Duck Dynasty in Hot Water

[annieB]

We're all victims at some point.
It's just Willie's turn...

another comment from the news coverage

Despite all the rhetoric you’ll hear, this is not a free speech issue. Robertson is entitled to say whatever he wants, as he did in the GQ interview, and A&E is entitled to pull him off the air if it deems the comments offensive. There is no First Amendment right to appear on a television show.

At the same time, A&E hired Robertson to be the hunting, praying, opinionated Christian patriarch on the show, and its executives can hardly be shocked if he says things that alienate the politically correct.

i think that pretty much sums up my impression of the events...

[annieB]

My bride says his name is Phil,not Willie.
Now we have another victim.

[Tyler]

Duck Dynasty: The Show That Got Away

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-arch ... -from-them

  When the producers saw the way the show was shaping up, different than they envisioned it, they tried to change course.  They tried to get the Robertson's to tone down their Christianity, but to their eternal credit they refused.  They tried to add fake cussin' to the show by inserting bleeps where no cussword was uttered.  At best, they wanted to make the Robertson's look like crass buffoons. At worst they wanted them to look like hypocrites.

They desperately wanted us to laugh at the Robertsons.  Instead, we loved them.

...

I suspect that the folks at A&E, who always disliked the positive Christian message in the show of which Phil is the primary proponent, saw their chance.  They want to keep the cash but dial down the Christianity.  With Phil out, perhaps they could get the show they always wanted.

[Mountaineer]

I pretty much agree with Pointedstick's "Who Cares?"  Bottom line is we are all sinners and sinners sin.  Like dogs who do what dogs do and people get upset.  No surprises here.  Phil was just quoting what the Bible says and got "burned", just like many Bible supporters do and many non-Bible supporters do.  Tolerance = sin.  Intolerance = sin.  Only one way to escape. 

[MediumTex]

It was idiotic for a TV star to make such stupid statements to the press.

I haven't read completely through this thread, but this sentiment was the first thing that came to mind. I remember John Rocker making candid remarks to a reporter long ago and things didn't go well for him afterwards. If my career happened to be in the entertainment industry then I would prefer not to give any such interviews, and if I deemed them necessary then I would be very reserved.

Basically, we just put people like John Rocker, Paula Deen, and Don Imus down the memory hole.

You might even think of people like that as "Memory Hole Snacks", in the sense that silencing them feeds the appetite of a certain segment of society that enjoys exterminating undesirable points of view.

***

When I first heard the things the Duck Dynasty guy said, I thought to myself: "Well no shit.  Some 67 year old redneck duck hunter is homophobic?  Imagine that."   

Are people really surprised at this revelation?  Of course they're not--they just get excited when they taste blood in the water.

IMHO, this is just journalistic blood sport.

Ultimately, the real question is whether there is a market for a TV show about a family of witty, homophobic evangelical Christian duck hunters.  I suspect that there probably is such a market, and thus the show will likely continue in some form and on some network.

It's all just entertainment.

[MediumTex]

It just hit me what this is all about...

It's like the duck hunting equivalent of the Miley Cyrus twerking controversy.



Ultimately, just slick (and mostly free) advertising.

[Benko]

When I first heard the things the Duck Dynasty guy said, I thought to myself: "Well no shit.  Some 67 year old redneck duck hunter is homophobic?

Please explain to me how the words he spoke are homophobic? (below is the quote from the print interview which I believe is what got him fired).
--------------------------------------------------------------
"It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man’s anus," Robertson told GQ. "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.”?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't personally believe in sin, but what there is worth getting upset over?

[MediumTex]

When I first heard the things the Duck Dynasty guy said, I thought to myself: "Well no shit.  Some 67 year old redneck duck hunter is homophobic?

Please explain to me how the words he spoke are homophobic? (below is the quote from the print interview which I believe is what got him fired).
--------------------------------------------------------------
"It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man’s anus," Robertson told GQ. "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.”?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't personally believe in sin, but what there is worth getting upset over?

I just meant homophobic in the sense that he doesn't appear to view homosexuality as a morally defensible expression of sexuality.

How about these words from a 2010 speech he gave:

"They (homosexuals) committed indecent acts with one another," said Robertson, clad in his usual camouflage, in the video posted on the church's YouTube page, which has drawn fresh attention in the wake of Robertson's suspension from one of the most-watched shows on cable television.

"And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion," he added. "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."

I would say that falls into the category of homophobia.

He could have been more efficient in his condemnation by just saying "God doesn't like gay people and neither do I."

But if some old duck killer who lives in the woods doesn't like gay people, why would I care about that?

[annieB]

Army veteran,college quarterback,multi-million dollar business builder,Christian,
TV star,redneck duck killer.

Hell,it don't get any better than that !

[ns2]

I would say that falls into the category of homophobia.

What a strange word "homophobia". Speaking from a strictly Darwinian point of view I would think that a strong aversion to homosexuality, as a threat to the survival of the species, would be a natural instinct shared by most of humanity - and indeed I think this was and is still true in most of the world regardless of any religious teachings. Having been born 20 years before the word first occurred in print it is amazing to observe how in the current American zeitgeist homosexuality is now the natural thing to be celebrated and any expression to the contrary is a "phobia".

My own attitude towards homosexuality is that it neither breaks my arm nor picks my pocket, as Thomas Jefferson said, so I don't care what you do in private. I do get very tired of these kind of public in-your-face agendas to change existing mores and it's good to finally see some backlash against it.

[dualstow]

I do get very tired of these kind of public in-your-face agendas to change existing mores and it's good to finally see some backlash against it.

I guess I can see both sides of this. Civil rights acquisition is never smooth and there will be backlashes after browbeating. On the other hand, the gays have put up with our nonsense for a very long time. Torture, execution, humiliation, lack of rights. And yet there will never be the homosexual equivalent of the Black Panthers. (Although if there ever were, I vote that they adopt the name Pink Panthers). I think we're getting off light. I mean, if someone gets heat for expressing a distaste or even disdain for homosexuality, there are 1st amendment issues, but it's nothing compared to what gays have to endure. If it helps change the minds of young people and reduces bullying, not to mention baiting and killing, it's good in the long run.

Speaking from a strictly Darwinian point of view I would think that a strong aversion to homosexuality, as a threat to the survival of the species, would be a natural instinct shared by most of humanity

That is almost certainly true, but it is an instinct that our higher selves must overcome. We might have a natural instinct to mount the nearest stewardess on a plane or take a sledgehammer to the boss, but we know better.

[ns2]

Speaking from a strictly Darwinian point of view I would think that a strong aversion to homosexuality, as a threat to the survival of the species, would be a natural instinct shared by most of humanity

That is almost certainly true, but it is an instinct that our higher selves must overcome. We might have a natural instinct to mount the nearest stewardess on a plane or take a sledgehammer to the boss, but we know better.

That's part of what I find odd about the whole thing.  As a heterosexual I am supposed to appeal to my higher self and overcome my natural instinct. If you expect a homosexual to do that then you are suffering from a phobia.

[dualstow]

When you say "if you expect a homosexual to do that", I take it you mean to overcome their natural instincts...to be homosexual? They shouldn't have to do that any more than you or I should have to become gay. They play by the same rules as us, as they also cannot take a sledgehammer to the boss or mount the nearest flight attendant. It's even.

[ns2]

When you say "if you expect a homosexual to do that", I take it you mean to overcome their natural instincts...to be homosexual? They shouldn't have to do that any more than you or I should have to become gay. They play by the same rules as us, as they also cannot take a sledgehammer to the boss or mount the nearest flight attendant. It's even.

I don't want to speak for Mr. Duck Dynasty but I suspect he doesn't believe it is a "natural instinct", but a sinful desire and that one does need to overcome it if he wants to enter the kingdom of heaven (not that I believe that, but that is basic fundamentalist Christianity).

He should probably consider himself lucky that he doesn't live in Canada, because I think he could be charged with a crime for what he said.

Seems like a one way street to me. Tolerance for me, but not for thee.

[jacob_h]

So, Duck Dynasty is the most watched cable TV show ever...

When do the shareholders sue A&E for neglecting their fiduciary duties by acting in a manner that caused the end of that (assuming very profitable) show b/c the rest of the Robertsons aren't going to keep doing the show w/o Phil?

[ns2]

So, Duck Dynasty is the most watched cable TV show ever...

When do the shareholders sue A&E for neglecting their fiduciary duties by acting in a manner that caused the end of that (assuming very profitable) show b/c the rest of the Robertsons aren't going to keep doing the show w/o Phil?

I don't know if it's true or not but I heard on FBN last night that sales in Duck Dynasty gear alone amounted to $400 Million dollars last year! Also read that it's flying off the shelves at Walmart while people can still get it.

[Benko]

So, Duck Dynasty is the most watched cable TV show ever...

When do the shareholders sue A&E for neglecting their fiduciary duties by acting in a manner that caused the end of that (assuming very profitable) show b/c the rest of the Robertsons aren't going to keep doing the show w/o Phil?

I don't know if it's true or not but I heard on FBN last night that sales in Duck Dynasty gear alone amounted to $400 Million dollars last year! Also read that it's flying off the shelves at Walmart while people can still get it.

Advancing the "progressive" agenda is the important thing.  It doesn't matter if they lose money.  Nor does it matter than Christians are 3/4 of the US population and gays less than 5%. 

[Pointedstick]

So, Duck Dynasty is the most watched cable TV show ever...

When do the shareholders sue A&E for neglecting their fiduciary duties by acting in a manner that caused the end of that (assuming very profitable) show b/c the rest of the Robertsons aren't going to keep doing the show w/o Phil?

I don't know if it's true or not but I heard on FBN last night that sales in Duck Dynasty gear alone amounted to $400 Million dollars last year! Also read that it's flying off the shelves at Walmart while people can still get it.

Sounds like MT was right and this is the best publicity stunt ever. I wonder how long before they un-suspend him?

[Benko]

I think we're getting off light. I mean, if someone gets heat for expressing a distaste or even disdain for homosexuality, there are 1st amendment issues, but it's nothing compared to what gays have to endure. If it helps change the minds of young people and reduces bullying, not to mention baiting and killing, it's good in the long run.

"I think we're getting off light."



Everyone should be treated equally (well certainly with respect) regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation. 

On the lesbian/bisexual female front, it has become trendy.  And as far as gay males, I would suspect that while not perfect (what in life is) things are much easier being gay(male) now than they were.  People get made fun of/beaten up for reasons other than sexual orientation/race, etc.

"if someone gets heat for expressing a distaste or even disdain for homosexuality"
I know very little about traditional religion, but many people are christian and apparently the bible says or can be interpreted to say things negatively about gays.  So it is OK to harass people who have religious beliefs?  Oh wait, atheism is part of the progressive agenda, how convenient.

[dualstow]

Benko, I'm typing this calmly, but because of the content I should explicitly say that I hope you'll read it as such. I mean, my feathers aren't ruffled, and I don't mean to ruffle anyone else's.

I don't disagree that it must be easier to be gay nowadays than it was in the past. Same for being Black, Jewish, female, etc.
"People get made fun of/beaten up for reasons other than sexual orientation/race, etc." That's true, but I don't know what to do with your statement. Either we try to stamp out bigotry or we don't. Remember that Matthew kid who was pistol-whipped to death in Wyoming in the 90s by some guys who baited him? That was a wake-up call for me.

I know very little about traditional religion, but many people are christian and apparently the bible says or can be interpreted to say things negatively about gays.  So it is OK to harass people who have religious beliefs?  Oh wait, atheism is part of the progressive agenda, how convenient.

What if a Muslim kills a cartoonist or a Dutch filmmaker and says he is acting on religious beliefs? Specifically he is defending Mohammed. What should we do about that.

We live in a pluralistic society in the west. By definition, beliefs are going to rub up against each other and there will be friction.  "Bible says.." is not a line that should get anyone in trouble. And a lot worse has been said by others on the subject than anything said in Duck Dynasty as quoted in this thread. Personally, I don't think anyone should have been taken off the show, even temporarily. Thinking objectively, though, I don't know what it's like to run a network. Sometimes you have to set an example.

Furthermore, once you become a celebrity and a public figure, you have to watch your mouth. OR, accept the consequences. So, if Kathy Griffin wants to say, "God had absolutely nothing to do with this award, so suck it, Jesus" she must know that some people are going to laugh and others are going to be deeply offended. Some of the offended are going to strike back at her one way or another: angry letters, cancelled shows, etc. Same goes for the Duck guy. This is the world we live in.

Western Christians like to see themselves as beleaguered; I just don't see it. Yes, there are problems in other parts of the world. I knew an Indonesian guy who fled to the US (he's been deported, unfortunately) after Muslims burned his Christian church down. But that's just not happening here. Bill O'Reilly is unhappy because people are being pushed to say happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas? Boo-hoo. American Christians don't know the first thing about persecution. They just don't.

EDIT: That Colbert piece is hilarious.

Above I mentioned a Muslim killing a cartoonist or filmmaker and insisting he was acting on religious beliefs, but it doesn't even need to be taken that far. What about the injunctions in the Bible itself? Remember that "No on Proposition 8" ad? ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_hyT7_Bx9o ) The Bible has a problem with shellfish, too, among other things. Slippery slope, using the Bible to argue in 2013.

[RuralEngineer]

I think everybody's coming out of this with mud and shit on their clothes.

1.  Phil is guilty of at best shitting where he eats and being an idiot.  If he didn't see this coming when he opened his mouth then this is deserved.  At worst he's guilty of having some fairly distressing views as shown by the 2010 video.

2.  A&E may have killed their golden goose.  I think that there is a very good chance that they could have gotten a similar result with a "his views do not reflect...yadda yadda" speech and not gone so far as to suspend him.  Now they may lose the entire show depending on how far the family is willing to back him up.  If they reinstate Phil then they might as well have done nothing as far as GLAAD and the NAACP are concerned and the damage is done with large portions of their viewership either way because they took such provocative action.  Idiots.

3.  GLAAD and the NAACP.  They don't watch the show.  They have no real interest in whether one particular redneck out of the millions that hold these views happens to spout the current traditional fundamentalist Christian line regarding homosexuality.  Phil is incidental, collateral damage.  These people have been waiting in the wings for a chance to pounce and stir shit up, get their name in the news.  Scum.

4.  Everyone claiming this is a freedom of speech issue.  These people need to get any kind of professional job.  You will be briefed on how your behavior reflects on your employer and how you'll be fired if you embarrass them sufficiently.  There have been any number of executives of corporations fired for facebook or twitter posts.  Case in point, Paula Dean and the Food Network...fired for saying n***** back in the 60's (by her own admission, not due to witness testimony).  These idiots need to understand that employers have the right to not employ individuals who are going to embarrass or otherwise damage their company.  Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

[dualstow]

Exactly.

[ns2]

Great piece by Mark Steyn on the subject....

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... mark-steyn

Quote:

Most Christian opponents of gay marriage oppose gay marriage; they don’t oppose the right of gays to advocate it. Yet thug groups like GLAAD increasingly oppose the right of Christians even to argue their corner. It’s quicker and more effective to silence them.

Exactly!

Also comes with an interesting subplot if you follow The Corner on National Review. Apparently the editor didn't like the article very much and Mr. Steyn basically told him to shove it if he didn't like it so it will be interesting to see if he gets fired the way John Derbyshire did.

[Benko]

Dualstow,

Nothing to do with free speech.
Interestingly though his 2010 interview was BEFORE the first episode of the show aired, so A&E knew or could very easily have about his statement.  Not that I blame A&E much.  They know that the "central planning worshipers" (my term since the words liberal/progressive/statist apparently offend) don't allow dissent i.e. "suck it, Jesus"  is encouraged whereas any negative comments about gays are not allowed.

Nothing you said is remotely inflammatory.

"Either we try to stamp out bigotry or we don't."
The way to stamp out bigotry is to treat everyone with respect.  Just like the way to stop racial discrimination is to stop discriminating by race. 

Note that Martin Bashir said things that would offend a rapper for ages before being fired.  Bill Mahr, and numerous talking heads say really offensive things on a regular basis but there is no problem, because they are being said about conservatives.  NB: Stewart manages to criticize conservatives effectively without becoming e.g. bashir (perhaps Colbert also).

"What if a Muslim kills a cartoonist or a Dutch filmmaker"
Actions and words are not equivalent. The fact that you brought up murder in a discussion of people's words is disturbing, but not totally surprising.  The central planning worshipers view dissent on a level with murder.  Not that you seem like a devoted worshiper.

Found this today:

12 Unspoken Rules For Being A Liberal...

"What liberals like should be mandatory and what they don't like should be banned: There's an almost instinctual form of fascism that runs through most liberals. It's not enough for liberals to love gay marriage; everyone must be forced to love gay marriage."

Bob Hope knew this almost 40 years ago:
Bob Hope, touring the world in the year or so after the passage of the 1975 Consenting Adult Sex Bill:

“I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.

This is the society we live in.  From global warming, to rich people are evil, etc.  The centrall planning worshippers agenda is being pushed and dissent is not tolerated (see also NS2's post before me). 

[dualstow]

No, I am not a devoted worshiper of Central Planning. 
And,  of course, I do not want to equate murder with words. I only want to make the point that in a secular country only man's law counts. Not God's law.

I also think it's possible that GLAAD will one day be as troublesome as shakedown artist Jesse Jackson, but they're certainly nowwere near that.

I think that Bill Maher gets away with what he does because his whole point is to be un-PC and to be offensive. The statements he made after 9-11 were about as inflammatory as can be. On the other hand, he didn't target a specific race, sex or orientation.

I think that RuralEngineer's post says it all best. I should just leave it at that.