Topic: 'Duck Dynasty' star on hiatus for anti-gay comments

[Shiroi Koumori]

People always forget to notice the "that's just me" part.

Let it all snowball to the point reality shows are gone forever.

Amen. Kick all reality shows off the air!

[Abnormal Freak]

I don't understand the incessant bringing up of his contract either. He was not interviewed by GQ as an employee or representative of A&E but as an individual. His public life, even associated with Duck Dynasty, is not dictated by others. It wasn't right of A&E to suspend him for answering truthfully a question he was asked.

It's pretty much a given that an individual's views do not necessarily reflect an associated company. You see it all the time at the beginning of DVDs. I'm doubting Phil Robertson is under contract to not speak his personal views publicly. It wasn't during his show, it wasn't at an A&E-hosted event, it doesn't apply.

Jason Biggs made the comment on Twitter that he'd "totes dip" his fingers into Paul Ryan's wife's asshole. He wasn't reprimanded, and there were no outcries to get him kicked off Nickelodeon's TMNT show or a boycotting of its sponsors. Just as there shouldn't have been because that kind of shit is silly. But usually the loudest outcries and actions are when a conservative voices an opinion.

Imagine making a comment on Facebook (with the privacy settings set to "public") that your employer sees and dislikes and fires you over. Is that right? Does your employer really need to "protect the image of the company" if you're off work when making such comments? Does anyone bat an eye at the offensive anti-Christian sentiments that some celebrities and public figures have been known to make? (Yeah, some small groups cry for boycotts and that, but usually are insignificant.) Wrong or right, someone should be allowed to voice their opinions without the threat of being fired.

A&E knew who they were employing from the get-go, so even if contractual obligations were in play, I doubt that's the reason for Robertson's sudden dismissal.

[Rugal]

I don't know what Duck Dynasty is, and I never intend to fill my brain with such filth, but I am posting in this thread just to say: Who the fuck cares?

[Highwind Dragoon]

Here's the actual article, so that you can see what you're commenting on:

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson

Phil Robertson is expressing his opinion.  Stating his personal preference.  He says that he prefers a vagina to a man's anus, following it up with, "That's just me."  Those sound like awfully bigotted, gay-hating words right there.     A&E is shooting themselves in the foot.

As for violating his contract, I don't have it in front of me.  Feel free to link to it here if that is a legitimate reason for his suspension.

For the record, I also prefer a vagina to a man's anus.  But that's just me.  Did I just offend anybody?

As long as you don't say it while you are on-duty as an officer of the law, you are ok.

I don't understand the incessant bringing up of his contract either. He was not interviewed by GQ as an employee or representative of A&E but as an individual. His public life, even associated with Duck Dynasty, is not dictated by others. It wasn't right of A&E to suspend him for answering truthfully a question he was asked.

It's pretty much a given that an individual's views do not necessarily reflect an associated company. You see it all the time at the beginning of DVDs. I'm doubting Phil Robertson is under contract to not speak his personal views publicly. It wasn't during his show, it wasn't at an A&E-hosted event, it doesn't apply.

Jason Biggs made the comment on Twitter that he'd "totes dip" his fingers into Paul Ryan's wife's asshole. He wasn't reprimanded, and there were no outcries to get him kicked off Nickelodeon's TMNT show or a boycotting of its sponsors. Just as there shouldn't have been because that kind of shit is silly. But usually the loudest outcries and actions are when a conservative voices an opinion.

Imagine making a comment on Facebook (with the privacy settings set to "public") that your employer sees and dislikes and fires you over. Is that right? Does your employer really need to "protect the image of the company" if you're off work when making such comments? Does anyone bat an eye at the offensive anti-Christian sentiments that some celebrities and public figures have been known to make? (Yeah, some small groups cry for boycotts and that, but usually are insignificant.) Wrong or right, someone should be allowed to voice their opinions without the threat of being fired.

A&E knew who they were employing from the get-go, so even if contractual obligations were in play, I doubt that's the reason for Robertson's sudden dismissal.

Sigh, sorry to sound like a broken record, freak, but it bears repeating:

HE. VIOLATED. THE. TERMS. OF. HIS. CONTRACT.

And instead of firing him, A&E just suspended him.  This is probably going to blow over in several months.  (MSNBC forced a political commentator to resign after mocking Sarah Palin on air.)

And Rugal, not caring about this is like not caring about what George Wallace said about segregation in the 60's.

[PFG9000]

As long as you don't say it while you are on-duty as an officer of the law, you are ok.

Challenge accepted! 

[Intersection]

And here it goes again.

There was a time, you know, when "politics" meant exactly what the ancient Greeks had wanted it to mean -- the art of justly governing of a city. But today, its meaning has so deeply changed that most people only care to associate it with that pervasive practice of spewing out nonsensical garbage just for the sake of pleasing everyone -- yes, that ugly thing we call political correctness.
Today, in a society that's only recovering from the gradual disappearance of the age-old practice of racial discrimination, and in a climate of social upheaval in the wake of a growing gay rights movement, both issues have quickly sunk into the dangerous land of the taboo. Express any opinion that doesn't follow the general current of political assent, and you'll arouse such a titanic maelstrom of passions that you'll never make it out alive.

Don't get me wrong here; I'd be the first to advise reading through Robertson's interview with a grain of salt in reserve. But I simply do not see how the few, honest comments Robertson made were supposed to warrant such an aggressive political backlash from popular media -- and let alone his own company.

I thought we called shows like "Duck Dynasty" reality shows. Well, it so happened that reality was staring at A&E right in the face before the company so wisely chose to strike it down. Why didn't they simply hire paid actors to read out their own well-conceived and noninflammatory scripts, instead of suspending one of their most popular figures simply for the sake of that one interview whose outcome they couldn't entirely predict?
This is hypocrisy at its finest, and it doesn't just concern A&E. It's the contemporary, consuming tide of social belief, and in our sadly deluded society, no one, absolutely no one, can risk fighting against it.

[Highwind Dragoon]

Be that as it may, his contract was for a family type show, not a political commentary type or comedy type show.

He is still allowed to say whatever he wants, just not in the confines of an interview about the show, as I said earlier.

If Hank Williams Jr. can be fired from doing the monday night football intro for saying that the President is "the enemy", than Mr. Robertson can be as well.

[Ratty]

Here's the actual article, so that you can see what you're commenting on:

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson

Phil Robertson is expressing his opinion.  Stating his personal preference.  He says that he prefers a vagina to a man's anus, following it up with, "That's just me."  Those sound like awfully bigotted, gay-hating words right there.     A&E is shooting themselves in the foot.

As for violating his contract, I don't have it in front of me.  Feel free to link to it here if that is a legitimate reason for his suspension.

For the record, I also prefer a vagina to a man's anus.  But that's just me.  Did I just offend anybody?

You left out the full quote. What he said was "It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. 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." If you don't see why this is degrading to homosexuals, let me explain. Firstly, the "but that's just me" bit sounds like a joke. Like "I don't like getting shot, but that's just me." More importantly, it denies that homosexual or bisexual love is anything but physical. When I fell in love with my transgendered girlfriend I fell in love with a PERSON not "an anus". And logical? What's that about? What about straight couples who enjoy anal and oral sex, does he go around bad mouthing them? Why does he spend so much time thinking about what other people do in the bedroom, which is none of his business, then claim to be better than so-called "perverted sinners".

The fact is he used this interview as a way to circumvent A&E to bash gays, and it was bashing just of a more subtle sort than you used to see, and be a revisionist about the brutality of the segregationist south. I don't care how good his duck calls are or how popular his little "The Real Beverly Hillbillies" (which, yes, look at the premise- that's what it is) show is, that makes him a terrible person.

And here it goes again.

There was a time, you know, when "politics" meant exactly what the ancient Greeks had wanted it to mean -- the art of justly governing of a city. But today, its meaning has so deeply changed that most people only care to associate it with that pervasive practice of spewing out nonsensical garbage just for the sake of pleasing everyone -- yes, that ugly thing we call political correctness.

Oh boy, here we go again. People get called out for being racist, sexist or homophobic assholes now, somehow this is supposed to be a bad thing. I guess if you don't happen to be a "minority" (or the 51% of people who are women) then having to consider the feelings of these people could seem awfully bothersome. It was better when people who weren't straight, cisgendered white males could just get shit on all the time and have to take it without a peep right?

Today, in a society that's only recovering from the gradual disappearance of the age-old practice of racial discrimination, and in a climate of social upheaval in the wake of a growing gay rights movement, both issues have quickly sunk into the dangerous land of the taboo.

Fights for equal rights for the minority are always difficult, but worth doing.

I thought we called shows like "Duck Dynasty" reality shows.

Which is incorrect, since as he states in the interview, he and his family come up with and perform "skits" for the show. It's fake. This is just another case of rich but socially looked down upon people becoming famous (scripted) "reality" stars because it makes most of the audience feel superior to someone wealthier than them, and a smaller but significant portion of the audience feel they can relate to someone wealthy and famous. Just like Jersey Shore, when it was "guidos" the general audience could look down on or relate to, now it's (in Robertson's words) "white trash". And they're playing it up for money. Robertson decided to risk that money so he could spew his anti-gay, anti-equal rights agenda. He chose to roll the dice on his own.

Well, it so happened that reality was staring at A&E right in the face before the company so wisely chose to strike it down. Why didn't they simply hire paid actors to read out their own well-conceived and noninflammatory scripts, instead of suspending one of their most popular figures simply for the sake of that one interview whose outcome they couldn't entirely predict?
This is hypocrisy at its finest, and it doesn't just concern A&E. It's the contemporary, consuming tide of social belief, and in our sadly deluded society, no one, absolutely no one, can risk fighting against it.

This is freedom of speech at work. The man expressed his increasingly backwards beliefs, and an employer who didn't want to look bad suspended him. As I said before, it's not dissimilar from wearing racist/homophobic apparel to work, you putting such rants on your facebook where your employer can see it.

I don't understand the incessant bringing up of his contract either. He was not interviewed by GQ as an employee or representative of A&E but as an individual. His public life, even associated with Duck Dynasty, is not dictated by others. It wasn't right of A&E to suspend him for answering truthfully a question he was asked.

Except in the interviewer never asked him this, he volunteered the information. He was eager to talk about this to circumvent A&E.

Jason Biggs made the comment on Twitter that he'd "totes dip" his fingers into Paul Ryan's wife's asshole. He wasn't reprimanded, and there were no outcries to get him kicked off Nickelodeon's TMNT show or a boycotting of its sponsors. Just as there shouldn't have been because that kind of shit is silly. But usually the loudest outcries and actions are when a conservative voices an opinion.

That's a weird and gross comment, but not really comparable. Jason Biggs didn't go out of his way to degrade millions of people for who they fall in love with and are attracted to, he just made a tasteless joke. And as someone already mentioned, a commenter on MSNBC was fired for mocking Sarah Palin, I wonder how many Fox News broadcasters have been fired for making jokes about, say, the Clintons. Hmmm...

Imagine making a comment on Facebook (with the privacy settings set to "public") that your employer sees and dislikes and fires you over. Is that right? Does your employer really need to "protect the image of the company" if you're off work when making such comments?

This happens all the time, it is the world we live in. When you set something to "public" on facebook (or even really when you don't) you're participating visibly in a public forum. Statements made on facebook can and do reflect back on your employer and if they don't like it it's possible you will be fired.

[Intersection]

Highwind Dragoon:
I still feel as if there's a fundamental lack of proportion here; Robertson's few comments were nowhere near as offensive as to warrant his full-blown suspension from a wildly popular TV series.
But, of course, there's no denying that he could have been ever so slightly more tactful in a public interview. In fact A&E had its reasons for suspending him, and it certainly had the authority to do so.

Just what was this "contract" that Robertson had supposedly broken, though?

Ratty:
I hope you realize that I'm all for equal rights, and that I'm not one to agree with Robertson in this situation.

But there is such a thing as going too far. Just about any opinion that diverges ever so slightly from today's socially 'correct' perception seems to be labeled 'racist' or 'homophobic' without as much as a second thought. And that's the danger here. In our crusade to eradicate discrimination, we sometimes tend to be overzealous.

Who are we to say that he holds "increasingly backwards beliefs"? What makes our own beliefs any more valid? And what's to say that our social tides won't change?
Who are we to say that Robertson has an "anti-gay, anti-equal rights agenda"? From what I've read, the man was being quite honest, and was genuinely interested in sharing his own convictions -- that's something you have to respect, no matter how strongly you disagree with him.
Now, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but it's only to show you that the picture isn't entirely in black in white. There are always subtleties that we need to handle.

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

@PFG:
Are you telling them that they're gonna end up fucking their animals, (slippery slope fallacy), and going straight to hell for their supposedly sinful ways?

If so, then you would be offending.  But you're not saying that, so you're ok.
(I like a woman's anus, vagina, and mouth )

Don't try to make it like he wasn't being offensive.  No one likes to be verbally lynched for something they have no control over, for it to be called a 'sin' (Naturalistic fallacy - appeal to morality), or 'not logical' (Informal Fallacy - appeal to ignorance), with a little "Appeal to the People" thrown in there.

1000 years ago it was lepers.  500 years ago it was the Irish.  100 years ago it was the Italians.  50 years ago it was the blacks.  30 years ago it was the gays. Veeerry slowly the world evolves past the nonsense.
(I made up these dates)

[crisis]

Men in Black - People







So did y'all catch KONY yet?

[Abnormal Freak]

Except in the interviewer never asked him this, he volunteered the information. He was eager to talk about this to circumvent A&E.

The question, "What, in your mind, is sinful?" is pretty clear-cut.

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson?currentPage=2

[Highwind Dragoon]

Just what was this "contract" that Robertson had supposedly broken, though?

Probably a standard TV contract, filled with multiple incentives and escape clauses.

[Ratty]

The question, "What, in your mind, is sinful?" is pretty clear-cut.

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson?currentPage=2

Except that he started insulting gays in the car on the way to the interview, before that question was even asked. Sometimes I think the only people who think about gay sex more than gays are "conservative Christians" like Robertson. Though you're right he started getting even more hateful and absurd after he was actually asked about it, though his crudeness stayed around the same level.

Highwind Dragoon:
I still feel as if there's a fundamental lack of proportion here; Robertson's few comments were nowhere near as offensive as to warrant his full-blown suspension from a wildly popular TV series.
But, of course, there's no denying that he could have been ever so slightly more tactful in a public interview. In fact A&E had its reasons for suspending him, and it certainly had the authority to do so.

Just what was this "contract" that Robertson had supposedly broken, though?

Ratty:
I hope you realize that I'm all for equal rights, and that I'm not one to agree with Robertson in this situation.

But there is such a thing as going too far. Just about any opinion that diverges ever so slightly from today's socially 'correct' perception seems to be labeled 'racist' or 'homophobic' without as much as a second thought. And that's the danger here. In our crusade to eradicate discrimination, we sometimes tend to be overzealous.

Yes, though casually equating gays with terrorists hardly seems like a small charge, it's sadly not an unsurprising one for a 67 year old man to hold. Which brings up the next point...

Who are we to say that he holds "increasingly backwards beliefs"? What makes our own beliefs any more valid? And what's to say that our social tides won't change?

Of course social tides change, but as for who's to say his beliefs are becoming increasingly outdated: http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/gay-marriage-key-data-points-from-pew-research/ homophobia is broken pretty clearly along generational lines. The current and upcoming generations are much more supportive of equal rights for gays than older generations.

Who are we to say that Robertson has an "anti-gay, anti-equal rights agenda"? From what I've read, the man was being quite honest, and was genuinely interested in sharing his own convictions -- that's something you have to respect, no matter how strongly you disagree with him.
Now, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but it's only to show you that the picture isn't entirely in black in white. There are always subtleties that we need to handle.

Cultural relativism is an important factor to keep in mind, but it's also a slippery slope. The classic example is Nazis (it always comes back to Nazis...) if you take cultural relativism to its natural conclusion then we can not judge them for the atrocities they committed, because we are not part of their culture. This is the way I view religious bigots like Richardson, I do not share his culture and beliefs, but I can still judge that they are wrong. Because I have my own moral compass which says that doing harm to others for no demonstrable reason (no "my book says it's a sin" doesn't count as a demonstrable wrong) is bad.

[theANdROId]

But in general, disagreeing with something and even speaking out about it should not mean you are phobic or hateful.  I'd bet that most of the time, the person who disagrees is neither phobic nor hateful...but nobody cares.  They're too eager to rant, blast, curse, and verbally stone those who disagree to care.  There are those who hatefully and fearfully disagree with something, but not everyone who disagrees is phobic or hateful.  It'd be a nice change for humanity to realize and maybe consider that once and awhile.  We aren't a cookie-cutter race.  Isn't the grand idea of America that many different people are coming together despite their differences?  Why then is our first response to another's difference so often to attack?  Again, in general...Duck Dynasty aside.