Duck Dynasty?

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Tell me, why wouldn't you defend someone who did nothing but recount their own life experience, it was the way he saw his world. If you have a problem with that then it's you're problem not his.

It is offensive that he doesn't go back and rewrite his memories to comply with the politically correct idea that blacks were forced to call everyone massah up until last year.

 

[Rocko]

I disagree with what the guy said.

I've never seen his teevee show, nor do I care about it.

I'm not terribly fond of his beard.

I don't care about ducks.

I'm defending him because I believe he should be able to voice his opinion, whether I agree with him or not, without being punished. I'm not afraid of people saying things that I don't like.

.

I would be with you if he was being punished by the government, but he's not. A & E is obviously a private company and it's well within their right to fired him because they don't like what he said.

I agree completely that A&E had the right to fire him.

What I disagree with, virulently, is the clear, pervasive environment that currently exists that intimidates employers into doing what A&E felt it had to do.

I want to hear what people are thinking, whether I like it or not.

.

Well, I agree with that. A&E has a choice to ignore what he said, but I think the bottom line is sponsorship.

 

[Black_Man1]

What did he say about blacks that was offensive?

The idea that anyone was "happy" under a system designed to dehumanize them is offensive.

JUST BECAUSE he "says" no blacks ever were harmed before HIS eyes, or no blacks ever complained to HIM, is categorically ludicrous to think that blacks were "happy" under Jim Crow.

That is bullshit, and everyone knows it.

Were "jews" "happy" in concentration camps because some ppl never heard them complain to a german?

Ridiculous.

And the fact that he tries to put that spin on a most vicious time in American history concerning blacks is offensive to many.


KING!

 

[Katzndogz]

A&E had the right to fire him but that's not good enough for the gay mafia who think that some extra persecution is in order. They could seige a bakery. Why not do the same think with Duck Commander? When are they going to Louisiana?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I disagree with what the guy said.

I've never seen his teevee show, nor do I care about it.

I'm not terribly fond of his beard.

I don't care about ducks.

I'm defending him because I believe he should be able to voice his opinion, whether I agree with him or not, without being punished. I'm not afraid of people saying things that I don't like.

.

I would be with you if he was being punished by the government, but he's not. A & E is obviously a private company and it's well within their right to fired him because they don't like what he said.

I agree completely that A&E had the right to fire him.

What I disagree with, virulently, is the clear, pervasive environment that currently exists that intimidates employers into doing what A&E felt it had to do.

I want to hear what people are thinking, whether I like it or not.

.

Thats great but you're saying that you agree that A&E has the right to react to their words but you dislike people expressing they didnt like it to that persons employer.

Lets analyze...Someone says something offensive you believe that people who hear it

a)should not express their displeasure
b)should not express their displeasure to that persons employer
c)Should get over it
d)Should dislike it individually at differing times as others


See really, what it is is that people cannot be outwardly racist, sexist, etc. and for some reason the republicans are saying that this lack of public racism, sexism or bigotry is a bad thing

 

[Mac1958]

Lets analyze...Someone says something offensive you believe that people who hear it

a)should not express their displeasure
b)should not express their displeasure to that persons employer
c)Should get over it
d)Should dislike it individually at differing times as others

e) They should feel free to communicate with that person, debate them, ignore them, flip them off, try to change their mind, give them the stink eye, whatever works for them. They can point at that person and say "holy shit, look at THAT!" if they think that's a good idea. What I don't think they should do is try to punish them for voicing their opinion.

Unless your theoretical is taking place in North Korea, maybe.

.

 

[Katzndogz]

What did he say about blacks that was offensive?

The idea that anyone was "happy" under a system designed to dehumanize them is offensive.

JUST BECAUSE he "says" no blacks ever were harmed before HIS eyes, or no blacks ever complained to HIM, is categorically ludicrous to think that blacks were "happy" under Jim Crow.

That is bullshit, and everyone knows it.

Were "jews" "happy" in concentration camps because some ppl never heard them complain to a german?

Ridiculous.

And the fact that he tries to put that spin on a most vicious time in American history concerning blacks is offensive to many.


KING!

NOW is the most vicious time in history to American Black people. NOW. How many are killed by their own just this weekend? Jim crow was peaceful compared to what you are doing to your own people. Yes. I said you. I didn't misspeak.

 

[peach174]

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???

He wasn't part of the ruling class he was just as much being oppressed and discriminated as the blacks were, as being poor white trash.
He could not get a regular job as white trash, no white would hire him.

White trash is a derogatory American English term referring to poor white people, especially in the rural South of the US, suggesting lower social class and degraded standards. The term suggests outcasts from respectable society living on the fringes of the social order who are seen as dangerous because they may be criminal, unpredictable, and without respect for authority whether it be political, legal, or moral. The term is usually a slur and insult.

The term White trash first came into common use in the 1830s as a pejorative used by house slaves against poor whites. In 1833 Fanny Kemble, an English actress visiting Georgia, noted in her journal: "The slaves themselves entertain the very highest contempt for white servants, whom they designate as 'poor white trash'".

In 1854, Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote the chapter "Poor White Trash" in her book A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin. Stowe tells the reader that slavery not only produces "degraded, miserable slaves", but also poor whites who are even more degraded and miserable. The plantation system forced those whites to struggle for subsistence. Beyond economic factors, Stowe traces this class to the shortage of schools and churches in their community, and says that both blacks and whites in the area look down on these "poor white trash".

By 1855 the term had passed into common usage by upper class whites, and was common usage among all Southerners, regardless of race, throughout the rest of the 19th century.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

What did he say about blacks that was offensive?

The idea that anyone was "happy" under a system designed to dehumanize them is offensive.

JUST BECAUSE he "says" no blacks ever were harmed before HIS eyes, or no blacks ever complained to HIM, is categorically ludicrous to think that blacks were "happy" under Jim Crow.

That is bullshit, and everyone knows it.

Were "jews" "happy" in concentration camps because some ppl never heard them complain to a german?

Ridiculous.

And the fact that he tries to put that spin on a most vicious time in American history concerning blacks is offensive to many.


KING!

Phil was asked about his personal experience. He answered to it. As for the group who is making a issue out of this, maybe the National Association for the Advancement of COLORED PEOPLE should go back to 1950, where their name belongs.

 

[Faun]

A&E had the right to fire him but that's not good enough for the gay mafia who think that some extra persecution is in order. They could seige a bakery. Why not do the same think with Duck Commander? When are they going to Louisiana?

Why shouldn't they if they were offended?

 

[occupied]

Two instances where a person signs a contract. In one a man agrees to become a well paid public figure in return he must watch his mouth, he doesn't and pays a terrible price.

Result? Republicans freak the **** out calling it unjust and wrong.

Next case: A man takes out a mortgage that balloons horribly at about the time his equity disappears and his home's value drops like a lead balloon leaving him to pay a terrible price for trying to be a home owner.

Result: Republicans say "tough shit, you signed away your rights, deal with it".

 

[ClosedCaption]

Lets analyze...Someone says something offensive you believe that people who hear it

a)should not express their displeasure
b)should not express their displeasure to that persons employer
c)Should get over it
d)Should dislike it individually at differing times as others

e) They should feel free to communicate with that person, debate them, ignore them, flip them off, try to change their mind, give them the stink eye, whatever works for them. They can point at that person and say "holy shit, look at THAT!" if they think that's a good idea. What I don't think they should do is try to punish them for voicing their opinion.

Unless your theoretical is taking place in North Korea, maybe.

.

They are flipping them off. They are ignoring them and the result is that their employer sees them getting the bird and notice the people ignoring them and decide that its better to react to it. You seem to believe that an employer can do whatever it wants EXCEPT punish an employee.

 

[Mac1958]

Two instances where a person signs a contract. In one a man agrees to become a well paid public figure in return he must watch his mouth, he doesn't and pays a terrible price.

Result? Republicans freak the **** out calling it unjust and wrong.

Next case: A man takes out a mortgage that balloons horribly at about the time his equity disappears and his home's value drops like a lead balloon leaving him to pay a terrible price for trying to be a home owner.

Result: Republicans say "tough shit, you signed away your rights, deal with it".

Since you bring it up, please provide a standard contractual definition of "watch his mouth."

Would such a contract list the words he is not allowed to say?

Looking forward to the education, thanks.

.

 

[Antares]

A&E had the right to fire him but that's not good enough for the gay mafia who think that some extra persecution is in order. They could seige a bakery. Why not do the same think with Duck Commander? When are they going to Louisiana?

Why shouldn't they if they were offended?

So then EVERYONE has the "right" to not be offended?

 

[J.E.D]

Just like all you people can Boycott A&E if you were offended over what he said...But he was giving an interview with a magazine wasn't even on A&E

If you don't see the dangers in this, not only with our jobs, but our freedoms of speech being attacked by some Group (Glaad) who got this person fired... I don't know what to tell you all

He was giving an interview to GQ Magazine. The interview came about because of Duck Dynasty, Duck Dynasty was the focus of the article, and it was featured in the Entertainment section. He did that interview as a representative of A&E. He should have known better.

I can lose my job tomorrow for whatever reason my company sees fit. It's called at-will employment.

Spare me the faux-outrage.

 

[Faun]

A&E had the right to fire him but that's not good enough for the gay mafia who think that some extra persecution is in order. They could seige a bakery. Why not do the same think with Duck Commander? When are they going to Louisiana?

Why shouldn't they if they were offended?

So then EVERYONE has the "right" to not be offended?

Sure. Just as everyone who is offended has the right to protest.

 

[Mac1958]

Lets analyze...Someone says something offensive you believe that people who hear it

a)should not express their displeasure
b)should not express their displeasure to that persons employer
c)Should get over it
d)Should dislike it individually at differing times as others

e) They should feel free to communicate with that person, debate them, ignore them, flip them off, try to change their mind, give them the stink eye, whatever works for them. They can point at that person and say "holy shit, look at THAT!" if they think that's a good idea. What I don't think they should do is try to punish them for voicing their opinion.

Unless your theoretical is taking place in North Korea, maybe.

.

They are flipping them off. They are ignoring them and the result is that their employer sees them getting the bird and notice the people ignoring them and decide that its better to react to it. You seem to believe that an employer can do whatever it wants EXCEPT punish an employee.

Post #76:

Why are you defending him?

I disagree with what the guy said.

I've never seen his teevee show, nor do I care about it.

I'm not terribly fond of his beard.

I don't care about ducks.

I'm defending him because I believe he should be able to voice his opinion, whether I agree with him or not, without being punished. I'm not afraid of people saying things that I don't like.

.

I would be with you if he was being punished by the government, but he's not. A & E is obviously a private company and it's well within their right to fired him because they don't like what he said.

I agree completely that A&E had the right to fire him.

What I disagree with, virulently, is the clear, pervasive environment that currently exists that intimidates employers into doing what A&E felt it had to do.

I want to hear what people are thinking, whether I like it or not.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Why shouldn't they if they were offended?

So then EVERYONE has the "right" to not be offended?

Sure. Just as everyone who is offended has the right to protest.

Please define "offended".

.

 

[Gadawg73]

Just like all you people can Boycott A&E if you were offended over what he said...But he was giving an interview with a magazine wasn't even on A&E

If you don't see the dangers in this, not only with our jobs, but our freedoms of speech being attacked by some Group (Glaad) who got this person fired... I don't know what to tell you all

He was giving an interview to GQ Magazine. The interview came about because of Duck Dynasty, Duck Dynasty was the focus of the article, and it was featured in the Entertainment section. He did that interview as a representative of A&E. He should have known better.

I can lose my job tomorrow for whatever reason my company sees fit. It's called at-will employment.

Spare me the faux-outrage.

A & E was shitting in their pants when he accepted that interview.
If they weren't then the entire management of A & E are all ******* idiots.
Barbara Walters in the 3rd grade would have had a field day with Phil Robertson.
Not knocking him for what he said but he offered it and A & E knew when they hired him what those answers would be.

 

[Silhouette]

A&E’s pro-hunting hit Duck Dynasty returned Wednesday night to record ratings. The season three premiere delivered 8.6 million viewers.

That’s huge. It’s not only the most-watched Duck Dynasty episode ever, it’s A&E’s most-watched telecast ever and ranks as cable’s biggest reality show telecast so far this year. The 10 p.m. episode (the first of two back-to-back airings) was up 132 percent vs. the second season premiere. In fact, Dynasty had a 4.0 rating among adults 18-49, just barely edging out Fox’s American Idol and ABC’s Modern Family (both 3.9) in the nationals and winning the night. (More on that Idol vs. Modern Family fight)....

...The Christian-friendly A&E docu-series has been on a ratings tear since catching fire last year. One surprising survey found that Duck Dynasty received more mentions on Facebook in 2012 than any other TV series, including social-network-friendly hits like HBO’s Game of Thrones and CBS’ The Big Bang Theory. — Ray Rahman contributed to this reporthttp://insidetv.ew.com/2013/02/28/duck-dynasty-ratings-morrissey/

The numbers sure are weird. The viewing not only didn't drop off after Phil Robertson's statements that gays are doomed in judgment and that gay sex is illogical, the viewing increased to a record for the year! That hardly qualifies as a middle block of voters protesting those who would judge the gay lifestyle as falling short of a desireable mark.

Maybe this explains why when Prop 8 was predicted to fail, it won instead by a healthy margin? Looks like polling numbers can be deceiving as to what is really going on inside the minds and hearts of John Q. Public.