Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson: The Latest Victim of the PC Police

SloAnPainful
reply to post by WilsonWilson

 

Nothing he said was offensive. Its what he believes...

If you get offended off someone elses beliefs that's just sad... Why? Because everyone has beliefs and they shouldn't be judged.

-SAP-

people get offended by other peoples beliefs all the time.
And of course we judge people, i judge men who believe it's their right to beat women.
I actually think there little point in being offended, at what he said, i thnk the story is all out of proportion, he didnt link homosexulaity to beastiality, he mentioned them both as sins.

I have thought about this, and refrained from posting here while I thought. Typically, I am a champion of gay rights, and am known on ATS for being quick to come down on homophobes. With that said, I am going to pretend this this whole thing isn't a manufactured charade by A&E/Robinson, and say that what he said is not wrong, nor should he feel fallout from it It is his own freedom (speech/religion) that he is using, and it has no effect on a gay person. Given the gay argument of, "My homosexuality doesn't effect you", that would seem to be important, yet ignored.

That aside, however, this whole thing is a charade. Months ago Phil said he wanted off the show. He didn't want the spotlight, and the work, that comes with it. So they manufactured this little thing so that everyone wins...except the freedom of speech. A&E gets to cater to the progressives (a key demographic for them), Phil gets to proseletyze (which he admits to wanting) and the show gets publicity.

Meanwhile, we just lost another freedom due to social pressure.

A&E was just added to the "block channels" on my television sets.

reply to post by WilsonWilson


I'll agree with that.

It sounds like they are making it way worse then it really is. I don't think Phil is sweating it too much right now. He's a multi-millionaire and he didn't really seem to care much for the show anyhow.

-SAP-

bigfatfurrytexan

Meanwhile, we just lost another freedom due to social pressure.

.

What freedom did we lose?

WilsonWilson
reply to post by WilsonWilson

 

My post went missing, i'll try again.

I live the uk, and where i work it's written into our contracts that we cant do anything to put the company in a bad light on social media sites etc. So if i make a comment about work on say facebook, and somebody from work reads it and reports me i'm stuffed.
I'm assuming that he must have something similar in his contract.

Yes you are quite correct. It is that way in the states as well. Inner Party members are held to a different standard than outer party members. Corporations can lie, cheat, steal, poison, maim, degrade,employees. They can take out life insurance on employees while denying them coverage. They can use the profit from your efforts to influence politicians to represent their rights and voice their point of view but you can never make them look bad publicly or off to room 101.

reply to post by antonia


...Freedom of speech maybe?

-SAP-

Restricted

Darth_Prime
The thing is, as a proponent of free speech, one has to accept that people will say things you don't agree with, Freedoms go both ways (or should)

again, what he said is offensive, sure it is. if he is too busy having intercourse with his family members to realize that no matter Gay, Straight, or Bisexual we are Humans, that is on him

See what i did there

I can't respect you for this statement. You return stones with stones. Nothing respectable about such pettiness.

it was a failed attempt at humor.

i wasn't saying that with any intent

The core of the issue here is a small mob of Official Offense Takers who bully adults by throwing a shrieking tantrum over a convoluted "offense".

This is a traditional tactic of leftism, no logic, sense or facts can penetrate the wall of hand wringing and hysterical sobbing, adults will reflexively submit to their demands just to distance themselves from the controversy.

You see this same pattern with parents who have rotten spoiled lillte monsters for children.

The children who are GLAAD should instead get a good smack and made to sit in the corner, to contemplate their shameful behaviour.

reply to post by SloAnPainful


How did you lose freedom of speech? You're still here talking.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


He simply quoted the words on which he bases his life on.

Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

A Christian human has every right to voice their opinion the same way any homosexual does. And anyone who thinks this man is wrong is a hypocrite. Enough with finger pointing and damning. We need to look within our own hearts before joining the pack....

antonia

Logarock


But he wouldn't have been sacked for supporting that or any other liberal issue.

edit on 19-12-2013 by Logarock because: n

No, people have been sacked for that. Cenk of TYT was sacked for being too hard on Democrats, Bill Maher was sacked for apparently being offensive about 9/11, Stern was repeatedly fined by the FCC for the content of his show and eventually left free radio altogether. It is possible to be fired for being too liberal.

For Petes sake Stern? Maher? Maher got fired for going of the conspirator deep end and Stern moved to some place more suitable for his show. FCC?=A&E? Stop digging stuff out of your azz.

reply to post by antonia


But this isn't about me or you for that matter. It's about the media and how they silence people that don't agree with them. Which in this case they did.

-SAP-

SloAnPainful
reply to post by antonia

 

But this isn't about me or you for that matter. It's about the media and how they silence people that don't agree with them. Which in this case they did.

-SAP-

The media didnt silence him, media gave him a platform for his views, hence his interview being published.

SloAnPainful
reply to post by antonia

 

But this isn't about me or you for that matter. It's about the media and how they silence people that don't agree with them. Which in this case they did.

-SAP-

They didn't silence him. He can still go anywhere he wants (except A&E) and voice his views.

You do not have the right to say whatever you want where you want to. Others have the right to tell you that you cannot do so on their property. Unless that property is public you don't have the right to free speech. A&E isn't public property.

SloAnPainful
reply to post by antonia

 

But this isn't about me or you for that matter. It's about the media and how they silence people that don't agree with them. Which in this case they did.

-SAP-

He wasn't silenced. This thread is proof of that. Look at facebook and twitter....that's not silence.
Phil probably has more of a platform now than he ever did with A&E!!!

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense.

TheWrightWing
The core of the issue here is a small mob of Official Offense Takers who bully adults by throwing a shrieking tantrum over a convoluted "offense".

This is a traditional tactic of leftism, no logic, sense or facts can penetrate the wall of hand wringing and hysterical sobbing, adults will reflexively submit to their demands just to distance themselves from the controversy.

You see this same pattern with parents who have rotten spoiled lillte monsters for children.

And you'll notice that most of their posts here are simply damage control. They have their victim and don't need to defend much. The damage is done. We are trying to defend what he said and all they have to do now is defend A&E under the same greed guidelines you will find them basing corporate greed in another place.

Besides the way these big entertainment types think is that they made Phil. No one would even be asking him questions if A&E hadn't made him a star. One of the cattle forgot his place, got out of the barn, thought for a moment that he actually had ideas about anything important.

I'be only really read this thread about the issue.
Has there been a big fuss, and people screaming about how offensive they find his comments?

reply to post by olaru12


I personally think most people here are essentially arguing Phil has the "Right to be free from criticism". It's an argument divorced from reality, but that seems to be what is going on.

antonia

bigfatfurrytexan

Meanwhile, we just lost another freedom due to social pressure.

.

What freedom did we lose?

Speech.

Listen, this isn't law or anything. This is social pressure. Social pressure to minimze religion and promote the idea of freedom of sexuality (which is absurd to even have to talk about...but it seems we need to).

The US isn't lead by the government. It used to be that various government officials would speak out in a leadership role to Americans. I grew up seeing C Everett on TV talking about health. People don't even know who the surgeon general is today. the role of government has shifted away from leadership.

Now, leadership is provided via media. And we see how media will stage events to control public opinion. The things that media does to play with the minds of the public would be illegal if performed by the government. The CIA is forbidden from conducting psyops on Americans....but our media does it all day/e'ryday..

This Duck Dynasty thing...it is a small thing. Now take it and expand it to the scale that media operates (massive and nonstop). It is a huge psyop.

antonia
reply to post by olaru12

 

I personally think most people here are essentially arguing Phil has the "Right to be free from criticism". It's an argument divorced from reality, but that seems to be what is going on.

I agree, he obviously has free speech, because he was able to make his comments.
Pretty much as soon as you put something out about yourself on the media, then you are going to get people who pick up on your comments and have their own views.