DUCK DYNASTY

corplhicks wrote:

There seems to be a catch, however. Most of the talk regarding this controversy is coming from conservative America--like FF said, all the memes and "I Stand with Phil Robertson." It seems to me--and I'm very much pro-marriage equality--that the LGBT community isn't really raising a fuss about it. In fact, they're either ignoring it or taking a more neutral position (meaning Phil had every right to say what he said and A&E had every right to do what they did). I ask my gay friends what they think and they could care less what the old man said. Even George Takei stood up for Phil and said he has first amendment rights and that we should allow others to disagree with the lifestyle.

So one has to wonder if this is a generalization in saying that those preaching tolerance practice intolerance. Most gays and lesbians aren't fighting for a homosexual utopia--they want to start families and have equal rights. So when the right disagrees with them or vocalize their claims against homosexual marriage, it's no big deal. It's when action is taken to prevent their rights from taking shape.

Speaking of generalizations - your entire second paragraph is one.

A&E wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want the number one show on cable TV and they want to appease GLAAD. They can't do both at this point. Frankly, A&E is probably baffled by the popularity of Duck Dynasty. They thought they were getting a show that mocked hillbilly rubes, and instead they got a wholesome show about normal individuals. They wanted Honey Boo-boo but they got Willie & Phil.

Oh, there are people making a fuss, but the other problem is that the media is making a bigger deal out of this than need be (like Keith said, slow news day). So naturally they bring in the Al Franklin types who love to be outspoken about this sort of thing. A gay buddy of mine who's very politically and socially active has told me no one really cares. They seem to realize that Phil's comment was tongue-in-cheek, even if it was ignorant.

corplhicks wrote:

Oh, there are people making a fuss, but the other problem is that the media is making a bigger deal out of this than need be (like Keith said, slow news day). So naturally they bring in the Al Franklin types who love to be outspoken about this sort of thing. A gay buddy of mine who's very politically and socially active has told me no one really cares. They seem to realize that Phil's comment was tongue-in-cheek, even if it was ignorant.

Sounds about right.

I agree with Witchfinder.

corplhicks wrote:

the media is making a bigger deal out of this than need be...

This I can agree with.

How shocking! A nearly 70 year old man from the deep South with strong Christian beliefs doesn't fit in with modern media political correctness. GASP! SHOCK! OUTRAGE! 

Witchfinder wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

There seems to be a catch, however. Most of the talk regarding this controversy is coming from conservative America--like FF said, all the memes and "I Stand with Phil Robertson." It seems to me--and I'm very much pro-marriage equality--that the LGBT community isn't really raising a fuss about it. In fact, they're either ignoring it or taking a more neutral position (meaning Phil had every right to say what he said and A&E had every right to do what they did). I ask my gay friends what they think and they could care less what the old man said. Even George Takei stood up for Phil and said he has first amendment rights and that we should allow others to disagree with the lifestyle.

So one has to wonder if this is a generalization in saying that those preaching tolerance practice intolerance. Most gays and lesbians aren't fighting for a homosexual utopia--they want to start families and have equal rights. So when the right disagrees with them or vocalize their claims against homosexual marriage, it's no big deal. It's when action is taken to prevent their rights from taking shape.

Speaking of generalizations - your entire second paragraph is one.

A&E wants to have their cake and eat it too.  They want the number one show on cable TV and they want to appease GLAAD.  They can't do both at this point.  Frankly, A&E is probably baffled by the popularity of Duck Dynasty.  They thought they were getting a show that mocked hillbilly rubes, and instead they got a wholesome show about normal individuals.  They wanted Honey Boo-boo but they got Willie & Phil.  

I've been very active in the LGBT community for a long time now and have a good number of homosexual friends. I'm going off of discussions I've held with them and their desired collective vision.

ultmetal wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

the media is making a bigger deal out of this than need be...

This I can agree with.

How shocking! A nearly 70 year old man from the deep South with strong Christian beliefs doesn't fit in with modern media political correctness. GASP!   

Exactly; what he said was pretty much standard issue southern conservative rhetoric. Which no one should have a problem with.

What bothers me is Robertson's statement that he never saw blacks being mistreated during the civil rights era, if he honestly believes that then he truly is a delusional jackass, file him away in the same category as the Westboro Baptist Church and Pat Robertson(founder of the 700 Club who believes 9/11 was caused by gay marriage or some BS like that), his statements are offensive to any real christians.

I fully support A&E's decision, tried watching the show and thought it was really stupid, don't get what all fuss is about, so I really couldn't care less if it never comes back.

Only reality shows I like are Hell's Kitchen, Kitchen Nightmares and Bar Rescue.

I'm not surprised some people are upset by this, they have every right to state their disagreements with what Robertson said, it dosen't automatically make them "intolerant" or "stupid"

ultmetal wrote:

I enjoy the show. It's actually the only "reality" show that I do enjoy. I find it funny, as does my family. Don't really give a rip that it's scripted. What on TV isn't scripted?

As for the controversy, it's stupid. Everyone knows and has known for years what Phil Robertson and his family believed about homosexuality or any other sexual behavior outside of marriage. They've been quite open and honest about it in their autobiographies, in interviews and in his public speeches. Why this one became a big deal and some stupid Gay/Lesbian group felt the need to have a hissy fit and demand his head on a platter is beyond me.

Is is at PR stunt? Might be, but it also proves the point that you aren't allowed to publicly DISAGREE with the homosexual lifestyle. If you DISAGREE with the homosexual lifestyle, you are considered to be a HATE monger. I DISAGREE with the idea of people doing drugs, but I don't HATE the people that do it. It just seems that the people who constantly complain about intolerance, are pretty darned intolerant themselves.

What it boils down to for A&E was a snap business decision. Time will tell if it was a wise decision or not. If they lose the show, it won't be since it's their biggest and highest rated show ever. If they manage to work things out with the Robertsons, then their ratings will probably go though the roof. Good for them.

I totally agree. Phil Robertson has been pretty clear he cheated and did other things to hurt his wife. I am not sure I subscribe to the theory of a publicity stunt but it sure doesnt hurt the ratings.

I also agree Ult that it is very ironic that some who preach tolerance are some of most intolerant people I have ever met if you dont subscribe to their opinions.

I can't believe all the hullabaloo over this when there are much more important things going wrong in the world.After all,it's just one man's opinion (and I'm still not sure what exactly he said;actually I don't even really care) stated in an interview in GQ Magazine (?!). Ridiculous !

exact33 wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

I enjoy the show. It's actually the only "reality" show that I do enjoy. I find it funny, as does my family. Don't really give a rip that it's scripted. What on TV isn't scripted?

As for the controversy, it's stupid. Everyone knows and has known for years what Phil Robertson and his family believed about homosexuality or any other sexual behavior outside of marriage. They've been quite open and honest about it in their autobiographies, in interviews and in his public speeches. Why this one became a big deal and some stupid Gay/Lesbian group felt the need to have a hissy fit and demand his head on a platter is beyond me.

Is is at PR stunt? Might be, but it also proves the point that you aren't allowed to publicly DISAGREE with the homosexual lifestyle. If you DISAGREE with the homosexual lifestyle, you are considered to be a HATE monger. I DISAGREE with the idea of people doing drugs, but I don't HATE the people that do it. It just seems that the people who constantly complain about intolerance, are pretty darned intolerant themselves.

What it boils down to for A&E was a snap business decision. Time will tell if it was a wise decision or not. If they lose the show, it won't be since it's their biggest and highest rated show ever. If they manage to work things out with the Robertsons, then their ratings will probably go though the roof. Good for them.

I totally agree. Phil Robertson has been pretty clear he cheated and did other things to hurt his wife. I am not sure I subscribe to the theory of a publicity stunt but it sure doesnt hurt the ratings.

I also agree Ult that it is very ironic that some who preach tolerance are some of most intolerant people I have ever met if you dont subscribe to their opinions.

Disagreeing with Robertson's statements dosen't automatically make one "intolerant". I'd certainly much rather be around those "representitives" then people like Robertson.

Vexer6 wrote:

I'm not surprised some people are upset by this, they have every right to state their disagreements with what Robertson said, it dosen't automatically make them "intolerant" or "stupid"

I think it does when they start labeling people vile bigots and start saying the First Amendment should not apply to them. It's one thing to say you dont support his views but its another entirely to say he should not be able to hold them.

Oh, America...if we could funnel back some of the "freedom" we've been offering other countries for decades, we might have some more to go around here.....let's send them our televisions instead since clearly they aren't making us smarter...

If it was a homosexual black man/woman making a comment about a 70 year old Christian redneck, would there be any outrage ?   When the shoe is on the other foot, the tune changes..

It's kinda/sorta like my cousin sayin he hates/despises people who are racist and doesn't understand why I laugh.

Of course nobody seems to realize this is NOT a damn first amendment issue. This guy said something in an interview (an interview he would not have without A&E's show) that A&E did not agree with or want to be associated with, thus he was suspended.

The same thing happens in real life, I knew a guy who was fired from his job because he added his employer to his Facebook page and then also uploaded a bunch of photos he took at a strip club. His manager happened to check out his page, saw his photos and fired him because both the company and the strip club photos were on the same page. That's the same deal here, Phil should have known that as long as he's employed by A&E that anything he says in public will appear that he's speaking as a de facto representative of A&E.

The rest of this shitstorm was the usual overreaction in the media and on twitter and Facebook.

S.D. wrote:

Of course nobody seems to realize this is NOT a damn first amendment issue.  This guy said something in an interview (an interview he would not have without A&E's show) that A&E did not agree with or want to be associated with, thus he was suspended.  

The same thing happens in real life, I knew a guy who was fired from his job because he added his employer to his Facebook page and then also uploaded a bunch of photos he took at a strip club.  His manager happened to check out his page, saw his photos and fired him because both the company and the strip club photos were on the same page.  That's the same deal here, Phil should have known that as long as he's employed by A&E that anything he says in public will appear that he's speaking as a de facto representative of A&E.  

The rest of this shitstorm was the usual overreaction in the media and on twitter and Facebook.  

Its their right as an employer but I do think they are on shaky ground since you can reasonably construe his talk as expressing his religious views. You may not like his views but religious speech enjoys greater constitutional protection, even in the private employment sector.

ultmetal wrote:

I enjoy the show. It's actually the only "reality" show that I do enjoy. I find it funny, as does my family. Don't really give a rip that it's scripted. What on TV isn't scripted?

As for the controversy, it's stupid. Everyone knows and has known for years what Phil Robertson and his family believed about homosexuality or any other sexual behavior outside of marriage. They've been quite open and honest about it in their autobiographies, in interviews and in his public speeches. Why this one became a big deal and some stupid Gay/Lesbian group felt the need to have a hissy fit and demand his head on a platter is beyond me.

Is is at PR stunt? Might be, but it also proves the point that you aren't allowed to publicly DISAGREE with the homosexual lifestyle. If you DISAGREE with the homosexual lifestyle, you are considered to be a HATE monger. I DISAGREE with the idea of people doing drugs, but I don't HATE the people that do it. It just seems that the people who constantly complain about intolerance, are pretty darned intolerant themselves.

What it boils down to for A&E was a snap business decision. Time will tell if it was a wise decision or not. If they lose the show, it won't be since it's their biggest and highest rated show ever. If they manage to work things out with the Robertsons, then their ratings will probably go though the roof. Good for them.

This. Duck Dynasty is the only show of its ilk I like but I also concur that A&E and GQ knew what they were doing. I also saw it back on the episode where Phil & Kay had some photographer show up at their house. In the end it's the suits that win more than likely.

S.D. wrote:

Of course nobody seems to realize this is NOT a damn first amendment issue.  This guy said something in an interview (an interview he would not have without A&E's show) that A&E did not agree with or want to be associated with, thus he was suspended.  

The same thing happens in real life, I knew a guy who was fired from his job because he added his employer to his Facebook page and then also uploaded a bunch of photos he took at a strip club.  His manager happened to check out his page, saw his photos and fired him because both the company and the strip club photos were on the same page.  That's the same deal here, Phil should have known that as long as he's employed by A&E that anything he says in public will appear that he's speaking as a de facto representative of A&E.  

The rest of this shitstorm was the usual overreaction in the media and on twitter and Facebook.  

I also agree with this. Phil does know he's a de facto rep of A&E but he doesn't care hell, you could tell the day he had to stand on the football field alongside Terry Bradshaw with their jerseys that he totally hated it. In fact he seems rather dismissive of that part of his life and at times he seems dismissive of A&E.

People also forget that about a month ago Alec Baldwin's talkshow on MSNBC was cancelled because he was caught on camera calling someone a derogatory term that refers to homosexuals. So it's not just A&E and it's not a vendetta against an old redneck duck hunter.

With that being said the same thing would happen to anybody whether they had their own tv show or flipped burgers at a greasy spoon.

The First Amendment only applies to government action, not private individuals/companies.

Witchfinder wrote:

The First Amendment only applies to government action, not private individuals/companies.  

Thanks for the clarification.

S.D. wrote:

People also forget that about a month ago Alec Baldwin's talkshow on MSNBC was cancelled because he was caught on camera calling someone a derogatory term that refers to homosexuals.  So it's not just A&E and it's not a vendetta against an old redneck duck hunter.

Really?  I didn't know anything about that.  Ironically Alec actually got pretty pissed at his brother Stephen's comments against gay marriage a few years ago, so it's a bit odd that he'd make such a comment(then again I know some people who are neutral on LGBT issues yet feel the need to constantly spout gay slurs)

http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/21147270.html

The First Amendment Argument is total nonsense, not surprised that Sarah Palin pulled that one out of her ass. I see she hasn't lost the ability to say things that are completely asinine and mindblowingly stupid.

Alec was being hounded by paparazzi and called one of them a f*g, of course that was recorded by all the other paparazzi. Stupid on Alec's part, he should have known he'd be recorded.

James B. wrote:

If it was a homosexual black man/woman making a comment about a 70 year old Christian redneck, would there be any outrage ?   When the shoe is on the other foot, the tune changes..

It's kinda/sorta like my cousin sayin he hates/despises people who are racist and doesn't understand why I laugh.

What's so funny about that?  Racism is no laughing matter.