Brothers Kicked Off HGTV Channel Over Anti-Gay Remarks.

[Iceweasel]

Political correctness is all over the place.

Then cite the law that is ‘political correctness,’ cite the jurisdiction that enacted and enforces this ‘law,’ and cite the ‘penalty’ for violating ‘political correctness,’ what is the amount of the fine, how many years incarcerated.

Absent such a statutory measure that enforces ‘political correctness,’ then in fact it does not exist, as citizens remain free to express their opinions absent interference by the state.

No one was talking about the state, genius.

 

[TooTall]

If those brothers were muslim they'd be even more anti-homo and they'd still have their show.

bullshit

Perhaps, but if they were gay they would still have the show. Doesn't HGTV sponsor Ellen Degeneres? (sp)

 

[protectionist]

Mess with the Gays at your own peril....they are a protected species.

NOT in 58% of American states.

 

[protectionist]

Actually one can.

It’s not a ‘censorship issue’ for the same reason it’s not a free speech issue: lack of government involvement – only government, using the authority of the state, has the power to censor; hence the protections afforded citizens by the First Amendment.

Sorry, it is a defacto censorship since it's a game of politically correct or you are out. This sends a clear message to everyone else.



They do it all the time. You say xyz and you're out.

What are they "out" of though? A ******* TV SHOW. That's the headbanger part of this -- y'all treat this like it's something actually important.

You're actually wetting your collective pants that one channel of a box whose sole purpose is to gather eyeballs to advertise stuff we don't need, puts these two guys out to pasture. BFD.

Wrong again. Political correctness is all over the place. Your denial won't change it.

Consequently, the contrivances of ‘censorship’ and ‘political correctness’ in the context of the private sector are nothing more than myths fabricated by the partisan right.

LOL.

Sit down Weasel, because I'm about to agree with you. Yes there surely is political correctness; it's the moral compass that guides our social mores. It's a large ship that's nudged by tiny boats whose influence is a gradual sea change but over time it establishes what the society considers acceptable and unacceptable. Years ago this ship would have had no problem with ant-gay, anti-black, anti-Jewish or whatever sentiment in the public sphere, because in the place we were at that time it wouldn't have made waves.

Times change. The gay activists are one of those tiny boats. The Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells, a somewhat bigger boat tugging the opposite direction. Eventually a balance is reached, and that balance is always in flux.

Here's mainstream TV, less than 50 years ago -- try to imagine this show broadcast today:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2UNcDHa5ao"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2UNcDHa5ao[/ame]

In 58% of American states discrimination still prevails, no differently now than it was 50 years ago.

 

[Wake]

I read this article yesterday, and I'm saddened that people like them are indeed persecuted for merely expressing their opinions and beliefs.

It's sad how people of any faith are told they can't have a wholesome TV show because of their views.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a religious or secular view not in lockstep favor with homosexuality.

 

[protectionist]

Actually one can.

It’s not a ‘censorship issue’ for the same reason it’s not a free speech issue: lack of government involvement – only government, using the authority of the state, has the power to censor; hence the protections afforded citizens by the First Amendment.

Sorry, it is a defacto censorship since it's a game of politically correct or you are out. This sends a clear message to everyone else.



They do it all the time. You say xyz and you're out.

What are they "out" of though? A ******* TV SHOW. That's the headbanger part of this -- y'all treat this like it's something actually important.

You're actually wetting your collective pants that one channel of a box whose sole purpose is to gather eyeballs to advertise stuff we don't need, puts these two guys out to pasture. BFD.

Wrong again. Political correctness is all over the place. Your denial won't change it.

Consequently, the contrivances of ‘censorship’ and ‘political correctness’ in the context of the private sector are nothing more than myths fabricated by the partisan right.

LOL.

Sit down Weasel, because I'm about to agree with you. Yes there surely is political correctness; it's the moral compass that guides our social mores. It's a large ship that's nudged by tiny boats whose influence is a gradual sea change but over time it establishes what the society considers acceptable and unacceptable. Years ago this ship would have had no problem with ant-gay, anti-black, anti-Jewish or whatever sentiment in the public sphere, because in the place we were at that time it wouldn't have made waves.

Times change. The gay activists are one of those tiny boats. The Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells, a somewhat bigger boat tugging the opposite direction. Eventually a balance is reached, and that balance is always in flux.

Here's mainstream TV, less than 50 years ago -- try to imagine this show broadcast today:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2UNcDHa5ao"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2UNcDHa5ao[/ame]

Time have NOT changed in 58% of American states. Queers are still discriminated against in a variety of ways just as they always have. And for SSM it is 66% of states. (2/3)

Maps of State Laws & Policies | Resources | Human Rights Campaign

PS - WHAT they are out of (a TV show) is less important than WHY they are out of it. Discrimination against and intolerance of all those who wish to live in a queer-free society.

 

[Wake]

What are they "out" of though? A ******* TV SHOW.

While it is just a TV show, I do wonder what your reaction would be if the shoe were on the other foot..

 

[protectionist]

I read this article yesterday, and I'm saddened that people like them are indeed persecuted for merely expressing their opinions and beliefs.

It's sad how people of any faith are told they can't have a wholesome TV show because of their views.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a religious or secular view not in lockstep favor with homosexuality.

TRUE. When one speaks against homosexuality, they are said to be intolerant. But the same word "intolerant" rarely seems to be used to describe those who demand full rights for homosexuals, despite the fact that they are not tolerating the views and speech of homosexuality opponents.

 

[Mac1958]

.

So much for that "diversity" and "inclusion" bullshit.



.

 

[Political Junky]

Mess with the Gays at your own peril....they are a protected species.

NOT in 58% of American states.

That's changing quickly.

 

[Wake]

I propose that the best thing we should do is continue voicing our opinions while not fearing reprisal. So long as our views do not call for hurting, restraining, or punishing homosexuals, we should do everything in our power to ensure our voices are heard. I don't think any people on either side should be punished through losing their shows simply because of a view, especially if that view wasn't even made on the show.

The possibility is that there's an element of fascism at work here, where you had better think one way or lose out on your dreams, or worse, have your livelihoods destroyed. I believe it is time to fight back, but in a way where one's integrity is kept intact. Perhaps we should start by fighting to pass legislature where people cannot lose TV shows merely for views stated elsewhere.

 

[Mac1958]

I propose that the best thing we should do is continue voicing our opinions while not fearing reprisal. So long as our views do not call for hurting, restraining, or punishing homosexuals, we should do everything in our power to ensure our voices are heard. I don't think any people on either side should be punished through losing their shows simply because of a view, especially if that view wasn't even made on the show.

The possibility is that there's an element of fascism at work here, where you had better think one way or lose out on your dreams, or worse, have your livelihoods destroyed. I believe it is time to fight back, but in a way where one's integrity is kept intact. Perhaps we should start by fighting to pass legislature where people cannot lose TV shows merely for views stated elsewhere.

I agree with you, but I don't know how we get there from here.

These people have the control now, what they're doing is not illegal or unconstitutional, and they'll continue to do it. They've done it through the culture, and can now choose to destroy anyone they wish.

In fact, people are now even falling on the sword before the shit hits the fan. That's power.

They choose to do it. They don't have to do it. But it's working.

Watch what you say. After all, this is America.

.

 

[Wake]

I propose that the best thing we should do is continue voicing our opinions while not fearing reprisal. So long as our views do not call for hurting, restraining, or punishing homosexuals, we should do everything in our power to ensure our voices are heard. I don't think any people on either side should be punished through losing their shows simply because of a view, especially if that view wasn't even made on the show.

The possibility is that there's an element of fascism at work here, where you had better think one way or lose out on your dreams, or worse, have your livelihoods destroyed. I believe it is time to fight back, but in a way where one's integrity is kept intact. Perhaps we should start by fighting to pass legislature where people cannot lose TV shows merely for views stated elsewhere.

I agree with you, but I don't know how we get there from here.

These people have the control now, what they're doing is not illegal or unconstitutional, and they'll continue to do it. They've done it through the culture, and can now choose to destroy anyone they wish.

They choose to do it. They don't have to do it. But it's working.

Watch what you say. After all, this is America.

.

One answer is comedy. Literally. There should be more conservative comedians out there being vocal about their views. Mockery via comedy is powerful. They should mock the controlling nature of some liberals. I see so many liberal comedians, but little if any conservative ones. The conservative party should develop an element of youth and comedic aptitude without losing their social and fiscal views in the process. It takes intellect to be funny, and I do know there are intelligent conservatives out there as well.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I propose that the best thing we should do is continue voicing our opinions while not fearing reprisal. So long as our views do not call for hurting, restraining, or punishing homosexuals, we should do everything in our power to ensure our voices are heard. I don't think any people on either side should be punished through losing their shows simply because of a view, especially if that view wasn't even made on the show.

The possibility is that there's an element of fascism at work here, where you had better think one way or lose out on your dreams, or worse, have your livelihoods destroyed. I believe it is time to fight back, but in a way where one's integrity is kept intact. Perhaps we should start by fighting to pass legislature where people cannot lose TV shows merely for views stated elsewhere.

I agree with you, but I don't know how we get there from here.

These people have the control now, what they're doing is not illegal or unconstitutional, and they'll continue to do it. They've done it through the culture, and can now choose to destroy anyone they wish.

They choose to do it. They don't have to do it. But it's working.

Watch what you say. After all, this is America.

.

One answer is comedy. Literally. There should be more conservative comedians out there being vocal about their views. Mockery via comedy is powerful. They should mock the controlling nature of some liberals. I see so many liberal comedians, but little if any conservative ones. The conservative party should develop an element of youth and comedic aptitude without losing their social and fiscal views in the process. It takes intellect to be funny, and I do know there are intelligent conservatives out there as well.

It's not a bad idea. Making fun of some of the ridiculous shit that liberals come up with would be great. There's a goldmine of opportunity out there.

 

[Pogo]

"Man caused disaster" = Liberal definition of terrorism.

Huh?

OK I'm lost.

"Overseas contingency operation" = Liberal definition of war.

War euphemisms, like any sensitive topic, are legion. "Collateral damage". "Theater". "Advisers". All designed to soften the blow with bullshit. That's got nothing to do with Liberalism or any other political philosophy. It has to do with marketing. You're simply gonna sell more wars with "collateral damage" than with "slaughtering innocent civilian bystanders".

They play directly into their aversion to war and violence. Frankly, war is war, and terrorism is terrorism. I can tell you of things I read about the very first war photographers and their imagery of the Civil War. You can soften the blow all you like, but in my eyes, that's political correctness. The photography of war doesn't allow for softening the blow on anything, they depict that moment in reality in all their gory detail.

And lets not define political correctness as "softening the blow." It's political correctness.

No, it's marketing. It's using a disingenuous term to soften the blow of reality, so that you can sell the war to the public. And that's independent of political philosohies; we saw it in Iraq and we saw it in Vietnam, and everywhere in between. Because if we the people caught on to what we're doing most of the time there would be rioting in the streets (and at times there was), and that interrupts the war machine. And the war machine (the MIC) runs both parties.

"Political correctness" is social pressure. I think we just did this, wasn't that this thread? It's more properly "social correctness" -- where "correct" of course is in the eye of the beholder.

Terrorism is the infliction of murder and/or destruction as a means of political coercion to some cause. I don't know how "man caused disaster" connects to that.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I propose that the best thing we should do is continue voicing our opinions while not fearing reprisal. So long as our views do not call for hurting, restraining, or punishing homosexuals, we should do everything in our power to ensure our voices are heard. I don't think any people on either side should be punished through losing their shows simply because of a view, especially if that view wasn't even made on the show.

The possibility is that there's an element of fascism at work here, where you had better think one way or lose out on your dreams, or worse, have your livelihoods destroyed. I believe it is time to fight back, but in a way where one's integrity is kept intact. Perhaps we should start by fighting to pass legislature where people cannot lose TV shows merely for views stated elsewhere.

I agree with you, but I don't know how we get there from here.

These people have the control now, what they're doing is not illegal or unconstitutional, and they'll continue to do it. They've done it through the culture, and can now choose to destroy anyone they wish.

In fact, people are now even falling on the sword before the shit hits the fan. That's power.

They choose to do it. They don't have to do it. But it's working.

Watch what you say. After all, this is America.

.

I call it the new McCarthyism.

 

[Pogo]

What are they "out" of though? A ******* TV SHOW.

While it is just a TV show, I do wonder what your reaction would be if the shoe were on the other foot..

Uh.... what? What shoe?

I sense there's an analogy lurking there somewhere. Don't be shy, articulate it.

 

[Wake]

What are they "out" of though? A ******* TV SHOW.

While it is just a TV show, I do wonder what your reaction would be if the shoe were on the other foot..

Uh.... what? What shoe?

I sense there's an analogy lurking there somewhere. Don't be shy, articulate it.

What would your reaction be if two homosexuals had their same TV show on HGTV cancelled because of their views they voiced?

Would you support that, too, because it's just a TV show run by a private company?

 

[Pogo]

I propose that the best thing we should do is continue voicing our opinions while not fearing reprisal. So long as our views do not call for hurting, restraining, or punishing homosexuals, we should do everything in our power to ensure our voices are heard. I don't think any people on either side should be punished through losing their shows simply because of a view, especially if that view wasn't even made on the show.

The possibility is that there's an element of fascism at work here, where you had better think one way or lose out on your dreams, or worse, have your livelihoods destroyed. I believe it is time to fight back, but in a way where one's integrity is kept intact. Perhaps we should start by fighting to pass legislature where people cannot lose TV shows merely for views stated elsewhere.

I agree with you, but I don't know how we get there from here.

These people have the control now, what they're doing is not illegal or unconstitutional, and they'll continue to do it. They've done it through the culture, and can now choose to destroy anyone they wish.

They choose to do it. They don't have to do it. But it's working.

Watch what you say. After all, this is America.

.

One answer is comedy. Literally. There should be more conservative comedians out there being vocal about their views. Mockery via comedy is powerful. They should mock the controlling nature of some liberals. I see so many liberal comedians, but little if any conservative ones. The conservative party should develop an element of youth and comedic aptitude without losing their social and fiscal views in the process. It takes intellect to be funny, and I do know there are intelligent conservatives out there as well.

A worthy point; satire makes a point and if done well can be powerful.

But I have a standing query as to why it seems that the right thrives on attack-dog rhetoric (Limblob, Fox, and the radio talkers) but when the left tries to emulate that it falls flat; meanwhile the left traffics in comedy with easy facility (Stewart, Colbert, Carlin, Maher) and when the right tries it, that falls flat.

I know that's a broad brush (two of them) but it does seem a pattern of preferences.

 

[JoeB131]

I read this article yesterday, and I'm saddened that people like them are indeed persecuted for merely expressing their opinions and beliefs.

It's sad how people of any faith are told they can't have a wholesome TV show because of their views.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a religious or secular view not in lockstep favor with homosexuality.

they are not being "Persecuted". They are subject to a business decision by their employer.

they are perfectly free to shop their show idea on TLN or some other religious network with 10 viewers, but they wanted to be on HGTV with its whole 300 viewers.