Duck Dynasty Plucked

[NLXSK1]

Hmmm.... lots of name calling and slap fights going on here.

Phil Roberston has the right to express his opinions, no matter how hateful or non-hateful they might be and A&E has the right to decide what programming they show and how much support they want to offer to their employees when they make controversial claims.

I think one of the main reasons people are offended is because homosexuality was compared to a bunch of things that are choices. If you're gay, you're gay there's no choice involved, so stating 'gays should go to hell' is condemning a group of people who had no choice in the way they are biologically configured. If you want to cheat on your wife, that's a decision you make to be unfaithful (not to mention a marriage is a legally standing contract you make a conscious decision of signing). IMO, the comparison is rather insulting to gay people, so I can see why gay people would be insulted by his comments.

Do I agree with the super-sensitivity A&E is showing? (I mean the article was in GQ not on A&E) No, not really but I don't agree that being gay is a sin either.

The other remarks he made about black people being happier without civil rights and with segregation being in place are more demeaning , IMO. Pretty bold statement telling an entire group of people (that you don't belong to) when they were happiest. Even bolder when that 'time' was when that group of people were considered inferior and weren't allowed to associate with whites under most circumstances.

How far should freedom of speech protect you? It should mean you shouldn't go to jail or be harmed because of your beliefs. It doesn't mean you are protected from losing your job for being an asshole, or that you're safe from hearing free speech from people that disagree with you. It also doesn't mean that actions are without consequence because you're legally entitled to your own opinion.

Freedom of speech =/= no consequences for what you say.

I think most people are agreeing with you.

The funny thing is that the people that preach tolerance are the ones justifying him getting kicked off the show. They are the ones showing intolerance.

A&E is making a huge mistake IMO. I think the backlash caused by their actions will cause more harm to the network than if they had simply said that the people in the show do not reflect the opinions of the network or management.

They have shows showcasing bizzare behavior and that is cool and all but let's keep the prayers and christian shit out of the programming eh? After all, it is a family show.. LOL!!!

Rush Limbaugh pointed out that these guys are not doing the show for money, their duck dynasty shit is selling like hotcakes. They are Christians and are using the show to promote Christianity to the masses without forcing it on people.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

I tried to sit through an episode of this show about a year ago...impossible to watch. If that gang of idiots is reflective of Christians, it only reinforces my atheism. If A&E wants to pull the plug on the biggest moneymaker it's ever had, more power to them. Maybe they'll replace it with something on par with Breaking Bad or at the very least, something watchable.

 

[NLXSK1]

I tried to sit through an episode of this show about a year ago...impossible to watch. If that gang of idiots is reflective of Christians, it only reinforces my atheism. If A&E wants to pull the plug on the biggest moneymaker it's ever had, more power to them. Maybe they'll replace it with something on par with Breaking Bad or at the very least, something watchable.

I have never even watched an episode..

 

[BigNBushy]

I tried to sit through an episode of this show about a year ago...impossible to watch. If that gang of idiots is reflective of Christians, it only reinforces my atheism. If A&E wants to pull the plug on the biggest moneymaker it's ever had, more power to them. Maybe they'll replace it with something on par with Breaking Bad or at the very least, something watchable.

I doubt these guys are idiots. Most people with lots of money are pretty sharp.

I'm sick of them, frankly. I'm tired of seeing those crzy bearded faces everywhere. You can't even walk into a gas station without seeing them.

And the show is so scripted it's boring to me.

 

[Beefbisquit]

I think most people are agreeing with you.

The funny thing is that the people that preach tolerance are the ones justifying him getting kicked off the show. They are the ones showing intolerance.

Is intolerance of intolerance still intolerance itself? LOL Oh man, and down the rabbit hole we go! Should we tolerate intolerance to promote tolerance? Either way it's contradictory.....

A&E is making a huge mistake IMO. I think the backlash caused by their actions will cause more harm to the network than if they had simply said that the people in the show do not reflect the opinions of the network or management.

I agree.

They have shows showcasing bizzare behavior and that is cool and all but let's keep the prayers and christian shit out of the programming eh? After all, it is a family show.. LOL!!!

Rush Limbaugh pointed out that these guys are not doing the show for money, their duck dynasty shit is selling like hotcakes. They are Christians and are using the show to promote Christianity to the masses without forcing it on people.

Yep, and I'm sure another network would pick them up in an instant if they left A&E. I don't think A&E had a problem with promoting Christianity in DD's own way, it was specifically being aligned with someone diametrically opposed to the LBGTQ community.

 

[NLXSK1]

• Yep, and I'm sure another network would pick them up in an instant if they left A&E. I don't think A&E had a problem with promoting Christianity in DD's own way, it was specifically being aligned with someone diametrically opposed to the LBGTQ community.​
  
  
  
  

I have heard that A&E kept pressuring them to take the prayer out and some of the stuff they talk about the word God is bleeped out for some strange reason. This leads me to believe that A&E had a specific agenda. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

I would not be surprised to see the family pull out of the deal but take Alec Baldwin and/or Charlie Sheen for instance and you can see how totally fucked up the reactions in hollywood can be.

 

[Wavels]

In my estimation the marketplace should decide the fate of DD.
I do not think Martin Bashir should have been forced to resign from MSNBC.
I do not think that Alec Baldwin should have been fired from MSNBC.
Paula Deen should not have been canned either.
As long as speech does not incite violence, anything should be tolerated.
Dare I reference Al Sharpton?


The viewers and advertisers should decide the fate of those who espouse wacky and offensive opinions.
I think that more people are going to discuss this issue at the Christmas dinner table than the ACA.
The timing is exquisite.

 

[NoDrama]

Your conflation makes no sense. The government isn't interfering with the practice of Catholicism: the church can preach whatever it wants without any consequence whatsoever. That doesn't mean the church is exempt from the laws applicable to all other people. They aren't being persecuted. No one said "Fuck the Catholic Church, let's find a way to really piss them off and offend their god."

Well you are somewhat correct, the church cannot make any political speeches intending to sway someone into voting for a particular candidate.

 

[Beefbisquit]

In my estimation the marketplace should decide the fate of DD.
I do not think Martin Bashir should have been forced to resign from MSNBC.
I do not think that Alec Baldwin should have been fired from MSNBC.
Paula Deen should not have been canned either.
As long as speech does not incite violence, anything should be tolerated.
Dare I reference Al Sharpton?

It is tolerated in the sense of the law. Telling people they have to tolerate something that they vehemently oppose is the same as censorship. This is how A&E is exercising their freedom of speech.

You're saying executive/owners of TV stations have no right to choose what they air on a private TV station. I'm not taking sides, but if Phil Robertson has the right to speak his mind and stand behind his beliefs, then the owners of A&E should have the same right. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Just because you don't agree with what someone says/does with their freedom doesn't mean they shouldn't express it. Phil Robertson is still free to express his opinion, just not using the company time/money/resources of A&E, and that is their right.

The viewers and advertisers should decide the fate of those who espouse wacky and offensive opinions.

That's kind of bizarre, don't you think? Are you suggesting people with no stake in certain private property hold the reigns on what happens within said private property? Either the owners of the company have the right to decide what they air, or they do not (within reason, e.g. nudity, swearing at certain times of the day, violence, etc.).

For fiscal reasons the company should want to keep viewers and advertisers happy and watching/buying air time - but they have no responsibility to them whatsoever. If the CEO and the trustee/board members of A&E decide they want to air nothing but "Threes Company" reruns, that is their decision.

I think that more people are going to discuss this issue at the Christmas dinner table than the ACA.

The timing is exquisite.

This whole tolerance/intolerance thing is giving me a headache. It's essentially a paradox.

 

[Wavels]

It is tolerated in the sense of the law. Telling people they have to tolerate something that they vehemently oppose is the same as censorship. This is how A&E is exercising their freedom of speech.

You're saying executive/owners of TV stations have no right to choose what they air on a private TV station. I'm not taking sides, but if Phil Robertson has the right to speak his mind and stand behind his beliefs, then the owners of A&E should have the same right. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Just because you don't agree with what someone says/does with their freedom doesn't mean they shouldn't express it. Phil Robertson is still free to express his opinion, just not using the company time/money/resources of A&E, and that is their right.


That's kind of bizarre, don't you think? Are you suggesting people with no stake in certain private property hold the reigns on what happens within said private property? Either the owners of the company have the right to decide what they air, or they do not (within reason, e.g. nudity, swearing at certain times of the day, violence, etc.).

For fiscal reasons the company should want to keep viewers and advertisers happy and watching/buying air time - but they have no responsibility to them whatsoever. If the CEO and the trustee/board members of A&E decide they want to air nothing but "Threes Company" reruns, that is their decision.



This whole tolerance/intolerance thing is giving me a headache. It's essentially a paradox.

Certainly AE or MSNBC (any broadcasting company) has the right to fire anyone they think deserves it.
But keep in mind AE hired these guys knowing full well that they were vigorous bible thumpers.
What did AE expect?
And now AE is disappointed or shocked that they expressed their corresponding religious beliefs and values?

 

[BigNBushy]

Is intolerance of intolerance still intolerance itself? LOL Oh man, and down the rabbit hole we go! Should we tolerate intolerance to promote tolerance? Either way it's contradictory.....

What is a lack of tolerace? I would argue that even a very racist and bigoted person is tolerant. To me, a person is tolerant so long as they are willing to allow the other to exist. If someone physically attacks the other that is intolerance. If a person simply voices their disagreement with the other, they are tolerant so long as there is no advocation of forced removal from a specific geographical area, a forced conversion of the other, or the murder thereof.

In other words, Andrew Jackson was intolerant for the forced removal of the aboriginal Americans, charlemagain was intolerant for the forced conversion of the pegan people of northern Europe, and hitler was intolerant because of the genocide of those he hated.

Phil Robertson is anti-homosexual. Of that there can be no doubt, but I doubt very much, even if he were dictator of America with no checks on his power if he would force conversion, remove, or kill homosexuals or any other group. He is willing to tolerate those with which he disagrees.

In point of fact, the word tolerance almost seems to necessitate that you be opposed to something in the first place.

The crowd screaming tolerance the loudest does seem, to me, to be the ones most willing to punish others for expressing a different view.

 

[CC Dobbs]

I got these ideas from watching the socialization of medicine in this country, mostly perpetrated by the left.

The first amendment to the constitution, the VERY FIRST ONE, guarantees freedom of religion. Catholics believe that contraception is a mortal sin, yet they are being forced to pay for contraception for their employees. If you don't think that is a wound to the constitution then it is you that is delusional.

I expected nothing more from you than the wounded explanation that you offered and you delivered.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Certainly AE or MSNBC (any broadcasting company) has the right to fire anyone they think deserves it.
But keep in mind AE hired these guys knowing full well that they were vigorous bible thumpers.
What did AE expect?
And now AE is disappointed or shocked that they expressed their corresponding religious beliefs and values?

I think it's reasonable to assume personal beliefs won't spill over into the workplace.

I've never been working anywhere were someone brought in pamphlets about Jesus, or any religion for that matter. There's an expectation of professionalism, wouldn't you agree?

 

[beenthere]

I expected nothing more from you than the wounded explanation that you offered and you delivered.

A wounded explanation is conjecture on your part.
But the way you say this, is as if you are the final arbitrator, which you are not.

 

[Beefbisquit]

What is a lack of tolerace? I would argue that even a very racist and bigoted person is tolerant. To me, a person is tolerant so long as they are willing to allow the other to exist. If someone physically attacks the other that is intolerance. If a person simply voices their disagreement with the other, they are tolerant so long as there is no advocation of forced removal from a specific geographical area, a forced conversion of the other, or the murder thereof.

I agree with this. It could still be discrimination, but not necessarily intolerance.

In other words, Andrew Jackson was intolerant for the forced removal of the aboriginal Americans, charlemagain was intolerant for the forced conversion of the pegan people of northern Europe, and hitler was intolerant because of the genocide of those he hated.

Phil Robertson is anti-homosexual. Of that there can be no doubt, but I doubt very much, even if he were dictator of America with no checks on his power if he would force conversion, remove, or kill homosexuals or any other group. He is willing to tolerate those with which he disagrees.

I'd probably agree with this, although we'll never really know. lol

In point of fact, the word tolerance almost seems to necessitate that you be opposed to something in the first place.

That's very true, I never really looked at it like that.

The crowd screaming tolerance the loudest does seem, to me, to be the ones most willing to punish others for expressing a different view.

I'm not sure I would call the removal of Phil from the show, 'punishment'. I'm not sure it's a disciplinary action so much as a strategic move to not be associated with those types of beliefs. It's a finicky argument either way.

I also think it's the way he structured his comments. He compared gays to thieves... that's pretty rude to say the least. One is an act of deception done by someone against another; a crime that affects people directly. The other is just two people who love each other and like to fuck. An action that doesn't affect anyone but those two people.

It's a pretty shitty comparison, and I can understand why A&E, an 'arts channel' wouldn't want to be associated with lumping gays with thieves and animal fuckers.

 

[NoDrama]

Before A&E started this show, the people all wore business suits, were well quaffed and were running a successful business with clients all over the world.

The fact that most people think they were redneck christian hillbillies just goes to show how well TV can fool the masses.

This is them before the show aired:

After:

“Men (people) are rarely aware of the real reasons which motivate their actions.”
― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.
Edward Bernays
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/edward_bernays.html#mcQXDGwTbi0lhGQB.99​

 

[nevyn]

I am always amazed that when yuppies wake up they don't hold back. Interesting post nodrama.

 

[tokeprep]

Well you are somewhat correct, the church cannot make any political speeches intending to sway someone into voting for a particular candidate.

The church can say whatever it wants whenever it pleases. If the church chooses to accept government conditions in exchange for obtaining a tax exemption, that's on them.

 

[Wavels]

Here is an interesting piece in the WaPo.
Very funny and informative.
I knew almost nothing about the show, as I have never watched it.
For anyone interested:

[h=1]9 questions you were too embarrassed to ask about ‘Duck Dynasty’[/h]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/20/9-questions-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask-about-duck-dynasty/

 

[NoDrama]

The church can say whatever it wants whenever it pleases. If the church chooses to accept government conditions in exchange for obtaining a tax exemption, that's on them.

I guess if you want to say that, sure why not. Unfortunately I think going to a church which is not a tax exempt entity would put you in the clear minority.