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

Son of Will
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

 

If you ever make any logical defenses, let me know. All I heard is "you're wrong, you're stupid" without addressing anything I said.

Heh. Except for specifically addressing each point you made, yeah I didn't address anything you said. Never said you were stupid, but you did get the bit about unconditional love wrong, as well as the bit about the flaws. And the bit about his beating around the bush in a pc way and the bit about there being doublespeak. Sorry, but it's right there for anyone to check for themselves and the evidence is that you were off on every point you made in that first paragraph, a right 0-fer it was.

And your "No, it's the Old Testament that's bad, not the New Testament!" defense is absurd - the sane deity resides in both. Surely you acknowledge that much?

It's value as a defense is up for debate, I suppose. Regardless, I wasn't making that case. I was just saying you can't blame Christians for what they didn't write. You were going on about how hateful the text of the OT was. Perhaps, but Christians didn't write it, so your ire was misdirected. But you aren't going to lash out against the Jews who did write it because that is wicked un-PC.

PS, I see I offended you. But understand that you have to compete with the logic if you want to get anywhere. Emotional arguments are just another way of saying "... I got nothing."

And nothing is what you got. Sorry, but you didn't offend me and I gave no indication that you did. You are just making stuff up on the fly. Whatever works for ya.

butcherguy
The Evangelical Lutheran Church supports gay marriage.
What if Duck Commander fired an employee that belonged to that faith, for voicing their beliefs about gay marriage.... outside of the workplace.

Would GLAAD be okay with that? Would they support the decision to fire the employee?

That's not a "shoe on the other foot" scenario, that's more like "what if he had done something worse".

If he fired some one for holding pro gay marriage beliefs, that would show blatant homophobia and would anger GLAAD far more than his comments on homosexuality. Then we wouldn't be talking about "PC police", we'd be talking about this guy being an intolerant bastard and how he really deserves to lose his show.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe


Good posting technique.

I wonder if Phil is looking into filing a lawsuit against GLAAD for slander?

That may be the heart of the matter, and why A&E is not going to take them off the air.

I could see the serious conflict that anyone who follows a strict belief in the bible would have with the whole issue. Stating that this issue can not be openly discussed in public, IMO, is the wrong policy to take, and is a bad approach for everyone, including the gay community.

I feel for the gay community. I imagine it is very hard growing up with a natural preference that goes so strongly against the mainstream. Keeping a dialogue open with people who object to homosexuality, who see it as a life style choice, is the only real way they are going to gain true acceptance.

reply to post by Glass


And just the same if A&E fired the Duck Dynasty founder for expressing an honest opinion about his problems with homosexuality.

What is worse, is that GLAAD grossly misstated what was said in the interview, and tried to get Phil fired for things he did not say.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

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?

Who has read this article by Michelle Malkin, You my friend BlueMoonJoe?
It's really very good and I'll give you some of the details. I think she's Absolutely Correct!

The same group that initially gave f-word-spouting, homophobic liberal Alec Baldwin a pass accused Robertson of uttering "some of the vilest and most extreme statements" against "LGBT people" ever.

This is True and they said That about Phil.

A&E folded faster than a stadium seat, immediately disavowing Robertson and suspending him from his family's show indefinitely. Meanwhile, network execs continued to cash in on the lucrative "Duck Dynasty" empire with a marathon of program reruns on the very day they threw Robertson under the bus. The network is free to do that, of course. And I am free to tell you all about the radical thugs that A&E indulged.

Yes, Now Read On,,,,,

GLAAD has worked tirelessly to marginalize and suppress the free speech of Christian leaders, Christian businesses and conservative talk-radio hosts dating back to their infamous Dr. Laura boycott 13 years ago. The group's mission is not about equality or defending against "defamation." It's about silencing critics, making open debate radioactive, demonizing people of faith and making even the slightest perceived slight a hate crime.

Last year, GLAAD speech-squelchers issued a blacklist of 34 Christian commentators they wanted networks to ban from their air for "extreme" views (read: opposing gay marriage). Earlier this year, GLAAD attacked the National Geographic Channel for partnering with the traditional values-promoting Boy Scouts on a reality TV program. GLAAD is free to start its own Gay Scouts, but instead chose to harangue NatGeo for refusing to run a "disclaimer" at the beginning of each show condemning the Boy Scouts' leadership policies.

NatGeo and the Boy Scouts,,,, come on! There is much more to read and learn, You asked did A & E get Pressured By GLAAD to Punish Phil, was GLAAD behind this?
I'm Sure it was, A & E was Weak and Had No BALLS!
Read more here:
GLAAD, Enforcers of the Left

poet1b
reply to post by Glass

 

And just the same if A&E fired the Duck Dynasty founder for expressing an honest opinion about his problems with homosexuality.

What is worse, is that GLAAD grossly misstated what was said in the interview, and tried to get Phil fired for things he did not say.

I'm all for people expressing their honest opinions. Really I am. I also reserve the right to be offended by your opinion and the manner in which you express it. I wont ever try to stop you, but I will call you out if you're being a jackass.

My problem with Mr. Robertson is not his opinion itself. I couldn't care less what a bearded duck hunting TV celebrity thinks. And to me, his words aren't really offensive, but they are ignorant, and there's a tone behind them that tends to tick people off.

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

Read More www.gq.com...

Ok, so he prefers vaginas. That's cool. I don't. It's not my cup of tea.

"But hey, sin: it's not logical, my man..."

Now hold on. Just because you can't see the appeal doesn't mean there isn't any. And who says it has to be all about the anus? Think outside the box (pun intended).

What, in your mind, is sinful?

“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,” he says. Then he paraphrases 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.” Read More www.gq.com...

Fair enough, the reporter asked him straight up what he thinks is sinful and he answered.

The only issue is that he mentioned bestiality and promiscuity in the same breath as homosexuality. If one takes offense, it is to what is inferred by the reader, or what is written in the bible, rather than what is implied by Mr. Robertson.

I'm a monogamous person, I don't sleep around and I certainly don't do anything sexual with animals, so I take issue with being lumped in with that lot. Not to mention prostitutes, drunkards, slanderers, swindlers...I'm nothing like those people.

But again, this is an issue with the Bible (which this man believes in), not the man himself. And there are many issues with the bible. Instructions on how to properly discipline your wife and slaves (property), condoning the molestation of your daughters, various exceptions on when it's okay to murder someone. The men of Sodom wanted to rape angels (that's bad) so righteous Lot gives them his two virgin daughters (raping virgin daughters is slightly more okay in God's eyes) then after Sodom is destroyed, Lot's daughters have incestuous sex with him to "preserve his seed" (that's okay too, apparently. But homosex is bad. -eyeroll-)

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?” Read more: Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Makes Anti-Gay Statements | TIME.com entertainment.time.com...

Homosexuals, drunks, terrorists...again being lumped in with the most unsavory characters just because I'm drawn to men rather than women.

(I don't understand their problems with drunks either. I'm cool with drunk people as long as they don't beat their wife or whatever. Wife beating is okay in the Bible by the way.)

But yeah, he loves us. He just tells us how messed up in the head we are but it's okay if you stop being that way and love Jesus.

Nothing offensive about that at all.

guohua
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

 

You asked did A & E get Pressured By GLAAD to Punish Phil, was GLAAD behind this?

Actually, I didn't ask that. What I did was screw up the attribution of the person who did ask that when I responded to him that there was evidence that they indeed had been the ones who put AE up to it. (Sorry for the confusion. I tried to fix it, but the edit window is closed.)

Isn't it funny to see folks now putting this up as stunt by AE. Right? They just had their name trashed across the media and set off a firestorm of backlash resulting in them having to do an about face in order to save face. Also, if it was a pr stunt, does that mean glaad got snookered? Sheesh.

Bottom line, glaad bad and the blow back bit them in the butt. I just saw another article about a lesbian author taking them to task. So, Camille Paglia, a lesbian, calls them facist and stalinist and now Tammy Bruce has this to say:

“What’s especially troubling for minority communities in this country, the civil rights movements, especially the gay civil rights movement, was about asking for people and demanding the right for us to be able to live our lives as we see fit without being punished for being different. It’s ironic also that one of the big campaigns by the gay community is about ending bullying. If this is not a sign of the ultimate of bullying I don’t know what is,” said Bruce.

reply to post by Glass


That is a very well written reply, I agree with pretty much everything you posted.

I hazard a guess that you aren't happy with the lifestyle of a bearded duck hunter as well. I respect that, probably Phil would as well, and support your right to your opinion. It is my observation that there is a natural layer of contention here, not only straight verses gay, but rustic country dweller verses sophisticated urban dweller.

I don't think straights or gays understand each other's sexuality. Personally, I don't see anything out there better than Vg, and don't understand how anyone would want anything else, but I get that others do have different desires/preferences.

I think the only way to understanding is to make the journey, and that means getting your opinions out there, having those conversations.

reply to post by gwynned

Oh. Perhaps you can explain how this duck show and it's seemingly backwoods (though clearly fake) lead act qualifies as 'culture'? Sigh! Perhaps they are justified in treating us like swine.

Heh. Whether it qualifies as culture in the snooty sense you mean (and I can't say if it does or not, as I've never seen it), the "culture wars" are about the wider culture and the battle going on between traditional outposts and the postmodern PC moral relativism folks. Like glaad says on their site: Leading the conversation. Shaping the media narrative. Changing the culture. That's GLAAD at work.

It's similar to the war on Christmas that folks insist isn't happening while examples abound around them. (Hey, the Obama Christmas card mentions neither Christmas nor Christ.)

The culture wars have been going strong since the sixties at least, and the momentum has definitely been swinging the postmodern way. Just ask that twerking twerp, Miley, and her tongue twisted hijinks. Regardless of how you see it, that's a long way from Elvis and his shaking hips, but it doesn't really create a ripple in the wider culture regardless of how it freaks out the traditionally minded.

That's why this mad glaad bit is so compelling. The norm would be for the duly chastened violator to mumble humble "in no way meant to offend" apologies and seek absolution (with or without the obligatory rehab stint) and try and make up the lost ground as best they can. This was the game plan when it first broke, as seen by someone in the trade:

"Duck Dynasty" is on hiatus until Jan. 15, and a network spokesman said Thursday that nine of next season's 10 episodes have already been filmed. That means Robertson likely isn't needed in front of the camera before next March, by which time this whole crisis may have blown over.

And blow over it will, eventually, says veteran Hollywood crisis publicist Howard Bragman, who added that Robertson will likely return to the show as well, perhaps after making a heartfelt apology. "There's too much money at stake," said Bragman, vice president of reputation.com. "Although he plays kind of a hick on TV, I don't think he's dumb. I think he gets what's at stake here. And I hope people on his team, the network and his producers get the message that what he did was wrong. "

But this guy missed it by a mile because he doesn't get that Phil isn't playing the standard game and isn't about to give up his values for mere money because by those values he was in no way wrong.

Given that this episode hasn't gone at all according to script, that is why I was wondering if it was a tipping point in the culture wars.

Posted by Glass

As someone who has lived with being homosexual and transgender, I feel obligated to inform you that your perspective is somewhat flawed. You see, not all of us have the privilege of being able to "define ourselves", that is, many of us are forced into these definitions by others.

Nothing flawed about my perspective Glass. People no matter what their sexuality should use discretion in thier affairs...across the board...all of their affairs. Economic, financial, and of course sexual. It is no ones business..hetero or homo. This is just common sense.

Today because we are so educated...and entitled we tend to think we can go public and put the onus of our ignorance on others to make the changes while we default through. I think the public is getting tired of all this nonsense.

Some of us are getting tired of this sexuality all across the page. We are being bombarded by sex and sexuality to deceive us into thinking we are more mature and even entitled than we really are. We do not think or detect that we are being ignorant...and uneducated about many things..but we are in fact good consumers and even better malleable, controlled, gauranteed voters.

Many of us are getting sick of our children being bombarded by sex and sexuality even before they know or understand how to earn a living. And with this false sexuality..that our children are more mature than they really are. We detect that someone out here is putting the cart before the horse...deliberately.

Once again...no thinking person knowing any history ..defines themselves by their sexuality or sexual orientation. It just isnt done. I do not find it to be a privilege to be so ignorant as to do define ones self.

I am not speaking here against sexuality or sexual orientation per se...
I am speaking against cultural and institutional stupidity.

Having no special lineage of my own (I come from a family of mixed immigrants; French, Ukrainian, Swedish, Irish, all poor) I've been unable to define myself in any meaningful way in that regard, other than "white".

Wow!! This means nothing to me...you see..I am what is called a Heinz 57.
Whiteness, blackness or whatever other nonsense also means nothing to me. It is the same with sexuality and sexual orientation.

All these traits today..are used and misused as a political cottage industry in "The Science of Victimization" of which also I do not approve. To many whiners, moaners, and victims out here today. And politics will whore all of us out to the "Victim Dictum" for votes and power. Not interested in this phony template or crisis management placebo.

Before I even had the opportunity to have an occupation or achieve some great work, I was labelled by others as "gay", along with all the accompanying hateful words and titles that brings. Being labelled as such tends to limit one's ability to obtain employment, making it rather difficult to create some great legacy by which to define oneself.

You determine this by discretion in all things. You are responsible and accountable as are the rest of us in everything to do with our private business and it should remain private.
You change this. You do not change the government for this..you do it. Discretion is the word in everything.

Though I never sought to define myself by my sexuality, I had that definition thrust upon me.

Once again..I am not responsible for this..you are. You change it..you do not change others and expect them to alter their lives to accomodate or censor them ...by guilt manipulations and guilt politics. This is how many of these groups work...not just the sexual ones but the race baiters too. They expect everyone else to be silent and they default through.
People are seeing this out here and tiring of it. Tolerance is becoming rapidly stupidity.

Nonetheless..you make the changes by being discrete in your personal life. hetero as well as homo.

As I said..no thinking person defines themselves by their sexuality or sexual orientation. Hetero or Homo. And people are beginning to detect this ..and are beginning to speak out against this stupidity.

And one more thing...this defining ones self by their sexuality or sexual orientation.. This is mostly a hetero issue ..not a homo issue per se.

It is just that most people in the hetero side do not detect it for what it is. The media and Hollywood sell so many of us down this road and so often to define ourselves by our sexuality and sexual orientation. And also I have detected that this is going on in public schools now days as well. Our children know how to conduct themselves sexually before they know how to earn a living . It ought not to be this way.
It is the cart before the horse.

Nonetheless..I do not approve of a people hetero or homo who define themselves by their sexuality or sexual orientation. I think it is institutional stupidity.

Thanks for your post,
Orangetom

I should probably explain something about what many people think today is ignorance on the part of people like this Robertson fellow and the people on that program...Believers so to speak.

I do not think many of the posters here understand this concept.

The Christians or for that matter..the Hebrews in the Olde Testament and the Believers in the New Testament ..have no such instruction to define themselves by their sexuality or sexual orientation.
You do not find this instruction in the Word.
The instruction is to come out from amongst them and be ye separate. To not do as the world around us would have us to so do.

I think that though this fellow Robertson and his group may not know this specific knowledge they try to live it by what they know in the Word.

The reason I bring this up is that it was the nations surrounding ancient Israel who were already doing this,defining themselves by their sexuality and sexual orientation, and the Children of Israel were told not to do as the nations surrounding them were doing ..it was abomination...sin...against God.

This is the point this Robertson fellow is making. That he does not approve of Sin Against God..within his Beliefs.

Now this gives offense..but it is what he believes.

There exists no such instruction in both the Olde and New Testaments for the Believer...to define themselves by their sexuality or sexual orientation..it is not there.

However..the nations surrounding Ancient Israel were doing exactly that ..defining themselves by their sexuality and sexual orientation...particularly around their holidays and festivals. You can find this recorded as to how they celebrated their holidays and festivals in certain history books and it makes Playboy and other periodicals look like kingergarten antics.

This is a view, a history , and knowledge avoided by today's "Experts" when promoting ignorance under the guise of todays "Enlightenment and Illumination." It is none of these.

The Children of Israel and today's Believers are to define themselves by the God who lives in them daily. And once again this gives offense to this world after the god of this world.

This appears to be the pattern this Robertson fellow and his family are following and it gives offense to many including advertisers and networks. This is what we are told is the status of the world..from ancient times unto today.
Nothing new under the sun here.

Just some additional informations for the readers out here.
Hope this helps to clarify.

Orangetom

Tammy Bruce, along with being a Lesbian, is also a conservative commentator that appears regularly on Fox News as well as subbing in for Laura Ingram on her show.

Camille Paglia, along with being a Lesbian and Libertarian, is a favorite of radio programmers like, coincidentally, Laura Ingram, on whose show she made these most recent comments.

In my opinion, two Lesbians do not speak for all Lesbians nor all gays, bisexuals or transgendered people.

GLAAD is a political activist group that exists for a specific purpose but also does not speak for all Lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgendered people, in my opinion.

ADDED IN EDIT: In my opinion, in retrospect, GLAAD probably did overemphasize their interpretation of what Phil Robertson said in his GQ interview. However, what he said was so poorly structured that also I understand, and I think most could, why it sounds like he's comparing homosexuality to bestiality. As previously noted, in the Corinthians "list of sins" bestiality does not appear ... so he's not just quoting the Bible and/or expressing his religious beliefs -- he's making a statement.

reply to post by Glass


It isn't the shoe on the other foot?

If a person were to be fired for exposing their beliefs regarding homosexuality, outside of the workplace?
You see, that is what happened with Phil.... Except he disagrees with the GLAAD line od thinking.

reply to post by orangetom1999

Once again...no thinking person knowing any history ..defines themselves by their sexuality or sexual orientation. It just isnt done. I do not find it to be a privilege to be so ignorant as to do define ones self.

I am not speaking here against sexuality or sexual orientation per se...
I am speaking against cultural and institutional stupidity.

Actually, you are speaking against the politics of identity, the joker in the PC deck, and doing quite a fine job of it.

reply to post by Gryphon66

Tammy Bruce, along with being a Lesbian, is also a conservative commentator that appears regularly on Fox News as well as subbing in for Laura Ingram on her show.

Camille Paglia, along with being a Lesbian and Libertarian, is a favorite of radio programmers like, coincidentally, Laura Ingram, on whose show she made these most recent comments.

In my opinion, two Lesbians do not speak for all Lesbians nor all gays, bisexuals or transgendered people.

GLAAD is a political activist group that exists for a specific purpose but also does not speak for all Lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgendered people, in my opinion.

Well, hell, nobody speaks for all lesbians and gays and I'm going to guess that it comes as no shock to you that neither Phil nor anyone else speaks for all Christians.

ADDED IN EDIT: In my opinion, in retrospect, GLAAD probably did overemphasize their interpretation of what Phil Robertson said in his GQ interview. However, what he said was so poorly structured that also I understand, and I think most could, why it sounds like he's comparing homosexuality to bestiality.

I don't know about this. I saw what he was said to have said, went to the article, and saw that he didn't say what he was said to have said, neither with the bestiality nor the Jim Crow bit.

Again, it's the rush to OUTRAGE, the need to be offended as a political tool and a club to use to shape your agenda. That's glaad's game, as it's the game for all pc players. The victimization card, as orangetom put forth so well on.

As previously noted, in the Corinthians "list of sins" bestiality does not appear ... so he's not just quoting the Bible and/or expressing his religious beliefs -- he's making a statement.

Of course he's making a statement. The guy asked him what is sinful and he made a statement as to things he felt qualified. He feels people should repent. Hardly earthshaking news in his neck of the woods, and had glaad not gone nuclear in what they saw as a golden opportunity to shape the narrative and change the culture as they put it, this wouldn't have cause nary a ruffle.

But they did and it came back to bite them in the ass.

1. The counter assertion against what GLAAD et. al. stated about Phil was that he was "just repeating his religious beliefs/quoting the Bible." If, instead, by his insertion of bestiality in the list in such close proximity to homosexual behavior ... then he IS making a statement on his own and therefore HE IS doing what GLAAD cited him for. Homosex=sinful, bestiality=sinful, in light of the oft repeated "sin is sin" ... then what is heard is "homosex=bestiality." That is, at any rate, what some people heard.

2. In my opinion, GLAAD is most likely, well ... glad ... of the publicity, overall. They couldn't afford to pay for the massive airtime across the media spectrum they're getting for free. More people have probably typed "GLAAD" into their search engines today than in the last year combined.

Any "massive blow back" they're getting seems to be mostly from the political right-wing (fundamentalist Christians, Republicans, libertarians, etc.) (at least, judging from the sites that seem to be repeating the virtually same tagline - Breitbart, Examiner, etc.) which are hardly the sources of GLAAD's anticipated supporting demographics for its activities and efforts.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe



Why do you think this hasn't gone according to script? See, that's the thing, isn't it? What and who is real in this charade? I'm going to suggest NO ONE! It's just a show. They're all just playing a part. If it looks real to you and most everyone out there it's because they're very good at what they do.

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.

goes both ways, don't it?

he is different than you or them. right?

you see a problem here?

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe


I think there is a big undercurrent of people who are fed up with the over the top attitude that has pervaded our society for a number of years now with respect to this issue. They dont wish any ill will against the LGBT community, but they are tired of being basically told they have no choice but to accept their agenda. Most people simply dont care if you are gay or straight, as long as you keep your business to yourself. The whole "I am gay and you have to like it" mantra that has been pushed on society relentlessly for a long time now is about to get a backlash. Here is what I would say to the gay community. You are free to live and do as you wish as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others or harm anyone. But as for those of us who don't share your orientation, NO, we DON'T have to like it. And yes, some of us even consider your behavior to be immoral, and we don't want our children exposed to your "culture" until they are old enough to make their own judgments about it. We, like you, have the right to live in the world in our own way. And our position on the issue does not infringe on your rights, so dont let your position infringe on ours. Its OK for you to live as you wish, but STOP trying to force us to accept it. STOP, it is working against what you are trying to achieve. Isn't forcing people to behave in a way that is not conducive to their nature what the LGBT community supposed to be fighting? Or does it only apply to them?

beezzer
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

 

In today's PC culture if you have an opinion that is counter to what is considered acceptable, keep it to yourself or you will be punished.

Basically, shut the hell up unless you agree with them.

That made me think of what several 'closet conservatives' in Hollywood they have said: they go along with the left-leaning majority in Hollywood because if they don't, they will starve!