duck dynasty controversy

[BunnyBee]

I think there is plenty to be upset about in what he said, but every time I start getting worked up about it I immediately realize I don't care about these duck idiots, and then I go back not acknowledging they exist, just like before he said anything in the first place.  I wish people would stop talking about it.  I reserve no space for these people in my head, yet they keep trying to move in.  No.  Stay out.  Go away.

[DrBobbi]

It's not uncommon for people that have had brain damage, organic, traumatic, or like the duck, heavy drug induced to embrace cult-like religious doctrine. In that religious doctrine the mentally ill fall lockstep with groupthink for the security it engenders knowing that they're both part of something bigger than themselves, and the rush of superiority they feel over others that aren't part of the cult's collective experience. The world saw it with the rise of the Third Reich, and more recently , jihadi Islam. Here in America it was hatred for blacks, hispanics, then gays, lesbians, and now transsexuals.

A&E's pandering executives had to know that their group of fundamentalist religious white trash were (are) homophobic, transphobic and racist. They chose to put them on the air, instead of doing what any sane person would have done with trash--throw it out.

We're fighting for out civil rights and making excuses for religious zealots must stop. 

[nonameyet]

i was not impying that the incitement of violence or hate against others would be xovered under the constitution. quite the opposite. i was trying to emphasise that as far as i know the incitement of violence against others is where the line is in fact drawn as having gone too far. but the incitement of hate against others is a fuzzier line and as far as i can tell he certainly didnt cross it by expressing his religious views on the matter. particularly given the widespread popularity of those views in our society.

as far as the ethical concerns in his views theyre exactly at the core of this issue. people are entitled to believe that we are going to hell and to express those views. and i certainly wont advocate for their being silenced.  show me the stats that indicate his words did actual harm and i may change my views. but probably not.

the suppression of thoughts and words in the name of protecting me from others is a much farther step than the suppression of real violence for the same reason.

@ dr zoey

i reject the notion implied (though i doubt intentionally) that we are naive and pandering weaklings in the face of religious zealotry.

i reject also the notion that anyone who holds these views is somehow mentally challanged, whether by default or injury.

that someone who certainly (i presume you are trans) falls outside the social behavior norms, would use mental handicap as a thinly veiled insult against those who have conflicting moral values, i find disconcerting and upsetting.
i find that most people i meet who hold these views are otherwise kind and understanding people. but there is no moral magnet in the human mind whereby views are categorized and polarized. there are shades of grey and, to outsiders, contradictions, which, while most certainly a bit of a burden on society are ultimately harmless.

im not going to hell based on how many people believe i am. and im not being harmed by the thoughts of others.

you may be offended. but at the end of the day youve gotta shrug it off.

shows like family guy and american dad are all kinds of offensive. but they also happen to be very open in their support of gays on issues such as adoption and marriage. albiet in parody form. but clearly siding with gays nonetheless.

would you rather that they didnt show support given the smut and offensive humor its wrapped in. i wouldnt.

im off topic but im sure that if youve read this far you got the point.

[Janae]

My whole thing with this is that it's all fine as long as certain people aren't apart of the groups being offended. But it's no longer a non issue once your apart of the group being offended.

Case & Point.... Had he went on a rant about the Jewish community all HELL would've broken loose. We all know the pull that Jewish people have. That show would've been axed so fast we'd being saying Duck who??

What's good for the goose should/is good for the gander.

But because he was "Only quoting whats in the bible" or practicing his "First amendment rights" it wasn't that bad. People fail to realize that free speech comes with responsibility. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should. People are fired every day for doing and saying things they had the right to say Phil is no different.

A&E is a company in the business of making money. If Sponsors are turned off by someone benefiting from their money they have the right to complain to A&E. A&E will do what's best for business. So if that means suspending or firing a old prehistoric redneck that's what they have the right to do as a business.

I've been shaking my head at the people who are defending him. I'm also side eyeing the fact that most of the attention is being placed on what he said about gay's but no one's talking about what he said about the African American community. But then again I'm not really surprised.

[Janae]

Also....Passing the buck and saying that you don't care adds to the problem.

I don't watch the show and shiver every time I see them on tv. I just want to give his entire family a bleach bath. They look like they've been living under a over pass for yrs but I digress.

If his comments are allowed to go unchecked it sends a clear message that says it's ok to say whatever you want no matter who you offend. Words have power. And no one should be paid to spew their bigoted views on tv. I commend those who've spoken out publicly against him. Someone has to do it no matter how unpopular it may be.

[nonameyet]

my primary focus on what he had to say about gays has more to do with the forum than a moral issue. this is a trans forum. but point taken.

as for what he did say about race relations. first of all what he said was wrapped in what seemed to be typical ignorant old man confusion but it isnt hard to work it out. based on the quote i read all he said was that he worked with blacks  before the civil rights changes and that he hadnt noticed any animosity from them. he also didnt seem to hold racist views.
also. and im waaay off topic here. the term african american is in my view a far worse term than black. a black person born in the u.s. is no more african american than i am irish american or polish american or german american or scottish american.
it also implies that all africans are black. there are white african americans too.

but aside from that it bugs me because africa is not a country. thatd be like me moving to africa and being called north american-african

way off topic but if were going to address the racial aspect of it i had to bring that up. please please please dont take offense. its a linguistic issue for me not a race issue.

at any rate

@ janae

the religious aspect of this is something you are missing entirely. he is perfectly entitled to spew whatever views he wants to provided he does not incite or promote violence against others.

you can be as upset as you like but the fact of the matter is that his expressing his views isnt harming you. those who agree will continue to agree. those who disagree will continue to do so.
just as we are entitled to believe that he is morally wrong he is entitled to the same views about us. the fact that he puts an afterlife of misery on it doesnt change that.

i guess this brings up another question of subjective and objective morality.

[DirtyFox]

It doesn't matter what group is offended under any way to be viable for 1st amendment so long as it does not incite any criminal or heinous act.

I agree with you Nona (if I may call you that), the ethical standpoint is absolutely the main point behind the argument and understanding of why people should be offended to rise to action. Regardless of law, people should be able to recognize that unethical behavior is not justified by any means, religious or otherwise. Though the law permits them to say such things, I would urge the public to become aware and otherwise boycott any affiliation or support towards them and urge others to do the same. Though, my main concern again is follow-through.

[Jamie D]

Mr Robertson has already been reinstated to the show.

Nothing like a little controversy to boost revenue.

[Ltl89]

First of all, I never heard of duck dynasty before the controversy.  Well, saw something about it once during an award show, but it really didn't appeal to me and I pretty much blacked it out.  After seeing what it's about, I am even less interested than I was originally inclined.  As for the comments he made, they were horrible and it pissed me off, but that's his view and he is free to believe what he wants.  That's the extent of my involvement in this whole fiasco.

What I wanted to comment on is that his constitutional 1st amendment rights only apply to the federal government and state governments (through incorporation).  While he has the right to say what he wants without facing penalties by the government, his statements don't guarantee that he won't be judged by his employer.  As a company A&E have the right to decide who represents their company.  Barring any discrimination clause in their human resources policy or in anti-discrimination laws themselves (which his statements aren't protected under), they can hire or fire who they please.  Therefore, his views may be constitutionally protected, but that doesn't mean that it can't be used against him by his employer.  Nonetheless, I could care less whether they keep him or not.  I really don't have a dog in this fight. 

Lastly, let's refrain from using the term "redneck".  There are southerners on the site who take offense to the use of this phrase because it's a demeaning statement that unfairly paints a broad brush against all southerners.  We didn't like it when the fool from Duck Dynasty did that to the gays, so let's not do the same to another group in turn. 

[nonameyet]

i also didnt realize that both of the comments i was replying to were from janae. rendering the @ unnecessary. i feel like an idiot now.
my bad


haha. am i Nona?


@ jamie
i dont think he should have been taken off in the first place. ive only seen it once and dont even know the characters names but its irrelevant. he is entitled to his views. no matter how controversial. provided they dont incite violence or any like act. that goes for anywhere. not just here where we're lucky enough that its covered under the constitution.


@learning

agreed on the redneck thing but its not just a southern thing anymore i promise.

also. there are conflicting legal points on free speech and employment since employers started checking facebook pages. its a whole big convoluted thing but the point is that you can not necessarily be fired for what he did. and certainly not for religious views. while the burden of proof is on you in an at will state there are things they cant fire you for.

[Janae]

Well I am black so the term AA doesn't offend me. I'm not going into weither or not it's correct or appropriate that's pretty much irrelevant.

What he said about gay's being a religious thing is a cop out to me. By your logic it's ok to offend tons of people based on what the bible says. Not everyone is Christian and not everyone believes what he does. There are people who are Christians who's views differ. I could argue that that little part of Deuteronomy that bible tumpers love to quote is outdated along with a list of other things. I could also bring up the fact that Jesus never spoke on homosexuals, but he did preach love and kindness and loving you neighbor as yourself. Something people like Phil conveniently forget when they go on these anti-gay bible rants.

In any event he was wrong. He had a right to say what he wanted that doesn't mean the public or paying sponsors had to agree.

A&E reinstated him so at this point all of this is pointless.

[DirtyFox]

To everyone reading this thread, I would also urge that opinions of the individuals here are also that of opinion and by no means makes them wrong for having their thoughts. So if someone prefers not to take action or disagrees with your point of view please, don't attack-argue. That's how locked threads happen. It probably goes without saying but just a forewarning just in case. So far this thread has been rather insightful though.

haha. am i Nona?

Shh.. I thought it was cute lol.

[Chaos]

I'm not a transwoman but I will add a point of view on this thing called free speech.

Many use this term incorrectlly in order to fill their own agenda.For example:

A christian man stands in front of a crowd and says 'according to what I believe,gays are going to hell' but then let's say another says 'it may be against what I believe but I love and support all people'

Which would have the most negative impact? What defines it as 'free speech' and 'hate speech' ? Do we know where the line is or do we draw the line only for others while we cross it daily?

And where does hate and prejudice come into play?

Allow free speech but the moment ANY negativity comes into play,then it turns into hate speech and should be trodden on like a horse running from a buring stable.

[Ltl89]

i also didnt realize that both of the comments i was replying to were from janae. rendering the @ unnecessary. i feel like an idiot now.
my bad


haha. am i Nona?


@ jamie
i dont think he should have been taken off in the first place. ive only seen it once and dont even know the characters names but its irrelevant. he is entitled to his views. no matter how controversial. provided they dont incite violence or any like act. that goes for anywhere. not just here where we're lucky enough that its covered under the constitution.


@learning

agreed on the redneck thing but its not just a southern thing anymore i promise.

also. there are conflicting legal points on free speech and employment since employers started checking facebook pages. its a whole big convoluted thing but the point is that you can not necessarily be fired for what he did. and certainly not for religious views. while the burden of proof is on you in an at will state there are things they cant fire you for.

He was not suspended for being Christian.  For example, if I'm a democrat and suspending for being that, then perhaps I could challenge my company for being discriminatory (if there are laws against such things or it's covered in their hr policy).  If I take a heavy stance on a controversial issue which is seen as a typical democrat view and my company fires me, that's not the same as being fired from being a democrat.  It would be the view not the group I'm in which got me in that situation, which is what happened to Robertson.  Even so, the first amendment does not apply to companies at all, so it's really not relevant.  What matters is that A&E doesn't break their own anti-discrimination policy or break any laws that are applied to them, the first amendment being one that is not.  The first amendment was created to protect people from being punished by the federal government and was incorporated to include state gov as well. It was not written to protect you from your employer.   This is not and never was a constitutional issue. 

[nonameyet]

i just wanted to clarify why i said blacks instead of african americans.


also. yeah. it is okay to offend tons of people based on what the bible says. consider how many people youd be offending by quoting jesus.

hes not saying that god wants him to send us to hell. hes saying that god will send us there himself. i just dont get why thats such a huge deal.

he may as well have said all gays were ->-bleeped-<-gots. itd have the same emotional impact on me.

by arguing that his job should be taken youre effectively saying that those with viewpoints you consider dated and morally objectionable shouldnt be in positions of minimal influence in our society. is it your place to decide who those people and what their viewpoints are? judge not

jesus also spoke of taking the plank out of your own eye before you call attention to the piece of sawdust in someone elses.

point being its not up to us to judge whether someone elses views are right or wrong.

@fox

i laughed cause i thought it was cute too.

@ learning. im really just gonna have to agree to disagree on that one

@chaos the same

[Chaos]

My comment was to clarify what hate speech and free speech is as many confuse the two but maybe the reason for that is done purposely.if any form of speech downgrades,causes loss of confidence,self esteem,humilates,causes any emotional harm-then as the term says,it is for that exact purpose.free speech is there for us to respectfully express our opinions while not purposely targeting a group or another human being to do just that.and anyone who does not understand the above needs to stop using free speech as a means to destroy another.that is the truth.otherwise,I could really careless about this crappy a©© show and the people on it.you all have a good day

[Ltl89]

i just wanted to clarify why i said blacks instead of african americans.


also. yeah. it is okay to offend tons of people based on what the bible says. consider how many people youd be offending by quoting jesus.

hes not saying that god wants him to send us to hell. hes saying that god will send us there himself. i just dont get why thats such a huge deal.

he may as well have said all gays were ->-bleeped-<-gots. itd have the same emotional impact on me.

by arguing that his job should be taken youre effectively saying that those with viewpoints you consider dated and morally objectionable shouldnt be in positions of minimal influence in our society. is it your place to decide who those people and what their viewpoints are? judge not

jesus also spoke of taking the plank out of your own eye before you call attention to the piece of sawdust in someone elses.

point being its not up to us to judge whether someone elses views are right or wrong.

@fox

i laughed cause i thought it was cute too.

@ learning. im really just gonna have to agree to disagree on that one

@chaos the same

As you said, employers have fired people from facebook statements.  While those comments are likely constitutionally protected speech, it doesn't prevent an employeer from taking action. It only prevents the government from doing so, not private corporations.  You're free to disagree, but I haven't heard that employers are supposed to uphold their employees speech.  Personally, I could care less about what he says and whether he is on tv.  It's fine to believe companies shouldn't regulate their employees speech. Whether there is a legal restriction that means they are obligated to protect their speech is a whole other thing. 

[Eva Marie]

Mr Robertson has already been reinstated to the show.

Nothing like a little controversy to boost revenue.

Money talks. A&E fouled their bed (to say it in a polite way) when they kicked Phil off of the show. A&E ate crow and the money is rolling in once again.

There have been some unflattering comments made in this thread about about their appearance - how they look is baked into the show & it's probably required in their contract with A&E. I believe that each of them has a college degree except for Si; they are actually very well educated.

As far as them being hicks (I'm avoiding another word that some consider derogatory) and the popularity of the show - some of y'all have obviously never lived in the south, or have never been to West Monroe, LA (I have done both). This country does have major regional differences and people in the south tend to hunt and have religious leanings, so this show resonates with other people like that. It is a clean show without cursing or crude sexual references and some people find that very attractive.

Silencing someone is a risky business - the same criteria that is used to silence them could also be used to silence you.

[BunnyBee]

Also....Passing the buck and saying that you don't care adds to the problem.

I don't watch the show and shiver every time I see them on tv. I just want to give his entire family a bleach bath. They look like they've been living under a over pass for yrs but I digress.

If his comments are allowed to go unchecked it sends a clear message that says it's ok to say whatever you want no matter who you offend. Words have power. And no one should be paid to spew their bigoted views on tv. I commend those who've spoken out publicly against him. Someone has to do it no matter how unpopular it may be.

I disagree.  This whole thing is the most disingenuous farce I have seen in a while.  When you have a star of a tv show that has taken a marketing strategy of relentlessly playing up rural southern stereotypes for profit, that says something outrageous that continues with that strategy, you should realize that is exactly what it is. 

Now his base is worked into a froth, making him out to be a victim of oppression, with no acknowledgment of the irony/hippocracy of that, and nobody in the country isn't talking about this show.  Meanwhile, as somebody that lived in the south for a long time, and knows people and has family from the rural areas of the region, I feel everybody in the show is coming across very larry the cable guyish, i.e. FAKE.  In fact, I bet if you pulled hard enough on their beards, they would come right off.

I think if you let yourself get swept up in the fervor, you are playing right into their hands.  They make A&E enough money, and he stopped short of saying anything too vile, so they will be taken back FOR SURE, and then you can all just wait for the chick-fil-a effect to get in full swing, and they will make loads more money, and sell more ugly hats and whistles, than they were already making off this whole sorry affair.

I think he does deserve to be fired, I also think the people that rush to the defense of his bigotry are the real problem and the most disturbing thing in all of this.  So, to a point, I am with everybody that is mad, but in a world where a leader of a first world country is putting actual people in jail for just showing support of gays and nobody seems to give a damn, idk, I don't feel like I have room for outrage over an obvious marketing campaign that is banking in my outrage so they can profit off the backlash against my feelings.  In other words, I won't feed these trolls.   I already feel tricked enough that I have even responded to this lol.

[Joanna Dark]

in russia, gay and trans peeps are in danger od being locked up. It's the law. Howld that law start? I bet it originated in a vacuum and no one in a position of power and responsibility ever said bad things about the lgbt community. For real, words matter. This guy should keep his hateful thoughts to himslelf. It's not a free speech issue. No one said he can't say it but to listen to people tell me I have to accept it and stay quietm that's oppression. And that's what most in this thread said. He has a right. Blah, blah blah. But I guess everyone can go ahead and not care. It's not like you may ever be a victim of hate. Hate that starts with words.