Duck Dynasty?

[OKTexas]

Why is it only people on the right have to watch how they say things. The left calls us arsonist, terrorist, bigots, racist, granny killers, polluters and a myriad of other names and no one tells them they need to tone it down because they won't win friends or influence people. Their tactics have proven effective but by some magic circumstance it won't work for us, can you explain that?

Yes, money and organization.

That's what buys the freedom to abuse other people. So you should be really clinical about what camp you're in, how many resources you have etc. in terms of sheer numbers before you feel at liberty to sling verbal mud. Remember, the gays won much ground by playing to people on the fence about gay marriage by plucking their heartstrings and gaining their bravado in verbally bashing anyone who opposes this momentum on any grounds whatsoever. "Gay teen suicides, gay bashing, civil rights...etc etc." These are the same tactics child predators use to get close to their targets before they molest. They woo and coo and when people suspect them or they are caught outright, they threaten to commit suicide. I couldn't agree more that the gay activists running the PR campaign are using some of the darkest psychological tactics the lowest scum could dream up. They flip flop between strumming well-meaning heartstrings to blackmail, to ruining careers and back again, with great ease, flexibility and cunning: whatever the situation calls for...

I get your anger. Don't think that I don't.

Bashing them however plays right into their hand. Right into the very same strategy that has won them so much ground in the first place. Why assist them?

The remedy is to remain calm, civil and get the word out. This civil resistance will take on a life of its own. I guarantee it. It already has in fact. The Facebook page that said "boycott A&E" got a MILLION likes the first couple days it was up! Some of those likes were people originally won over by the sympathy ploy who at their heart are still not sure if it's the right decision. You go beating the gays up like they do to other people and though it may feel good to you, you'll wind up thinning out the numbers who would otherwise roll up their sleeves and get on board with you.

Plus, it's just good discipline when someone pisses you off, to not sock them in the jaw, but rather to calmly sew up their racket so they can't use it on you to piss you off anymore. And how we do that in the US to great success, believe it or not, is to progress legally. Stay tuned because this boycott and now the Utah gay marriage question are going to make a huge ripple in the "business as usual" gay pond.

In bold. That's where we have to cut off that flexability and continue to paint them as the gayhadist they are. Whe have to disarm them of their economic bombs and bullets and show them just how small a minority they are.

 

[BobPlumb]

People are supporting Robertson because we are tired of walking on eggshells concerning the homosexual lifestyle. People have the right to live the homosexual lifestyle, but don't try to make everyone else, Christians included, beleive it's moral.

The tired of walking on eggshells statement also applies to what Robertson said about blacks. People should be able to disagree without being offended. He described his experience with blacks as he perceived it growing up. In doing so he said nothing derogatory about blacks. Why can't blacks disagree with what he said without being offended?

 

[SFC Ollie]

People are supporting Robertson because we are tired of walking on eggshells concerning the homosexual lifestyle. People have the right to do it, but don't try to make everyone else, Christians included, beleive it's moral.

The tired of walking on eggshells comment also applies to what Robertson said about blacks. People should be able to disagree without being offended. He described his experience with blacks as he perceived it growing up. In doing so he said nothing derogatory about blacks. Why can't blacks disagree with what he said without being offended?

Well, if they aren't offended then they can't make it about them....

 

[Amelia]

Why Are Republicans Defending Duck Dynasty? {

After what he said about blacks, why would a public official come out and defend him?

I'm not.

But I know some black conservatives who are.

 

[candycorn]

Why is it only people on the right have to watch how they say things. The left calls us arsonist, terrorist, bigots, racist, granny killers, polluters and a myriad of other names and no one tells them they need to tone it down because they won't win friends or influence people. Their tactics have proven effective but by some magic circumstance it won't work for us, can you explain that?

Yes, money and organization.

That's what buys the freedom to abuse other people. So you should be really clinical about what camp you're in, how many resources you have etc. in terms of sheer numbers before you feel at liberty to sling verbal mud. Remember, the gays won much ground by playing to people on the fence about gay marriage by plucking their heartstrings and gaining their bravado in verbally bashing anyone who opposes this momentum on any grounds whatsoever. "Gay teen suicides, gay bashing, civil rights...etc etc." These are the same tactics child predators use to get close to their targets before they molest. They woo and coo and when people suspect them or they are caught outright, they threaten to commit suicide. I couldn't agree more that the gay activists running the PR campaign are using some of the darkest psychological tactics the lowest scum could dream up. They flip flop between strumming well-meaning heartstrings to blackmail, to ruining careers and back again, with great ease, flexibility and cunning: whatever the situation calls for...

I get your anger. Don't think that I don't.

Bashing them however plays right into their hand. Right into the very same strategy that has won them so much ground in the first place. Why assist them?

The remedy is to remain calm, civil and get the word out. This civil resistance will take on a life of its own. I guarantee it. It already has in fact. The Facebook page that said "boycott A&E" got a MILLION likes the first couple days it was up! Some of those likes were people originally won over by the sympathy ploy who at their heart are still not sure if it's the right decision. You go beating the gays up like they do to other people and though it may feel good to you, you'll wind up thinning out the numbers who would otherwise roll up their sleeves and get on board with you.

Plus, it's just good discipline when someone pisses you off, to not sock them in the jaw, but rather to calmly sew up their racket so they can't use it on you to piss you off anymore. And how we do that in the US to great success, believe it or not, is to progress legally. Stay tuned because this boycott and now the Utah gay marriage question are going to make a huge ripple in the "business as usual" gay pond.

In bold. That's where we have to cut off that flexability and continue to paint them as the gayhadist they are. Whe have to disarm them of their economic bombs and bullets and show them just how small a minority they are.

You hateful racist homophobes are the minority.

33% and climbing. Too bad for you.

 

[OKTexas]

Repubs seem to have a problem with a society that refuses to accept bigotry.

Repubs keep saying they dont support the "environnment" where people can be punished for their bullshit. That "environment" is also known as "reality".

Sorry but reality is reality. There is no changing it no matter how much you dont like it

A society that refuses to accept bigotry, tell me who is the arbiter of bigotry, who defines it? Do we bend to a few loud mouthed assholes just to shut them up, we've been doing that for nearly half a century and how's that working for us? No jobs, declining standard of living and morals, more poor than ever, hell yeah let's just keep doing what we've been doing, it's working so well.

Society is the arbiter. Again your beef seems to be with reality. Sorry but its...reality

Wrong, in reality the society at large establishes the norms, not small minorities, standards that have been in place for tens of thousands of years wouldn't be discarded on a fucking whim. I don't know what alternate universe you live in but it ain't mine.

 

[PredFan]

Who would be happy under Jim Crow or apartheid if you were black? Ridiculous.

Why would blacks complain to a hillbilly or redneck that was part of the ruling class that was oppressing them? Ridiculous.

Now as far as people not defending what he said...but defending his right to say it...

He DID utilize his right to say it.

And A and E utilized their right to not air him any longer.

Case Closed.


So why then, would a governor come out on his behalf AT ALL???

Like I said, the LAST thing you want, is to understand.

You racist idiot.

 

[ClosedCaption]

People are supporting Robertson because we are tired of walking on eggshells concerning the homosexual lifestyle. People have the right to live the homosexual lifestyle, but don't try to make everyone else, Christians included, beleive it's moral.

The tired of walking on eggshells statement also applies to what Robertson said about blacks. People should be able to disagree without being offended. He described his experience with blacks as he perceived it growing up. In doing so he said nothing derogatory about blacks. Why can't blacks disagree with what he said without being offended?

Walking on eggshells is how they used to describe the public shunning of people who walked around saying ******

What you are saying is that people should be able to be assholes and other people shouldnt call them assholes or recognize and react to their asshole behavior.

Its the most baffling thing in the world to support bigots and attack or be offended by people being offended like only bigots have the right to speak their mind.

THEY KNOW their words are offensive and they opt to say it anyway KNOWING the response wont be good.

 

[ClosedCaption]

A society that refuses to accept bigotry, tell me who is the arbiter of bigotry, who defines it? Do we bend to a few loud mouthed assholes just to shut them up, we've been doing that for nearly half a century and how's that working for us? No jobs, declining standard of living and morals, more poor than ever, hell yeah let's just keep doing what we've been doing, it's working so well.

Society is the arbiter. Again your beef seems to be with reality. Sorry but its...reality

Wrong, in reality the society at large establishes the norms, not small minorities, standards that have been in place for tens of thousands of years wouldn't be discarded on a fucking whim. I don't know what alternate universe you live in but it ain't mine.

Thats correct society at large establishes the norms. Society at large doesnt accept public bigotry.

What you are trying to do is pretend that small minorities are stomping on the larger group. Which is impossible to do since one is small and the other is large. You seem to believe that society at large COULDNT be offended by anti-gay remarks because YOU arent offended by them.

 

[tinydancer]

I don't understand any of this.

Look, if you want to spend your time fucking each other up the ass I've not a worry. I have to place my seed orders next month.

Go for your assholes. I don't fucking care. But don't you dare tell me I can't talk about you. I'm with Phil that way.

I don't get how some guys asshole lures you in. I think pussies are better. I stand with Phil.

 

[PredFan]

After what he said about blacks, why would a public official come out and defend him?

I don't believe rightwingers even see what was offensive about his remark [about blacks]. But then, I also believe rightwingers truly don't understand why only 5-10% of blacks vote Republican.

At any rate, I think it was more of his castigation of gays that inspired their support.

You see as a liberals sees, that is to say not much at all.

It's nothing more than another salvo in the war against the Christian Right. 99% of them didn't know he had anything to say about blacks, it was all about him speaking out according to his faith.

You liberals love to forget all of the other instances where Christianity was singled out for criticism, and pretend that each incident is the only one and you point and laugh at what you try to convince yourselves is silliness and hyperbole.

You people are dishonest to the bone.

 

[Trajan]

Some guy from a "reality" show said some stupid shit during an interview as a representative of the A&E network; so, A&E suspended him.

Cue drama.

Of course Palin and Fox had to pipe in calling his suspension an attack on free speech and freedom of religion.

But where were they when the Dixie Chicks practiced their right to free speech when they criticized the invasion of Iraq back in 2003? I don't recall Fox spending hours defending THEIR right to free speech after the group was boycotted and lost sponsorships and deals over their comments.

How about a more recent example?

After Bashir resigned over his comments about Palin, she went on Fox and said, "Those with that platform, with a microphone, a camera in their face, they have to have some more responsibility taken".

Shouldn't she have given that same advice to Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty? After all, he has a platform, a microphone, a camera in his face. Millions of people watch his show. He likely insulted some of them with his remarks. Shouldn't he be held to the same standards by the right-wing media as Bashir was? Bashir was punished. Why is it wrong to punish Phil?

your analogy vis a vis bashir is flawed..think on it....

 

[tinydancer]

Society is the arbiter. Again your beef seems to be with reality. Sorry but its...reality

Wrong, in reality the society at large establishes the norms, not small minorities, standards that have been in place for tens of thousands of years wouldn't be discarded on a fucking whim. I don't know what alternate universe you live in but it ain't mine.

Thats correct society at large establishes the norms. Society at large doesnt accept of like public bigotry.

What you are trying to do is pretend that small minorities are stomping on the larger group. Which is impossible to do since one is small and the other is large. You seem to believe that society at large COULDNT be offended by anti-gay remarks because YOU arent offended by them.

Oh bite me. You have the larger squeak.

 

[Amelia]

I'm just trying to understand.

Louisiana has a large black population.

Why would it's governor come out and defendvRichardson?

I mean, why comment at all?

A politician is supposed to represent all the ppl in his/her realm.

What Richardson said HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH Jindal.

So why on earth would he feel compelled to alienate people he is supposed to represent?

That's a good question.

 

[BobPlumb]

People are supporting Robertson because we are tired of walking on eggshells concerning the homosexual lifestyle. People have the right to live the homosexual lifestyle, but don't try to make everyone else, Christians included, beleive it's moral.

The tired of walking on eggshells statement also applies to what Robertson said about blacks. People should be able to disagree without being offended. He described his experience with blacks as he perceived it growing up. In doing so he said nothing derogatory about blacks. Why can't blacks disagree with what he said without being offended?

Walking on eggshells is how they used to describe the public shunning of people who walked around saying ******

What you are saying is that people should be able to be assholes and other people shouldnt call them assholes or recognize and react to their asshole behavior.

Its the most baffling thing in the world to support bigots and attack or be offended by people being offended like only bigots have the right to speak their mind.

THEY KNOW their words are offensive and they opt to say it anyway KNOWING the response wont be good.

What you just wrote is offensive and bigoted. You are being an asshole because you knew it would offend.

See how easy that was. It's easy to play the victum and call the other guy a bigoted asshole.

 

[Vox]

Repubs seem to have a problem with a society that refuses to accept bigotry.

Repubs keep saying they dont support the "environnment" where people can be punished for their bullshit. That "environment" is also known as "reality".

Sorry but reality is reality. There is no changing it no matter how much you dont like it

A society that refuses to accept bigotry, tell me who is the arbiter of bigotry, who defines it? Do we bend to a few loud mouthed assholes just to shut them up, we've been doing that for nearly half a century and how's that working for us? No jobs, declining standard of living and morals, more poor than ever, hell yeah let's just keep doing what we've been doing, it's working so well.

Society is the arbiter. Again your beef seems to be with reality. Sorry but its...reality

no, it is NOT.

it is your subjective perception.

And God forbid ever to live in a country where a society is an arbiter.

Thank God it is STILL not here as well.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I don't understand any of this.

Look, if you want to spend your time fucking each other up the ass I've not a worry. I have to place my seed orders next month.

Go for your assholes. I don't fucking care. But don't you dare tell me I can't talk about you. I'm with Phil that way.

I don't get how some guys asshole lures you in. I think pussies are better. But get off our case motherfuckers.

Same thing here. You can say whatever you want and people who hear you have the same right. To pretend you are the only one with the right to state your opinion is a fairy tale

 

[ClosedCaption]

People are supporting Robertson because we are tired of walking on eggshells concerning the homosexual lifestyle. People have the right to live the homosexual lifestyle, but don't try to make everyone else, Christians included, beleive it's moral.

The tired of walking on eggshells statement also applies to what Robertson said about blacks. People should be able to disagree without being offended. He described his experience with blacks as he perceived it growing up. In doing so he said nothing derogatory about blacks. Why can't blacks disagree with what he said without being offended?

Walking on eggshells is how they used to describe the public shunning of people who walked around saying ******

What you are saying is that people should be able to be assholes and other people shouldnt call them assholes or recognize and react to their asshole behavior.

Its the most baffling thing in the world to support bigots and attack or be offended by people being offended like only bigots have the right to speak their mind.

THEY KNOW their words are offensive and they opt to say it anyway KNOWING the response wont be good.

What you just wrote is offensive and bigoted. You are being an asshole because you knew it would offend.

See how easy that was. It's easy to play the victum and call the other guy a bigoted asshole.

Ok, and?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I've been mulling this over for a while, and I've come to the distinct conclusion that we are all being more bigoted about this than Phil. Each side wants constantly to silence the other. I no longer think this is about Duck Dynasty anymore, but more to do with deep seated political viewpoints than anything. I'm beginning to see how petty this has gotten, yes, let me be the first to acknowledge reality.

Phil Robertson isn't being hurt by any of this. A&E was well within it's right to suspend him, Phil was well within his to say what he wanted to say. Neither one of them will suffer financially for this. But, none of us are concerned about that. As I've just mentioned, this is all one colossal political food fight. Let's get one thing straight here: I don't advocate any third party group bullying anyone into silence all simply because they disagree with them. But this has morphed into a microcosm of the left vs. right division in our country, not an issue of constitutionality or tolerance to one demographic or another. I believe we are being played for fools in the grand scheme of politics, but most of all this whole thing leads me to believe we are all being bigots. Not to Phil, not to gays, but each other.

Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them?

Last night, GQ released a story about Duck Dynasty that quotes Phil Robertson’s thoughts about homosexuality:

“It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

As you can imagine, everyone had an opinion about this statement, including GLAAD and Phil’s check-signer, A&E, who suspended the star indefinitely.

One of the conservative tweeters I follow — one of those Christians convinced that Obama is going to have him killed for his faith — lives for stuff like this. He quickly took to the Twitterverse and posted a side-by-side image of Pope Francis and Phil, with the following caption: “Both preach truth on homosexual sin. One is TIME’s Person of the Year. The other JUST GOT FIRED.”

The point is worth considering. Even though Phil used crass, juvenile language to articulate his point, what he was getting at was his belief that homosexual “desire” is unnatural and inherently disordered. This opinion isn’t unique to Phil. It’s actually shared by a majority of his fans.

It’s also shared, to some extent, by the Pope. Yes, that Pope — the one on the cover not just of TIME but also of The Advocate.

Of course, The Advocate knows the Pope’s thoughts on LGBT issues, including marriage equality. But as they note, Francis’ “stark change in rhetoric from his two predecessors” has set a positive example for how religious people ought to treat LGBT persons — an example that Phil, an elder at the White’s Ferry Road Church of Christ, ought to have followed in his GQ interview.

To compare Papa Duck to Papa Francis, as conservatives are doing, is, in my opinion, to misrepresent both of them. Francis, though he privately holds to certain doctrine which some might see as “anti-gay,” has not used any of his public-speaking opportunities to share these with the world. Instead, Francis has repeatedly offered grace to the LGBT community. At one point, he even uttered what might go down as the expression of public humility that singlehandedly saved the church: “Who am I to judge?”

The 'Duck Dynasty' Fiasco Says More About Our Bigotry Than Phil's | TIME.com

 

[ClosedCaption]

A society that refuses to accept bigotry, tell me who is the arbiter of bigotry, who defines it? Do we bend to a few loud mouthed assholes just to shut them up, we've been doing that for nearly half a century and how's that working for us? No jobs, declining standard of living and morals, more poor than ever, hell yeah let's just keep doing what we've been doing, it's working so well.

Society is the arbiter. Again your beef seems to be with reality. Sorry but its...reality

no, it is NOT.

it is your subjective perception.

And God forbid ever to live in a country where a society is an arbiter.

Thank God it is STILL not here as well.

Everything is subjective perception.