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

[Bfgrn]

We all have our priorities when it comes to political issues. In my case, the intellectual dishonesty and absolutism perpetrated by the PC Police is more of an annoyance to me than gay rights. Guilty there, that's just the way my little brain works. PC is hurting far more people than bigotry against gays.

And I don't consider my self "non-partisan". I'm "anti-partisan", because partisan ideologues are causing great damage to this country. I'm partisan on any given issue, but my opinions don't happen to conveniently and transparently fall in line with those of one silly "side".

You clearly don't see what I'm saying on this topic, so you default to the notion that I support the hairy duck guy. It's a little more complicated than that, but I know how partisan ideologues like to keep things nice and simple.

.

The "PC police" is a fabrication of right wing rhetors. That makes you a parrot.

Ah, another one who denies the very existence of PC.

Tell you what - C Clayton Jones won't respond to me on this, let's see if you will: I have Googled "Political Correctness Examples" here:

https://www.google.com/search?q=pol...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

If you have just one ounce of intellectual curiosity, even one half ounce of intellectual honesty, you might consider clicking on that link and seeing BOTH ends of the spectrum discussing far more than just its existence.

This is why trying to communicate with partisan ideologues is usually a waste of time. They just refuse to be honest.

.

There is a huge difference between liberals and conservatives. And it is not just ideology. Liberals do not have rhetors and word smiths working 24/7 trying to own words, phrases and language. Liberals don't see language and words as a war. Conservatives do.

Of COURSE Google will return thousands of results that are right wing partisan. It is the right wing echo chamber. There is no left wing echo chamber.

How conservatives use language to dominate politics

 

[Mac1958]

.

Two standard straw man arguments here, perfect:

No, it doesn't answer it at all since nobody is trying to take away anyone's 1st Amendment rights. I really don't get your bugaboo about this. If someone says something you find offensive are you supposed to say it's offensive or not?

In my original post, I clearly point out this is not a First Amendment issue.

A big defender of the first amendment...for WHOM? You defend Phil Robertson's right to spew his venom, and the people he is ridiculing and degrading have the right to remain SILENT.

"Right to remain silent"? And I said that, where?

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Seriously Mac, what about this Duckfuck thing has you so riled up? He said something some found offensive and they called him on it. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? Nobody wants to legislate his speech. Hell, nobody I've heard even called for the asshole to be suspended or fired so what's your beef with this? Who do you think has "gone too far"?

This issue with the duck guy is just the latest and biggest example of what I'm talking about. I've never seen the show, I've never heard anything that would make me want to watch it, I don't like what he said about gays, I have no idea if there is a God or not.

And I absolutely admit to being big-time sensitive about PC, because I'm a completely virulent and somewhat psychotic proponent of the First Amendment. To make a (very) long story short, the gay issue is just one subset of a larger issue regarding PC for me.

I've always been touched by the phrase "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". Can't tell you why, I just am. I feel terribly lucky to have been born here. And when people are punished for saying what they think, or intimidated from saying it in the first place, I get really pissed off.

I could keep going, I hope that answers your question.

.

I am also touched by the phrase, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".

That holds true for the idiot duck guy. I am guessing that everyone here who is disputing your claims of PC gone crazy feels the same way as you do about that phrase.

You seem to think otherwise. It is as though you think those of us who find your obsession with this issue a bit overdone.....are eager to have the 1st Amendment repealed.

 

[martybegan]

A big defender of the first amendment...for WHOM? You defend Phil Robertson's right to spew his venom, and the people he is ridiculing and degrading have the right to remain SILENT.

Silly liberal, debating is for adults.

There is nothing wrong with people calling Phil a jerk, an asshole, or whatever. What GLAAD is doing, is going to the next step via making threats about the economic well-being of A&E if GLAAD does not get thier way.

If Phils comments were soooo offensive, you would expect a slower, more broad groundswell of opposition, like what happened to the Dixie Chicks. Such a groundswell may still occur against Phil, but A&E didnt even wait for that, GLAAD said "boo" and A&E proudly got on it's knees and started slurping.

Except the only "boo" GLAAD said was "That's offensive A&E. Do you stand by your star's comments?" That's it. All A&E had to do was say "the views of our asshole star do not reflect the views of A&E" and it would have been over. There would have been boycotts of sponsors but that's what always happens in instances like these. So what?

The full statement:

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. 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.

A direct threat to A&E's income stream, i.e. thier sponsors. If they left it at "he's a bad man and we dont like him" then it would be speech against speech, instead an economic threat was included.

I have a feeling you think economic threats are wrong when people like the Catholic League use them, but when your GLAAD buddies use it, its ALL HUNKY DORY.

 

[Bfgrn]

.

Two standard straw man arguments here, perfect:

No, it doesn't answer it at all since nobody is trying to take away anyone's 1st Amendment rights. I really don't get your bugaboo about this. If someone says something you find offensive are you supposed to say it's offensive or not?

In my original post, I clearly point out this is not a First Amendment issue.

A big defender of the first amendment...for WHOM? You defend Phil Robertson's right to spew his venom, and the people he is ridiculing and degrading have the right to remain SILENT.

"Right to remain silent"? And I said that, where?

.

So if you don't 'say it' in exact terms, it is not a fair argument? You have depicted people who have pushed back at what Robertson said as being in the wrong.

So if they had remained SILENT, they would pass your first amendment criteria.

 

[Seawytch]

.

Two standard straw man arguments here, perfect:

No, it doesn't answer it at all since nobody is trying to take away anyone's 1st Amendment rights. I really don't get your bugaboo about this. If someone says something you find offensive are you supposed to say it's offensive or not?

In my original post, I clearly point out this is not a First Amendment issue.

A big defender of the first amendment...for WHOM? You defend Phil Robertson's right to spew his venom, and the people he is ridiculing and degrading have the right to remain SILENT.

"Right to remain silent"? And I said that, where?

.

So what is your beef? It's not about 1st amendment and nobody is supposed to stay silent so what has you so "PC" upset?

 

[Seawytch]

Silly liberal, debating is for adults.

There is nothing wrong with people calling Phil a jerk, an asshole, or whatever. What GLAAD is doing, is going to the next step via making threats about the economic well-being of A&E if GLAAD does not get thier way.

If Phils comments were soooo offensive, you would expect a slower, more broad groundswell of opposition, like what happened to the Dixie Chicks. Such a groundswell may still occur against Phil, but A&E didnt even wait for that, GLAAD said "boo" and A&E proudly got on it's knees and started slurping.

Except the only "boo" GLAAD said was "That's offensive A&E. Do you stand by your star's comments?" That's it. All A&E had to do was say "the views of our asshole star do not reflect the views of A&E" and it would have been over. There would have been boycotts of sponsors but that's what always happens in instances like these. So what?

The full statement:

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. 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.

A direct threat to A&E's income stream, i.e. thier sponsors. If they left it at "he's a bad man and we dont like him" then it would be speech against speech, instead an economic threat was included.

I have a feeling you think economic threats are wrong when people like the Catholic League use them, but when your GLAAD buddies use it, its ALL HUNKY DORY.

I think it's fine when anyone uses them. That's what they're for. I don't want legislation, nobody does. We have boycotts.

 

[Stephanie]

.

Those of us who have had enough BS from the PC Police are making it easy for them to wiggle out of this story on the hairy southern duck guy.

By bringing up -- or worse, letting them move the conversation to -- freedom of speech or religion or television contracts or the Constitution, you're giving them the opportunity to avoid the real issue (at least in my humble opinion): Their hypocritical, narcissistic intolerance.

Plus, this issue doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's just the latest in a long, long line of examples of their bigotry and intolerance. Holy crap, some of the things I've seen them say here about people who live in that area, wow.

The pushback is absolutely great and terribly overdue. They've jumped the shark with their race-baiting, language-manipulating, phony self esteem-building, forced inclusion silliness and it's clear that the pushback has begun. Yay!

This isn't (or shouldn't be) about the 1st Amendment or television contracts or religion. It should be about the hypocritical, paranoid, intolerant narcissism of the PC Police, and how they want to punish and intimidate people and businesses.

.

Pretty funny. You are merely defending someone you agree with. So when someone YOU agree with decides to make PUBLIC his or her private beliefs, and those beliefs show their blatant bigotry, intolerance and narcissism, everyone else should just shut the fuck up.

You are an idiot, thanks for making THAT public.

Uh oh, minor problem [MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION].

I'm pro-gay rights. I'm agnostic. I don't agree with what he said.

Wanna try again?



You guys are completely blinded by your hatred, and SO damn easy.

.

yes they are
just go read the 10 other threads on this

 

[Mac1958]

.

Two standard straw man arguments here, perfect:

No, it doesn't answer it at all since nobody is trying to take away anyone's 1st Amendment rights. I really don't get your bugaboo about this. If someone says something you find offensive are you supposed to say it's offensive or not?

In my original post, I clearly point out this is not a First Amendment issue.

A big defender of the first amendment...for WHOM? You defend Phil Robertson's right to spew his venom, and the people he is ridiculing and degrading have the right to remain SILENT.

"Right to remain silent"? And I said that, where?

.

So if you don't 'say it' in exact terms, it is not a fair argument? You have depicted people who have pushed back at what Robertson said as being in the wrong.

So if they had remained SILENT, they would pass your first amendment criteria.

So I take it you're not going to Google "Political Correctness Examples", huh? That's okay, I wasn't expecting you to back up your words, I never expect that here. Chalk another one up.

I know I don't have to actually say this, because you're clearly being obtuse, but what the heck: Any person has the right, the obligation if they choose, to speak out against things with which they disagree. Where some people draw the line is when they try to punish others for saying what they're thinking and/or intimidate others from saying what they're thinking.

This hairy duck guy? Pretty much a non-issue for me. I'm talking about the larger tactic of PC.

Now, you may want to claim that no one is ever punished or intimidated, and I just don't care enough to list the myriad examples. When partisan ideologues start playing the denial game, everything that follows is a waste of time.

.

 

[JoeB131]

Seriously Mac, what about this Duckfuck thing has you so riled up? He said something some found offensive and they called him on it. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? Nobody wants to legislate his speech. Hell, nobody I've heard even called for the asshole to be suspended or fired so what's your beef with this? Who do you think has "gone too far"?

This issue with the duck guy is just the latest and biggest example of what I'm talking about. I've never seen the show, I've never heard anything that would make me want to watch it, I don't like what he said about gays, I have no idea if there is a God or not.

And I absolutely admit to being big-time sensitive about PC, because I'm a completely virulent and somewhat psychotic proponent of the First Amendment. To make a (very) long story short, the gay issue is just one subset of a larger issue regarding PC for me.

I've always been touched by the phrase "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". Can't tell you why, I just am. I feel terribly lucky to have been born here. And when people are punished for saying what they think, or intimidated from saying it in the first place, I get really pissed off.

I could keep going, I hope that answers your question.

.

I'm not sure you should.

Guy, in the real world, MOST of us don't say what they think, because saying what we think usually gets us in trouble and just makes it harder for us to get along.

For instance, I have a female co-worker who is rude, stupid, and basically dresses ike she's going out clubbing after work every night. And she sucks up to the boss. Now, man, their are days I would LOVE to tell her off, but 1) I'd be a real jerk for doing so and 2) it would make working with her and people who do like her a lot more difficult.

THis isn't a first amendment or freedom issue. It's just getting along in a polite society.

Now, to a degree, you have to look at Phil and say, "Yup, he's a 67 year old redneck from the south, I'd be more surprised if he didn't hold that veiw set."

But from the gay's point of view, where they are routinely fired for being gay, where they are frequently the butt of cheap jokes in TV shows and movies, objecting to what these guys say is perfectly within their rights.

Now, here's the thing. A&E made a BUSINESS decision. Companies make those every day. And maybe their will be backlash. I find it amusing that the wingnuts are all for a guy being able to say hateful things, but man, those wage slaves at the burger joint, how dare they demand better wages.

 

[Stephanie]

Seriously Mac, what about this Duckfuck thing has you so riled up? He said something some found offensive and they called him on it. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? Nobody wants to legislate his speech. Hell, nobody I've heard even called for the asshole to be suspended or fired so what's your beef with this? Who do you think has "gone too far"?

This issue with the duck guy is just the latest and biggest example of what I'm talking about. I've never seen the show, I've never heard anything that would make me want to watch it, I don't like what he said about gays, I have no idea if there is a God or not.

And I absolutely admit to being big-time sensitive about PC, because I'm a completely virulent and somewhat psychotic proponent of the First Amendment. To make a (very) long story short, the gay issue is just one subset of a larger issue regarding PC for me.

I've always been touched by the phrase "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". Can't tell you why, I just am. I feel terribly lucky to have been born here. And when people are punished for saying what they think, or intimidated from saying it in the first place, I get really pissed off.

I could keep going, I hope that answers your question.

.

I'm not sure you should.

Guy, in the real world, MOST of us don't say what they think, because saying what we think usually gets us in trouble and just makes it harder for us to get along.

For instance, I have a female co-worker who is rude, stupid, and basically dresses ike she's going out clubbing after work every night. And she sucks up to the boss. Now, man, their are days I would LOVE to tell her off, but 1) I'd be a real jerk for doing so and 2) it would make working with her and people who do like her a lot more difficult.

THis isn't a first amendment or freedom issue. It's just getting along in a polite society.

Now, to a degree, you have to look at Phil and say, "Yup, he's a 67 year old redneck from the south, I'd be more surprised if he didn't hold that veiw set."

But from the gay's point of view, where they are routinely fired for being gay, where they are frequently the butt of cheap jokes in TV shows and movies, objecting to what these guys say is perfectly within their rights.

Now, here's the thing. A&E made a BUSINESS decision. Companies make those every day. And maybe their will be backlash. I find it amusing that the wingnuts are all for a guy being able to say hateful things, but man, those wage slaves at the burger joint, how dare they demand better wages.

omg, they are the butt of jokes
and rednecks aren't I guess
They get fired for being homosexual, what a lie...I don't find that leftwingers MUST LIE amusing
wow, this post is nothing but IRONY
GOOD GRIEF

 

[Mac1958]

Seriously Mac, what about this Duckfuck thing has you so riled up? He said something some found offensive and they called him on it. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? Nobody wants to legislate his speech. Hell, nobody I've heard even called for the asshole to be suspended or fired so what's your beef with this? Who do you think has "gone too far"?

This issue with the duck guy is just the latest and biggest example of what I'm talking about. I've never seen the show, I've never heard anything that would make me want to watch it, I don't like what he said about gays, I have no idea if there is a God or not.

And I absolutely admit to being big-time sensitive about PC, because I'm a completely virulent and somewhat psychotic proponent of the First Amendment. To make a (very) long story short, the gay issue is just one subset of a larger issue regarding PC for me.

I've always been touched by the phrase "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". Can't tell you why, I just am. I feel terribly lucky to have been born here. And when people are punished for saying what they think, or intimidated from saying it in the first place, I get really pissed off.

I could keep going, I hope that answers your question.

.

I'm not sure you should.

Guy, in the real world, MOST of us don't say what they think, because saying what we think usually gets us in trouble and just makes it harder for us to get along.

For instance, I have a female co-worker who is rude, stupid, and basically dresses ike she's going out clubbing after work every night. And she sucks up to the boss. Now, man, their are days I would LOVE to tell her off, but 1) I'd be a real jerk for doing so and 2) it would make working with her and people who do like her a lot more difficult.

THis isn't a first amendment or freedom issue. It's just getting along in a polite society.

Now, to a degree, you have to look at Phil and say, "Yup, he's a 67 year old redneck from the south, I'd be more surprised if he didn't hold that veiw set."

But from the gay's point of view, where they are routinely fired for being gay, where they are frequently the butt of cheap jokes in TV shows and movies, objecting to what these guys say is perfectly within their rights.

Now, here's the thing. A&E made a BUSINESS decision. Companies make those every day. And maybe their will be backlash. I find it amusing that the wingnuts are all for a guy being able to say hateful things, but man, those wage slaves at the burger joint, how dare they demand better wages.

What you folks either don't see or won't see is that I want to see bigotry stopped, too. I just don't like the way you're trying to go about it.

Joe, yesterday, you called me a "bigot" twice, and then refused to tell me against whom I am bigoted. Let me try to help. I'll get the list started, and you just provide the last two:

1. Liars
2. Bigots
3.
4.

Okay, bring it home, thanks.

.

 

[martybegan]

Except the only "boo" GLAAD said was "That's offensive A&E. Do you stand by your star's comments?" That's it. All A&E had to do was say "the views of our asshole star do not reflect the views of A&E" and it would have been over. There would have been boycotts of sponsors but that's what always happens in instances like these. So what?

The full statement:

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. 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.

A direct threat to A&E's income stream, i.e. thier sponsors. If they left it at "he's a bad man and we dont like him" then it would be speech against speech, instead an economic threat was included.

I have a feeling you think economic threats are wrong when people like the Catholic League use them, but when your GLAAD buddies use it, its ALL HUNKY DORY.

I think it's fine when anyone uses them. That's what they're for. I don't want legislation, nobody does. We have boycotts.

Except there was no boycott, there was a threat of a boycott. There was no overall public outrage. Phil offended a miniscule part of the population. If you offend most of the population, then OK, you should be in trouble, but when offending a fraction of a percentage of the population, like say, some butthurt interest group, then the proper to response to said interest group should be, "GO FUCK YOURSELF WITH A TIRE IRON"

I find it sad that you just can't accept people disagreeing with your lifestyle. It must be a sad hateful existance.

 

[deltex1]

Jesse Jackson: 'Duck Dynasty' star 'white privilege' - Hadas Gold - POLITICO.com

Shakedown on the way.....

 

[OODA_Loop]

Everyone is a victim in Joe's never ending world of life stories to make a political point.

 

[Stephanie]

Jesse Jackson: 'Duck Dynasty' star 'white privilege' - Hadas Gold - POLITICO.com

Shakedown on the way.....

he can say what he wants, because he is attacking the WHITE GUY
The outrageous double standards of the left is rather sickening and now become a danger to our livelihoods

 

[JoeB131]

[

omg, they are the butt of jokes
and rednecks aren't I guess
They get fired for being homosexual, what a lie...I don't find that leftwingers MUST LIE amusing
wow, this post is nothing but IRONY
GOOD GRIEF

Staph, a lady I used to work with in 2000 was fired for being gay.

Worked there for 14 years. Then she brought her life partner to the company holiday party.

And they fired her two weeks later.

yeah, people get fired for being gay. IN most of the country, it isn't even illegal to do so.

 

[zeke]

I don't have to do anything.

If you're going to pretend that you don't know what I'm talking about, I very much doubt that it will possible to have an honest conversation with you.

.

Actually, it's a valid question, Mac.

What have the PC police prevented you from saying that you think is so important to the debate?

Never, not once, because I don't allow them to.

There, I answered your question. Are you going to answer mine?

How am I a bigot, Joe? Get specific.

You used the word, back it up.

.

Then what is the motherfucking problem?

And how does anyone know "how" you are a bigot Mac? It just "feels" that way when people try and communicate with you.

But it's ok to be a bigot Mac. The PC police won't shut you up. Because you won't let them.

Carry on worrying about a multi millionaire that pulled this shit with A&E knowing about it and knowing that this kind of bullshit would bump ratings and increase viewership.

And people like you Mac, a true bigot, think this shit means something real. LMAO.

 

[JoeB131]

[

What you folks either don't see or won't see is that I want to see bigotry stopped, too. I just don't like the way you're trying to go about it.

Joe, yesterday, you called me a "bigot" twice, and then refused to tell me against whom I am bigoted. Let me try to help. I'll get the list started, and you just provide the last two:

1. Liars
2. Bigots
3.
4.

Okay, bring it home, thanks.

.

Apparently, we could include, "People who call rude assholes on their rudeness."

This is not a FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE. They did not cart Phil off to Tolerance Camp to show him the error of his ways.

They merely asked a network if they thought his positions were appropriate.

And a business decision was made.

Now, if you want to fight for the right of bigots to be bigots, have at it, but at least admit that's what you're doing.

 

[Stephanie]

[

omg, they are the butt of jokes
and rednecks aren't I guess
They get fired for being homosexual, what a lie...I don't find that leftwingers MUST LIE amusing
wow, this post is nothing but IRONY
GOOD GRIEF

Staph, a lady I used to work with in 2000 was fired for being gay.

Worked there for 14 years. Then she brought her life partner to the company holiday party.

And they fired her two weeks later.

yeah, people get fired for being gay. IN most of the country, it isn't even illegal to do so.

one lady you supposedly know doesn't make them all getting fired all the time
please spare us the made up drama of your life and act like it's everyday REAL LIFE
and again, I guess those people you call REDNECKS aren't the butt of jokes? you make them one in with your posting