Looks like Duck Dynasty folks won

34 comments

• sclvr5005

  •

  11 years ago

  They didn't win anything. There was nothing to win. The ugliness & stupidity of that hillbilly jackass has come and gone. Few care despite the constant barrage of media about it. So what if he returns? Some will watch and many either never did or won't now. Does it matter? Fuck no.
• Alucard

  •

  11 years ago

  This was about an Employer - Employee relationship and work rules &/or contractual issues - I sincerely believe. NOT ABOUT any freedom issues.
• zipman68

  •

  11 years ago

  Agree with sclvr5005 and Alucard. This isn't freedom of speech. Indeed, the only "cure" would be depriving GLAAD of their freedom of speech. Didn't GLAAD have every right to say "we are so offended by what Mr. Duck Dynasty says that we think he should STFU...and we want A&E (and their parent company) to know that we'll vote with our pocketbooks if you continue to give him a platform to speak"? Why is Mr. Duck's freedom of speech more important than GLAAD's? GLAAD put the ball in A&E's court. They could have backed the duck folks or kicked 'em to the curb (assuming their contract with the production company allowed that). The should have done one or the other. The variety story makes 'em looks like pussys. Of course, I think they're banking on the anti-duck dynasty folks to remember the suspension and continue watching other programming and the pro-duck folks to think they've won and continue watching. Sad thing is that it will probably work. Personally, I would have preferred A&E pick a side and stick with it. Regardless, it ain't a freedom of speech issue!
• Tyres

  •

  11 years ago

  It just amazed me that the same people who are forever bemoaning the "nanny state" were the same ones who claimed that freedom of speech somehow applied to the decisions of A&E.
• ilbbaicnl

  •

  11 years ago

  Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you can't tell idiots to shut the fuck it. It only means they don't have to listen. But it doesn't mean they have the right to be on national TV. But, in a free society, idiots will be on TV if there are enough idiots who want them on TV.
• jackslash

  •

  11 years ago

  What did this ignorant racist homophobe win? The dumb ass of the year award?
• sclvr5005

  •

  11 years ago

  He's probably a future Darwin Award nominee/ winner.
• SlickSpic

  •

  11 years ago

  @Deogol-I too am against this "Brand New Censorship" that is gripping America. I can't stand this "demand for silence". We've never had this type of censorship ever. Just ask Black America.
• SlickSpic

  •

  11 years ago

  What was that old ditty by Nina Simone-"Mississippi Goddamn." Take a listen.
• georgmicrodong

  •

  11 years ago

  @Che: +eighty gajillion thousand million.
• sclvr5005

  •

  11 years ago

  Lmao like I said nobody won anything. The gawkers that watch redneck trash will continue to do so and those that didn't before will not start now. The media succeeded in getting the word out about this stupid meaningless issue so that viewers can make up their own mind. A&E neither lost nor gained any viewers based on this crap. Its a wash.
• nickifree

  •

  11 years ago

  People often confuse freedom of speech with censorship. Words have consequences.
• jabthehut

  •

  11 years ago

  nicki, saying "words have consequences" is new age BS.
• sclvr5005

  •

  11 years ago

  Nope- its reality. Deal with it.
• zipman68

  •

  11 years ago

  @Che - I think you and deogol are fundamentally confused about freedom of speech. You gave the example of the former Soviet Union executing a non-conformist. You're right about the culture war, but you seem to confound the idea of a culture war faught by individuals vs one faught by the govt. for me, it all comes down to two questions: 1. Did anybody with any power to actually deprive Mr. Duck of his freedom step in and tell him he would be punished for saying what he said? NO 2. Does GLAAD have a right to say "Mr. Duck is an obnoxious asshole and if you (in this case A&E and its parent corporation) give him a platform to speak we'll punish you by not supporting your business"? In my opinion YES. How is this any different from conservatives boycotting the Dixie Chicks in 2003? (BTW, I think conservatives DID HAVE a right to use their own right to free speech to advocate a boycott of the Dixie Chicks and even to try to get them dropped from their label) I'm not sure what you two are saying...is it that the answer to #2 is no? If so, how do you square that idea with the idea of personal freedom?
• goodsouthernboy

  •

  11 years ago

  Dear god, will y'all please get your derogatory slurs straight? This dude isn't a hillbilly. Use the appropriate fucking slur. That would be redneck or coon-ass. Jesus...
• sclvr5005

  •

  11 years ago

  Coon-ass? Lol!
• zipman68

  •

  11 years ago

  @Che -- I certainly wasn't expecting you to speak for deogol. You've now clarified what I believe to be some subtle difference between your position and deogol's, especially with respect to your distinction between the "demand for adherence...to orthodoxy" and free speech per se. However, I still think that your position on this is fundamentally incoherent. I won't take the bait of your allegation that I read what I wanted into your comments and simply respond to substance. I will, however, note that you didn't actually answer any of the questions. You came closest to answering the first question, where you stated that "GLAAD clearly thought they had the power to force A&E to to threaten Phil's income" but then went on to state that you support consumer boycotts. But, in the long run, GLAAD has no actual power save consumer pressure. Last I checked, there are no GLAAD Brownshirts assaulting or shooting those with whom they disagree. Wake me up when either side of this debate starts doing that. Since I don't want to put words into your mouth I won't try to interpret that as a YES or a NO answer to a question that was ultimately a yes or no question. Just to clarify, my question was essentially whether anyone with actual power to deprive Phil (aka Mr. Duck) of life, liberty, or income did so? My answer was NO. GLAAD did indeed try to convince people not to give Mr. Duck their money by using their right to speak out. The fact that they appear to have lost only reinforces my assertion that they had no actual power. Yet you seem to be making GLAAD out to be bad guys for exercising a limited power that you claim to support. To be fair, you don't come out and say they are bad guys. You just equivocate. Then you refer back to this non-answer in subsequent "answers". I would, however, make one more observation. Perhaps I am reading more into this than is there (after all, I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth) but you almost immediately changed the topic when I brought up a right wing boycott. You immediately stated that all societies have PC dogmas and then stated that "alternative lifestyles" corresponded to today's PC dogma. Actually comparing it to McCarthyism! Here's a hint -- although there was private anti-Communist activities (e.g., Hollywood black lists) there was ALSO the force of government (e.g., the House Un-American Activities committee) behind McCarthyism). I think that's kind of different from some LBGTQ saying "whoa Mr. Duck...what you said there...uncool! A&E guys...do you really want an asshole like that on your network". The fact that A&E kinda sorta responded to that is on them. Finally, I will note that, to my knowledge, GLAAD has not actually called for a consumer boycott of A&E yet...though that is the ONLY actual power they could bring to bear on Mr. Duck. Here is the reality of what I think happened. Phil is a sincere Christian "semi-coon-ass" who also happens to be a very successful businessman. I say "semi-coon-ass" because he is no doubt playing up the "coon-ass" parts of his personality for the cameras. However, I have no doubt that he is a member of the "coon-ass tribe" at the end of the day. The A&E execs aren't coon-asses. They are members of the same tribe as GLAAD -- urban, non-religious, pro-"alternative lifestyle". So GLAAD says "whoa...that Mr. Duck dude is an obnoxious homophobe" and the A&E execs went "yep...what he said is obnoxious...we were kind of hoping nobody would notice...let's cut the dude loose". Then they realized they might lose money...and you know what happened then. Let's just say we found out whether money trumped "tribal loyalty". We shall see if GLAAD pushes it and actually tries a boycott...
• deogol

  •

  11 years ago

  Che, that was an elegant reply regardless what is said by someone determined to be ignorant. It is obvious there is no consumer rejection of the Duck dude. So, GLAAD and their pals decided to cut him off at the pass by attempting to eliminate the middle man. The only problem is, the middle man found out they can't bully the Duck Dude without an army of sympathizers coming out and saying "Well, guess we won't watch ya." What some on here seem to repeatedly emphasis is that Freedom of Speech only applies when the government is in action. Of course, the phrase has been used in media for much more than that, but it won't stop someone from insisting on it ONLY meaning that on here. One could say Freedom of Religion is peeking it's head out to. GLAAD and its type have moved from being activists to being "Freedom of religion and speech are fine unless they don't agree with our position." See, if GLAAD doesn't agree, GLAAD will see to it you are thrown off the air, impoverished, and publicly ridiculed. They can press the point by having "brown shirts" interrupt filming, production at the Duck Commander - and there are other means. The idea that the state is the only actor is a simple one.
• deogol

  •

  11 years ago

  And for the simple out there, brown shirts means protesters. Even during the 30's when NAZI brownshirts were in action, they weren't yet in power other than being street thugs.
• sclvr5005

  •

  11 years ago

  You pro-redneck lovers can banter about this all you want, but no one cares. I have several gay coworkers who I asked about this and both laughed about it and said that they simply don't care. They never watch hillbilly trash TV and generally don't watch A&E at all anyways. It seems Bravo is their channel of choice. Now are Bravo & A&E both owned by the same parent company? Maybe, maybe not. Again who knows and who cares? Apparently not the people who you wrongly claim to have "won" against.
• deogol

  •

  11 years ago

  I am an American and definitely not a red neck. There are too many organizations around saying one is not American if you don't agree with them (and must be punished for it.) I may not agree with everything in Duck Dynasty, but they should be allowed to live life as they want.
• DoctorPhil

  •

  11 years ago

  @sclvr5005. just thought i would point out that you have commented on this thread 6 times in the last two days. your insistence that no one cares is starting to ring hollow. almost sounds like you are trying to shut down any opposing views.
• dallas702

  •

  11 years ago

  Degol's implied comparison between modern left leaning "progressive" liberals (Gawd, ain't that a mouthful just to avoid saying "socialist") and the (then self described - far left) National Worker's Party in 1930's Germany (also known by it's German language initials "NAZI") is spot on. The NAZI followers insistently claimed they were "for" everybody and depended heavily on a national press that almost exclusively reported the NAZI angle. The press was then opposed to the "right wing" crown government and the subsequent elected Bismark government which was also considered "right wing". The NAZI or "workers party" won a major victory when Bismark brought into his coalition government a NAZI leader named Adolph Hitler. I see too many parallels between 1930s Germany and this country now. The situation is not the same, the outcome is not likely going to be as bad for us, but there are groups (like GLAAD) within the far left of the Democratic Party who believe (like NAZIs) they represent the ONLY voice that should be heard, With the cooperation of Media-Matters, and most major press/media outlets, the progressive message is broadcast as the "right" and sometimes "only" opinion. Prior posters are correct, the Duck Dynasty debacle was never about "Freedom of Speech." In the sense that the US Constitution in fact prevents the government from interfering with commerce rather than forcing business to allow or disallow certain speech, government actually protects the actions of A&E rather than the opinions of Phil Robertson. But this heavily reported dispute between a cable TV network and a star of its most popular show does demonstrate the power and influence of free speech in the marketplace. A progressive group, part of the coalition of progressives/liberals currently running the government, tried to exercise its power to silence and punish someone speaking a view they do not approve. They initially succeeded when A&E "suspended" Phil Robertson. But then the issue blew up in their face (both GLAAD and A&E). A&E did the about face to try and save the network after the internet provided a medium for opposition voices to disprove the widespread media/press claims that GLAAD was right and everybody supported them. I am looking forward to discovering whether this tiny tempest creates another opposition coalition that will help non progressives retake power in 2014. It will be fun to watch.
• zipman68

  •

  11 years ago

  @deogol -- I hate to say it, but you and Che are the ones with fundamentally incoherent viewpoints. Indeed, I think you're either being obstinate and refusing to concede a point where you know you're incorrect or you fundamentally don't understand freedom of expression. I'd like to get your answer on a simple YES or NO question -- feel free to embellish, but pay me the respect of actually answering (unlike Che): Did GLAAD have the right to urge A&E to kick the Duck Dynasty folks off the air? YES or NO If yes, then what is your problem with what went on? Nobody involved did anything other than exercise their right to free speech. One side (GLAAD) said the other should STFU. The backed it up by ASKING the folks who provide the other side (the duck folk) a platform to stop giving them that platform. GLAAD asking the duck folk to STFU is within their rights! The other side (the duck folk) said no, we won't. The guys providing the platform at first appeared to side with GLAAD, then reversed course. So the other side (the duck folk) appears to have won. Didn't freedom of speech work in this instance? If no, why is Mr. Duck's freedom of speech more important than GLAAD's? More fundamentally, what is wrong with an individual or private organization saying, as you put it, that one "...is not American if [one] does not agree with them (and must be punished for it)"? As long as said individual or organization don't impose their "punishment" illegally (i.e., as the Brownshirts did, through physical intimidation, assault, destruction of property, murder) the are simply exercising their freedom of speech. If your saying that GLAAD doesn't have the right to send thugs to Louisiana to kick the duck folks asses...well, OK, I'm with you. Wake me up when that happens. But you appear to be the guy telling GLAAD they aren't American I'm glad you don't have the power of the law to enforce your opinion.
• sclvr5005

  •

  11 years ago

  Thanks for pointing that out DrPhool. Its super important how many times I post, isn't it? I'm not trying to shut down anything. I don't care what they think. I'm saying that the media made a much bigger deal about this stupidity than it ever warranted and the average intelligent non trash TV viewer just doesn't give a shit about any of this. Period.
• zipman68

  •

  11 years ago

  Before I get called for the last sentence being a run on, I'll just say it reflects me hitting my iPad space bar once rather than twice. As a consequence, two sentences were incorrectly elided. Hopefully, deogol will focus on content rather than that error or any other spelling/grammatical errors. Just to be crystal clear about my position, Phil Robertson (aka Mr. Duck) has every right to spout whatever homophobic, racist, or religious crap he wants. Let's personalize this...I have a right to ignore it. I have the right to call him un-American. I have a right to say "I dislike that crap you said so much I won't support you economically" (hollow threat in my case since I've never watched his show and don't actually feel strongly enough about his ignorant crap to find other ways to pressure him). I don't, however, have a right to be a Brownshirt and "punish" Mr. Duck in any illegal ways (hacking his web site, flying to Louisiana and destroying his property, etc). ALL things like that are off the table. That sums up an actual belief in freedom of expression. In contrast, deogol would appear determined to deprive me of my rights in this example.
• zipman68

  •

  11 years ago

  Oh my GAWD... Dallas is just insane. Modern progressives are frickin' Nazis. I don't agree with all of the progressive agenda, but has to be the stupidest TEA party meme out there. I mean really, do you actually BELIEVE a group of LBGTQ activists exercising their right to free speech in requesting Duck Dynasty go off the air (and LOSING the argument because other people exercised their right to free speech and supported the duck folk) is JUST LIKE Kristallnacht? I'd say that I'd like to try what Mr. Dallas is smokin' 'cos it has gotta be pretty far out...but whatever that dude smokes has to be killing brain cells!
• deogol

  •

  11 years ago

  Yes, I focus on content, not spelling or grammatical errors. These are not college papers we are writing. :)
• Alucard

  •

  11 years ago

  In this day and age of 24/7/365.25 News and the need to prevent EMPTY air, it's very amusing to see an Employer/Employee dispute blown totally out of proportion and made into a false constitutional issue.
• DoctorPhil

  •

  11 years ago

  @zipman68 “and LOSING the argument” so you admit that deogol was correct after all: “Looks like Duck Dynasty folks won” @sclvr5005. that’s 7. just saying…. @alucard. stfu dumbass
• zipman68

  •

  11 years ago

  Cool deogol... Then do yo feel GLAAD has a right to free speech EQUAL to that of the duck folks and can -- if they so choose -- use that right to punish the duck folks through legally acceptable actions such as boycotts? Note that none of this implies you necessarily like what EITHER side says. I just think you and Che are obfuscating the issue. Che seems to say boycotts were OK but then seems to meander back onto how nasty the GLAAD folks were to pick on the poor duck dudes. You seem to imply that clad could act as Brownshirts and disrupt filming. True...they could do that but they haven't. Hell, I'm not aware of GLAAD actually threatening to organize a boycott, which would be within their rights. My perspective...Phil Robertson can spout whatever bullshit he likes. He can attend whichever church he wants. If the government attempted to, shut him up I'd support his rights. If GLAAD sent thugs to disrupt filming, kick his ass, etc. I'd support arresting the thugs for trespassing, assault, etc. Wake me up when that happens. Unless the infamous GLAAD Brownshirts actually start kickin' coon-ass asses I'll also support GLAAD's right to tell the duck folks to STFU. Do you support the freedom of BOTH sides to have their say?
• deogol

  •

  11 years ago

  I agree both sides have freedom of speech. I disagree on the pressure GLAAD had on A&E to censor him.
• zipman68

  •

  11 years ago

  Cool. We both agree that both sides have freedom of speech. If you are saying that GLAAD shouldn't have put pressure (and -- to my knowledge -- that pressure was basically saying "A&E...that dude is a homophobic asshole...kick him off of your channel") that is your opinion. Me...I think GLAAD should be allowed to say and do what they want (stipulating that they aren't allowed to do anything illegal). That would include a boycott, if they want. The duck folk should be allowed to say and do what they want. That would include organizing a boycott of products that support gay rights, if they wanted. That is freedom. I'm just calling bullshit on the notion that GLAAD was out of line. Both sides of any argument can apply whatever pressure they want as long as it does not move into threats of injury or destruction of property).