Gyroscopic Investing

My assuredly imperfect take...

1. How did A&E miss the fact that the patriarch of this so called reality family is a devout Christian of the low church Evangelical bent?
2. People are missing the point here. This is not about freedom of speech. It's about freedom of religion. Federal law generally proscribes employment discrimination based on religious belief or practice. And it's worth pointing out that Mr. Robertson did not make his comments on the show or "in the workplace."
3. That said most celebrities are required to sign contracts that prohibit their saying or doing anything that could bring disrepute on their employers. So yeah this could get messy from a legal perspective.
4. The subject of homosexuality strikes me as a great topic for a sermon in church, but a lousy one for the law. What consenting adults do with one another in private is none of the government's business.
5. Re bestiality... if you can demonstrate informed consent on the part of the sheep then knock yourself out bro. Otherwise, I have reservations.

As an Orthodox Christian I have definite views on the subject of homosexual behavior. But I have no right to impose my views on others. That aside, I am getting just a little tired of the Rainbow Mafia's insistence that everyone not merely tolerate their lifestyle but affirm it, and support it and participate in it, or we are just horrible bigots.

If Phil Robertson's comments offend you, too bad! I am offended on a near daily basis by the idiocy and vulgarity that has become inescapable in the mass media and what passes for entertainment these days. But I don't try to tell people what to say or do. I just stopped watching TV for the most part and try to make the best of life in a fallen world.

So yeah I really think the liberal candy asses need to just grow up and stop whining. No one has a right not to be offended.

Ad Orientem wrote:5. Re bestiality... if you can demonstrate informed consent on the part of the sheep then knock yourself out bro. Otherwise, I have reservations.

Do you require informed consent of the sheep before you kill it and eat it for lunch?  Surely that's worse for it.

To be clear I'm not arguing for bestiality.  Just trying to figure out what the boundaries are and why.  I think that most folks who are all for homosexuality would be anti-bestiality, but only because they are social conservatives on the issue.  I don't think that's necessarily an inconsistency on their part, if their argument is that mores are changing and the law should keep up, rather than "you have no right to tell me what to do".

Xan wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote:5. Re bestiality... if you can demonstrate informed consent on the part of the sheep then knock yourself out bro. Otherwise, I have reservations.

Do you require informed consent of the sheep before you kill it and eat it for lunch?  Surely that's worse for it.

To be clear I'm not arguing for bestiality.  Just trying to figure out what the boundaries are and why.  I think that most folks who are all for homosexuality would be anti-bestiality, but only because they are social conservatives on the issue.  I don't think that's necessarily an inconsistency on their part, if their argument is that mores are changing and the law should keep up, rather than "you have no right to tell me what to do".

Touché! I guess I will just have to concede that on the subject of animal rights I have inconsistent views. No, I don't think people should bang their pets or livestock. But I honestly am not disturbed by eating them.

Benko wrote: 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.

Where do you get the idea that those terms offend?  In one case, the term simply isn't being used properly (statist), and in the others

"Central Planning Worshipers" seems a bit much... most liberals I know don't "worship" the state.  They simply see it as having a different role than you do.  Many see a military as large as ours as being the most ridiculous "central planning" choice we've made.  It's just a different set of priorities.

The way to stamp out bigotry is to treat everyone with respect.

Sometimes, I silence some of my more controversial opinions in respect of certain people in my family or group of friends.  I certainly think that telling anyone that they're living a life of sin, and will burn eternally in hell, is something that, while possibly true, is almost universally disrespectful.  Even if something is technically true (which I'm not for a second acknowledging here), one still has to decide how to "spread the word."

Now some people build their entire shows on disrespect (Bill Maher, Howard Stern, and Daniel Tosh for instance), but this is almost literally why they were hired for that role in the first place, and they put your show on HBO or on Comedy Central @ 11:00 at night because of it.  If I were running a standard cable/network news show, I would want anyone on a standard day-time show to avoid telling vast portions of the population that they're sinning and are going to go to hell.  If some Muslim said that Christianity is a violent cult, and that they're infidels and are going to hell, and this guy was on a day-time A&E reality show, you can be damn sure he'd get suspended, and, no offense, but I doubt you would have a problem with it.  Neither would I.

I'm not saying I really care that everyone who has disrespectful public opinion be banned from tv.  I think Alec Baldwin is hilarious in most roles he's in nowadays, but he's kind of an asshole.  I have no opinion of Jane Fonda's acting, but I don't think anyone who happily flaunted herself with Vietcong should get respect from American producers, but that's not really my choice.

Your 12 Unspoken Rules of Being a Liberal is hyperbolic and ridiculous.  What exactly did Bob Hope "know?"  Is homosexuality compulsory now in California? 

You and ns2 still seem to be confusing freedom from government with freedom from economic consequences of being disrespectful.  If I owned a tv station, I'd have to have some level of respect that I'd want public figures on my station to show others in their lives, unless they're there specifically to BE disrespectful and at a late time slot.  Your interpretation isn't fundamentally any more right or wrong than mine.  If a brown person had said about Christians what Phil said about gays, they'd be in deep shit, most likely.  In my life, I haven't noticed anything unique about the will of liberals to "shut-up" dissenting thought.  Conservatives tend to be just as guilty of it, and since they like police/military more than liberals, usually back it with a lot more uncomfortable actions.



ns2,

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.

Most Christians would not oppose the right of gays to advocate gay marriage, but would they be open to having a homosexual come into their church and advocate it in the spirit of intellectual diversity?

Certainly not... at least not in most cases.

And what is GLAAD actually "advocating" for?  They aren't asking the police to arrest Phil Robertson... they're suggesting to A&E that they suspend people for making very offensive public statements... no different from conservatives who write letters to movie studios saying how ridiculous that they hire Jane Fonda for movies.

I don't think GLAAD minds having the debate (if you can call it that... "debating" religious people on their religious/moral assertions is really quite difficult, because they're driven by unprovable religious texts and their own faith).  They, like many advocacy groups from all sides, like to petition those with economic/social power to punish those (economically) for using their public sounding-board as a tool to spread (what they see as) hateful/harmful/disrespectful dialogue about a certain group.  This isn't new.

moda0306 wrote: "If some Muslim said that Christianity is a violent cult, and that they're infidels and are going to hell, and this guy was on a day-time A&E reality show, you can be damn sure he'd get suspended, and, no offense, but I doubt you would have a problem with it."

Actually I would prefer if he didn't get suspended.  I would MUCH rather everyone be able to say what they believe and could are less.  I wonder if you can comprehend this viewpoint.  I'm not suggesting going out of one's way to offend friends/relatives, but if you're being interviewed and someone asks your opinion you answer. 

moda0306 wrote: "telling anyone that they're living a life of sin, and will burn eternally in hell, is something that, while possibly true, is almost universally disrespectful. "

So what?  Why do you care about the opinion of someone on TV/the radio?  Why do you demand never to be offended?

moda0306 wrote: You and ns2 still seem to be confusing freedom from government with freedom from economic consequences of being disrespectful

No I am not.  What i have not articulated is that those economic consequences are there because of the totally intolerant environment we live in--an enivronment created by the left.

"In my life, I haven't noticed anything unique about the will of liberals to "shut-up" dissenting thought"
That reminds me of someone saying that there is no liberal bias on the major media outlets meaning that if you beleive that and have no idea of what I'm talking about...

Let me quote someone, a liberal athiest lesbian feminist on this--Camille Pagalia (pretty sane from what of her's I've read) because she says articulately (if perhaps a little more vehemently) the way many people (on the right) feel.  Bolding mine and while her word choice is over the top, she is making a point about the way dissention is treated.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Paglia, Robertson’s suspension was uncalled for, and it signals a cultural obsession with political correctness. She even calls her own party out for supporting such actions:

“To express yourself in a magazine in an interview – this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist [tactics] that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic Party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades. This is the whole legacy of free speech 1960s that has been lost by my own party.”?

Despite being an atheist, Paglia has expressed her respect for religion in the past. She also criticizes some of the strategies used by gay activists:

“I think that this intolerance by gay activists toward the full spectrum of human beliefs is a sign of immaturity, juvenility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no shortage of examples e.g. Mike Adams has lots of amusing ones from his job as prof at college in NC (he's conservative).

What is much worse than people saying what they really think is when people in positions of power say what they want people to hear so that they can advance a hidden agenda that is very different. An example would be advancing Obamacare (save $2500, keep your health plan)when what they really want is totally socialized medicine.

First the Los Angeles Times, and now the popular website Reddit have banned critical comments on global warming orthodoxy in responses to their articles. Giuseppe Macri of The Daily Caller reports:

A content editor on Reddit's science forum wrote Monday that the site has banned climate-change skeptics, and asks why more news outlets haven't done the same.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... z2oLAmmxuA
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Truth by consensus... as determined by the votes of people allowed to speak. 

Science!

Good quote from Camille Paglia:

"I speak with authority here because I was openly gay before the 'Stonewall Rebellion,' when it cost you something to be so," she said. "And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech. In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as they have the right to support homosexuality -- as I 100 percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right to religious freedom there … to express yourself in a magazine in an interview -– this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades. It's the whole legacy of the free speech 1960's that have been lost by my own party."

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2 ... PC-Culture

Camille Paglia is always an interesting read.

Tyler wrote: Good quote from Camille Paglia:

"I speak with authority here because I was openly gay before the 'Stonewall Rebellion,' when it cost you something to be so," she said. "And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech. In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as they have the right to support homosexuality -- as I 100 percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right to religious freedom there … to express yourself in a magazine in an interview -– this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades. It's the whole legacy of the free speech 1960's that have been lost by my own party."

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2 ... PC-Culture

ns2 wrote: Camille Paglia is always an interesting read.

Tyler wrote: Good quote from Camille Paglia:

"I speak with authority here because I was openly gay before the 'Stonewall Rebellion,' when it cost you something to be so," she said. "And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech. In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as they have the right to support homosexuality -- as I 100 percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right to religious freedom there … to express yourself in a magazine in an interview -– this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades. It's the whole legacy of the free speech 1960's that have been lost by my own party."

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2 ... PC-Culture

+1

On a side note, am I the only getting killed with 403 Errors? The odds of getting anywhere on the forum without 20 or more clicks seem poor lately.

Tyler wrote: Good quote from Camille Paglia:

"I speak with authority here because I was openly gay before the 'Stonewall Rebellion,' when it cost you something to be so," she said. "And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech. In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as they have the right to support homosexuality -- as I 100 percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right to religious freedom there … to express yourself in a magazine in an interview -– this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades. It's the whole legacy of the free speech 1960's that have been lost by my own party."

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2 ... PC-Culture

That is a great quote.

My view, as previously stated, is that the employer had the right to suspend/fire Phil.  If they don't want to be associated with his views, that's fine.  I believe in at will employment and he was making his views more public than most workers would.  I don't see it as a freedom of religion issue.

However, I don't see that anyone else has any business getting involved in trying to influence or otherwise stifle Phil's speech.  GLAAD and the NAACP were blatantly in the wrong and conservatives are in the wrong when they do this crap to.  Justifying bad behavior with more bad behavior is the lowest form of argument, but unfortunately also the most common.

Ad Orientem wrote:
On a side note, am I the only getting killed with 403 Errors? The odds of getting anywhere on the forum without 20 or more clicks seem poor lately.

The NSA has apparently come to believe you might say something offensive to 0.0000001% of the population.  And since the minority has come to have a louder voice than the majority, you lose. 

And, the IRS has discovered you have not paid your "clicking tax".

Mountaineer wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote:
On a side note, am I the only getting killed with 403 Errors? The odds of getting anywhere on the forum without 20 or more clicks seem poor lately.

The NSA has apparently come to believe you might say something offensive to 0.0000001% of the population.  And since the minority has come to have a louder voice than the majority, you lose. 

And, the IRS has discovered you have not paid your "clicking tax".

TennPaGa wrote: I liked the old days when only liberals were whiny.

When was that?  The 1850's when conservatives were debating seceding over the fact that northern states wouldn't return escaped slaves?

The 1950's when they were trying people for being associated with communism?

Conservatism, almost by definition, is whininess about society changing to something other than what it was.

Whininess is relative. One person's "expressed deeply-held personal belief" is another person's "whining."

I was thinking about this thread again as I read about poor Alan Turing. One of the fathers of modern computing who helped crack the Nazis' Enigma, he was castrated for the crime of being a homosexual.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/24/world/eur ... index.html

moda0306 wrote: Whininess is relative. One person's "expressed deeply-held personal belief" is another person's "whining."

+1

Dualstow,

Too bad they made it legal, cuz as Bob Hope said, pretty soon it'll be mandatory.

dualstow wrote: I was thinking about this thread again as I read about poor Alan Turing. One of the fathers of modern computing who helped crack the Nazis' Enigma, he was castrated for the crime of being a homosexual.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/24/world/eur ... index.html

Instead of pardoning Turing for being gay (as if it's a crime requiring a pardon), the British government should condemn itself for being a bunch of intolerant assholes back then.

moda0306 wrote: Dualstow,

Too bad they made it legal, cuz as Bob Hope said, pretty soon it'll be mandatory.

You miss the point.  Celebrating gayness IS mandatory.  Disrespecting gayness is not to be allowed. 

The demand to never be offended/disrespected is part of the society we live in.  Well unless you live in a closet and never talk to anyone. 

Pagalia and many of the 1960s/JFK liberals (who really were openminded people) know what the left has become i.e. intolerant of diversity in thought (if it differs from their opinion) and they don't like it.


EDIT:  obviously there were intolerant liberals in the 1960s also. 

Interesting theory that the whole thing was staged......

http://takimag.com/article/manufacturin ... z2o84HgUAk

Benko wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Dualstow,

Too bad they made it legal, cuz as Bob Hope said, pretty soon it'll be mandatory.

You miss the point.  Celebrating gayness IS mandatory.  Disrespecting gayness is not to be allowed. 

The demand to never be offended/disrespected is part of the society we live in.  Well unless you live in a closet and never talk to anyone. 

Pagalia and many of the 1960s/JFK liberals (who really were openminded people) know what the left has become i.e. intolerant of diversity in thought (if it differs from their opinion) and they don't like it.


EDIT:  obviously there were intolerant liberals in the 1960s also.

Explain to me how celebrating gayness is mandatory?  I certainly don't have to. I know a lot of friends who disrespect gayness and neither their employer nor government issue any consequences.

Regarding never being offended, some people are ultra sensitive, trying to censor all sorts of stuff, but liberals aren't unique in this area... They're just different.  A liberal is more likely to be offended when a guy makes comments about how they are going to hell due to their "lifestyle choices," a conservative might get offended if a department store puts up a Happy Holidays sign.

Both are too touchy, though.  I'm simply not offended by some yahoo telling me I'm going to hell for certain harmless things I've done. I'm not offended in any way by someone saying Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays to me.

But if you really want to flip this mental game, imagine that some hairy Muslim on an A&E tv show said:

"Christians are members of a cult praying to a false God, and they are all going to burn in hell for eternity."

You don't think the right would be all over that?

Fox News would run 24 hour coverage, and even put their "War on Christmas" programming on hold.

Conservative/Christian advocacy groups would be advocating his being fired by A&E, and in private lots of conservative Christians would be talking about how they'd like to shoot the guy.

I have plenty of liberal friends who are more than open minded in discussions. In fact, if there is a common denominator to disliking diverse thought, it's these damn baby boomers . Any time I'm talking to a boomer, if I'm going to bring up a controversial topic, I am probably going to get a lifetime's worth of resentment and opinion-staking, rather than a reasoned analysis and open-mindedness.

Younger people have less of a stake on their political opinions, so less consistency to maintain in arguments.

So I guess, in short, what the hell are you talking about?

moda0306 wrote: A liberal is more likely to be offended when a guy makes comments about how they are going to hell due to their "lifestyle choices," a conservative might get offended if a department store puts up a Happy Holidays sign.

Your example, so I'll assume you think those are equivalent.  You're describing liberals being upset i.e. offended at WORDS i.e. what people are saying and conservatives being upset about ACTIONS: actions which have successfully removed the word Christmas from e.g. many public areas (because it offends liberals). 

Benko,

No... Conservatives are upset about words.  The words Happy Holidays.  Being used by department stores and municipalities and schools.  Now it might be in the deeper context of them thinking they're losing their culture, but one could say that about liberals being angry about what they see as disrespectful comments about gays... It tends to accompany or produce actions that are actually directly influencing the lives of gays (not letting them enter a legal contract with each other, not letting them adopt, not letting them serve in the military, etc).

You're simply living too deep in the Fox News echo-chamber.  There is little fundamental difference between the traditional "liberal/conservative" positions on silencing the opposition.

I had a friend that refused to do the pledge of allegiance when she was a kid. Her teacher tried to give her detention.  I had to sing Christmas song after Christmas song to get a good grade in school. I had a teacher that would reduce your grade for the day if he heard any adverse mention of God (like "Jesus this is difficult," or "God darnit." 

This stuff exists all over, Benko.  Conservatives want things done a certain way and will censor, silence, and punish just as much as liberals will.

Once again, how is celebrating gayness mandatory?  How is disagreement not allowed?

Desert wrote: I can't figure out the whole "War on Christmas" outrage.  Why would anyone want the word "Christmas" associated with the frantic consumerism at the shopping mall anyway?  I'm happy to let Santa Claus and "Happy Holidays" be associated with that mess.  I think the anger is mostly about people needing to find something to get angry about.

Once one can move past the view that "all Christians are judgmental (even though many immature ones are)", one can begin to understand why not much on this earth surprises true Christians who just shake their heads quietly over all the visible messes (e.g. as Desert describes) with no outward fuss and think, "come Lord Jesus and save us quickly, thanks be to God I am forgiven and believe in the promises".

I vacillate between laughter and sadness when observing my fellow man, then suddenly realize, I'm just a sinner like the rest.  That tends to keep me somewhat humble.

... Mountaineer

I'm a lot merrier after spending time at g.co/santatracker