"Duck Dynasty" patriarch suspended by A&E for "homophobic" and "racist" remarks

[Jason]

http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/-duck-dynasty--star-s-anti-gay-remarks-spark-outrage-134231650.html

Phil Robertson has been suspended by A&E after some shockingly inane remarks in a GQ interview about gays and blacks. What he said was pretty reprehensible. Sickening. That said, A&E's decision is the one I support. It's not an attack on his free speech; a private company decided to no longer be associated with him.

[SMiLE Brian]

What a sick statement from that guy.

[Jason]

Yeah...really silly and stupid remarks to make. Unless he was looking for a way out of his contract, but you never know anymore.

[SMiLE Brian]

I bet A&E is looking into voiding his contract as we speak. But the cynical part of me thinks they might bring him back eventually to keep the duck dynasty cash cow going.

[Jason]

I'm sure there's some clause in his contract about public remarks. A&E would have covered themselves.

[rab2591]

The real tragedy is that most of the Duck Dynasty viewers probably share the same opinions.

Typical American ignorance.

[SMiLE Brian]

Agreed, I haven't been a fan of the show and know people like the Robertson family. Pushing good old family values and negating that with horrible racism that makes me personally sick.

[Mike's Beard]

Well they asked for his opinion and he gave it. Free speech has to go both ways. What were they expecting a bible bashing redneck to say on the subject?

[Bean Bag]

Typical American ignorance.

And this is tolerated?     Well, kiss my grits!!!  Why didn't someone tell me!!!  We gots R self, a reputation lynchin!!!! (cue banjo)

Typical white?
Typical black?
Typical woman?
Typical man?
Typical American?

Hypocrisy is fun when everybody does it.  Jern the party!   

Howabout, typical red?  Skin?  No, no, no, not that... I meant typical redneck.  What did you think I was, a bigot?   

Say... you betta tell your kids the rules.  So they know.  We're all tolerate mthafkas now!  And there's rules, don't you know!!  I know, I know... how can there be rules to "tolerance?"  Well, step over here... we'll getcher' mind right.  But the rest'a'ya, as long as you know the RULES... The Tolerant Class will accept you.  And you want to be accepted.

Evolve.  Go'on.  Bash a Christian, boy.  Do it, and bask in your eternal salvation!!!  (cue holy choir)

 

[Mike's Beard]

Typical American ignorance.

And this is tolerated?     Well, kiss my grits!!!  Why didn't someone tell me!!!  We gots R self, a reputation lynchin!!!! (cue banjo)

Typical white?
Typical black?
Typical woman?
Typical man?
Typical American?

Hypocrisy is fun when everybody does it.  Jern the party!   

Howabout, typical red?  Skin?  No, no, no, not that... I meant typical redneck.  What did you think I was, a bigot?   

Say... you betta tell your kids the rules.  So they know.  We're all tolerate mthafkas now!  And there's rules, don't you know!!  I know, I know... how can there be rules to "tolerance?"  Well, step over here... we'll getcher' mind right.  But the rest'a'ya, as long as you know the RULES... The Tolerant Class will accept you.  And you want to be accepted.

Evolve.  Go'on.  Bash a Christian, boy.  Do it, and bask in your eternal salvation!!!  (cue holy choir)

 

Funny as I typed my post above yours I thought 'here I am using a socially acceptable slur (redneck) on an anti hate speech thread'. Irony.

[rab2591]

Apologies for lugging most Americans into that statement. After sifting through post after post of pro-Phil Robertson people on facebook this morning, I was quite peeved....I also came to the realization that I needed to weed out some facebook friends

[Rocky Raccoon]

Just another trashy reality television star saying something stupid.  What else is new?    That being said, what a person believes about homosexuality is no longer a religious or political belief, it's just plain bigotry.  He got what he deserved.

[Bean Bag]

Alec Baldwin has said mean things about gays.  Yet he's still the spokesman for Capital One.  He's accepted.  Apparently.  Why?

This Duck-guy was speaking personally regarding a broad religious view -- a view which is shared by other non-Christian religions.  Are they singling out Christians?

And therefore, is Alec Baldwin perhaps not Christian?     Ha.  I wonder what Alec Baldwin would say to me if he were within striking distance.  But then again, I'm not gay, so maybe he'd leave me alone.

I'm not trying to roast anyone here, I tolerate everyone's views and take no offense -- because I'm super tolerant... but, apparently, one's tolerance level is not the issue, is it?

What is it then -- really.  I just hate wasting time with things that aren't REALLY going on.  

[Mike's Beard]

Just another trashy reality television star saying something stupid.  What else is new?    That being said, what a person believes about homosexuality is no longer a religious or political belief, it's just plain bigotry.  

Not really the case here, the guy's thoughts on homosexuality are clearly based on his religious beliefs. Many Christian denominations view the act of homosexuality as a sin. Expecting the Christian Right to renounce their faiths just to appease gay people is foolish.  Still, why an all powerful force who is busy controlling the whole universe should care one way or the other if some men want to have sex with other men has yet to be explained.

[rab2591]

Just another trashy reality television star saying something stupid.  What else is new?    That being said, what a person believes about homosexuality is no longer a religious or political belief, it's just plain bigotry. 

Not really the case here, the guy's thoughts on homosexuality are clearly based on his religious beliefs. Many Christian denominations view the act of homosexuality as a sin. Why an all powerful force who is busy controlling the whole universe should care one way or the other if some men want to have sex with other men has yet to be explained.

It says so in the bible...and the bible is Gods word. Though the bible also says you can beat your slave as long as you don't kill him....yeah, that's a book with a solid moral foundation

[Awesoman]

That being said, what a person believes about homosexuality is no longer a religious or political belief, it's just plain bigotry.

Um, no. 

The subject of homosexuality is a complicated one, and there are a variety of opinions all over the spectrum; many of which are sound and fair.  Sure, if a person flat-out rejects another individual entirely on their sexual orientation, I'd get on-board that this is an act of bigotry.  But no one should be held at gunpoint for disagreeing with a lifestyle or behavior.  If we can question the existence of a higher being, then we can certainly also question a person's sexual preference.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning or disagreeing with these things, so long as we can do so in a respectful manner and are tolerant of different people.  Are we as a people incapable of accepting a person without having to agree or like *everything* about them? 

That all being said, unfortunately for Robertson, he completely came off sounding like a total jackass.  Had he conveyed his opinions in a more respectful and dignified manner, I would be more inclined to defend him.  But when he awkwardly tried to compare the "hole" versus the "pole", he was pretty much toast.  Not to mention his bizarre suggestion that African Americans were somehow "hunky dory" during the Jim Crow years.  And Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal's comments aren't exactly helping the situation.

[Rocky Raccoon]

I think some people use religion as an excuse, albeit a poor one.  You can be a deeply religious Christian and not only accept but embrace homosexuality, it's not unheard of.  I'm not a relgious person myself but it's pretty much a fact that sexuality is natural and is not a choice in life.  In a religious context, wouldn't that make it God's plan?  Sounds simple enough to me.

[Awesoman]

I think some people use religion as an excuse, albeit a poor one.  You can be a deeply religious Christian and not only accept but embrace homosexuality, it's not unheard of.  I'm not a relgious person myself but it's pretty much a fact that sexuality is natural and is not a choice in life.  In a religious context, wouldn't that make it God's plan?  Sounds simple enough to me.

Sure there are religious groups, like many interest groups, that use their beliefs as a weapon to bring down others.  Lots of horrible people everywhere.  In any case, you can also not be a religious person yet question homosexuality as a natural behavior.  And as long as you are not actively trying to put these people down, it is perfectly acceptable and ok to disagree with their lifestyle.  But going back to the ridiculous assessment that it's "bigotry" to question homosexuality, I think you can co-exist with different people without having to submit to their world view.  Isn't that what tolerance is all about?

[Bean Bag]

As tempting and interesting as the sub-topics are -- religion, tolerance, sexuality, morality -- and as much as I'd LOVE to dive in, I'm not.  Not because I'm scared, just the opposite.  But because they are sub-topics lying beneath what is happening.

Ostensibly, these subtopics could have been about a whole host of touchy, social subjects.  Correct?  Yes, that is correct.

Reality is multifaceted, sure -- but remember, we're talking about this in the context of the trigger event.  A man getting axed for saying something.  That's the event.  The spark.  That's why we're here.  The subtopics, are fun and neat... but not the point.  The subject is: A man gets tar n' feathered, dragged out into the public square and chastised for what he said.  While others, do not. Selective outrage.


Selective outrage.  FOR EXAMPLE.... Bill Clinton, you may remember, was accused of some violent, predatory acts of a sexual nature -- against women.  War on women.  The National Organization of (Outraged) Women said nothing.  Maybe a little.  But basically nothing.

Hmmmmm....

So... why is this man... of an already side-lined origin and background, being so reacted to?  Side-lined, as others have said... "this shouldn't be a surprise?"  Beating a dead horse, so to speak.  All while others, perhaps less obvious and subversive (Alec Baldwin) with access to more of society's power, prestige, riches and minds (NBC, Capital One, Actor, Hollywood, Children's shows, et al) are slithering through the fabrics of influence??

Anyone curious?

[rab2591]

As tempting and interesting as the sub-topics are -- religion, tolerance, sexuality, morality -- and as much as I'd LOVE to dive in, I'm not.  Not because I'm scared, just the opposite.  But because they are sub-topics lying beneath what is happening.

Ostensibly, these subtopics could have been about a whole host of touchy, social subjects.  Correct?  Yes, that is correct.

Reality is multifaceted, sure -- but remember, we're talking about this in the context of the trigger event.  A man getting axed for saying something.  That's the event.  The spark.  That's why we're here.  The subtopics, are fun and neat... but not the point.  The subject is: A man gets tar n' feathered, dragged out into the public square and chastised for what he said.  While others, do not. Selective outrage.


Selective outrage.  FOR EXAMPLE.... Bill Clinton, you may remember, was accused of some violent, predatory acts of a sexual nature -- against women.  War on women.  The National Organization of (Outraged) Women said nothing.  Maybe a little.  But basically nothing.

Hmmmmm....

So... why is this man... of an already side-lined origin and background, being so reacted to?  Side-lined, as others have said... "this shouldn't be a surprise?"  Beating a dead horse, so to speak.  All while others, perhaps less obvious and subversive (Alec Baldwin) with access to more of society's power, prestige, riches and minds (NBC, Capital One, Actor, Hollywood, Children's shows, et al) are slithering through the fabrics of influence??

Anyone curious?

Phil Robertson has become a millionaire because of this show. He has prestige (among his fanbase), he has riches, he is on the most popular show IN TELEVISION HISTORY (thus has has a good amount of access to people's minds). He is an icon among a certain sect of American culture.

And, let's not forget, this whole fiasco was built by the media to increase ratings, boost magazine subscriptions, etc. That's the main reason why Baldwin isn't raked over the coals - because he doesn't draw in the people who will actually watch the mindless coverage of a PR "disaster". Let's not forget that Anderson Cooper publicly lashed out at Baldwin, and Baldwin did get fired for his remarks.

Plus, Robertson's statement made a great opportunity to show the ignorance of a vast majority of people who belong to a certain sub-culture here in America. It's the year 2013 and many still hold medieval viewpoints on limiting citizens rights to happiness.

[guitarfool2002]

It's the year 2013 and many still hold medieval viewpoints on limiting citizens rights to happiness.

Are those rights to happiness limited to a certain set of pursuits, activities, and opinions? And who determines which opinions are "medieval" as opposed to being "progressive"?

Consider there was just a mayor in the US who banned the sale of larger-sized sodas within his city in the name of "health", and in that same city just this past month there was a politician who was seeking to ban E-cigarettes from bars, devices which have no tobacco, because they look too similar to real cigarettes. Fortunately the mayor got struck down by a higher court ruling which said he had no legal grounds or authority to regulate the size of drinks sold in his city, and the politico with the E-cigarette fetish will most likely be laughed out of the city.

So yes, I'd say taking away someone's ability to buy a jumbo-sized soda or puff on an E-cig while enjoying a drink at a bar would fall under the category of "limiting citizens rights to happiness" by trying to ban, remove, or regulate something which is not only legal but someone's own personal pursuit of happiness, if only for the few minutes of gulping that beverage or puffing that steam from their E-cig.

How about it? 

[drbeachboy]

How about the Methodist Church? How can you welcome Gays on one hand, but de-frock a minister because he married two gay men? People are not perfect. We all have our prejudices. I don't think it is against the law to express one's views good or bad, as long as their is no threat to go along with that expression. Me, I'd rather know where I stand and know where others stand, as well. I'd rather know that a person dislikes me, than find out later by some action. I want to know exactly where my enemies are and how they are feeling.

[guitarfool2002]

How about the Methodist Church? How can you welcome Gays on one hand, but de-frock a minister because he married two gay men? People are not perfect. We all have our prejudices. I don't think it is against the law to express one's views good or bad, as long as their is no threat to go along with that expression. Me, I'd rather know where I stand and know where others stand, as well. I'd rather know that a person dislikes me, than find out later by some action. I want to know exactly where my enemies are and how they are feeling.

Take that one step further: Is there a difference between offering an unsolicited opinion and answering a direct question with an opinion? Should everyone play the game that politicians and public figures play, where they pay consultants and marketing experts large sums of money to help them "craft" their messages, and run any public statements through a process so they can answer a direct question without giving a direct answer, and in that process not offend anyone important to their public image or financial well-being? Or would we rather have people who will answer a direct question with a direct answer?

There is always the option to answer "I'd rather not say", as we all have conversations and opinions that we freely share in private places whether they be the workplace, the home, the barbershop, the locker room, the nail salon, the studio...wherever...that stay among friends and associates. It's part of the "honor code" that some things said or done in private shall always be kept private. Remember all the talk from Charles Barkley and others this past year about things that do not leave the locker room among professional athletes? It's as much an admission that the way we all talk in private is different from what gets said in public, whether we are professional athletes and entertainers or just plain ol' people.

And ultimately it's a personal choice to answer "I'd rather not say" or come right out and say it if asked.

[guitarfool2002]

And just for a moment here, to try putting this into perspective on a much larger scale, does it seem odd that people who don't even watch "Duck Dynasty" and have never seen a minute's worth of an episode are being drawn into this through the intense reporting and coverage of this thing, while the phrase "Boko Haram" would probably be totally unknown to most of those same people gnashing their teeth for and against this Duck Dynasty guy?

[Mike's Beard]

It's the year 2013 and many still hold medieval viewpoints on limiting citizens rights to happiness.

Are those rights to happiness limited to a certain set of pursuits, activities, and opinions? And who determines which opinions are "medieval" as opposed to being "progressive"?

Consider there was just a mayor in the US who banned the sale of larger-sized sodas within his city in the name of "health", and in that same city just this past month there was a politician who was seeking to ban E-cigarettes from bars, devices which have no tobacco, because they look too similar to real cigarettes. Fortunately the mayor got struck down by a higher court ruling which said he had no legal grounds or authority to regulate the size of drinks sold in his city, and the politico with the E-cigarette fetish will most likely be laughed out of the city.

So yes, I'd say taking away someone's ability to buy a jumbo-sized soda or puff on an E-cig while enjoying a drink at a bar would fall under the category of "limiting citizens rights to happiness" by trying to ban, remove, or regulate something which is not only legal but someone's own personal pursuit of happiness, if only for the few minutes of gulping that beverage or puffing that steam from their E-cig.

How about it?  

It's the 21st Century; people should be free to get their jollies however they want as long as it doesn't cause harm to others. Basically- short of rape or murder - if it feels good, do it. But don't be so thin skinned that you can't take people's criticism.
Anyone noticed that his speech also mentioned gamblers, drinkers and adulators as 'sinners' yet you don't see others groups up in arms about his comments. What makes homosexuals so special and delicate that they need 'progressive' sections of society to leap to their defence at the smallest slight?