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

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


OK, let's put this in no debate terms. This is being "perceived" by many as a 1st Amendment issue. And again, think Phil isn't relevant? We're up to what now? 13, 14 pages?

Benevolent Heretic
Conservatives are crying and whining because the Duck man got fired for what he said, just like Martin Bashir did. And the left cried and whined about that. If you can't see both sides, you're wearing blinders.

www.independent.co.uk... html

Bashir used his afternoon show to launch a scathing attack on Ms Palin over her comments comparing the US national debt with slavery

Completely different situation, BH. Phil Robertson was being interviewed by GQ when he voiced these beliefs. Bashir used his TV show with the network that fired him as the sounding board for his comments, Phil did not!

bbracken677

antonia

bbracken677



If he said something offensive while on the job, that is one thing. Saying it on his own time (or my own time, or your own time) and suffering punishment from your employer is wrong....that is, unless we are slaves and the property of our employers.

I dont know about you, but I feel that what I do (if legal) on my own time IS MY OWN BUSINESS.

I:

It doesnt work this way anymore.
i live in the UK, here it's written in to my contract that you cannot do anything to defame the company i work for on social media etc.
This is similar.

olaru12

XxNightAngelusxX




Just trying to understand the rules here...

The rules are actually very simple in this case. Don't say something stupid that reflects on the people that pay your salary.

So... abandon your opinion to continue getting paid, then?

In that case, I applaud him for getting fired rather than being a social sell-out.

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.

olaru12

XxNightAngelusxX




Just trying to understand the rules here...

The rules are actually very simple in this case. Don't say something stupid that reflects on the people that pay your salary.

Yes, absolutely. Do not be true to yourself, do not be honest when asked a question and by all means lie lie lie if you think something that is not PC>

Wonderfully effed up society we live in.....

reply to post by WilsonWilson


Yes, he's a celebrity. It comes with the territory. Celebrities get sacked from sponsorships all the time for doing or saying certain things. I don't get why this guy is any different. I think it's mostly because there is a large portion of people who agree with him and thus think what he said was not offensive.

XxNightAngelusxX
The problem with seeing everything objectively is seeing that most others do NOT see things objectively, and issues like this are often plagued by heavy double standards.

Agreed 100%.

In our current Liberal culture, gays are more accepted than Christians.

Maybe relatively, but...
Can Christians get married in every state?
Can Christians adopt children?
Do Christians get fired simply for being Christian?
Do people mind if Christians are heading boy scout troops or teaching their children?

Please! You can claim this is a "liberal culture" but I don't agree.

See, when hate crimes are preformed against gays, blacks, or sex crimes are preformed against women, the media explodes. But when hate crimes are preformed against whites, heterosexuals, and sex crimes are preformed against men, no one seems to care, because in the jaded eyes of the public, I guess they "deserve" it for being on the wrong team.

It's not that. It's that gays, blacks and women have historically been oppressed. There's a history that must be taken into consideration.

If only EVERYONE could crack their minds enough to see it objectively, then we'd be getting somewhere.

That's why I participate in discussions such as these. But I don't think I'm getting anywhere. LOL

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by TheWrightWing

 

I would like to point out that most of this thread (and most of the noise on the internet about this story) is people of the more conservative persuasion stomping their feet, whining and howling about the fact that Phil got fired... They're offended, pissed off and they're going to do something about it. They're taking their ball and going home. They're crying like babies.

I got to ask though....the guy brought up Mad Men. And what does that show do except expose the adultery, sexism, greed and complications that come from the scheme driven lives, ect ect of a bunch of 1960 male, for the most part, advertising executives? How complicated the emptiness is.

So what did Phil do but talk about the folks on mad men? Drunks, adulteress ect. Just who in the he#l is A&E preaching to this time?

intrepid
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

OK, let's put this in no debate terms. This is being "perceived" by many as a 1st Amendment issue. And again, think Phil isn't relevant? We're up to what now? 13, 14 pages?

I think most understand that it is not a 1st Amendment issue.

I think, personally, it is about PC, it is about people being offended at the drop of a hat, and whether an employer has the right to control our thinking on our own time. I also think that it is about discriminating between what is important, and what is trivial. Duck Dynasty? Trivial...how can anyone claim otherwise?

WilsonWilson
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.

This makes a lot more sense than this Robertson nonsense does, though. He's talking about himself and his own beliefs... nowhere does he attempt to associate them with A&E or any of the television producers.

antonia
reply to post by WilsonWilson

 

Yes, he's a celebrity. It comes with the territory. Celebrities get sacked from sponsorships all the time for doing or saying certain things. I don't get why this guy is any different. I think it's mostly because there is a large portion of people who agree with him and thus think what he said was not offensive.

I'm not bothered about what he said being offensive, he's a christian and he views Homosexulaity as a sin, I dont think that in itself is paticularly offensive.
the fact is he chose to go on to a tv show and with that comes certain responsibilities.
He doesnt want to live up to them, then he should quit.
Not sure why people think he'd be betraying himself by watchng what he says.

burdman30ott6

WilsonWilson
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.

This makes a lot more sense than this Robertson nonsense does, though. He's talking about himself and his own beliefs... nowhere does he attempt to associate them with A&E or any of the television producers.

He's on a TV show he has a media presence, he's automatically going to be associated with the TV show and it producers.

I find it amazing that he is being skewered for acting and speaking like a real man.

Restricted
I find it amazing that he is being skewered for acting and speaking like a real man.

In what way has he acted like a real man?

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

antonia
reply to post by WilsonWilson

 

Yes, he's a celebrity. It comes with the territory. Celebrities get sacked from sponsorships all the time for doing or saying certain things. I don't get why this guy is any different. I think it's mostly because there is a large portion of people who agree with him and thus think what he said was not offensive.

In my case it's more like the straw/camel, you know?

I have seen this sheeite going on since the early 90s. Suddenly everyone gets "offended" about meaningless stupid crap instead of paying attention and getting, proportionally, upset about what our govt is doing.

Really? What a hick from Louisiana said is this important and the shredding of our constitution is not?

Jeez...man up and put things into perspective for once...

So if Gator Man said something similar would anyone (anyone?) be shocked? Puhlease....

I wonder what their contracts look like?

Now then, we had a big old argument here on ATS over the shop owner that didn't want to make a cake for a gay couple. From what I read, most people here thought that the shop had the right to refuse service.

So, following that logic A&E can get rid of anyone they feel doesn't fit their "image" if they so choose.

Personally, if I was on a big time show like Duck Dynasty (and I can't understand why that show is even a "thing"?) I would watch my P's and Q's and what I said in interviews and on camera would be done carefully.

I have a feeling this is nothing more than a media stunt to get more viewers. In a month no one will remember or care that this happened, and the guy will probably be back on the show.

reply to post by WilsonWilson


I don't know. If I was a high profile TV celebrity I'd probably steer clear of hot button issues too. I can only say what I think on the matter. I think the fact he is voicing an opinion most of them agree with is what informs their opinion. If he had been sacked for endorsing some extreme liberal cause such as the abolition of private property I doubt they would be crying right now. It's impossible to just bring it down to the core issue for many people.

bbracken677

intrepid
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

OK, let's put this in no debate terms. This is being "perceived" by many as a 1st Amendment issue. And again, think Phil isn't relevant? We're up to what now? 13, 14 pages?

I think most understand that it is not a 1st Amendment issue.

You better check the Net out then. Hell, just reread this thread.