quote:Originally posted by NR: He is racist, homophobic and chauvinist. He described himself as such by his own words.
Redneck? Ok, that was probably inappropriate but most "rednecks" I've met don't find that name offensive and often wear it with pride.
There you go with the sterotypes again.
I dunno, maybe so. I did a ton of survey work for lots of country folk in West Virginia, and nobody there seemed to mind being called a "redneck" by a "hippie" from California.
Thats probably because they have learned to be "tolerant" of others...
Except, most often than not, I was called a "hippie" first, when they realized I wasn't from "'round here", and asked where I was from, along with the question, "Isn't California gonna break off as an island from all the earthquakes?".
So..."they" started it huh?
-------------------- ***********************
It's all in the timing... Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NR: He is racist, homophobic and chauvinist. He described himself as such by his own words.
Redneck? Ok, that was probably inappropriate but most "rednecks" I've met don't find that name offensive and often wear it with pride.
There you go with the sterotypes again.
I dunno, maybe so. I did a ton of survey work for lots of country folk in West Virginia, and nobody there seemed to mind being called a "redneck" by a "hippie" from California.
Just a joke. The only reason I'm in this discussion is to point out what I personally see as fallacies of the whole universal acceptance thing. Bigotry to one degree or another is part of our make up and it's not necessarily a bad thing. It keeps truly abhorrent things in check and it inspires lively debate on chat boards.
One of my concerns though is where is the line drawn and who draws that line. Does an all accepting society have to be just that, all accepting? Would a group of pedophiles be allowed to become a part of mainstream society? Don't chuckle and say "of course not", it may be sick and twisted to you and me but there's a lot of them out there. Do we have to accept them as normal behaving people too?
In an all accepting society who sets the standards? Someone has to or we'll devolve back into savages.
You are correct, everyone is a bigot in one way or another, even myself. I just don't believe that the 1st Amendment protects you from the consequences of being a bigot, and yet that seems to be the banner under which people are rushing to defend "Mr." Robertson.
IMO, a tolerant society is willing to entertain all "ideas" and treat them equally regardless of who presents them and how off the wall or contrary to the "norm" they may seem. HOWEVER, after careful examination, and open debate, some of those ideas should be equally rejected because they are a detriment to human society as a whole. I also believe that the ideas of some are beyond debate, because they are inherently wrong and/or violate the basic rights of others.
Does this mean we have to accept everyone and everything they do in order to be a tolerant society? I don't believe so.
Do I think religion should decide? No way, history is ripe with examples of "religious tolerance"...
IMO, the standards must be set, (as best can be set), mostly by society as a whole, but also by a few basic truths that are self evident.
Call me intolerant, but I will not tolerate someone being sexist, racist or homophobic, and damn the consequences. IMO, behaving in such a manner violates your basic rights as a living human on the planet Earth.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NR: He is racist, homophobic and chauvinist. He described himself as such by his own words.
Redneck? Ok, that was probably inappropriate but most "rednecks" I've met don't find that name offensive and often wear it with pride.
There you go with the sterotypes again.
I dunno, maybe so. I did a ton of survey work for lots of country folk in West Virginia, and nobody there seemed to mind being called a "redneck" by a "hippie" from California.
Thats probably because they have learned to be "tolerant" of others...
Except, most often than not, I was called a "hippie" first, when they realized I wasn't from "'round here", and asked where I was from, along with the question, "Isn't California gonna break off as an island from all the earthquakes?".
So..."they" started it huh?
Yup, then I shook their hand and went to work. I didn't mind being called a hippie and they didn't mind be called a redneck. The reason? Cause I act like a hippie and they act like rednecks. There was no hate or moral condemnation behind it, nor was it based on something a person has no control over, such sex or race.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Phil Robertson would have "slandered" someone, then I wouldn't have defended him as vehemently as I have here...but he DIDN'T...he merely stated his beliefs
posted
"Call me intolerant, but I will not tolerate someone being sexist, racist or homophobic, and damn the consequences. IMO, behaving in such a manner violates your basic rights as a living human on the planet Earth."
Starting with homosexuals, we need to be tolerant of them. Where does that leave the poor bisexuals, transsexuals, polysexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, etc.? Are they taboo and a subject for our scorn or lumped under the homosexual umbrella?
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cmon, the guy said that all the blacks he ever knew when he was young were happy under Jim Crow laws, suggested that blacks today are happy cause of entitlements and welfare, objectifies women by referring to them as a reproductive organ and said that homosexuals are offenders and sinners.
Right off the bat, I really don't understand why anyone would think that no one would find this offensive, nor do I understand why anyone should be surprised if they lost their job after making such statements, especially when said job is dependent on public opinion.
This is not a matter of 1st amendment rights. It is a matter of someone losing their job because of a few ignorant, bonehead, and (ignorantly?) bigoted statements and it happens all the time. If weren't anyone who were "famous", or a public official, you probably wouldn't have even heard about it.
If anything, people should be upset with A&E, not the LGBT crowd, since all they did was voice their opinion and maybe make a few phone calls. Someone at A&E made the decision to can him.
A&E will keep him suspended, while things cool down, (playing the entire new season of DD they just finished filming, while bringing in all the advertising money that comes with it), "Mr." Robertson, will issue a few more apologies, and they will bring DD back in a year or so once the masses have gone back to sleep.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
NR, I actually agree with some of what you're saying. We're essentially an intolerant people and that should change a bit. But a guy that makes duck calls, celebrity or not, shouldn't raise anyone's hackles regardless of what he says or believes.
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i have to admit to complete confusion on this whole thing, including why people even care.
Conservatives say the Boss is the Boss, right? who is really being hypocritical here? I think the Boss is the Boss, and the Boss can say shave your beard and take a damn shower before you come to work too, but obviously these guys didn't get that memo
and this guy was being featured in GQ? isn't that a men's fashion magazine or something like that?
i am sure there's a contract with specifics about who can say what, and my bet is that this is all just a big marketing gimic...
duck dyansty sales will soar over this....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People care because they mistakenly believe that his 1st Amendment rights have somehow been violated by the evil "liberals" because he is "conservative".
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NR: People care because they mistakenly believe that his 1st Amendment rights have somehow been violated by the evil "liberals" because he is "conservative".
i support his right to say whatever he wants to say and not go to jail, or be fined, even tho i think he needs a shower,shave and some clothes that are not camo
and A&E is exersizing their first ammendment right to share their opinion of his exersize of his rights by *suspending(?)* him if he violated a portion of his contract... his lawyers and their lawyers can both reach deep into both of hteir pockets to figure out who got screwed right?
it's not like they all aren't going to make more moeny off this brewhahaha ...
i'm more likeley to convert to Catholicism because of the new Popes great humanistic attitude than i am to spend one thin dime on any of the duck dynasty stuff they sell at walmart now.... but i wasn't going to spend any money on them before this hppened either...
i have to listen to all kinds of racist, homphobic and religous preference talk whnever i go anywhere here, (i live just a little bit north of those guys) what he said isn't something i don't hear all th time, and i don't like it, but i know i ain't going to change these guys minds...
i had to change my mind on a few of these details myslef... heck i was agaisnt gay marriage but For civil unions between anybody.. even thrreesies and fourses... marriage to memeans Church and you cannot force a Church to perform weddings... so i formwerly beleived that we as asociety should create Civil Unions for 'alternative" couplings.... but, after the Conservatives decided to ban Civil Unions? I realised that gay marraige would most likely have to Constitutionally tested, and it has been and it's winning the tests.... We are always changing the meanings of words... Gay peopel getting married doesn't hurt my marriage..... so waht the heck...
football players, baseball players all kinds of people who are under contrtact have to live by these rules, they aren't being punished if they vilolate them it's business.... you don't sign a contract you can't live with.... if A&E violated their contract by taking action? then he should be happy when his lawyer gets done reaming them... but iseriously doubt A&E would risk taking an acion like this that isn't covered under contract..
it's the same with Unions. I support their right to exist, and nogotiate, but then they have to deliver what they promise and they have to follow whtever rules are in the contract they agreed to... That's not hypocrisy, that's how the system is supposed to work....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Free speech under the Constitution is totally in line with the Founding Fathers' idea to let folks speak up against or for the idea of the day. But, what they were worried about was troops coming into their homes and ****in' up ****.
You don't see that, so much, today. But, back then? Yeah, it happened alla time.
posted
It's hard to feel to sorry for them at $200,000 an episode. At least that's what someone said they make.
I think i could take the heat for that price, especially since it doesn't appear to take much to do some of these reality shows, a lot of luck to get cast. Only in America.
posted
Mr. Robertson can say anything he wants, but A&E has the right to protect their brand. Mr. Robertson can if he wishes go to another channel and start another TV show, which is exactly what IMUS did after being dismissed. Fans of Mr. Robertson can protest A&E, but if A&E feels their audience doesn't want to be associated with his views they have every right to fire him, A&E will have to deal with their decision as well, I believe they are in the business of attracting viewers.
-------------------- Let's Go METS!!! Posts: 3317 | From: CT | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many of you subscribe to GQ magazine? I bet glass does.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NR: People care because they mistakenly believe that his 1st Amendment rights have somehow been violated by the evil "liberals" because he is "conservative".
i support his right to say whatever he wants to say and not go to jail, or be fined, even tho i think he needs a shower,shave and some clothes that are not camo
and A&E is exersizing their first ammendment right to share their opinion of his exersize of his rights by *suspending(?)* him if he violated a portion of his contract... his lawyers and their lawyers can both reach deep into both of hteir pockets to figure out who got screwed right?
it's not like they all aren't going to make more moeny off this brewhahaha ...
i'm more likeley to convert to Catholicism because of the new Popes great humanistic attitude than i am to spend one thin dime on any of the duck dynasty stuff they sell at walmart now.... but i wasn't going to spend any money on them before this hppened either...
i have to listen to all kinds of racist, homphobic and religous preference talk whnever i go anywhere here, (i live just a little bit north of those guys) what he said isn't something i don't hear all th time, and i don't like it, but i know i ain't going to change these guys minds...
i had to change my mind on a few of these details myslef... heck i was agaisnt gay marriage but For civil unions between anybody.. even thrreesies and fourses... marriage to memeans Church and you cannot force a Church to perform weddings... so i formwerly beleived that we as asociety should create Civil Unions for 'alternative" couplings.... but, after the Conservatives decided to ban Civil Unions? I realised that gay marraige would most likely have to Constitutionally tested, and it has been and it's winning the tests.... We are always changing the meanings of words... Gay peopel getting married doesn't hurt my marriage..... so waht the heck...
football players, baseball players all kinds of people who are under contrtact have to live by these rules, they aren't being punished if they vilolate them it's business.... you don't sign a contract you can't live with.... if A&E violated their contract by taking action? then he should be happy when his lawyer gets done reaming them... but iseriously doubt A&E would risk taking an acion like this that isn't covered under contract..
it's the same with Unions. I support their right to exist, and nogotiate, but then they have to deliver what they promise and they have to follow whtever rules are in the contract they agreed to... That's not hypocrisy, that's how the system is supposed to work....
posted
I have always been offended by rays hetero-phobic remarks. Should he lose his job too?
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Upside: What does GQ stand for anyway? Gays and Queers? Galavanting Queens? Anyone?
Hopefully you are just joking. Gentlemans Quarterly. It's hard to tell if your joking with the idiots that post here though.
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK so i fianlly opened up GQ's website and it wasn't waht i thought it was...
i found this image without having to look too long;
i guess it's shoe ad?
anyway, i have now looked at GQ online... i am mostly a jeans and leathers person... i have one suit which is tailored and i wear it once or twice a year, on the other hand i have several pairs o leather pants and two leather jackets and one leather coat... i wear them when it's cold out, which is more often than it should be lately....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Upside: Just trying to get a rise out of NR.
Eh, I'm done flogging that horse...
I got more of a rise out of your profile picture anyway. Nice dress.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
BTW, A&E is so upset with "Mr." Robertson that they are running a 25 episode marathon of DD tomorrow. Good to know that they stand behind their convictions.
P.S, don't forget to download the DD app for your iPhone.
"As you play, your character will go from a Bluetooth-earpiece-wearing, clean-shaven businessman, to a fully camouflaged, long-haired, bandana-wearing redneck with a beard that would even make Phil jealous."
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: OK so i fianlly opened up GQ's website and it wasn't waht i thought it was...
i found this image without having to look too long;
i guess it's shoe ad?
anyway, i have now looked at GQ online... i am mostly a jeans and leathers person... i have one suit which is tailored and i wear it once or twice a year, on the other hand i have several pairs o leather pants and two leather jackets and one leather coat... i wear them when it's cold out, which is more often than it should be lately....
"All the other kids with the pumped up kicks"?
It's like watching any commercial these days... What you see usually has absolutely NOTHING to do with the product being advertised.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Upside: Just trying to get a rise out of NR.
Eh, I'm done flogging that horse...
I got more of a rise out of your profile picture anyway. Nice dress.
LOL, I forgot all about that! Call me intolerant will ya, look at the clothes I go fishing in! Got quite a few raised eyebrows with that one.
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's actually 4 or 5 different ones, the intent was to look as slovenly as possible. I'll have to see if I can find any of the others and change the profile pic.
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Upside: Just trying to get a rise out of NR.
Eh, I'm done flogging that horse...
I got more of a rise out of your profile picture anyway. Nice dress.
LOL, I forgot all about that! Call me intolerant will ya, look at the clothes I go fishing in! Got quite a few raised eyebrows with that one.
Did you lose a fishing bet or something?
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: an no stockings, you really should be ashamed
Hahah... Scandalous.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
