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: 9
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:
(post by stormcell removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
But if we shut Phil up, we are going to have to shut everyone else up too. I've seen enough hate speech from both sides of the spectrum. I used to live in the San Francisco bay area, and have witnessed gay pride parades where there was plenty of hate speech dripping from signs. No one shut them up. And, I didn't want them to be shut up.

The point is, I may not like what people say, but I'll defend their right to say it.

It's going to be interesting to see how everything works out, because in the end, tolerance goes both ways, as does equality.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Let's review what GLAAD is for a moment:

GLAAD is the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against DEFAMATION ("About" page from their website)

GLAAD is fundamentally a political and social activist organization dedicated to advancing the equal rights of a limited and designated 'community.' In other words it is a targeted group working for the advancement of a specific group of people, and is not, and does not pretend to be egalitarian in its approach. Other groups have other advocacy efforts intended to advance their interests.

GLAAD's mission is to proactively effect change in the way Gay and Lesbians are portrayed in the media AND to address and amend DEFAMATORY actions on the part of media and media personalities. (Paraphrased).

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.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Taissa
 



Taissa
But if we shut Phil up, we are going to have to shut everyone else up too.


WE didn't shut Phil up. No one did. He is still FREE to speak his mind. As illustrated by his statements since his suspension. I don't know where people get the idea that he's been silenced. It's a claim that certainly adds drama to the situation, however. To yell, "Freedom of Speech"! gets people's blood going, but it's simply not relevant to this case and makes people look ignorant. His freedom to speak his mind is intact.



The point is, I may not like what people say, but I'll defend their right to say it.


I agree. And Phil's right has not been infringed. I actually disagree with A&E's choice to fire him, but it IS their choice. And it's for them to make.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SubTruth
 


Who are the viewers sticking with?

It seems, quite obvious, that the "viewers" will "stick" with the Robertson family.


Just like the black culture the only people holding back the gay people is themselves.

Why did you feel the need to "throw" a "jab" at Blacks, and gays? I didn't mention them.


But lets debate the finer points of nothing.

Though, I only asked a question, I'm ready and willing. I do a lot of that on ATS.


Personal truth is subjective. And that is all this is.

Yeah... Your "jab" was a fine example of that.

See ya,
Milt



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
 


That duck was messed up before GLADD got there. One camp understates the issue and the other overstates it. Fifty shades of gray not withstanding.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Question:

Did A&E wait until GLAAD complained to put Robertson on hiatus, or did they do it immediately, before GLAAD complained?
edit on 12/22/2013 by Restricted because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   

stormcell
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

Good we'll get one started right now and the target audience will be people who defame liberals and the mentally challenged by throwing around words like ##snipped##
Geese and ganders....
Sometimes they don't see they are the same bird.
edit on Sun Dec 22 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   

beezzer

daskakik

beezzer
Yet I disagree with you. If I had a picture of Springer having a salad lunch with Dick Cheney at Haliburton HQ and could force him (with exposure of the picture) to ban you, would that be fair?

So you're trying to say that it was blackmail and not someone forgetting to read the fine print of their contract?

It could be but you don't know that which debases the premis of your analogy.


And neither do you.

But it stands to reason that Phil's beliefs were already a matter of record prior to signing up with A&E. It is also a matter of record that they were a religious family.

So where is the surprise?

The issue came about because someone disagreed with Phil's beliefs.

If I don't subscribe to your ideology, and can force ATS to ban you, is that right?



And it was also clear that they were a backwoods group of rednecks likely to say something just like this but that's inappropriate to say even if it was the stereotype A&E was looking to exploit for ratings in the first place.
edit on AM0000003100000012125115312013-12-22T10:15:07-06:00 by AutumnWitch657 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   
This should be GLAAD's slogan.
OH THE HYPOCRACY!





posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 




If your opinion offends me, and I complain to ATS and they ban you because your opinion offended me (without you breaking T&C) then it's almost identical.


Perhaps it would be a more precise analogy if you said that a member posted something that did not violate the T&C but that offended/pissed off a major advertiser and ATS banned the member on that basis?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

ltinycdancerg
This should be GLAAD's slogan.
OH THE HYPOCRACY!




First of all, not to be a spelling Nazi, but the word is "hypocrisy."

Second, think about it ... are you saying that GLAAD, an organization that is formulated under the law, with support from many Americans, proceeding lawfully toward the goals that its mission declares ... should be quieted, silenced, etc? That its right to speak should be ... diminished, restricted, eradicated, ignored, ridiculed what?

Isn't that exactly what you're damning GLAAD for??? Aren't you merely complaining about what you're complaining about?

Isn't that one of the definitions of HYPOCRISY?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Snarl

OccamsRazor04

daskakik

OccamsRazor04
Except this is an example of it actually happening, only in real life where it actually matters.

Is it or are they all laughing about all the publicity that they are getting?

We don't have proof to come to that conclusion either.

That is all I'm saying.

GLAAD threatening Duck sponsors is not a publicity stunt. This is serious.

Wait a sec. What if it was meant to be a publicity stunt ... and then the poop hit the fan? Now we've got a CT!! Did A&E see this conclusion being drawn the whole time ... and expect to collect damages ... without employing the Ducks anymore?


The entire incident was orchestrated and managed....a PSYOP of sorts.

Which makes the only "victims" GQ and GLAAD.

Where's Col. Acquino when you need him?

Oh wait....all of advertising/sales is a PSYOP of sorts.

Never mind....




posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


first of all, LAWS are NOT based in JUSTICE or what is morally/ethically right.
So, I could give a damn what the tyrants say us common folk are "allowed" to do.
Second, I am not espousing that quote- GLAAD is.
Freedom is absolute.
We are free or we are not.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Gryphon66

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.


Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment:

Your above statement is as groundless as Phil's. Personal belief about moral standards is as subjective as anything can be. Phil has as much right to believe as he does as you do, even if morally he equates homosexuality to those examples.

But to clarify, Phil didn't say homophobia WAS 'bestiality or pedophelia', he was listing various sexual sins. It's also important to note that while not implicitly stated, the "sleeping with this woman or that guy..." seemed to be implying heterosexual sins. Using your argument, can we then say that sex out of wedlock is the same to Phil as bestiality or pedo?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


um....is A&E giving him an award for what he said? Looks like punishment to me.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by guohua
 


He also thinks Jim Crow laws were good, and the Japanese attacked because they were not Christian....

www.businessinsider.com.au...



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Layla
 




...B) the people on "phil's side" have done this kind of thing too (does the Bashir/Palin stuff ring a bell)


Are you comparing some guy in the bayou-backwoods having an opinion about an issue based on the Bible, with a guy who had his own News-show with a TV 'news' network, saying that Sarah Palin should have urine and feces put in her mouth? Are you really trying to compare those two different things?

One had his own News-show on TV.
One lives in the swamp, and TV cameras follow him around because some people think he's interesting (never seen it, never will, got better things to do).

Just because both appear on your TV, don't make the mistake that both should be held to the same standards, and even IF you wanted to make that leap, backing up a moral belief based on a biblical principle is hardly the same as being a news-show guy saying that people should pee and poo in someone's mouth, just because you disagree with her POV.

Sheesh.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   

damwel
I believe that he has every right to speak his mind as well as A&E has a right to choose who they televise on their network. I don't think it has anything to do with free speech it's about an employers right to choose who they want to represent their product.


Huh??? They ARE the product. If they don't want to do the show...fine. But this is a reality show about these people, who they are, how they interact and what they have to say. Phil did just that. If they don't want the show, I agree they can drop it. But lets not pretend that they are somehow shocked by the views of these people. They hired them to be exactly who they are, knowing these views.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
LOL. It won't be much of a cultural "war" if it's LBGT up against the 97% of the global population that are naturally heterosexual. More of a 'STFU, quit whining, and settle down' moment.




top topics



 
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join