And all the adults getting wasted.
A&E Taking Heat For Suspending 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson
- Thread starter Shilliam Watner
- Start date
And all the adults getting wasted.
So, the government has taken away Phil Robertson's Twitter privileges, suspended his blogging license, barred him from appearing on TV and radio, and forbidden him from publishing? This shit's getting real!
Trolls are not on the internet for discussion. They are here to make people dance to their tune.
He acted like this in the Place That Shall Not Be Talked about...
Is the First Amendment really that fucking hard to understand?
Well they clearly have only "read" the first two and figured out what the founding fathers actually meant.
1. I have the right to do whatever I want and say it's my freedom. If you disagree with me you have no freedoms!!!
2. Guns are from God, I can shoot anyone I want.
There was a thing the other night, some guy was angry that he couldn't use foodstamps to buy guns.
You know, and I brought this up on Facebook last night, but situations like this are interesting to me.
Here we have a private citizen who said some ignorant things and as a result another private entity (A&E) has suspended him from the show they pay for. As a result? People cry out that First Amendment rights have been violated and cry out in support of the one said the ignorant things. Which, you know, I can almost get behind. While I understand why he was suspended I don't necessarily think it was "right" to do so simply by him voicing his opinion. Legally it's in the clear, naturally, and it's a game of CYA by A&E but, really the guy simply voiced his opinion on something.
Flash back to like 2002 or 2003 or so, popular country band The Dixie Chicks are at a concert somewhere overseas and express their disappointment in then-president George Bush due to the war in Iraq. In the wake of this, naturally, Americans supported The Dixie Chicks in their Freedom of Speech and applauded them for speaking their minds in exercising the great right that we have in questioning our government leaders.
Actually, no... A massive boycott began leading to the Chicks' songs stopping from being played on the radio, CD/paraphernalia burnings and a pretty big drop in the Chicks' popularity.
Huh. I guess the First Amendment was changed over the last 10 years or so.
Here we have a private citizen who said some ignorant things and as a result another private entity (A&E) has suspended him from the show they pay for. As a result? People cry out that First Amendment rights have been violated and cry out in support of the one said the ignorant things. Which, you know, I can almost get behind. While I understand why he was suspended I don't necessarily think it was "right" to do so simply by him voicing his opinion. Legally it's in the clear, naturally, and it's a game of CYA by A&E but, really the guy simply voiced his opinion on something.
Flash back to like 2002 or 2003 or so, popular country band The Dixie Chicks are at a concert somewhere overseas and express their disappointment in then-president George Bush due to the war in Iraq. In the wake of this, naturally, Americans supported The Dixie Chicks in their Freedom of Speech and applauded them for speaking their minds in exercising the great right that we have in questioning our government leaders.
Actually, no... A massive boycott began leading to the Chicks' songs stopping from being played on the radio, CD/paraphernalia burnings and a pretty big drop in the Chicks' popularity.
Huh. I guess the First Amendment was changed over the last 10 years or so.
I would also add: If this guy had said these things 20, 30 years ago, A&E wouldn't have done a thing because it would have been still mainstream to say such things.
But, now, society has changed, and will continue to change... and this is, rightly, viewed as bigotry.
Oh, absolutely. And I think that it's great that we've grown so much as a society. But, man, we got a long way to go.
In what way? The Dixie Chicks' fans had every right to express outrage. I don't agree with what the Chicks said - or, for that matter, with the outrage directed against them - but they should have known some backlash like that would happen. And probably did know it, come to think of it.
(Did they ever express *surprise* that a largely right-leaning fan base wouldn't particularly like GWB being criticized?)
It's a disparity in how people reacted.
Duck Dynasty guy expresses his opinion and the retaliation against him by his employers call for his supporters to cry about Freedom of Speech being infringed.
The Dixie Chicks speak their mind and do people support them and say they have a right to say what they want? No, they banned them and punished them for what they said.
Which is fine, it's just odd in one case a man is supported for speaking his mind in another people are not.
^ The Dixie Chicks were "banned"? In what way? They still have a recording contract, they still perform, they just pretty much dropped all pretense of being country (which, for that matter, they actually did way earlier. Anyone remember the Little Ol' Cowgirl album? 
).
True, some of their sponsors dropped them, but the same thing is happening now for Phil. They were not (unlike Phil) fired from their jobs - although some DJs were fired for playing their music, and I agree, that was way out of line. They are still together and still sing whatever they want.
But the fact remains, as a - nominally, at least - country band, they should have known that country fans tend to lean rightward, and thus, considered the backlash that might and did occur. I gotta give them props for having the guts to go ahead and do it, though. And even GWB himself didn't have a problem with it. He didn't care what they thought or said, and neither do I.
So I'm not seeing the problem here, really. The Dixie Chicks caught flak for pissing off very right wing fans, and Phil is receiving SUPPORT from the same very right wing fans, because such fans would not typically agree with Natalie Maines' views but they would agree with Phil.
).True, some of their sponsors dropped them, but the same thing is happening now for Phil. They were not (unlike Phil) fired from their jobs - although some DJs were fired for playing their music, and I agree, that was way out of line. They are still together and still sing whatever they want.
But the fact remains, as a - nominally, at least - country band, they should have known that country fans tend to lean rightward, and thus, considered the backlash that might and did occur. I gotta give them props for having the guts to go ahead and do it, though. And even GWB himself didn't have a problem with it. He didn't care what they thought or said, and neither do I.
So I'm not seeing the problem here, really. The Dixie Chicks caught flak for pissing off very right wing fans, and Phil is receiving SUPPORT from the same very right wing fans, because such fans would not typically agree with Natalie Maines' views but they would agree with Phil.
You don't have to go back that far. Just six weeks.
Martin Bashir said something impolitic about Sarah Palin, and he and the network that aired him (MSNBC) parted ways. People cheered because MSNBC had taken a stand against offensive and intolerant speech.
Those people who cheered loudest when MSNBC divested themselves of Bashir are the exact same ones who are up in arms the most because A&E did the exact same thing with this Duck Dynasty dude -- he said something impolitic, A&E removed him from the program he stars on on their network.
If you supported Bashir's ouster but oppose this, then, frankly, you're a hypocrite.
Which brings up my point. These people are only in favor of freedom of speech when they agree with something. If you don't agree with them then no freedom of speech for you!!!
If you're going to use the OLD Testament as a basis for your beliefs, then fine. But why not be consistent? Why hone in on the anti-gay stuff, but then completely ignore the parts in the same section that talk about not wearing blended fabrics?
Christians like Phil Robertson ignore that one, because who wants to wear 100% cotton or wool all the time? It just makes shopping inconvenient. How about the prohibition against eating shellfish? But it's so tasty! Let's ignore that one too. The prohibition against touching a woman while she's menstruating? Well that's just going to make daily life awkward indeed! So yeah, f*ck that one too. No tattoos either? Come on Old Testament, you're killing me here! Tattoos are so cool! I'm going to pretend like I didn't see that one.
And the list goes on and on and on. But the anti-gay stuff? Somehow that's still valid in 2013. The Bible is treated by >95% of Christians as a buffet; they pick and choose the morsels that support their pre-existing biases, prejudices, and beliefs and then ignore the parts that are inconvenient for them.
Christians like Phil Robertson ignore that one, because who wants to wear 100% cotton or wool all the time? It just makes shopping inconvenient. How about the prohibition against eating shellfish? But it's so tasty! Let's ignore that one too. The prohibition against touching a woman while she's menstruating? Well that's just going to make daily life awkward indeed! So yeah, f*ck that one too. No tattoos either? Come on Old Testament, you're killing me here! Tattoos are so cool! I'm going to pretend like I didn't see that one.
And the list goes on and on and on. But the anti-gay stuff? Somehow that's still valid in 2013. The Bible is treated by >95% of Christians as a buffet; they pick and choose the morsels that support their pre-existing biases, prejudices, and beliefs and then ignore the parts that are inconvenient for them.
Shilliam Watner
Commander
I agree. That's exactly what GLAAD did but took it up a step lobbying for A&E to suspend Phil or else. It's like what they did with the bakers and photographers recently forcing them to serve gay customers.
http://nypost.com/2013/12/20/the-vicious-tolerance-police/
Heaven forbid somebody serve a paying customer who just happens to be gay. The absolute nerve. It's Thunderdome out there in our restaurants and other businesses.
Okay, maybe I'm just sleep depped or I do faith wrong: But I was always taught that it wasn't my place to pass judgement on the lives or sins or others, that that was the province of the divine.
I don't get the fear of homosexuals. What's do people think is going to happen, roaming gangs of gays forcing people to have homosexual sex? Rape gangs of lesbians attacking their sisters and their daughters? What sort of Mad Maxian nightmare do homosexual conjure up for the militant and vocal anti-gay crowd?
I don't get the fear of homosexuals. What's do people think is going to happen, roaming gangs of gays forcing people to have homosexual sex? Rape gangs of lesbians attacking their sisters and their daughters? What sort of Mad Maxian nightmare do homosexual conjure up for the militant and vocal anti-gay crowd?
Shilliam Watner
Commander
Because as a private business owner you shouldn't be forced to serve a group or individual. It's their right. This GLAAD group made threats that they would force these people out of business if they didn't serve gays. That's what I call nerve. Hell, they even had the nerve mandating that Catholic medical providers and Hobby Lobby violate their religious conscience and cover abortion pills in order to stay in business. Do you agree with those tactics?