Did GLAAD mess with the wrong duck? Could this be a tipping point in the culture wars?

Phage
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE

 

They ARE the product.

Actually, the "product" is the advertising time which A&E sells.
The show is entertainment to lure people into watching the advertising.

I have noticed that on ALL reality TV shows, all the stars have products they are selling.

And it is getting worse,

Stormdancer777

Phage
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE

 

They ARE the product.

Actually, the "product" is the advertising time which A&E sells.
The show is entertainment to lure people into watching the advertising.

I have noticed that on ALL reality TV shows, all the stars have products they are selling.

And it is getting worse,

True.
But Phil Robertson's patented duck call was what started it all for them.
Selling a real product.

Well, as several people intuited, apparently all the "sound and fury" was in most respects a publicity stunt:

Phil Robertson Back on DD in January 2014 says A&E(HuffPo)

Now you have to ask yourself ... what were They doing while we were all up in arms over nothing?

Gryphon66
Well, as several people intuited, apparently all the "sound and fury" was in most respects a publicity stunt:

Phil Robertson Back on DD in January 2014 says A&E(HuffPo)

Now you have to ask yourself ... what were They doing while we were all up in arms over nothing?

Bingo! You have to ask yourself why his stupid comments made it to the top of the media food chain so quickly. So predictable the response, no? The oldest magic trick there is. Look over there!!!!

What were/are they doing? Trying to keep a lid on the surprise Santa has in store for us this Christmas?

gwynned

Gryphon66
Well, as several people intuited, apparently all the "sound and fury" was in most respects a publicity stunt:

Phil Robertson Back on DD in January 2014 says A&E(HuffPo)

Now you have to ask yourself ... what were They doing while we were all up in arms over nothing?

Bingo! You have to ask yourself why his stupid comments made it to the top of the media food chain so quickly. So predictable the response, no? The oldest magic trick there is. Look over there!!!!

What were/are they doing? Trying to keep a lid on the surprise Santa has in store for us this Christmas?

They quietly passed the NDAA 2014.....

Son of Will The act of professing Christianity itself is a form of promoting the most vile and hate-filled messages that have ever existed.

Whether GLAAD's methods or mindset are unsound or not, I personally see no difference - hate-preaching cultists, like Christians, need to be seen for what they are. A psychological cancer.

edit on 12 22 2013 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)

So to answer all this you decide to spout off some hate speech yourself? Thank goodness you get to do it behind the anonymity of the internet. I would imagine calling all Christians a "psychological cancer" and generalizing them all into "hate preaching cultists" wouldn't play well in the media either.

There is no "freedom of speech" when you're in the spotlight. It's not the 1st time something like this has happened, and it won't be the last. Besides that, it's only a t.v. show. Geesh. People need to step away from the plasma screen.

Actually, these are episodes that were already filmed before this came up, so, of course, he will be in these episodes. The question is "will he and the family be filming additional episodes?" And, my bet is No.

I believe it was a publicity stunt, pulled by A & E, which has backfired in their face.

Gryphon66
Well, as several people intuited, apparently all the "sound and fury" was in most respects a publicity stunt:

Phil Robertson Back on DD in January 2014 says A&E(HuffPo)

Now you have to ask yourself ... what were They doing while we were all up in arms over nothing?

I'd say this is a sign of a change in the wind.

The PC crowd has been getting by with discriminating against people whose opinions are different than their own, and it needs to stop.

It is not discrimination to disagree with someone else's taste or sense or morality. If it was, then the PC crowd should be the ones getting hauled up in front of the judge.

It is justice gone awry when an employer is allowed to fire someone, or end a contract, based on claimed violation of PC views. It is a sideways technique of controlling lifestyles, beliefs, and therefore culture.

If the goal is to eliminate all forms of discrimination, so that we are all on level ground, than no lifestyle, belief, and therefore culture should be discriminated against.

Which means acceptance of opinions that differ from the mainstream. As long as everyone is getting invited to the party, and everyone is getting respected, it shouldn't matter that some people have differing opinions.

In this latest attack on the Duck Dynasty, it looks like the PC crowd is the group practicing discrimination.

Kangaruex4Ewe

beezzer

muse7


Doesn't ATS have terms and conditions? I know if you talk about certain subjects or use profanity they will ban you.

Your analogy ain't even close

It's actually right on the mark.

If your opinion offends me, and I complain to ATS and they ban you because your opinion offended me (without you breaking T&C) then it's almost identical.

You're exactly right Beez. If they hadn't raised such a stink A&E wouldn't have done anything to Phil. I posted videos yesterday of Phil saying the same thing even before DD. A&E was aware he had these views previously but they were ok with it until GLAAD acted like the Heart Queen.... Off With His Head.

Yo, ixnay on the ‟queen” references, ‛k? That’s the kinda stuff gets GLAAD mad and first thing ya know, they are going to be coming after me for not only starting this thread, but for not stepping up and holding you to the fire for your unsensitiveness.

ltinycdancerg
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

 

I don't know anyone personally who takes GLAAD (nor PETA for that matter) seriously. They are essentially the Westboro Baptist Church of non-profit orgs.
(ohh the irony!

)

Heh. Nicely played. I hear ya, and yet, instead of being castigated for the clowns they are, ala WBC, you have folks here, there, and everywhere taking them quite seriously. AE sure did, huh? And now, after the serious backlash that went against AE and glaad, it appears that the suspension has been lifted and its back to business as usual. It will be interesting to see how glaad takes to that and if they will still huff and puff and try to blow the sponsors down.

orangetom1999
That a people..any people would define themselves publicly by their sexuality or sexual orientation and expect and even demand the approval of others on this belief about their sexuality or sexual orientation.

As someone who has lived with being homosexual and transgender, I feel obligated to inform you that your perspective is somewhat flawed. You see, not all of us have the privilege of being able to "define ourselves", that is, many of us are forced into these definitions by others.

To my limited knowledge of history ..a people define themselves by their lineage, their occupation, or some great work they have done and left to posterity.

Having no special lineage of my own (I come from a family of mixed immigrants; French, Ukrainian, Swedish, Irish, all poor) I've been unable to define myself in any meaningful way in that regard, other than "white".

Before I even had the opportunity to have an occupation or achieve some great work, I was labelled by others as "gay", along with all the accompanying hateful words and titles that brings. Being labelled as such tends to limit one's ability to obtain employment, making it rather difficult to create some great legacy by which to define oneself.

People do not define themselves by their sexuality or sexual orientation.

Though I never sought to define myself by my sexuality, I had that definition thrust upon me.

poet1b

I'd say this is a sign of a change in the wind.

The PC crowd has been getting by with discriminating against people whose opinions are different than their own, and it needs to stop.

edit on 23-12-2013 by poet1b because: add plural

And the racist and bigoted crowd gets offended at people who whose opinions are different than their own.

This isn't about the "PC Police" ... this is about people being offended and shocked to learn that being homophobic or expressing anti-gay feelings in a national spot light isn't okay.

"Gee wiz, you mean it's not OK to lump gay people in with acts of bestiality in a large magazine interview?"

That's pretty much why everyone is up in arms. People are shifting the blame away from themselves and turning it into a 1st amendment issue, when in fact they are merely upset that more people don't feel like Phil as they previously thought.

Somebody a while back said "what if the shoe was on the other foot".

Perhaps you should look at the history of LGBT people. It wasn't that long ago when a person would often lose their job if their sexuality came to light. Hell, it still happens today though mostly in religious workplaces like Catholic schools.

But that's okay right? I mean they're just gay people, silly people defining themselves by their sexuality rather than their religion. They're not good respectable Christians like this bearded duck hunting TV celebrity.

Glass
Somebody a while back said "what if the shoe was on the other foot".

Perhaps you should look at the history of LGBT people. It wasn't that long ago when a person would often lose their job if their sexuality came to light. Hell, it still happens today though mostly in religious workplaces like Catholic schools.

But that's okay right? I mean they're just gay people, silly people defining themselves by their sexuality rather than their religion. They're not good respectable Christians like this bearded duck hunting TV celebrity.

But what if the shoe were truly on the other foot.... today, since that is when this is happening, not in years past.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church supports gay marriage.
What if Duck Commander fired an employee that belonged to that faith, for voicing their beliefs about gay marriage.... outside of the workplace.

Would GLAAD be okay with that? Would they support the decision to fire the employee?

reply to post by MystikMushroom

"Gee wiz, you mean it's not OK to lump gay people in with acts of bestiality in a large magazine interview?"

If what you got out of the interview was that he lumped them in with bestiality, then you also believe that he lumped them in with heterosexuals too... if you read the whole thing.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


I would say in this case, the race and bigoted crowd shoe is on the other foot.

I am fully in favor or the right of people to admit that they are homophobic, and uncomfortable with homosexuality.

Isn't this the first step to the healing process?

reply to post by Rosha

I think you are one, misinformed and two, need to go take a look at this man and what he is 'really' saying.
LINK

""Women with women, men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions," Robertson said. "They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil." "" - Robertsons' words in the GQ article in question.

Where is " to me" or "in my biblical belief" there ?
Where is judge not ?
Where is love thy neighbor?
Where is any mention of what Jesus said about anything?

There is no "to me" because it isn't "to him." He is paraphrasing Paul, Romans I. If you have a problem with that, fine, but don't shoot the messenger because you are unaware of where the message originates.

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

""“It seems like, to me, a v*gina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s an*s. 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.”" - Robertson

Where is " to me" or "in my biblical belief" et al there either?

Uh, the "to me" is in the first line, right before the vagina. And the "that's just me" is right after the anus. How is it possible you feel you are scoring any points with such weak work?

This has nothing to do with God, again..only this fretful little mans lust for 15 seconds of psuedo-power and fear of anything different to his fish bubble view.

I'm guessing most folks would go with quoting the Bible as having at least something to do with God, at least a teensy bit. And that Bible quote is NOT from the GQ article that all of the hulabaloo is about, so there goes your bit about the 15 minutes of fame as well.

reply to post by Gryphon66


I'd really love to see any evidence that A&E took their action against Phil Robertson at the behest of GLAAD. Does anyone have any? Evidence, facts, quotes, ... anything? No?

Uh, yeah. Here's some evidence of just that.

GLAAD spoke with A&E representatives on Wednesday morning to discuss why people would be offended by the comments and calls to action.

tv.yahoo.com...

GLAAD has just as much of a right to make non-libelous statements as Phil did or as A&E did. Period.

They do, indeed. But they chose to use that right to make statements that were inaccurate and meant to smear a guy who uttered an opinion they didn't agree with. He didn't lie, he didn't exaggerate, he didn't say anything vile. They did all three in their overheated urge to stoke PC outrage and they are getting a ton of heat for it. They deserve it.

reply to post by butcherguy

If what you got out of the interview was that he lumped them in with bestiality, then you also believe that he lumped them in with heterosexuals too... if you read the whole thing.

Please. Who has time for that when there is OUTRAGE to be had?

Seriously, it's not about what he actually said. It was an opportunity to play the OUTRAGE card and send a strong arm msg to all: Thou shalt not say ANYTHING that is not part of the PC canon or we're comin' to git ya.

LIke they say at their site: Leading the conversation. Shaping the media narrative. Changing the culture. That's GLAAD at work.

And if you want to know the direction this is going, check out what is going on in Italy where things have gone straight to the PC twilight zone:

The document, issued by the Ministry of Equal Opportunities’ racial discrimination office, (Ufficio Nazionale Antidiscriminazioni Razziali, UNAR) instructs journalists not to portray any hint of the existence of opposition to the homosexual political agenda. Instead of debates on television between those in favor and those opposed, talk shows must present the appearance of complete social agreement.

Pagano said the document was prepared with the express purpose of imposing “the LGBT ideology on public opinion through a ‘domesticated’ media” by a “working group composed exclusively of 29 gay and lesbian associations,” including Arcigay, Italy Equality, Gay Center, Gay Help Line and Gay.Net.

The UNAR guidelines say that those refusing to comply could face professional sanctions from the journalists’ union, the Ordine Giornalisti, and even- with the expected passage of legislation criminalizing “homophobia” – face possible jail time for offending homosexual activists.

Journalists, he said, “in order to avoid being brought before the Order of Journalists union and the imposition of penalties, will be forced to comply with a sort of handbook that requires them, in fact, to address LGBT issues in a complacent way.”

The guidelines say that the terms “gay family” or “homosexual family” are not to be used so as to avoid the implication that there is any difference between them and natural families. No mention must be made of “traditional marriage,” or of “tradition, nature and procreation,” which are “a sure sign of homophobia."

www.lifesitenews.com...