The Smiley Smile Message Board

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.

What a sick statement from that guy.

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

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.

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

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

Typical American ignorance.

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.

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?

And this is tolerated?   :lol  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!   :ohyeah

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

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)

 :tiptoe

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.

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 ;D

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.

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?  :-\   :-D 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.  ;)

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.

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 ;)

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.

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?

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.

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?  :)

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.

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?

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? 

What's an adulator?

Someone who adulates.   :lol

It's the end result of a mediocre speller and a crappy auto-speller.

So there are actually a bunch of "Tea Party" folks going on about a Phil Robertson/Ted Nugent GOP ticket in 2016...sh*t, these people are just as bad and dopey as liberals.

So, why is it news that an old obese white redneck is a homophobe and a racist?  This is not really news.

But what is interesting is that moral lepers like Herr Glen Beck and Frau Palin will rise to the defense of such filth.

Indeed.

Gentlemen, this is Your Amerikan Conservative Movement.  Fascists all.  You’re welcome to it.

P.S.

Just looking at those rancid beard makes me want to puke.

The stupidest thing about this is that every person involved seems to have no comprehension of what freedom of speech actually means.

To be honest, the most annoying thing is not Phil expressing his opinion, but the public missing the point that his way of expressing it was the problem.

I thought this thread was grinding to a stop, but before it does I wanted to add another 2 cents, just something to think about.

I think what's being missed is that people are for the most part good, take that however you wish. A majority of people have little or no stake in this game of politics and political arguments when it comes to affairs like this.

It can be upsetting to see the games being played whenever something like this comes up, and there was something similar about the "Chick-Fil-A" restaurant chain, which led to outrage then boycotts then counter-protests, and the whole dust-up that followed. Same with the "French Fries" boycotts and nonsense ten years ago.

What that leaves out is the group of people who might look at it as simply as this: They watch the show because they enjoy the show, they are entertained by it. They buy a sandwich at Chick-Fil-A because they enjoy the food and like the sandwiches there. They like "French Fries" and would no matter what they're called.

I'd just be wagering on a long shot, but I'm betting most people fall into that category, and for whatever reasons they have for watching a TV show or eating at a restaurant have less to do with politics and ideology and more to do with a basic enjoyment of the product they choose to buy (or watch). That's it, on the basic level, going directly to the "pursuit of happiness" in their own daily universe.

Doesn't it seem a bit unreasonable then to somehow "guilt" those folks who might enjoy the show because something a character on the show said doesn't agree with your own political or social beliefs? Or something the CEO of a restaurant said? Or the country of origin of a certain food item?

As much as reality television isn't reality, nor is the assumption that because this group or that group calls for a boycott it automatically means those watching or eating the food or whatever the case are showing tacit agreement or approval with whatever political argument is raging, mostly from afar among groups who are paid professionals in the political arena, always on the lookout for new "targets" to impugn.

I see lines of cars at a local Chick-Fil-A every time I drive by, I see people wearing "Duck Dynasty" shirts and hats and whatnot...so would anyone suggest all of those people are "making a statement" that says anything deeper than "I like these sandwiches" or "I enjoy watching this show"? I hope not.

And what strikes me as arrogance if not selfishness is when some politically charged groups (on all sides, mind you), declare war on a given public figure or business or entity and assume everyone should not only agree with them, but immediately cease their enjoyment or support of that entity, which would include not buying the food, wearing the shirts, watching the show, again whatever the case.

Life is too short, seriously. What I'm trying to see more and more is that you'll find bad if you expect to find bad, and you'll find good if you look for good. Simple. Not always the case, unfortunately, but as a general rule I think most of the total strangers you encounter on any average day are basically doing what you're doing as well - trying to make it all work and take care of what needs to be taken care of. If called on to help, most people will help. If you happen to trip and fall on the street, for as many people who might laugh and walk by, there are probably more who would try to help you up and see if you were OK.

That's a notion which too many people either forgot, or just don't want to recognize. To try to guilt or goad millions of people into jumping on board with a cause or a political beef, to me, gets carried way too far by too many people, across all ideologies. There is no "litmus test" for us to pass or fail when it comes to everyday interaction, and assuming someone buys into some political hyperbole because you see them wearing either a Duck Dynasty hat or a Greenpeace T-shirt, or eating a Chick-Fil-A sandwich or Ben And Jerry's ice cream is doing the exact same thing many of the political folks would rail against.  

Let people enjoy what they enjoy. If someone wants to watch Duck Dynasty, let them watch. It's no one's business to continually point fingers of judgement at regular, everyday people in an effort to score political points.

I hope no one would feel guilty or feel like they're doing something wrong by wearing a Duck Dynasty shirt, even if some activist mentalities are suggesting by wearing a shirt like that, you're somehow agreeing or showing support for what this one guy said in a magazine interview.

Life is too short to continue to look for the bad in people from afar. But if that same person wearing a Duck shirt gets in your face and starts preaching or insulting you in that moment, then all bets are off.

But maybe we can try enjoying our own sandwiches a little more, and start worrying less about what people we don't know or have no contact with are doing or saying from afar. It goes by too fast, why not enjoy more of it? In the long run, what some guy on a TV show says or does is nowhere near as important or significant as something you might do today or tomorrow in your own life.   :)

Don't get me wrong, guitarfool, I agree with you.  What some crazy old duck hunter said should not be an issue at all.  And it wasn't an issue at first.  Sure, tabloid news outlets were eating it up but it probably would have gone away after a few days.  What bothers me is the people like Sarah Palin who make it an issue and who do so for the wrong reasons.  Which is why it is important now.  Because it turns out that Palin and so many others believe that it is an attack on free speech and they are totally wrong.  Others are saying this is an attack on religious freedom, this is also wrong.  It's important that people know what freedom of speech actually is and that they know that actions always have consequences, whether they are free to express such actions in the first place or not.  It's also important that people know that religion is not a good excuse for homophobia or any sort of bigotry.  These are important conversations to have and I do believe that there are people out there who are learning from this debacle, as insignificant as it may have been to start with.

I second that!

Looks like A&E caved:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/a-e-welcomes-phil-robertson-667647

This is a well-reasoned reply, and as such I'd like to expand on some of the issues at hand a bit more and have a dialogue here, exchanging and also debating some of the topics that go much deeper than the TV show itself, which ultimately is what got all of this started in the first place.

I could list a long rambling post of all the topics, but again I appreciate the rational and reasoned tone which the thread has shifted into, and I'd rather take one at a time.

First, consider the issues of crafting and marketing an image or a persona in the entertainment and business worlds.

Dean Martin:
Dean Martin's on-stage persona for years was that of a tipsy, swinging and sauve lothario who always had a drink in his hand. As the show progressed in Vegas, or wherever he was performing, the schtick would sometimes include a drink cart being wheeled out on stage so Dean could fix himself drink after drink, and get more "loose" and tipsy as the show went on, much to the crowd's delight.

The truth is that Dean was most often drinking non-alcoholic apple juice, or some other substitute. Not that he was entirely a tee-totaller his whole life, but he definitely was not downing drink after drink and getting blasted during those stage shows.

But his persona, his image, was part of his swinging schtick that he played up on stage. It's what the crowds expected to see after watching him cultivate that image for years, again always with the drink in hand. But he was not getting drunk on apple juice.

Johnny Carson.
The "King Of Late Night", one of the most brilliant TV personalities to ever host a show. He had a unique ability to warm up the television screen, and connect with people from all ages and backgrounds, all classes and groups. He was the type of guy who made people feel like he was talking with them, and whose personable style and demeanor made it seem like you'd want to have a drink or spend time with him, and he'd be endlessly entertaining, the "life of the party" who lit up any room.

The truth is that Johnny was self-conscious and shy, and was not comfortable among groups of people at gatherings and parties to the point of withdrawing and coming off as aloof if not cold as ice at times. If he didn't need to go, he'd avoid such functions and preferred the company of close friends and familiar surroundings. He was also a lightweight drinker, yet had an appetite for consuming booze, and when he did get fueled up he could be a mean and nasty drunk with people around him. The booze that would get him comfortable enough to deal with crowds he didn't want to be in would also turn him into a less-than-pleasant drunk.

Yet Johnny on camera is still one of the most engaging and "friendly" personalities that has ever appeared on American television, and that warmth from afar is what made him the king of his domain, late-night talk television. No one has nor will ever do that gig better than Johnny.

So where does Phil Robertson fit into all of this?

I don't watch the show, truth is I didn't know much if anything about it until this dust-up over the GQ article and A&E. Looking not far beyond the surface for some background, you might find some interesting points which tie into the persona and image-crafting elements.

Anyone interested, look these things up for yourself, I'm just repeating what I read on just a simple check of the backstory.


"Some crazy old duck hunter" doesn't fit reality. Nor does the image of a gaggle of long-bearded backwoods rednecks. It's what the "reality show" puts out there, but it's *NOT* reality.

Phil Robertson himself did grow up dirt poor in the deep south. But he was a good athlete, which got him a college scholarship and that led to his starting at quarterback ahead of future Hall Of Famer Terry Bradshaw for several years. He was offered an NFL contract, but turned it down.

The man also earned both a Bachelor's and Master's degree in education, and worked as a teacher for several years. At the same time, in the early 70's, he was developing duck calls (hunting was his favorite pursuit) and soon incorporated a business which was his second golden ticket out of the deep south poverty he grew up in, a sports scholarship being his first.

So the man being considered an uneducated, unsophisticated redneck backwoods type is actually holding a Master's degree in education and started a multimillion dollar successful business based on something he grew up doing as a kid.

I'd say the reality far outweighs the persona and image of a country bumpkin, because you do not earn a Master's degree and incorporate a multimillion dollar business if you're an uneducated redneck.

Then his family, specifically his sons who are in the family business. Pretty much the same deal: They're sporting the camo clothes and the unkempt beards, but they are also college-educated business and marketing professionals by trade. They are far from backwoods rednecks who lucked into a pot of gold, rather they studied and learned business at college and for a time were the stereotypical three-piece-suit and wingtip wearing professional types, educated and skillful in their trade.

So that's one element of this: Just like Dean Martin was drinking apple juice and pretending to get boozy and drunk, and Johnny Carson could be a mean and nasty drunk off-stage yet looked like the friendliest guy in America at 11:30 PM on NBC, the family branded and marketed a persona and an image for entertainment and business purposes. Far from being uneducated rednecks, they knew exactly what they were doing and when A&E came calling that image became amplified to the point of caricature, as if the characters seen on TV were scripted and written.

And that's what I'm getting at here.

They're dipping a toe into the entertainment business, which at its core sells the public line after line of bullshit. They market and sell based on image and perception, and what you see on video, print, or elsewhere has been crafted, tweaked, shaped, and focus-grouped to appeal to certain demographics and bottom line...to sell product.

Part of crafting that image involves safeguarding that image. We can't let audiences in 1961 know that Dean Martin was pretending to be drunk, nor can we let people in 1967 know that Johnny Carson had to be forcibly carried out of a certain restaurant for being unruly, it wouldn't fit the image.

Someone tell me that letting an interview like this go in 2013, with our instant-information culture of media, wasn't intentional? How much editing, revising, and crafting happens before a simple press release is sent out? In entertainment, sports, politics...

...I'll say with confidence that anything which gets published on a scale as large as GQ is intentional. And don't think that interview by Robertson was not "vetted" by teams of managers, lawyers, agents, and other reps from both A&E and Robertson's company(s) before it was given the OK. This is how corporations work, and how entertainment works. There are few if any "off the cuff" or "off the record" remarks reported if they're not let slip accidentally by anyone from a boozed-up actor to a politician who gets caught speaking candidly on an open mic.

And what was the outcome of this "Duck Dynasty" debacle? People are talking about "Duck Dynasty", many who had no idea what the show even was. And A&E for all of their "outrage" and swift action against Robertson...conveniently they were running a "Duck Dynasty" marathon of episodes just this past weekend, which timed itself perfectly with the dust-up over the GQ interview.

Coincidence? Or skillful subliminal if not guerrilla marketing and promotion?

It's all about the hype, and the hype is all about selling product.

And just keep in mind what the reality actually is with a Phil Robertson versus what some in this thread seem to have been fooled into thinking is the reality based on the public persona crafted to sell product.

And consider that bashing or critiquing or even supporting  a persona as groups like GLAD or Sarah Palin and now "Johnny-Come-Lately" Jesse Jackson are doing is only putting more attention on (and therefore more money into the pockets of) the very persona you're railing against.

My personal issue with this whole ordeal is that it draws attention away from the fact that Duck Dynasty is a stupid show to begin with.

That is unfortunately the nature of mass-market television, it doesn't start nor end with Duck Dynasty.  ;D  Stupid shows will always be around and people will watch, from "My Mother The Car" to "Keeping Up With The Kardashians".

When the hell did this guy get his own show???
(https://lh3.ggpht.com/-i_5CYzKDbQs/TjLDZzx8HBI/AAAAAAAAHVY/CT-AlA6bmf0/s400/Keeping_up_with_the_Cardassians.jpg)