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

reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX


Okay, but how many people say that "Liberals" should get fired for saying things, and "Liberals" have no business talking about their "Liberal" agenda, it goes both ways


how do we not know the company told him to spark some controversy for ratings? how do you not know he "sold out: to get those ratings?

personally i don't care what he said, as i stated other peoples opinions of me are none of my business, but it can't be a one sided argument

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.

Criticize? That is one thing. But for the entire nation to stop and discuss it...that isn't criticism. That is a little more.

I really could care less about that show or him. He seemed like an interesting fella. But whatever. I am disgusted by the inundation of commercialization seen coming from the show.

But they are pretending that he lost his job for this. It teaches the public what they are and are not allowed to say. Social engineering by our media.

antonia

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.

A&E is making money from a lifestyle they didn't create but they want ownership as a marketable redneck fantasy show...you know for the red necks and all involved. Phil just forgot the owned him lock and stock. Phil just ruined their PC extension of that fantasy. Had Phil come out as a homosexual there would have been no problem at A&E.

bigfatfurrytexan

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).

This still does not mean we lost freedom of speech. I'm sorry, but these arguments don't work. He can say what he wants. If you think you can live a society free from criticism then you aren't living in reality. I live in the deep south and am agnostic. When I say what I am I get pushback. my free speech wasn't denied, I was simply criticized. In this man's case, he was not denied free speech. He was denied a platform on A&E. He doesn't have the right to a platform on A&E.

No one has the right to use anyone else's property as their platform. That was never a freedom you had. No one has the right to say what they want without criticism.

Darth_Prime
reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX

 

Okay, but how many people say that "Liberals" should get fired for saying things, and "Liberals" have no business talking about their "Liberal" agenda, it goes both ways

Because liberals say things like a woman should have her mouth defecated in and eyes urinated in, simply because she knows leftism is contemptible rubbish and demonstrated it.

This guy simply refused to kiss the ring of a leftist protected class.

Is the difference clear yet?

Darth_Prime
reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX

 

Okay, but how many people say that "Liberals" should get fired for saying things, and "Liberals" have no business talking about their "Liberal" agenda, it goes both ways


how do we not know the company told him to spark some controversy for ratings? how do you not know he "sold out: to get those ratings?

personally i don't care what he said, as i stated other peoples opinions of me are none of my business, but it can't be a one sided argument

This is exactly what happened. He said months ago he wanted off the show. So this was his exit strategy, meant to create the best outcome for all 3 parties: him, A&E, and the show. He got what he said he wanted in the controversial interview: a platform for his religious viewpoint. A&E got to cater to their key demographic and look like they were doing the right thing (while engineering a social pressure towards what we are allowed to say), and the show got some publicity as Phil left, most of which they won't capitalize on until the next season.

This was all manufactured. And we, as a nation, are stupid enough to talk about it like it is real life. Its television.

Darth_Prime
reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX

 

Okay, but how many people say that "Liberals" should get fired for saying things, and "Liberals" have no business talking about their "Liberal" agenda, it goes both ways


how do we not know the company told him to spark some controversy for ratings? how do you not know he "sold out: to get those ratings?

They were already the highest rated cable show. If their was conspiracy it was from the other end. Don't put it past these mind benders to set up one of their stars for the larger agenda.

WilsonWilson
reply to post by ElohimJD

 

Thats a load of rubbish, there is not set of stock answers that christian must give when answering a question.
basically it comes down to he phrased it badly.
there are probly umpteen others ways he could have said the same thing and been fine.

Which part is rubbish?

Sin is defined as the transgression of God's law over 40 times in scripture; that is not rubbish it is fact.

When asked what he thought sin was, Phil replied by using God's law/Word to define Sin; which is what Jesus Christ did (WWJD) as well; that is not rubbish, it is following the example.

"there are umpteen other ways he could have responded, and been fine"

This is true, every man is right in their own eyes; but to define sin outside of God's law/Word is actually Sin for a Christian (by lifting up your own personal moral code above that of the creator God = idolatry). By using God's law/Word to define sin (which is required), he responded in spirit and in truth, even if it offended your personal moral code.

"The natural mind is an enemy of God, for it is not subject to the law (God's Word) neither indeed can be (because your personal moral code is your law of right and wrong; even if it transgresses God's definition)."

He did not show hate or malice towards others in his remark, he only defined sin according to God's Word.

How is that rubbish?

God Bless,

Phil isn't a victim in this at all. He is achieving the desired result as he was not a big fan of the set-ups,editing,intrusion and overall bias against his faith. The only Robertson who fights for the show is Willie the fame whore.

A&E is going to do an about face on this all over $$$. There are over 500k like on a FB page less than 24 hrs old and sponsors are already standing behind him. I hope they take the "highest rated cable franchise ever" to another network.

reply to post by TheWrightWing


Sorry, that got my confused. i don't believe i am getting your point?

reply to post by antonia

No one has the right to use anyone else's property as their platform. That was never a freedom you had.

Just a detail to note here and a critical one in my mind. He didn't use Duck Dynasty as a platform to say this and I'd actually tend to see their point if he had said this on the show A&E produces. He said this as a private American citizen sitting for an interview with GQ Magazine. Not A&E. So, I do think it's a free speech issue in spirit if nothing else.

They have the right ...but does that make it right? Neigh Neigh I say.

antonia

bigfatfurrytexan

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).

This still does not mean we lost freedom of speech. I'm sorry, but these arguments don't work. He can say what he wants. If you think you can live a society free from criticism then you aren't living in reality. I live in the deep south and am agnostic. When I say what I am I get pushback. my free speech wasn't denied, I was simply criticized. In this man's case, he was not denied free speech. He was denied a platform on A&E. He doesn't have the right to a platform on A&E.

No one has the right to use anyone else's property as their platform. That was never a freedom you had. No one has the right to say what they want without criticism.

Its not him. Its the message that everyone recieves from this: do not talk negatively about gay people. Now...i support that message to be honest. I want gay people to be treated like straight people. I am well established in that viewpoint, and won't belabor it here.

But...this wasn't even real. It was manufactured. And the message is clear: don't criticize homosexuality. How is that message delivered? By firing him from the show. And it was all naufactured.

This is how it happens in the modern media age. Your freedoms are taken away via social pressure. Of course someone who publicly states something should be willing to discuss it or be criticized for it. But what he said wasn't really that bad. He just reiterated some mild religious dogma. And he was fired for it.

Where does freedom of religion and freedom of speech come in? Are we also being conditioned to believe that we don't have these rights? He won't sue in return, as I would were I actually caught up in such a situation. It will go away, the public will feel like they "won", as will gay rights, and no one will acknowledge that if this were real, he has a civil rights claim against A&E over this.

reply to post by ElohimJD


It's rubbish to say that there was only one way he could have answered the question. there isnt there are many many way he could have answered the question truthfully and within his beliefs that wouldnt have cause any fuss.
the problem is that he put homosexulaity and beastilaity too close together which allowed it to be picked up and blown out of proportion.
he phrased it badly.

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.

Criticism like what Phil puts out goes on ever day out of public view for the most part. What we are seeing is the censure of a public figure with endorsement power with the same ideas as most american support. Nobody likes a drunk save for another drunk. Nobody likes an adulterer save for an adulteress. Gays however now have special status and that's what is being protected from criticism.

I don't say this too often, so bookmark this post. . . .

The progressives on this thread are right.

Now a caveat; I was one of the folks that didn't think Bashir should have gotten fired. I wish his idiocy would have remained on the air. But that being said,

Free speech carries a responsibility.

Phil became responsible for what he said.

Is A&E still a company of weanies? Yes. But that is their business. If they want to be known as the spineless-sissy channel, that is their right.

Everyone is responsible for their own words. Freedom carries an inherent responsibility.

Speech? Own what you say. And suffer the ramifications for such.

The individual is personally responsible for his/her own actions.

If A&E wants to fire someone because of those actions, that is the choice and the fruit of the tree that Phil Robertson planted.

I like Duck Dynasty.

I will now block A&E. That action is a result of A&E's action. I have just as much freedom as anyone else.

The "gay" issue is secondary. It could have been about any number of other socially hot-button topics.

But being personally responsible is a cornerstone that I firmly believe in.

beez

reply to post by burdman30ott6


What Exactly is the difference between someone Condoning Abnormal Biological Behavior and someone Expressing an Opinion of it's Abnormal Nature in a Alledgely " Free Society " ?

Answer - No Difference .

reply to post by WilsonWilson

the problem is that he put homosexulaity and beastilaity too close together

I can't help but ask with how subjective this is to suggest, what wouldn't have been too close together?

I've read where and what context the words come from and while not agreeing with the words, they seem fitting as he used them, since he chose to answer that way anyway. His profile/interview, his answer to give.

GQ also could have held this out if it was really that offensive. It's another minor thing which doesn't make a lot of sense. It's not as though this were a live network interview, off delay.

There are over 500k like on a FB page less than 24 hrs old and sponsors are already standing behind him. I hope they take the "highest rated cable franchise ever" to another network.

That show is proof of how lame most in this country are.

Zanti Misfit
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

What Exactly is the difference between someone Condoning Abnormal Biological Behavior and someone Expressing an Opinion of it's Abnormal Nature in a Alledgely " Free Society " ?

Answer - No Difference .

Icky, you whole post just gave me the cold shivers....

WilsonWilson
the problem is that he put homosexulaity and beastilaity too close together which allowed it to be picked up and blown out of proportion.

Yet he also placed promiscuity immediately after beastiality, but nobody has said anything about that because it immediately makes it obvious that he was discussing immoral behavior in general.