Forums / Discussion / General

Apparently one of the guys on the show stated an opinion. Big mistake, Hollywood. All joking aside, though:

I don't watch Duck Dynasty. Hate the show. But I wanted to teach you people about the nature of opinions. Nobody is quiet about their opinions. That's how humans work. I hate how people tell others their opinions but once one 'famous' person states theirs, everyone gets mad. Why can't he have an opinion? Why is it bad that people prefer different things? Sure, homosexuality happens in almost all animals, but so do interspecies having sexual relations. Does that mean beastiality should be legalized? He has the freedom to speak his opinions. That's what the country was founded upon. And just because he states his opinion does not mean that he should face any consequences. I could go to school, shout "Gays Are Gross!" and nobody would care, but on the internet, everyone cares for some reason. Now that just sounds like stupidity rather than opinions.

And so I guess A&E is kicking him off the show.

Hmm, I think a better way to put it is that instead of countering intolerance with hate, people should find other ways to spread tolerance. I personally don't like the internet lynch mobs. I don't agree at all with what that guy said, but I don't hate him for it, and I don't think its right to demand his head on a platter.

^
that's what I'm talking about. How is that supposed to change his mind or others?

You think that's bad? My mum practically kicked my ass out of the house before I even hit 13, and I never even met my dad. My only friend till I was 10 was the faggot prick next door who was always beating the shit out of me and telling me I wasn’t worth shit. Its not even like I had a choice, the town fucking had something like 9 people living in it, I shit you not. My entire adolescence was just moving around from place trying to get along with people who didn’t even want me.

You think that’s the worst? My only friend was an Asian guy in his thirties or something, who only kept me around because he thought I could help him get laid. The only perk was that I also got to hang around with this cute ginger chick, she was flat as a pancake sure, but damn she was a total nymph. She must have been a sadist or something cause she always took pleasure in hitting me and telling me how she loved to get wet.

But dear god the bane of my existence was this adult couple that I could NOT seem to avoid. You know these types of couples that are absolutely sickening, like they wear matching outfits and finish each other’s sentences? Yeah they were fucking creepers, and they had a cat, which was at least twice as annoying as they were, I swear this thing would never shut the fuck up.

Like I said I ended up moving from town to town getting into fights with other kids my age, even adults from time to time.

The only thing that kept me going was my dream to become a pokemon master.

>Implying you wouldn't give your left nut to be a pokemon trainer.
>mfw

That's pretty much of the internet. Say a unpopular opinion and get downvoted to hell. Say a popular one and get a bunch of upvotes. That's how karma whores in disguise people get easy upvotes.

I was gonna make a thread concerning this, but it looks like you beat me to it.

Phil probably should have cut himself off at this point (considering he's a national TV star), but instead he paraphrased Corinthians. "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won’t inherit the kingdom of God," he warned. "Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."

What's more, according to him, it's basically incomprehensible. "It seems to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus," he explained. "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."

Within minutes of GQ revealing Robertson's quotes (which will appear in the January issue), GLAAD issued a fiery response -- and the gay-rights organization is none too pleased.

"Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe," said GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz. "He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans -- and Americans -- who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families."

Source:
http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/-duck-dynasty--star-s-anti-gay-remarks-spark-outrage-134231650.html
---------------------------

It's the whole Paula Deen fiasco all over again. People are surprised that a generic hillbilly would show prejudice against someone else. In the south. Oh God, the unexpected.

I don't watch the show, but from what I've been told, Phil has pontificated about homosexuality before like a good Christian boy, so the fact that people are astonished is beyond me.

GLAAD has always been a particularly douchey group. They're a hate-reversal group that ultimately demonizes homosexuals by going after the wrong people. Like any other special interest group, they've never defended anyone's right for free speech. As ignorant as it is to try and "shut down" homosexual lifestyle, it's as equally idiotic to try and shut down opinions of said.

In the end, I think they just used it as an excuse for the sake of ratings. No one really wants to watch Duck Dynasty to hear opinions about controversial subjects. They wanna see hillbillies act like hillbillies.

Also, if you're wondering why people on the Internet give more of a shit about stuff like this than IRL: It's easier that way.

Big-ot, noun \ˈbi-gət\

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

For a group that loves to spout off the word "bigot" a lot, they sure do live up to its definition. Also, have another quote. One that seems to be missing, since it muddles up their "evil, bigoted backwater hillybilly" message.

"We never, ever judge someone on who's going to heaven, hell. That's the Almighty's job," he told the magazine. "We just love 'em, give 'em the good news about Jesus -- whether they're homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort 'em out later, you see what I'm saying?"

As much as I hate the immediate violent backlash people with unpopular opinions about homosexuals get I can also not completely blame A&E for wanting to boot the guy from the show. A&E is a network that will only keep Duck Dynasty around for as long as the ratings will give them the cash, and if there is anything that will cause a threat to their biggest and newest cash cow then they will cut it out like a tumor to keep their franchise alive. I highly doubt A&E is kicking him off because they are pro gay rights, but they know that enough people will boycott the show to cause a great blow to the ratings if they do not at least pretend they are on the LGBT's side. I do find it interesting that the network decided to outright abandon the poor guy rather than try to make up some BS apology that claims his views do not directly reflect the network's.

My dad is a huge Duck Dynasty fan and he has been completely ripshit on facebook this morning about the whole thing. He is completely neutral on the gay rights issue but he can't stand the idea of someone getting kicked from his favorite show because of an opinion the guy said. My dad is very big on the right to an opinion thing (gee I'm not like that at all). I'm just glad he and my sister are not friends on facebook. Let's just say my sister is, hmmm, a bit of the tumblr feminist type. I can see the flaming shitstorms going on back and forth for months.

As xTSGx noted, I really don't like how the media and the LGBT community (GLAAD in particular) automatically take the worst parts of what the guy said and smear it everywhere. I'm also pretty pissed that GLAAD in particular basically demanded A&E cut their ties with the man, because we all know the guy might spread his homophobic message on a show about duck callers and A&E would be completely ok about airing the footage. I'm curious, it's apparent that these quotes are from a GQ article that will be in a future issue. Does this mean that an interview took place that specifically asked this guy about his opinions on the gay rights issue? Well shit, I guess the guy should just lie about his beliefs then for the sake of his fanbase!

Do I completely disagree with Mr. Duck Dynasty's opinions? Of course I do! Am I, as someone with close ties to people that are LGBT, a little hurt when I see someone have these opinions? Yes, I am. But I would never think of boycotting a show that has nothing to do with the gay rights issue just because one person (or multiple people) on there are against gay rights. Their opinion really isn't my business.

Pretty much this.

I could never stand hate speech, but then again, we are living in a age where everything is considered hate speech.

I live in the south. Better head down to that ol' underground bunker.

Well my biggest issue is that A&E wants to remove the show. More power to them, as well! If they want to boot their biggest show, then why not? The guys on the show don't need it. Hell, they're millionaires! Why would they care?

One of the things that pisses me off is that if someone disagrees with any sort of homosexual lifestyle, everyone hates them. When someone IS gay, though, then they get praised for their beliefs.

Employees don’t have a Constitutional right to free speech or freedom of expression at work. The Constitution’s right to free speech only applies when the government is trying to restrict it. Even then, it’s not absolute. There is no free speech in your house; ask your mom. And there is no legal right to free speech or expression at work. (If you work for the government, there is a special set of rules that apply.)

So employers are generally free to restrict employee speech, at least while they are at work. Phil most likely has some clause in his contract that restricts various behaviors.

"[…] if someone disagrees with any sort of homosexual lifestyle, everyone hates them."

You want to know why? It's because, in doing so, they show how much they hate anyone who's different from them. In other words, it shows their stupidity and inability to view things through other peoples' eyes. And that's why people hate them, because they're being stupid and intolerant.

And that's exactly what the (former) Duck Dynasty person did. His whole "vaginas are better than anuses" thing is just his opinion, but the way he proclaimed it, along with him likening gay people to other "sinners", was just stupid, and showed (well, confirmed) he's a hateful person.

Now, of course, everyone's entitled to their opinions. But, as I always say, freedom is no excuse for stupidity. If your opinion happens to be hugely unpopular, then you probably should keep it to yourself. I, personally, am of the opinion that a man's anus has much more to offer than a vagina (think prostate). Nobody should care about that, and nobody should care that only a small portion of the population shares that opinion.

But it's when people start disparaging everyone who disagrees with them that they take it too far. I, for example, don't call straight people 'idiots', 'losers', and 'mindless apes driven only by the urge to mate' for preferring the opposite gender. I doubt many straight people would take kindly to that. Likewise, I don't like to be called 'sinner' or 'abomination' or 'mentally ill' because I'm gay.

So, if someone disagrees with my "homosexual lifestyle" (which, by the way, is the stupidest term ever), that's one thing, but if they start trying to make me feel inferior because of it, then that's going too far.

Many people argue that the pro-gay backlash against the Duck Dynasty guy is a sign of religious persecution against Christians. To that I say "Call me when you get beaten to death for walking down the street wearing the cross on a necklace, THEN we'll talk about persecution." Because when it comes down to it, Christianity is a choice, and being gay is not. If you're going to hate someone for being different, it's marginally more justifiable to do so because they chose to be different, rather than because they were born different. Not that it's actually justifiable in either case.

I'm not 100% sure A&E did the right thing in suspending him from the show, though. I mean, it was pretty clear that he was a bigoted redneck from the get go, and that's really the whole point of the show (I think). So why now? Because GLAAD got mad? That seems likely, because GLAAD is influential.

And that's where my argument swings both ways. GLAAD is, shall we say, not the most tolerant of rights groups. It's no PETA, but it sure has had its share of controversy. I think there is a double standard to some extent when it comes to people being too afraid to disparage gay people out of fear of being labeled a hater. I remember a case in England where a pair of really abusive gay foster parents slipped through the system for years because social workers were too afraid of being called homophobic to report it.

So when people start to play the victim, again, that's breaking my "freedom is no excuse for stupidity" rule. Because yes, you may be a victim of homophobia, but the minute you start exaggerating it is the minute you start losing moral support from others.

So basically, here's what I think: you can express your opinions all you want, but be aware of what you're saying and any possible backlashes that may come from it. If the Duck Dynasty guy had said "I don't like gay sex", then that's perfectly okay. If he had said "I don't like gay sex, and I hate gay people because of it", that's less okay, but still, he's entitled to that opinion. But what he said was something like "I don't like gay sex, and all gay people are sinners akin to drunks, terrorists, and zoophiles, who will be damned for eternity by God", and that's going a little too far.

There are plenty who disagree with that statement, and naturally, plenty who agree. But I suppose if you're stupid enough to enjoy Duck Dynasty, you're stupid enough to hate people for being different.

I'm not entirely sure why you are directing this at me. I never said freedom of speech meant freedom of consequence. Quite the opposite in fact. While I find A&E's course of action to be a little weird I also find it completely justified because it is a network and it's the ratings that matter to them. The only ones I am really pissed at are the GLAAD people that seem to think anyone that doesn't share an opinion should be banned from television, even on shows that have nothing to do with the matter. Also the GQ article that revealed these quotes had such a bias it was disgusting. Basically I hold the belief that you have the right to say whatever you want, but you'd better be ready for the consequences of what you say. Obviously this is a lesson a lot of people in this situation need to learn

So who is butthurt?

But I wanted to teach you people about the nature of opinions.

Why is OP schooling us on the nature of opinions?

Who actually cares about this?

Enough people to start a Facebook page boycotting A&E unless they bring Phil Robertson back that already has 1.2 million likes, apparently.

I personally don't watch Duck Dynasty, but I respect the Robertsons for not being afraid to express their religious beliefs. As to the nature of this controversy, the only thing that concerns me is whether or not Phil Robertson technically works for A&E. If he does, it's against the law for him to be fired due to his religious beliefs. If not, then A&E is well within their right to fire him. I will defend the 1st Amendment to my dying breath, but saying whatever you want is not without consequences.

No. I get it. People like the show but who here cares and why does OP think we care?

I don’t watch Duck Dynasty. Hate the show. But I wanted to teach you people about the nature of opinions. Nobody is quiet about their opinions

Isn't OP's rant an opinion? Also, hello irony this is my opinion: I don't care but it is making for one funny meme.

I have no idea why I quoted you, so I apologize for any confusion.

I don't think people on reality shows count as "workers" for the network. Of course, I am no expert on behind-the-scenes when it comes to networks and reality tv, but I imagine everyone that showed up in front of that camera had to sign a contract with the network which most likely involved rules and guidelines of what they can and can't do when it comes to interviews, social media, basically anything public outside of the sanctity of the network. The contract might also state something along the lines of the network being allowed to terminate and add on cast members as they see fit. In the whole scheme of things, reality tv cast members are pretty expendable it seems.

Also obligatory,

The only reason anyone would be angry about this is if they too agree with that person's opinion. The only backlash this person is receiving is other people disagreeing with him, which is just a form of sharing their opinion.

He should be able to share his opinion freely, but once other people share their opinion that is in disagreement with his, it's not fair? Why? What a hypocritical argument.

Him getting fired could just be another representation of the network's opinion on homosexuality. I see no problem with this.

I can't believe Dumbledore would say something like this. I thought he WAS gay!

I will defend the 1st Amendment to my dying breath, but saying whatever you want is not without consequences.

If the Duck Dynasty guy had said “I don’t like gay sex”, then that’s perfectly okay. If he had said “I don’t like gay sex, and I hate gay people because of it”, that’s less okay, but still, he’s entitled to that opinion. But what he said was something like “I don’t like gay sex, and all gay people are sinners akin to drunks, terrorists, and zoophiles, who will be damned for eternity by God”, and that’s going a little too far.

These two by Flare Boost and opspe probably best summarize my opinions.

I would lean more towards opspe's quote, but there is a possibility for the widespread opinion of his stance leading to the censorship of some religions. Of course, I'm biased because I'm religious (Christian, specifically) and the Bible certainly has the language the Duck Dynasty guy/Phil Robertson merely mimicked. You could easily say that if Robertson's quotes were hate speech, then the Bible has a ton of hate speech as well. If something harming others came from a church, then the next logical step would be to intervene in a way I don't think many would be comfortable with.

This is where I lean more to Flare Boost's quote. I don't think anyone in the public arena should be exposed to hate speech or religious tenets, but television shows tend to be private. Just like Pat Robertson's 700 Club shows have a disclaimer, perhaps shows should come up with the same disclaimer and adjust the rating of that show (I don't think it's live) if it includes such content.

And if your show gets boycotted for it, because of what someone said, then that's what comes with the territory.
 
I also saw some good points about what you would expect from people with this background. But again, I don't think Duck Dynasty is live. So that means A&E could have very easily edited it out. I would hope that it wasn't crucial to the show or the episode.

So perhaps A&E was just really dumb or has the mindset of "Any press is good press."

My post got negative karma! That means I'm being oppressed! Why can't I share my opinion!? This is bullshit! WHAT THE FUCK, INTERNET!?

Hypocrisy abounds with this story. As a fellow downvotee, I say let's all be oppressed together.

They can't hold down the Master-Race forever.

I'm hoping he…

(takes off shades)

…dies nasty.

YEAAAAAAAHHHHHH

Verbose said:

I also saw some good points about what you would expect from people with this background. But again, I don’t think Duck Dynasty is live. So that means A&E could have very easily edited it out. I would hope that it wasn’t crucial to the show or the episode.

Edited what out? He was giving an interview to a magazine. To the best of my knowledge, there's never been anything in the show itself that's rustled the PC crowd's jimmies.

Meanwhile, in A&E's totally screwed themselves news, the Paterson's are apparently more than ready to call A&E's bluff. Not surprising given they have a royal flush in the form of a multi-million dollar company and A&E has a pair of eights in the show providing 10% of their total network viewership.

Oh, I didn't watch or read the thing. I could care less personally about the matter.

But even still, most people have contracts that say they can't say or do certain things without one's permission. For example, in my own job, I cannot say something against the aims of my organization or actually say much of anything on the record without permission. So even without the show, A&E could have taken better precautions.