Werthless wrote:

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.

td11 wrote: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"

It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

td11 wrote:no i don't assume he hates black people. it tells me that in his #$!&@ up interpretation of history, blacks and poor non-whites had the same social status. this is a problematic interpretation in my opinion, as it is patently wrong and misleading. he also says that they were "singing and happy." so not only did they not have any issues working in the fields, they were "singing and happy!!!"

he doesn't mention slavery, but his "in the fields" comment can and will be interpreted to extend out that far. i don't think it's a huge leap. again, it's interpretation. but there is certainly a trope of the "contended black field worker" in a lot of far-right ideology.

the difference between me and you is that you read this comments and dismiss them as the "simple-minded" memories of one man. i read his comments and worry that most right-wing people won't dismiss it as that.

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote: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"

It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

td11 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote: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 #$!&@ things about a marginalized segment of the population"

It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

sigh, neither the religious christian right nor gun advocates are "marginalized segments of the population" in the sense that i was talking.

td11 wrote:no i don't assume he hates black people. it tells me that in his fucked up interpretation of history, blacks and poor non-whites had the same social status. this is a problematic interpretation in my opinion, as it is patently wrong and misleading. he also says that they were "singing and happy." so not only did they not have any issues working in the fields, they were "singing and happy!!!"

he doesn't mention slavery, but his "in the fields" comment can and will be interpreted to extend out that far. i don't think it's a huge leap. again, it's interpretation. but there is certainly a trope of the "contended black field worker" in a lot of far-right ideology.

the difference between me and you is that you read this comments and dismiss them as the "simple-minded" memories of one man. i read his comments and worry that his comments will be dismissed just as you have done instead of examined as a pervasive theme in right-wing ideology

edit: sorry i mistyped my point earlier

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:no i don't assume he hates black people. it tells me that in his #$!&@ up interpretation of history, blacks and poor non-whites had the same social status. this is a problematic interpretation in my opinion, as it is patently wrong and misleading. he also says that they were "singing and happy." so not only did they not have any issues working in the fields, they were "singing and happy!!!"

he doesn't mention slavery, but his "in the fields" comment can and will be interpreted to extend out that far. i don't think it's a huge leap. again, it's interpretation. but there is certainly a trope of the "contended black field worker" in a lot of far-right ideology.

the difference between me and you is that you read this comments and dismiss them as the "simple-minded" memories of one man. i read his comments and worry that his comments will be dismissed just as you have done instead of examined as a pervasive theme in right-wing ideology

edit: sorry i mistyped my point earlier

To pacino's point, it's not an interpretation of history, but his memories of what it was like growing up. That quotation has no lead-in, no question, so it could have been a question about his experiences observing black mistreatment in the deep south. I was asking if you thought he was lying, since that's a different argument than what I thought you were making, and I wanted to be sure that's not what you thought. If you don't think he was lying, then the "absolutely outrageous" part of the quote is what exactly?

td11 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote: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"

It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

sigh, neither the religious christian right nor gun advocates are "marginalized segments of the population" in the sense that i was talking.

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:no i don't assume he hates black people. it tells me that in his fucked up interpretation of history, blacks and poor non-whites had the same social status. this is a problematic interpretation in my opinion, as it is patently wrong and misleading. he also says that they were "singing and happy." so not only did they not have any issues working in the fields, they were "singing and happy!!!"

he doesn't mention slavery, but his "in the fields" comment can and will be interpreted to extend out that far. i don't think it's a huge leap. again, it's interpretation. but there is certainly a trope of the "contended black field worker" in a lot of far-right ideology.

the difference between me and you is that you read this comments and dismiss them as the "simple-minded" memories of one man. i read his comments and worry that his comments will be dismissed just as you have done instead of examined as a pervasive theme in right-wing ideology

edit: sorry i mistyped my point earlier

To pacino's point, it's not an interpretation of history, but his memories of what it was like growing up. That quotation has no lead-in, no question, so it could have been a question about his experiences observing black mistreatment in the deep south. I was asking if you thought he was lying, since that's a different argument than what I thought you were making, and I wanted to be sure that's not what you thought. If you don't think he was lying, then the "absolutely outrageous" part of the quote is what exactly?

Bucky wrote:

Werthless wrote:

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.

rats. I guess I'm out of the inheritance on like 6 or 7 counts.

Trent Steele wrote:The fact that some random hillbilly's ignorant statements have become a proxy for anything other than ignorant hillbilly ramblings is insulting to me and illustrates how fucked up things have gotten.

Dear Cracker Barrel Customer:

When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we’ve done.

You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren’t shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong.

We listened.

Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores.

And, we apologize for offending you.

We respect all individuals right to express their beliefs. We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different.

We sincerely hope you will continue to be part of our Cracker Barrel family.