or..?"

What this guy said was more clearly on the bigot side, rather than the ignorance side imo.

 

[Rolyo85]

Btw, the bearded wonder HAS made disgusting racist, sexist and homophobic comments on TV, just not this latest one.

 

[Musik2400]

Yes. I will roast someone making money off someone they put into a nationally televised show who is happily spouting off rhetoric lumping gays or blacks with terrorists in every interview or appearance they're making while milking their 15 minutes of fame, especially if that's part of the overall image they're profiting off of. This show is capitalizing off these guys being rednecks.

The problem with this is what, exactly? Your nitpick changed what about this discussion, exactly? Nothing.

I guess you haven't paid attention much if you think that only things people say or do while actually being broadcast on a TV show can or should ever impact their professional lives as public figures, whether we're talking about actors or anyone else. Mel Gibson, Charlie Sheen, Tom Cruise anyone?

No. What bothers me is that you seem to think that an argument which is based on such a lack of caring for actual information, facts, and rational thought, is one not only worth having, but one worth blowing into some big 'scandal' or 'rights movement'.

Your post criticized A&E specifically for the fact that they aired these views on their program and their network. When I mention that they're not, you're next post fails to even acknowledge this wrongful blame. You just go on to blow things out of proportion.

First paragraph: ' Happily spouting off rhetoric' and 'Every appearance' are at best an exaggeration, at worst a bold faced lie. Have you bothered to check out even five minutes of him ON the show? Or maybe look into something ABOUT him aside from his current infamy? Did you know anything about him before he was "a homophobe"?

Final paragraph: Right sorry. I guess I missed the part where Mel Gibson, Tom Cruise, and Charlie Sheen (read: big time hollywood names) were comparable to someone "milking their 15 minutes of fame".

I'm sorry that I'd rather look beyond my own biases, and take a look at someone else's point of view before deeming them an immoral and corrupt human. Maybe it does make me sheltered, but I always thought that's what we wanted them to give us... I just thought y'know "do unto others" is the GOLDEN rule afterall *shrug*

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

I am in no way defending what they say...I am defending their right to say it.

I will always hate this statement.

 

[eastofeden]

I will always hate this statement.

...and that makes us even because I will always hate that someone hates this statement.

Thank God for the ACLU...I better write them a check...

 

[Alnitak]

That a kid feels insecure is not the equal of the Duck guy's message creating insecurity.

I rarely have to say this about people, and it pains me to say so, but I think you really are just that stupid, and on this topic in particular such an opinion is a tangible danger. This is not just any debate. When you threaten to unravel decades of progress on youth suicide as you do, you're damn right I will pour my wrath down on you and others like you. Now kindly fuck off.

 

[pat grimshaw]

This clip is pertinent. The angry hotheads demand action—