Anti-PC people making a mistake on the Duck Dynasty story

[Sunshine]

[q
Joe thinks that by calling people a bigot he'll put them on the defensive. A fundamental tactic of the PC Police.

At some point he'll realize that lie no longer works.

Maybe not soon, though!

.

No, guy, I know that you guys won't be able to keep using homophobia, racism and misogyny to keep the working folks fighting amonst themselves.

And eventually, someone might start asking question about why we let you clowns on Wall Street run our lives.

Now you think people on Wall Street run our lives. LOL. They do not run MY life. I make my own choices. I have never once consulted anyone on Wall Street about my life.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm a bit flummoxed trying to figure out how we can hear accents on a message board...

Well, perhaps Joe knows something we don't. You should ask him.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why would I know (or care) about somebody's plastic surgery? Who the fuck cares?

well then, why did you bring up my post?
damn, too much to drink?
ah, nevermind...good night

I just wanna see that moon emoticon again

Are there people mooning people in here? Ahh, this thread's gone to hell. Too many ifs ands and butts.

 

[Stephanie]

someone called for mooning?

 

[Sunshine]

And keep in mind, PC (Political Correctness) is a Marxist-invented ideal. It's meant to keep the sheep in line. It's been around for a long time.

What the Left has done so effectively is utilize the tactics a government would utilize, using the culture as the mechanism for their goals as a government would utilize laws.

Plus, they've been very, very patient and consistent with this tactic and it served them well. Fortunately, they've recently pushed too hard and exposed themselves. My guess is that it may have been the way they've responded to any criticism of Obama with "you're just a racist". I think that may have been the jumping of the shark, the point where more people saw what these folks have been doing.

Either way, it's great to see it losing its effectiveness.

.

If I didn't know better.....and wasn't aware that you are not a partisan ideologue....I would think that you are assigning political correctness to liberals exclusively in this post.

Fortunately? The left has pushed too hard? Interesting choice of words for a person who abhors identity politics.

That you think any criticism of Obama is seen as racist by all liberals....is interesting. Interesting in that you have swallowed a nutter talking point.

Nope, no bigotry in that post.

 

[Pogo]

someone called for mooning?

My, you've got quite the arsenal. Don't tell me -- you went shopping with Novasteve?

I thought it was a smaller one. Back a few weeks ago in whatever the all-important topic was that week that none of us can remember now...

 

[Sunshine]

And keep in mind, PC (Political Correctness) is a Marxist-invented ideal. It's meant to keep the sheep in line. It's been around for a long time.

And we see it works by the posting on here who agree with A&E and Glaad and not stand up for Phils freedoms of speech

that should scare us

Phil has no freedoms, according to his Employer. When he signed his contract, he signed his free speech rights away. Unfortunately, that is a disturbing trend in our country. How far can an employer be allowed to go? How much of Citizens' personal lives will be controlled? I mean let's face it, we all have to work. What are Americans willing to sign away to be employed? It seems to be a form of Slavery, no? What good is the Constitution, if your Employer controls your private life too? And that does seem to be where we're headed. The Corporations want to own you completely 24/7. It's pretty sad.

Please post his contract. I would like to read it too.

 

[Sunshine]

Or, like the vast majority, you could remain employed and simply keep your thoughts private.

Queers like the idea that the majority approves of their behaviour, so they've carefully constructed risk vs. rewards for anyone pulling the curtain back and exposing their deviance for what it really is.

As a result, most keep their disgust to themselves.

I hear ya, but the idea your Employer can demand your silence and obedience both professionally and privately, is a pretty disturbing idea. How far will they go? We all have to work. In the future, what will you be required to sign away in order to be employed? It is something Americans are gonna have to contemplate and confront. How much of our personal lives will the Corporations be allowed to control?

But this is where some "conservatives" come across as hypocrites. They want less regulations on employers until they fire somebody for something they don't agree with. I don't think Robertson should have been fired, but that is A&E's decision to make. You can bitch, moan, boycott... At the end of the day it was A&E's call.

You might want to Google Wrongful Termination. Termination and/or suspension can most assuredly be wrongful under the laws of the United States.

 

[beagle9]

I've seen media personalities crash and burn my whole life for something they said or did

Most did not wrap themselves in the bible

But you've never seen them crash for this sort of thing.

What the left is doing is trying to redefine what is moral.

We redefine those things all the time.

Once slavery was considered "moral". Now it isn't.

Witch burning was considered moral. Now it isn't.

Torturing other Christians because they didn't interpret the bible the same way you did was considered "Moral". Now, no so much. You all get together at the inter-faith pancake breakfast and complain about the secularists not letting you push your nonsense on the rest of us.

The trick is... tell me why two adults of the same gender engaging in a sexual relationship is immoral without
1) Quoting a bible verse.

or

2) Telling me why you think it's icky.

Thanks.

Do you really want people to go there ?

There are many medical reasoning's as well as documented proof about it all. The medical industry has been dealing with this stuff for quite sometime over the years, but the lustfulness of man these days, and his deviancy to want to deviate, is causing him to deny his own common sense on these matters anymore.

 

[kiwiman127]

A guy shot his mouth off and was held accountable

The end of freedom as we know it

I like it, good stuff.

The best thing that can happen here is that the PC Police keep doing what they're doing and deny it all the way. That will make it easier for those of us who have had enough to turn this around. And it's already begun.

.

One thing missing in this argument is the fact that the many of the folks buying into your claim regarding PC Police have themselves been the PC Police. How many threads have gone after the Hollywood establishment and their pretty controversial comments/actions? Sean Penn, Susan Sarandone or Matt Damon ring a bell?
Personally, I don't pay attention what lefty or righty celebrity heroes have to say. All I know is that I support their right to say whatever they want. If someone supports one side's right to say what they want, they should support every side's right to say what they want. Let's stop being so picky.

 

[Stephanie]

someone called for mooning?

My, you've got quite the arsenal. Don't tell me -- you went shopping with Novasteve?

I thought it was a smaller one. Back a few weeks ago in whatever the all-important topic was that week that none of us can remember now...

good night all sweet dreams

 

[Sunshine]

I thought this was stupid when it was the Dixie Chicks. I think that it is stupid with these 'Duck' people. Making an issue of what someone that is just an entertainer states is silly. The man spoke as what he is. Simply stating that that statement was that of a millionaire redneck, and did not represent the views of the network showing the shows would have been adaquete.

Apples : Oranges

INDIVIDUALS stopped buying Dixie Chicks music. There was no representational group that pressured their recording company to ditch them. If INDIVIUALS had decided to turn off DD and not watch, that would be equivalent to the Dixie Chicks brouhaha.

 

[tinydancer]

I'm cool leaving everything up to Jehovah. EXCEPT. You touch my dog I'll kill you

 

[tinydancer]

I thought this was stupid when it was the Dixie Chicks. I think that it is stupid with these 'Duck' people. Making an issue of what someone that is just an entertainer states is silly. The man spoke as what he is. Simply stating that that statement was that of a millionaire redneck, and did not represent the views of the network showing the shows would have been adaquete.

Apples : Oranges

INDIVIDUALS stopped buying Dixie Chicks music. There was no representational group that pressured their recording company to ditch them. If INDIVIUALS had decided to turn off DD and not watch, that would be equivalent to the Dixie Chicks brouhaha.

Actually had and thank the good lord she's gone now a weather lady telling us that if we didnt buy a dixie chicks album we were deniers.

No guff.

 

[Pogo]

And we see it works by the posting on here who agree with A&E and Glaad and not stand up for Phils freedoms of speech

that should scare us

Phil has no freedoms, according to his Employer. When he signed his contract, he signed his free speech rights away. Unfortunately, that is a disturbing trend in our country. How far can an employer be allowed to go? How much of Citizens' personal lives will be controlled? I mean let's face it, we all have to work. What are Americans willing to sign away to be employed? It seems to be a form of Slavery, no? What good is the Constitution, if your Employer controls your private life too? And that does seem to be where we're headed. The Corporations want to own you completely 24/7. It's pretty sad.

Please post his contract. I would like to read it too.

Here's what he's talking about -- the "morality clause". It's been a standard of first the movie, and now the TV industry, for close to a century.

Typical language reads:
>> "If at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program." <<

Here's a sample TV Production contract for the same type ("reality") show. Too long to quote but see Section 13 on page 15.

More:

>> Morals clauses were initially introduced in the early 1920&#8217;s (allegedly following the scandal of silent film comedian Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle) in Hollywood studio agreements with their contracted actors. Morals clauses were also initially employed in agreements between major sports leagues and their athletes (e.g., Babe Ruth). Today, morals clauses are ubiquitous in talent and endorsement agreements. Morals clauses can be drafted broadly to apply to behaviour that may shock, insult or offend public morals or decency, or which may bring the actor (and the brand by association) into public hatred, contempt, or disrepute, or behaviour that is simply embarrassing or inconsistent with the image of the brand (e.g., alcohol abuse or extramarital affairs). << (here)

Remember Tiger Woods or Michael Vick losing commercial endorsement contracts after being caught doing something unsavory? Morality clauses let those sponsors do that.

 

[tinydancer]

Look most of us are ok with looking the other way, but now you have forced us to put you right front and center and having to deal with we know is sin.

Hey. You did it. We've been avoiding it like crazy.

 

[tinydancer]

Phil has no freedoms, according to his Employer. When he signed his contract, he signed his free speech rights away. Unfortunately, that is a disturbing trend in our country. How far can an employer be allowed to go? How much of Citizens' personal lives will be controlled? I mean let's face it, we all have to work. What are Americans willing to sign away to be employed? It seems to be a form of Slavery, no? What good is the Constitution, if your Employer controls your private life too? And that does seem to be where we're headed. The Corporations want to own you completely 24/7. It's pretty sad.

Please post his contract. I would like to read it too.

Here's what he's talking about -- the "morality clause". It's been a standard of first the movie, and now the TV industry, for close to a century.

Typical language reads:
>> "If at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program." <<

Here's a sample TV Production contract for the same type ("reality") show. Too long to quote but see Section 13 on page 15.

More:

>> Morals clauses were initially introduced in the early 1920’s (allegedly following the scandal of silent film comedian Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle) in Hollywood studio agreements with their contracted actors. Morals clauses were also initially employed in agreements between major sports leagues and their athletes (e.g., Babe Ruth). Today, morals clauses are ubiquitous in talent and endorsement agreements. Morals clauses can be drafted broadly to apply to behaviour that may shock, insult or offend public morals or decency, or which may bring the actor (and the brand by association) into public hatred, contempt, or disrepute, or behaviour that is simply embarrassing or inconsistent with the image of the brand (e.g., alcohol abuse or extramarital affairs). << (here)

Remember Tiger Woods or Michael Vick losing commercial endorsement contracts after being caught doing something unsavory? Morality clauses let those sponsors do that.

I'd say the ass kicking was the other way around. Apparently they started at A&E deleting Jesus from his prayers at the end of the show.


Phil took a wrang attack from what I gather. AND apparently A&E were putting bleeps in. Just to put bleeps in.

How crazy is that?

 

[Pogo]

I thought this was stupid when it was the Dixie Chicks. I think that it is stupid with these 'Duck' people. Making an issue of what someone that is just an entertainer states is silly. The man spoke as what he is. Simply stating that that statement was that of a millionaire redneck, and did not represent the views of the network showing the shows would have been adaquete.

Apples : Oranges

INDIVIDUALS stopped buying Dixie Chicks music. There was no representational group that pressured their recording company to ditch them. If INDIVIUALS had decided to turn off DD and not watch, that would be equivalent to the Dixie Chicks brouhaha.

Radio is what makes or breaks a recording artist, not record companies. Radio and touring, which are the immediate day-to-day business of an artist. TD's here; she if anyone can back me up on this.

Nobody puts out a record album every day. But airplay and concerts, that is very much an artist's daily bread. And that's where the Dixie Chicks boycotts were organized. So the comparison is very much apples to apples.

 

[Pogo]

Please post his contract. I would like to read it too.

Here's what he's talking about -- the "morality clause". It's been a standard of first the movie, and now the TV industry, for close to a century.

Typical language reads:
>> "If at any time while Artist is rendering or obligated to render on-camera services for the program hereunder, Artist is involved in any situation or occurrence which subjects Artist to public scandal, disrepute, widespread contempt, public ridicule, [or which is widely deemed by members of the general public, to embarrass, offend, insult or denigrate individuals or groups,] or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or public morals or decency or prejudice the Producer in general, then Producer shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program." <<

Here's a sample TV Production contract for the same type ("reality") show. Too long to quote but see Section 13 on page 15.

More:

>> Morals clauses were initially introduced in the early 1920&#8217;s (allegedly following the scandal of silent film comedian Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle) in Hollywood studio agreements with their contracted actors. Morals clauses were also initially employed in agreements between major sports leagues and their athletes (e.g., Babe Ruth). Today, morals clauses are ubiquitous in talent and endorsement agreements. Morals clauses can be drafted broadly to apply to behaviour that may shock, insult or offend public morals or decency, or which may bring the actor (and the brand by association) into public hatred, contempt, or disrepute, or behaviour that is simply embarrassing or inconsistent with the image of the brand (e.g., alcohol abuse or extramarital affairs). << (here)

Remember Tiger Woods or Michael Vick losing commercial endorsement contracts after being caught doing something unsavory? Morality clauses let those sponsors do that.

I'd say the ass kicking was the other way around. Apparently they started at A&E deleting Jesus from his prayers at the end of the show.


Phil took a wrang attack from what I gather. AND apparently A&E were putting bleeps in. Just to put bleeps in.

How crazy is that?

I know nothing about that. I don't even have a television. I was addressing the contract question. In any case the contract clause means the Producer calls the shots, not the other way around. The Producer sees itself as having the investment (in the illusion that TV is made of) so the clause is to protect that investment. Doesn't work the other way.

 

[tinydancer]

I thought this was stupid when it was the Dixie Chicks. I think that it is stupid with these 'Duck' people. Making an issue of what someone that is just an entertainer states is silly. The man spoke as what he is. Simply stating that that statement was that of a millionaire redneck, and did not represent the views of the network showing the shows would have been adaquete.

Apples : Oranges

INDIVIDUALS stopped buying Dixie Chicks music. There was no representational group that pressured their recording company to ditch them. If INDIVIUALS had decided to turn off DD and not watch, that would be equivalent to the Dixie Chicks brouhaha.

Radio is what makes or breaks a recording artist, not record companies. Radio and touring, which are the immediate day-to-day business of an artist. TD's here; she if anyone can back me up on this.

Nobody puts out a record album every day. But airplay and concerts, that is very much an artist's daily bread. And that's where the Dixie Chicks boycotts were organized. So the comparison is very much apples to apples.

I hated that. I rocked against it. And I will to this day.

I was so pissed off when Natalie shot her mouth off. Oh the poor fans. But it did happen.

We can't always control what these wonderous artists do can we? I hated the backlash though. If fans wanted to freak out, no problemo. But when you start getting into the world of "I don't like her politics" and I won't play them anymore.....no no no no no.