Saturday, December 21, 2013

Duck Dynasty Done Dirty? ~By AHB

The Anonymous Howard Beale: The Balrog of Truth
I have watched a few episodes of Duck Dynasty, and yes while I know it is Scriptality TV, it is mildly entertaining to immerse yourself in the mindless maw of the mass media from time to time. For those of you who don't know, Phil Robertson who is more or less the focus of Duck Dynasty gave an interview to GQ where he basically lambasted homosexuals for sinning, and he is now suspended from his own show by A&E. This show in particular is pretty upfront with it's traditional Christian overtones and you are left with little doubt as to what has shaped their supposed opinions. So why is his "Christianity" a problem now? Read on.

Before I get into what the bigger implications are, let me just say I have no problem with the man believing whatever he wants. For now, this place is still America where you have the freedom of expression. While I am an Agnostic and prefer to come to my own conclusions about such monumental insights and tend not to believe verbatim an inflexible and contradictory dogmatic script from nearly 2,000 years ago, I nonetheless do believe in the constitution's first amendment which is a little more current and to put it bluntly; more humane.

The backlash is mostly stemming from GLADD, which is a prominent LBGT advocacy group. They released a statement condemning Phil Robertson for his "Vile and Extreme" comments towards homosexuals, and while I do agree with them up to a point, I draw the line at them being two-faced when it comes to them wanting him silenced, for being a "stain on A&E and their sponsors."

So let me get this straight (pun)... A group of people who use their freedom of speech to share their beliefs has shown public disdain for someone who uses their freedom of speech to share his beliefs? I thought this group was for equality? Maybe they have championed the Feminist definition of equality, where it's only equality when your side benefits.

The real conundrum of all this is... Phil Robertson, GLADD, GQ, and A&E have all made the correct decisions for themselves. Phil Robertson has done nothing wrong other than displaying ignorance with conviction, GLADD was given a golden opportunity to rake him over the coals to further their agenda of thought control, GQ is defending it's profit margins by spawning controversy like any successful media outlet must do, and A&E can choose not to have him as a representative of their network. What the hell sort of mess is this?

I suppose the reason Christians are upset is because they feel Robertson is being punished for simply being Christian, which is not the case. He is being punished because an advocacy group took exception to what he said and stirred the pot, which forced A&E's hand.

Now in a perfect world, all Phil Robertson would have said in the article is his one comment about "not agreeing, but not judging." Instead, he first made comments that homosexuality is akin to bestiality and whoring, and insisted that they could go to hell. Perfect world GQ would have refused to publish the inflammatory section of the interview, but that is just too tame. Perfect world GLADD would have shown disappointment without the drama of trying to silence him, and perfect world A&E would not have given in to hysteria and merely passed on the cost of losing of sponsors to his show or set a time frame for suspension. Alas this is not a perfect world.

As Jackie has posted in the past, it's as if people are addicted to being offended/playing victim. A victim is powerless to change their situation on their own, but what happens when both sides play victim? I know you have heard it before, some dude murders his wife and blames it on his harsh mother, or some chick goes fatal attraction and blames daddy issues. Passing the blame to someone else is quickly becoming the default position.
So who do I deem the victims in all this? A&E as strange as that sounds. The gay advocates won't feel much of a setback to their agenda by his comments, no matter how insensitive they were. Phil Robertson knowingly jumped into a hornets nest and got stung. GQ was licking their lips over the juicy media steak they were just handed. A&E played no part in creating this mess whatsoever, but now is left with the only real mess to clean up. Sort of like Democrats, Republicans, Lobbyists, and then the American people themselves... which one do you think is holding the bag when the deals are done?


Jersey McJones said...

No one, especially over at A&E, should be the least bit surprised by the views held by a family of fundamentalist hillbillies. All GQ did was to showcase a social phenomena for people who otherwise would never watch the show. As cute and quaint as we like to believe "country folk" are, there is a dark side, of bigotry, misogyny, and superstition.

Could you imagine if instead of gays, Mr. Robertson instead slammed Jews? Many of these sorts of people have lots to say about Jews, and it's not pretty. Would right wing pols and pundits be supporting them then? Would you be referring to Jewish "thought control?" I doubt it.


Jack Camwell said...

Here's the problem with your logic, Jersey:

It would seem that you--and a bunch of people who can't seem to understand basic English--are conflating the Duck Dynasty guy's words with hate speech.

He didn't say that he hates gay people. He didn't come off like the crazies who say "fags burn in hell," or "death is God's punishment for America's leniency on homosexuality."

In fact, he went on to explicitly state that he DOES NOT hate gay people. He thinks homosexuality is a sin, because the bible tells him its a sin.

Sure, I don't think homosexuality is a sin, and I'd love to have a conversation with people like him about the topic, but what he did NOT do was engage in hate speech.

But of course, liberals are generally too retarded to understand nuances like that. Hell, they can't even understand a simple concept such as freedom of speech, so why should we expect liberals to understand things like the difference between espousing one's morality system and engaging in hate speech?

Here's the problem with the freedom of speech in American society: people are allowed to punish others for expressing their beliefs.

If you chastise someone for their beliefs--if you call for them to be fired, or to be publicly lambasted and skewered--then you do not actually believe in freedom of speech. George Orwell wrote about this often, most notably in his essay "Freedom of the Press."

I have said this on this blog before: in order for freedom of speech and thought to truly thrive, then we as a society need to foster a culture in which everyone is safe to voice their opinions and discuss those opinions in a civil manner, free from ridicule or derision.

For some reason, for all of their vaunted education and love of liberty, Liberals can't seem to understand that basic concept.

Jersey McJones said...

I don't have a problem in the world with these folks, Jack. Personally, if I was in charge at A&E, I would not have acted on this interview, other than to say, "What do you want? They're hillbillies."

The point I'm making is simple - there is nothing admirable about this guys views or the sad fact that many Americans agree with him, on race, religion, the social compact, and sexuality. He and the right wing are not victims of anything but being outed as backwards. If you put yourself out there, don't be surprised when you're out.


Anonymous said...

Not quite sure how to respond to this one without sounding like I am dodging the issues you raised...

I should have been more clear about what I thought was actually occurring. Which is I think it is an act, or at least a partial one.

Your assumptions about these people are wrong. They are not hillbillies, they are corporate yuppies. In fact years and years ago I saw an interview with Phil Robertson in some small business magazine and while they went into his background as a backwoods hunter, they never once talked about religion.

The religion aspect of the show is either an act, or a over-dramatization. A&E has purposefully made the show a bit controversial by bleeping out some references to Christianity and what not.

The issue at hand is, supposing for a moment this guy does truly believe this and it is not a ruse, why is it a big deal at all?

He also spoke about black people in this interview, and while I have heard it mentioned, there was not really a public outcry over it, not like this.

I don't agree with what he said whatsoever, to do so would indicate I believe verbatim in the bible, sin, hell, etc. However he still has a right to say it, even if it's a lie, and even if it's ignorant.

I realize you like to throw up right-wing comparisons on this, but liberals have a religion too, and it's current god is Barack Obama, they worship the government in a far more devastating fashion.

Jersey McJones said...

Bla bla bla, "You worship Obama", bla bla bla.

You're right these guys are just playing farce on TV, but I don't see a big liberal outcry about this. I think GLAAD made a big deal, and maybe a couple other groups, but that's just as far from how most liberals look at this as hillbillies, be they farce or not, are from most conservatives and Republicans.

I mentioned the black issue above because that's what really raised the eyebrows of liberals. These guys make their money hawking hillbilly farce. Most back-country folks are not so endowed. He talks about blacks and welfare? There are a lot more back-country whites on welfare than there are blacks. It was a little nasty, what he said.

Nothing to be proud of.


Jack Camwell said...

No, what he said was he never personally witnessed the effects of segregation and Jim Crow. He grew up in a small, rural area.

I know it's very hard for a lot of liberals to understand that scenarios existed pre-civil rights in which blacks lived about as well as their poor, white counterparts.

Go read Orwell's "THe Freedom of the Press," and you'll see why you're all ridiculous. One of his last lines in the essay:

"liberals are afraid of liberty . . ."

and he's speaking about the very concept of shunning "unpopular" opinions.

Anonymous said...

Baaaah Baaaahh indeed good sir.

Yes, there are more whites than blacks on welfare in the "back country" but that could have nothing to do with the fact there is a near 75:1 rural population discrepancy in the south.

In Ohio the ratio is more like 135:1, it's crazy. Remember the presidential voting map?

I had this discussion with Jackie before, you have to look at the big picture before declaring statistics.

For instance, I recall around a year ago when a poster on a forum I frequent just railed against how many white women dated black men, and it was near impossible for her to get a date with a white man.

I had to inform her that black women (like herself) were only around 13% of the female population. While that does not explain the entire situation, it's simply a good idea to keep that in mind.

As for why I feel A&E is the only true "victim"... they were dragged into a mess they directly didn't create, was mentioned by name in an article that had absolutely nothing to do with them for the most part and no matter what they did, they were going to lose. Keep him on, piss people and sponsors off, boot his ass, piss people and sponsors off.

Jersey McJones said...

That's not what bothered anyone, Jack. It was the comments about how things were before welfare and the civil rights movement, "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues." For Christ's sake, that's when they invented the friggin' blues!

As for being afraid of liberty, I'd put that on the frightened cowardly cons as expressed by our sick and perverted justice system. The freedom to act like a douche bag seems to be about the only "liberty" cons care about.

Anon, you can't feel bad for A&E. They knew what they were dealing with. These people hold backwards views and everyone knows it.


Anonymous said...

Uhh, A&E knows they are dealing with businessmen turned actors who are putting on a false front in all likelyhood?

Again, if people didn't take exception to them before, what changed?

The only thing that has changed is a few advocacy groups spoke out in their own version of condemnation, and one of them happened to be a big group with influence.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if A&E and Robertson had a closed door meeting about him wanting to retire or leave the show and this is what they cooked up for a publicity stunt, turning him into a martyr.

I see no evidence to that effect, but if that is indeed what occurred, then A&E has some culpability. Barring that, I still fail to understand how A&E is to blame for backlash that he opened the door for, and others stepped through the door and ripped into the soft underbelly of a duckling.

Micky said...

Jersey, all your whining over blacks in the pre civil rights era would be taken seriously if t werent for the fact that under Americas first black president, elected on large part because of his race,black unemployment, welfare, incarceration,fatherless homes, is the highest its ever been since the 60s.
It amazes me how very few people are able to see how liberals play this game.
Anytime between elections we are constantly bombarded with tributes to liberal programs and entitlements that have supposedly made life so much greater for blacks.
But, when elections role around the story quickly shifts to "the black man is no better off, and its evil whiteys fault".

The talking heads who are all saying Phil, as a Christian, should know that its not for us to condemn or damn those to hell who we see as sinners.
Robertsons views are just his opinion.
The part these disingenuous assholes keep leaving out is the later part of his interview where Phil specifically states that its God who’ll have the final say so.
Call it a caveat, call it mitigating, whatever.
When you put his controversial comments right in front of his acknowledging that judgement day is solely up to God it makes it pretty evident that he’s defining the difference between his feelings and opinion and Christian doctrine.

Chicago Tribune/Robertson family;

“The statement said the Robertsons have “spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E’s decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word.

“While some of Phil’s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart’ and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Phil would never incite or encourage hate. ”

The next thing thats pissing me off is the lack of attention being given to the cesspool of reality shows that show some of the most disgusting behavior humans have to offer.
With shows like Jersey Shore, Mob Wives, Bad Girls club making stupidity and abuse of all kinds morally acceptable you’d think these assholes could find something better to worry about.
The double standard today is amazing in that we are to be tolerant of only liberal views.
Wonder how many people have lost their jobs or been suspended for speaking in favor of gay marriage.

Micky said...

"As for being afraid of liberty, I'd put that on the frightened cowardly cons as expressed by our sick and perverted justice system. The freedom to act like a douche bag seems to be about the only "liberty" cons care about."

Really ?
Do you really want to go there ?
First we need to define what it is to "act like a douche bag".
Once we get that settled it becomes clear just who it is the left allowing and selling some of the most disgusting behavior ever.
As far as being afraid of liberty goes you can thank liberals for squashing liberties on everything from religion, to private property,speech, what we eat, and now our healthcare which liberals have turned into one its greatest liberty killing measures ever effecting every single American there is.
Whats the pro choice feministas battle cry ?
"Its my body, my womb, leave them the hell alone?"(with no mention to the babys rights)
Well. turnabout is fair play.
Obamacare has invaded everyone's right to care for their body as they see fit.

Anonymous said...


I realize you and I are agreeing for the most part... however.

"Wonder how many people have lost their jobs or been suspended for speaking in favor of gay marriage."

I personally know 3 people who lost their job because of their views, and I know a teacher who got fired from a catholic school after YEARS of service, simply because it was found out she was a lesbian.

You are right about it being double standards, I have heard the same tired line of how black people cannot be racist countless times which is not only impossible, but will keep us divided even longer.

Do black people have a legitimate bitch about how they are treated in this country? Yes they do.

While they tend to focus solely how the white man has kept them down, no attention is given to how the government has subverted them, or how they have subverted themselves.

The "Racism" problem is way down on the list of things that need to be addressed by the black community, and that will largely correct itself simply with the passage of time. Trying to force the issue will just prolong it further.

Programs like Affirmative Action have a huge blowback. By giving people opportunities that some are simply not capable of capitalizing on, you have set them up for failure. Those who do put in the work and take advantage of their good fortune will have to face scrutiny because of the opportunity they were given just because of their race/gender/other prevailing condition.

In my mind, the trouble with "Republicans" is they have wandered way off the beaten path of where they should be in terms of reeling in the government and being conservative. The result is the politicians elected are not doing what they should be doing, or simply do not care enough about the people to stand up to big government and only care about being elected. The government, and especially the federal government, only expands and gains dominion. rarely, if ever, will it shrink and return power to the people from whom they stole it.

"Democrats" and liberals on the other hand suffer from a more complicated and insidious malady. While they have the best of intentions, they consistently fail to realize that you cannot control the parameters of life by expanding the government, they are essentially of the mindset that man is not flawed, only the policies of man are flawed.

The middle east is a perfect example, despite over half a century of meddling in their affairs we have actually slid them further into chaos. By forcing western values on people who simply are NOT willing, they have short circuited their own efforts to bring stability to the region.

I always bring up the example of the UAE, which despite being framed around a muslim "mentality" they have nonetheless realized that war and battle is bad for business, so they compromised, and they have been greatly rewarded for simply embracing a better way.

FreeThinke said...

What we need to do more than anything else I can imagine is for everybody to learn to mind his own God-damned business, and quite trying to meddle in aspects of human behavior that concern no one but the active participants.

The Christians, the atheists, the homosexuals, the hedonists, the ascetics, the Jews, the Muslims, the pagans, the Marxists, the Capitalists -- ALL OF THEM -- ought to shut the fuck up, and leave each other the hell ALONE.

Issues such as this should NEVER -- EVER -- be RAISED. PERIOD!

Merry Christmas, God Damn It, and Fuck You if you don't like my saying it. ;-)

FreeThinke said...

Eat Shit and Die -- if you want to -- or DON'T. I don't CARE. It's YOUR business not mine, you fuckin', WEIRDO. };-)>


Micky said...

Right backatcha bro.
May the Great Elf come knockin on your back door with his North Pole.

Micky said...

"I personally know 3 people who lost their job because of their views, and I know a teacher who got fired from a catholic school after YEARS of service, simply because it was found out she was a lesbian."

Well, thats just wrong.
But I do have more sympathy for any Church as they should be the ones to decide who does and does not represent the institutions beliefs.