pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:Our favorite idiot supreme court justice Antonin Scalia has also been exposed as not understanding the first amendment, either. HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE NOT BEING INFRINGED. sheesh

I love so much that you think Scalia thinks the Duck Dynasty fella's first amendment rights have been violated, and that this exposes him as an idiot

Oh please. You couldve just posted the link that it was satire. Color me surpised that I took it as real due to so many other thibgs he's said. if i'm idiot to you now, so be it.

What are your thoughts on jindal?? do you think that these are normal views? or are you just goin to ignore that because it isn't as funny as pointing out i got fooled by a satire (something that never happened to anyone else)

It was not as funny as pointing out you got fooled by a satire, no.

Jindal put out a statement standing up for a constituent and decrying PC overreactions. It's obviously not a first amendment issue, and whether it's Jindal or his communications staffer who wrote the statement (it was his comms person) who doesn't understand that, they've got to do a better job with that.

I think this speaks to the bigger issue of this 'outrage!' culture we live in where people feel personally aggrieved that someone from a show they've probably never watched said some things they disagree with in a magazine they probably don't read, and that person must pay a pound of flesh in order to get back onto the right side of the line. I don't understand the impulse of people to join or side with these groups and shout down voices who disagree with them. I get that the groups do it for visibility and fundraising reasons, but that it works is shitty. It might happen more from the left as they have more of these identity grievance groups, but you see it from the right too. This "War on Christmas" thing pushed by Fox and others, which (like the more left leaning things of this nature) does point out some legitimately inappropriate or absurdly PC anti-Christian stuff in a sea of minor infractions, is driven to a ridiculous extreme and comes across as being thin-skinned and reactionary.

For the majority of these incidents personally thinking less of the person, and maybe making a decision to stop watching their show (but only if you didn't like it a lot) seems like plenty of a reaction. And yeah, if the person said something truly awful (what the Duck Dynasty guy really wasn't that absurd of a statement, especially when you consider the whole reason he's on TV is because he's a backward hillbilly) then maybe break out the pitchforks and torches. But this overreaction to every little thing is annoying and counterproductive.

i take a little umbrage with the idea that what he said wasn't absurd. nor is it a bad thing that people learn his ideas on things, if they were watching the show and not realizing it (since a lot of stuff gets edited on these fake reality shows).

here's the article, btw

lumping everything into an 'outrage culture' seems a bit extreme, to me. plenty of people have plenty of good reasons to point out when others say racist/homophobic/crazy things.

what he said about gays wasn't that surprising i guess, but this is absolutely outrageous

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

and equating something like this to the "WAR ON CHRISTMAS" is laughable

also i love the "I love that you think x because y posts and therefore you're an idiot" from jerz followed by a long diatribe on our "culture" which is basically just conservative word vomit. it's amazing to me that this duck dynasty guy can say a bunch of "goofy" but ultimately hateful shit like this and the right is like, "well he's just speaking his mind!!" and that's the end of their opinion.

td11 wrote:and equating something like this to the "WAR ON CHRISTMAS" is laughable

You don't think the War of Christmas is outrage that is deliberately magnified to incite the base and improve fundraising? Or you don't think there is a corresponding culture on the left that expresses PC outrage in order to incite their supporters?

Every time something like this is posted, where a metaphor or simile is used to explain a position, I just shake my head:

1. metaphor comparing two unlike things in order to highlight a way that they are similar
2. Inevitable interjection by someone who apparently never learned what a metaphor or simile is: "These aren't exactly the saaaaaaaaaame!" or "They are different in degree and you are an idiot for comparing them!!!" or "I am personally offended at your simile, and I stopped reading before you explained why it makes sense as an illustrative tool."

td11 wrote:what he said about gays wasn't that surprising i guess, but this is absolutely outrageous

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

What should happen to him? He's obviously lying here, right?

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:and equating something like this to the "WAR ON CHRISTMAS" is laughable

You don't think the War of Christmas is outrage that is deliberately magnified to incite the base and improve fundraising? Or you don't think there is a corresponding culture on the left that expresses PC outrage in order to incite their supporters?

Every time something like this is posted, where a metaphor or simile is used to explain a position, I just shake my head:

1. metaphor comparing two unlike things in order to highlight a way that they are similar
2. Inevitable interjection by someone who apparently never learned what a metaphor or simile is: "These aren't exactly the saaaaaaaaaame!" or "They are different in degree and you are an idiot for comparing them!!!" or "I am personally offended at your simile, and I stopped reading before you explained why it makes sense as an illustrative tool."

it's not an illustrative tool if you are attempting to make the case that fox's "war on christmas" shit is in even similar to things like this. that is my objection. obviously it is a matter of interpretation so we disagree.

What, in your mind, is sinful?

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases 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. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

I don't know why he left out female prostitutes.

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:what he said about gays wasn't that surprising i guess, but this is absolutely outrageous

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

What should happen to him? He's obviously lying here, right?

lol, what is your fucking point? that this guy did not see any racism with his own eyes "in the fields" and therefore... what?

just because he doesn't realize what a reckless statement this is doesn't mean it doesn't do harm. it affirms a lot of peoples' fucked up ideas/views of what slavery and pre-civil rights era times were really like for non-whites

like Duck Dynasty is widely heralded by conservatives as a show that affirms their conservative religious "family-oriented" beliefs and you are insane if you don't think that statement isn't true. and i'm obviously not talking about the jerz and werthless demographic here

there's this weird idea that rural=conservative=bigoted. he's affirming this faulty concept. one would think politicans and other influentials wouldn't try to hitch their wagon to this ridiculous notion that,' well he's a hillbilly, what ELSE was he going to think?' well, he could hold non-bigoted views. plenty do.

td11 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:and equating something like this to the "WAR ON CHRISTMAS" is laughable

You don't think the War of Christmas is outrage that is deliberately magnified to incite the base and improve fundraising? Or you don't think there is a corresponding culture on the left that expresses PC outrage in order to incite their supporters?

Every time something like this is posted, where a metaphor or simile is used to explain a position, I just shake my head:

1. metaphor comparing two unlike things in order to highlight a way that they are similar
2. Inevitable interjection by someone who apparently never learned what a metaphor or simile is: "These aren't exactly the saaaaaaaaaame!" or "They are different in degree and you are an idiot for comparing them!!!" or "I am personally offended at your simile, and I stopped reading before you explained why it makes sense as an illustrative tool."

it's not an illustrative tool if you are attempting to make the case that fox's "war on christmas" shit is in even similar to things like this. that is my objection. obviously it is a matter of interpretation so we disagree.

It's not my comparison; I can't take credit for it. It's funny, because I think you agree with me, but think that expressing that agreement would be akin to equating the War on Christmas with the enforcement of political correctness.

The next time that I get offended at something someone says on reality television will be the first time. I don't understand how networks can underwrite stupid reality shows that are predicated around people being inflammatory/irreverent/entertaining, and then being surprised when they say something irreverent. A&E shouldn't fire him for being controversial, since that's exactly why he is on the show. (I'm assuming this is the case, since I've never seen it.) I suppose that the intersection between viewers of this program and those offended by his comments is null.

btw i don't think phil robertson should have been suspended and in fact they should have devoted an entire episode to asking him questions about the dynamics of how gay sex works

yeah, it was dumb to suspend him. they KNEW what they had; they just don't want shit for it while still getting all the ratings. it's like msnbc hiring alec baldwin and then firing him a month into his tv show for saying a homophobic thing...you could've just googled his previous homophobic statements to know his views. edit: and even then, these aren't quite the same, since baldwin is for gay rights but seems to have some deep-seated aversion to homosexuality. ol phil is just an out and out bigot.

i hope a&e burns for their shitty programming.

Werthless wrote:I suppose that the intersection between viewers of this program and those offended by his comments is null.

maybe not null, but yeah. completely agree that they shouldn't have suspended him because he should be allowed to express all his views, however fucked up, and people should be made aware of them. they should ask all the family members about drones next

and werthless, the left riles their base up plenty but it rarely seems to be for something like, "let's defend this guy's right to say shitty things about a marginalized segment of the population"

td11 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:what he said about gays wasn't that surprising i guess, but this is absolutely outrageous

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

What should happen to him? He's obviously lying here, right?

lol, what is your fucking point? that this guy did not see any racism with his own eyes "in the fields" and therefore... what?

just because he doesn't realize what a reckless statement this is doesn't mean it doesn't do harm. it affirms a lot of peoples' fucked up ideas/views of what slavery and pre-civil rights era times were really like for non-whites

Perhaps you should direct your questions to the author.If he was asked "You must have seen some pretty fucked up shit back in the day, being in the deep south? You probably had it much better than the blacks, right?" Would his response make sense? He's not a smart or articulate person, but I read it as poor blacks and poor whites were in the same situation in the fields. The article is ambiguous both as to the question that was posed and to the "therefore." I disagree with jumping to the conclusion that his observation implies he thinks pre civil rights times were fine for blacks, given we don't know if he was just answering a narrow question.

And where does he mention slavery? I didn't think he was that old.

The difference between me and you is that I read his words for what they are, simple-minded --probably distorted --memories of what he remembers from 50 years ago working in a field. You read his words and assume he hates black people.

pacino wrote:yeah, it was dumb to suspend him. they KNEW what they had; they just don't want shit for it while still getting all the ratings. it's like msnbc hiring alec baldwin and then firing him a month into his tv show for saying a homophobic thing...you could've just googled his previous homophobic statements to know his views. edit: and even then, these aren't quite the same, since baldwin is for gay rights but seems to have some deep-seated aversion to homosexuality. ol phil is just an out and out bigot.

i hope a&e burns for their shitty programming.

Awful analogy.

(I agree)