It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did GLAAD mess with the wrong duck? Could this be a tipping point in the culture wars?

page: 10
30
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE
 




They ARE the product.

Actually, the "product" is the advertising time which A&E sells.
The show is entertainment to lure people into watching the advertising.




posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   

amazing
This isn't about political correctness, it's called being intolerant to people that are different than you. Phil doesn't like gay people or minorities. It's more than okay to call him out on it and everyone with that old testament holier than thou attitude. It's not okay to be that stupid and then get offended when we call you out on it.

I'm just curious what part exactly in that interview gave you the impression that he hates gays and blacks?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
The basic problem with guys like Mr. Duck lies with his fundamental ethnocentric bigotry.

“Blacks were happy under Jim Crow: This is his ethnocentric racial bigotry

en.wikipedia.org...

Gays are sinners and won’t go to heaven; associating gay with bestiality; this is his ethnocentric religious bigotry

This is the problem with people like this; it’s that simple.

For the network NOT to punish him for these views would lend credence to them.
That’s the reasoning behind this firing.

Gays have been murdered and beat on the street, persecuted all over the place, therefore to GLADD the attempt to marginalize views like Mr. Ducks may serve to nullify in bigots’ minds the excuse for this persecution.

“There going to hell, so I can beat their ass”

They are worst than a beast” so I am justified in persecuting them.

Goes the thinking of the bigot in their act of violence or oppression against a Gay person.

So for Gays this is about self preservation not PC politics.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Gryphon66
What is defamation then? Here's a general definition: "Defamation is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal action to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed." (Wikipedia)

Homosexuality is not bestiality or pedophilia. To be Gay or Lesbian (or Bisexual or Transgendered) does not equate with copulating with animals or abusing children. Such a statement is false. To claim or state such in the public arena, even if it is your heartfelt belief based on your religion, is defamation.

GLAAD acted within the scope of its declared mission.






Then according to your definitions, I would think GLAAD would be open to a Defamation suit themselves. They made right in their press release a false statement that has harmed the reputation of an individual, a business, and a religion.

For GLAAD, you, and anyone else to claim that Phil compared Homosexualality to Beastiality or pedophilia, is flat out a false claim. The only thing he did was claim he believed all of the above to be sins. Same with the "Jim Crowe" claims, Phil never even mentioned Jim Crowe laws that was the writer of the article. Proximity of words does not equate to comparison.

If you think GLAAD acted within the scope of their declared mission, then I would like to have them from here forward declared a Hate Group.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   

OccamsRazor04

SnarlThink about it ... this could be the financial ruin of GLAAD if they've got to cover everyone's eventual losses. Maybe that's why they reacted with shock. Maybe they see the light at the end of the tunnel is moving 'at' them.


Funny enough GLAAD can't be sued only A&E can. The freedoms they wish to deny Phil protect them. Ironic isn't it?


Phil gave up those rights for cash when he signed the contract with A&E. He only has himself to blame.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
A&E knew this mans beliefs and rolled the dice with him. They took a chance that he would not say something that causes waves, they lost that gamble. I don't think Phil is going to suffer from this but the network is in a no win situation.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   

stopbeingnaive

amazing
This isn't about political correctness, it's called being intolerant to people that are different than you. Phil doesn't like gay people or minorities. It's more than okay to call him out on it and everyone with that old testament holier than thou attitude. It's not okay to be that stupid and then get offended when we call you out on it.

I'm just curious what part exactly in that interview gave you the impression that he hates gays and blacks?


The part where he said that gays were living in sin. Sort of like gay people have a choice to be gay? and that they choose this lifestyle for themselves. The part where he said black people were better off before civil rights. Really. If he doesn't hate gays or blacks then he is one of the stupidest people I've ever heard of.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Neither what I said or what GLAAD stated is in any way a false claim ... here's what Robertson said in the GQ interview word for word: "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men." (Link to GQ Article

"Start with homosexual behavior and "morph" out from there."

The verb "to morph" means to change from one thing into something else. Right?

Homosexual behavior therefore becomes (changes into) bestiality and the list of other sins.

I would be the first to acknowledge that he speaks in very poorly constructed sentences that are admittedly somewhat hard to comprehend, but then Phil isn't known for his erudition, is he? It's pretty clear he's utilizing 2/3s of the well-known anti-gay trifecta: homosexuality=pedophila=bestiality that is utilized particularly whenever the matter of same-sex marriage comes up, but really, face it, whenever fundamentalists want to slam gays and Lesbians.

He then wanders off into (presumably, he's barely understandable) various kinds of promiscuity, etc. And then, of course, the favorite "sin quote" from the Book of Corinthians 6: 9-10 (KJV):

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Of course, Phil quotes from a more modern translation (New International Version) that interprets a Greek term for "patronizing temple prostitutes" with "homosexuality," but, that's a digression really. (Link)

But, you know, let's consider that that's only one sentence, possibly taken out of context from Phil, poor guy. Maybe he was nervous in his interview; maybe he just defaulted to the old homosexuality=bestiality chestnut, maybe he doesn't even know the meaning of morph? Maybe?

Is there any other context for what Phil's opinions of homosexuals are? To lend credence, perhaps to his words being misused in this context?

It just so happens that there is:

This video of a "sermon" Phil gave in 2010.

In which he says of homosexual people:

"Women with women, men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions."

“They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, god haters, they are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless, they invent ways of doing evil."

Yeah. Phil was "just listing sins", and bestiality "just happened" to follow homosexuality. No connection at all, right, it "just happened?"

COME ON. Anyone who heard the comment knows what he was saying. It's utterly specious, even if semantically possible, to suggest otherwise, in my opinion.
edit on 22-12-2013 by Gryphon66 because: added a source.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I'm sure you could find plenty of gay people that would disagree with A&E on their firing of Phil.

If A&E had a backbone they would tell the truth, DD is the highest rated reality show we have ever had and we are making tons of money, we will not give that up because GLAAD doesn't like someone voicing their opinion.

The Robertson family, I think, are a proud and loyal family and if A&E continues on its present course, THEY WILL LOSE!!!!!!!!
edit on 22-12-2013 by hoss53 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I'd really love to see any evidence that A&E took their action against Phil Robertson at the behest of GLAAD. Does anyone have any? Evidence, facts, quotes, ... anything? No?

Then that's your opinion cobbled together by what you want to believe.

GLAAD has just as much of a right to make non-libelous statements as Phil did or as A&E did. Period.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
 


notice what he says at 5:30.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   

madmac5150
S&F for your title alone... doubt they will let that stick, but damned funny


Looks like you were right.


And, yes, I certainly hope so... political correctness blows...


I was heartened to see Cracker Barrell do a complete 180 on their dropping of some products, complete with an apology for blowing it so badly.


BTW I thought that was just a nice use of a contraction... Phil and duck... guess they didn't see it that way


Sigh. What a lame change. They even changed it in my msg text as well. What's with that? This is a blow to my artistic integrity, as I would never go with such a pedestrian .er when such an obvious choice was sitting their phat on the horizon.

I'm, like, sooo offended by this. It's time for ATS's sponsors to speak up about this kind of egregious anti-cleverness behavior.

The original idea was did they ph**k the wrong duck, to go with the old saying, ph**k a duck, but I add the "with" so as not to offend anyone who thought it was an insensitive allusion to bestiality. Damn, but the hoops ya gotta jump though these days. Where's Lenny Bruce when we need him?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 



Gryphon66
I'd really love to see any evidence that A&E took their action against Phil Robertson at the behest of GLAAD.


I would, too. Just as people are talking about what's in the contract... They don't know, but they start saying it and it becomes Internet rumor and then fact... Someone "got the impression" or "heard someone else say" something and all of a sudden, it's fact. :rolleyes:



GLAAD has just as much of a right to make non-libelous statements as Phil did or as A&E did. Period.


GLADD has every right to petition A&E, just as we here on ATS have every right to make a complaint or an alert about a post. But now, since Phil's rights are intact and A&E had every right to fire him, the complainers MUST find someone responsible, and for right now, it's GLAAD, even though we don't know anything about it...



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I for one don't care about what Phil Robertson said, nor do I care about what A&E did or about GLAAD's press release on the matter.

All parties were within their rights to act as they did. That's been my only point so far.

Further, however, I despise the fact that our culture is so childish and backward, generally speaking, as to even generate such a silly, pointless spectacle. I hate the fact that gay people feel like they have to create a "GLAAD" to help counter the prejudices of others in regard to equal treatment. I hate the people will try to do anything to justify their own prejudices on the one hand while whining and crying when someone is perceived to be treading on their own bete noirs/sacred cows in precisely the same manner.

In short, I wish we could all just live our lives as we wished in recognition that others want the same thing. However, I don't see it, anytime soon. Sadly.

FINIS



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Layla
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
 


A) pretty sure spelling your special word in a way to get around the sensors is a big no-no
B) the people on "phil's side" have done this kind of thing too (does the Bashir/Palin stuff ring a bell)
C) honestly, it's his "supporters" that are making such a hype about this and it's exactly what A&E wanted bring in more ratings. Can you say "PR stunt"?


Yeah, I can see my special word was offensive. GLAAD you pointed that out. I searched for it to see if it would fly and it has in the past, but these are trying times, so perhaps things have tightened up against the vulgarity terrists or something.

As per Bashir/Palin, I'm not sure I see the parallel. His rant wasn't anything like what Phil said. Phil expressed an opinion about an act and how those who engaged in it were committing sin, just like the others he named in his list. It wasn't hateful against any particular individual and he specifically said he didn't judge them, but loved them all the same.

Bashir, on the other hand, went off his nut in a hateful screed which advocated a disgusting and violent act against a particular individual, all for the crime of making an analogy similar to one Bashir himself had made in the past. And unlike, AE, MSNBC didn't even chastise the guy, let alone suspend him.

I disagree with your last point. GLAAD were the one's that went into straight smear and are seeking to wage war against not only DD, but their sponsors as well. If they hadn't gone PC knee-jerk, we wouldn't even be hearing about this, so you can't blame the folks supporting Phil for hyping this. It struck a chord because it is just one more blatantly dishonest attempt to silence someone for not toeing the PC line and it just happened to be someone who seems to speak for those who are tired of such strong arm tactics.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by amazing
 

He never said he hates gays. He was asked what, in his mind, is sin. He answered by saying that he thought homosexuality among other acts was sin. That is not saying he hates someone. How in the hell do you interpret "homosexuality is sin" as I hate homosexuals? Based on your logic, he hates a lot of people whether they're white, black, gay, or whatever because he also said alcoholics were sinners too. As far as any racists comments go, he didn't make those either. He said he never saw any African Americans mistreated, and that is highly possible. So you continue trying to make nothing in to something.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


I thought he was suspended, not fired. Are you advocating GLAAD's strong-arm, twist and shout tactics?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   

muse7
I still don't understand why there's outrage about this whole thing. No one's right to free speech is being taken away. Mr. Robertson is free to say that he wants every day and anytime he wants, he is not being punished and is not being imprisoned for it.

It is A&E's right to fire him for his behavior just like my employer has the right to fire me if I start acting rude or start to insult our customers.


If you don't understand the outrage, take it up with glaad. They were counting on outrage, but it hasn't seemed to be the type they were gunning for. Interesting that you don't see him being fired (actually suspended) as being punished.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

amazing
This isn't about political correctness, it's called being intolerant to people that are different than you. Phil doesn't like gay people or minorities. It's more than okay to call him out on it and everyone with that old testament holier than thou attitude. It's not okay to be that stupid and then get offended when we call you out on it.


You clearly don't understand what PC is about because you are soaking in it and seemingly aren't even aware of it.

a) he wasn't being intolerant in any way. He expressed his opinion. He didn't call for any actions or measures against them. You, on the other hand, seem not to be able to tolerate dissenting opinion's like his

b) he specifically said he doesn't judge them and loves them all the same

c) you are correct that it is ok to disagree with him, but whilst you do, you might want to check your own holier than him attitude as you call him stupid and make up the bit about him being offended, when he hasn't made any such noises.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   

BlueMoonJoe

amazing
This isn't about political correctness, it's called being intolerant to people that are different than you. Phil doesn't like gay people or minorities. It's more than okay to call him out on it and everyone with that old testament holier than thou attitude. It's not okay to be that stupid and then get offended when we call you out on it.


You clearly don't understand what PC is about because you are soaking in it and seemingly aren't even aware of it.

a) he wasn't being intolerant in any way. He expressed his opinion. He didn't call for any actions or measures against them. You, on the other hand, seem not to be able to tolerate dissenting opinion's like his

b) he specifically said he doesn't judge them and loves them all the same

c) you are correct that it is ok to disagree with him, but whilst you do, you might want to check your own holier than him attitude as you call him stupid and make up the bit about him being offended, when he hasn't made any such noises.


I see your point...and I'm expressing my disagreement with his point of view and perhaps a little too harshly and zealously. I'll give you guys that. I get a little to passionate with this type of thing. My concern remains valid though. Read his quotes now and from previous interviews and speeches and he's saying that homosexuality is sin and comparable to having sex with animals or as part of that list of sins. So you have to take a stand on this view. Is Homosexuality a life choice like smoking or is it something you have almost no or no control of being? I didn't wake up deciding whether I was going to be sexually attracted to women or men today.. it wasn't a choice for me. The second concern is that if you get millions of people with his view point that minorities were better off without civil rights...that's a pretty bad road we're .ing down. Isn't it? Am I wrong to express that all men are created equally as our forefathers said? He's not right in his thinking and I'm opposed to him and those that think like him.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join