Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson's comments.


WWWTT

Recommended Posts

The reality is both sides do it.

Ok - it may be more prevalent than I thought.

It's part of free speech to use your power as a consumer to express your opinion.

Sure - but using your power of free speech to convince others to make the same choice is bullying with the intent to suppress free speech.

Why can't you see the difference between an individual making a choice and people who try to rally a lynch mob?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 331
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why can't you see the difference between an individual making a choice and people who try to rally a lynch mob?

I wasn't aware there was a lynch mob involved. I'm completely opposed to lynch mobs.

I am, however, completely in favour of A&E having the freedom to choose who they want representing their network.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem here is with people who confuse organized campaigns to suppress the speech of others and freedom of conscious. Such campaigns ARE a denial of free speech. If people, as individuals, simply choose to stop watching the show then they would be exercising their freedom of conscious - but as soon as someone gets up in the media and starts exhorting others to boycott a show they are actively suppressing the speech of others and that is wrong.

There is a difference between a person's right to free speach and obligating someone else to give them a platform to express it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware there was a lynch mob involved. I'm completely opposed to lynch mobs.

Well people organizing boycotts are the same as people organizing lynch mobs - i.e. they use falsehoods, half-truths and group identity to convince people to participate in a mob that dispenses "justice" as defined by the organizer. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between a person's right to free speech and obligating someone else to give them a platform to express it.

I agree - but the point I am making are people who try to organize boycotts in order to force A&E to dump the show ARE bullies trying to create a lynch mob. If there was a spontaneous consumer reaction then that is fine. It is the attempts at organizing/directing such a reaction which are problematic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well people organizing boycotts are the same as people organizing lynch mobs

Big difference, and out of respect for those who've been threatened and murdered by real lynch mobs like the KKK, perhaps you could dial down the rhetoric ?

- i.e. they use falsehoods, half-truths and group identity to convince people to participate in a mob that dispenses "justice" as defined by the organizer.

What evidence do you have of that?

Are you perhaps using falsehoods and half-truths?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well people organizing boycotts are the same as people organizing lynch mobs - i.e. they use falsehoods, half-truths and group identity to convince people to participate in a mob that dispenses "justice" as defined by the organizer.

LOL This is just silly hyperbole... there are no "lynch mobs"...

Was there even a boycott of A&E? They did this pretty darn quick. Looks like they didn't bother to wait for a boycott. He represents the show... they didn't like it, so they fired him.

I agree - but the point I am making are people who try to organize boycotts in order to force A&E to dump the show ARE bullies trying to create a lynch mob. If there was a spontaneous consumer reaction then that is fine. It is the attempts at organizing/directing such a reaction which are problematic.

No, this is more hyperbole. Bopycotts happen all the time. Most of them I don't agree with and some are downright stupid. But, whatever... people have every right to organize and participate in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does organizing a lynch mob infringe on the right to due process?

There is a clear line: if you stand up and repudiate someone's ideas with your own ideas then you are using your free speech. If you don't bother to repudiate those ideas and simply seek to use the power of a mob to bully someone into silence then you are suppressing free speech.

Well put.

Unfortunately our society is blind to the simple truth that they encourage some varieties of bullying while protesting others. Those who are bullies are only encouraged by this hypocritical stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree - but the point I am making are people who try to organize boycotts in order to force A&E to dump the show ARE bullies trying to create a lynch mob. If there was a spontaneous consumer reaction then that is fine. It is the attempts at organizing/directing such a reaction which are problematic.

You don't like it ... but it's legal and people are free to organize any legal sanctions they wish.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well people organizing boycotts are the same as people organizing lynch mobs - i.e. they use falsehoods, half-truths and group identity to convince people to participate in a mob that dispenses "justice" as defined by the organizer.

That's idiotic. The problem with lynch mobs was not because they gathered together using "falsehoods." It was because they killed people.

People decide every day what businesses they want to support. Businesses decide every day what people they want to represent them. This has nothing to do with "lynch mobs." By trying to tie the two together, all you're doing is showing how weak your argument is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was there even a boycott of A&E? They did this pretty darn quick. Looks like they didn't bother to wait for a boycott. He represents the show... they didn't like it, so they fired him.

If this is the way it played out then that is fine. Just like it was fine for Miss Universe organizers to try to ban a transgender competitor. The right to free speech is not a right to a podium. That means I am reacting to the hypothetical scenario where people try to organize a boycott to pressure the owners of the platform into a cancelling a show that they do not want to cancel. Organizing a boycott to silence people is an attempt to suppress free speech. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is the way it played out then that is fine. Just like it was fine for Miss Universe organizers to try to ban a transgender competitor. The right to free speech is not a right to a podium. That means I am reacting to the hypothetical scenario where people try to organize a boycott to pressure the owners of the platform into a cancelling a show that they do not want to cancel. Organizing a boycott to silence people is an attempt to suppress free speech.

No, it isn't.

Suppress free speech? That makes no sense in this case.

Where it makes some sense is if there are threats of violence or if someone firebombed the studio because they disagreed with what A&E was doing... then you'd have a point.

It's from the Dixie Chicks that I learned this is a free speech issue.

It wasn't so much the boycott... which was stupid and senseless, but perfectly within the redneck hillbilly's rights to do... it was the threats of violence and intimidation. Huge difference.

I know nuance isn't the strong suit of some people of the forum... but there is a nuanced difference between boycotts and boycotts with the threat of violence and intimidation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, he didn't compare homosexuality to beastiality. He specifically said 'morph out to'. He also included heterosexual promiscuity. As a heterosexual, I don't take offense.

A&E did. He is their public face for the show. They have every right to fire him, regardless of whether you are offended or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree - but the point I am making are people who try to organize boycotts in order to force A&E to dump the show ARE bullies trying to create a lynch mob. If there was a spontaneous consumer reaction then that is fine. It is the attempts at organizing/directing such a reaction which are problematic.

Free speech runs both ways. I don't see it as a problem at all. It is up to an individual whether they chose to boycott something. Personally, I don't like people telling me what I must boycott and if anything, it makes me less likely to do so, not more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No ones Free Speech is being infringed on here. Bullying gets thrown around so much nowadays it loses all meaning.

I just heard that A&E knew that Phil had these views though.

So they did not fire him for holding those views.... they fired him for making those views public and putting the company in a bad light.

It makes A&E seem even more reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they did not fire him for holding those views.... they fired him for making those views public and putting the company in a bad light.

It makes A&E seem even more reasonable.

If there's evidence they warned him.

A&E is going to be the losers here if another network picks up the show though. I wonder if they back down if they stand to lose the show.

TLC does seedy reality TV much better than A&E anyway.

Edited by Boges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am, however, completely in favour of A&E having the freedom to choose who they want representing their network.

I agree, A&E does have this freedom. The Robertson family also has the freedom to move on to another network and I'm sure their contract lawyers are likely finalizing cancellation of any remaining obligation to A&E as we speak. Their brand is very marketable and very profitable, it is likely in the interest of all parties to end the relationship. I'm sure there is a network out there that would love to profit, and would likely have no trouble at all letting the Robertson's hold their own opinion without bullying them into submission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well first, let's be clear on what was said:

"It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me.

I agree this is a bit rough to read, it's unusual to hear someone express their opinion on this matter so bluntly and to the point and not clouding the issue with rainbows and parades. But is his opinion really that despicable? I'm not sure it's hate he's expressing so much as his inability to identify with homosexuality and the conflict he perceives it presents within his faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does if the objective of the free speech is to bully other people into silence (i.e. deny others the right to express their POV).

Tim, you really need to learn what is freedom of speech before you post.

Not one singletary person soul or entity has denied Phil his freedom of speech. Your continual assertions that lobbying or organizing a campaign to oust/re-hire Phil R is akin to denial of free speech is not only ludicrous but without a shred of merit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will there be calls to boycott Under Armour?

http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2013/12/20/under-armour-duck-dynasty-phil-roberston.html

Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertsons recent anti-gay remarks may have jeopardized the future of his familys popular A&E show, but not their relationship with Under Armour Inc.

Under Armour (NYSE: UA) will continue its sponsorship of the Robertson family after Phil Robertson was suspended indefinitely from Duck Dynasty, TMZ reported.

The company said in a statement to the Business Journal that Robertsons remarks do not reflect Under Armours views.

The recent comments in the GQ article are not reflective of Under Armours beliefs and do not represent our point of view, Under Armour said. As a company, we are committed to diversity and inclusion and believe in treating everyone equally and with respect.

The statement did not directly confirm Under Armours commitment to Duck Dynasty.

Under Armour apparel a lot of camouflage is featured prominently in the show, and Under Armour is the title sponsor of a Duck Dynasty spinoff show, Buck Commander.

The future of the show, now in its fourth season, is unclear since Robertsons suspension. He founded Duck Commander, the multi-million dollar duck call enterprise that became the theme of the TV show. The Robertson family issued a statement saying they cannot the show continuing without Phil.

We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right, the Robertson family said. We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty.

Edited by Boges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...