Support NeoGAF

[Cyan]

I just felt that was the tone coming from some people, wasn't intentionally trying to build a strawman. I just think there are more things to be outraged over then some sleezy remarks said in an interview.

The problem with this line of argument, and the reason you're getting pushback, is that if you take this thought to its logical conclusion, you should never be outraged or upset about anything unless you've found the single most important thing to be outraged or upset about. Right? I mean, there's always something worse to be outraged about unless you've found the absolute worst thing.

And since it's wildly unlikely you'll ever find the absolute worst thing, this argument basically just says "don't be outraged." Which is certainly something you can argue, but you'd probably want to start with a more solid argument.

 

[Measley]

37%-45% of Americans think homosexuality is a sin. 50% of Americans have unfavorable opinions of Black people. Yet Duck's black quotes are largely being ignored...

No one (at Fox News) has the balls to defend his statements about black people.

 

[mckmas8808]

I'd love to join the outrage here, but yeah this sounds somewhat like forgiving old people of their backwards and/or simple world view.

Do I think Phil doesn't like gays? Yeah, he made that pretty damn clear. Homophobia isn't just a southern thing, or an old/young thing.. but it's definitely something the older generation was brought up being told it was something to be shamed.

Do I think Phil's racist? Not really.. he statements are incredibly ignorant.. but they came across as him relaying what he saw.. filtered down to just his small world-view. Do I think he's a little racist.. you bet. A lot of older white guys are racist to an extent. Much like homophobia.. they were raised with a view of black (or other races) as being somewhat inferior and/or segregated.
.

I'm not attacking you at all, but you have to understand how non-sensical the bolded is. For Phil to act like black people were all happy in the 40s, 50s, and 60s is stupid. The guy has a Master's degree. He's not stupid at all. He KNOWS what was going on at that time. To act like he has this super small world view and know nothing that was going on outside of his 50 mile radius of living is insane.

And we know this because in the same interview he stated that welfare and the "entitlement" state is what start black people down the wrong path. So, why is it that all of a sudden his world view opens up? Post 1964 he magically got enlightened? Naw! He didn't want to recognize that was black people went through pre 1964 was some of the most racist stuff that the world has seen. He didn't want to admit that white people were the ones that created all this racial tension and are the main reason that black people aren't prospering today.

 

[mckmas8808]

Because it's ridiculous. Calling something genetic to someone a sin is damaging even if the people aren't intolerant. Calling it a sin means that to gay people who listen to that bullshit think they have something to apologize or repent for just for being alive.

But that means you'd have an issue with the actual Bible and not Robertson or some other Christian then. And if you do have a problem with the Bible then that's fine, but it's not right to say that repeating it is wrong.

 

[Cyan]

But that means you'd have an issue with the actual Bible and not Robertson or some other Christian then. And if you do have a problem with the Bible then that's fine, but it's not right to say that repeating it is wrong.

whynotboth.gif

Seriously, why would it not be ok to criticize both the Bible for containing abhorrent nonsense and the person repeating said nonsense for, you know, repeating it?

There are plenty of Christians out there who don't go around talking about how being gay is a sin.

 

[DUFFMCWALIN]

Its really incredible how racist and homophobic a lot of humans are. The undercurrents of bigotry run deep in this society.

Fixed. Don't put one failure of humanity directly on our shoulders. We have scum all over this planet.

 

[empty vessel]

whynotboth.gif

Seriously, why would it not be ok to criticize both the Bible for containing abhorrent nonsense and the person repeating said nonsense for, you know, repeating it?

There are plenty of Christians out there who don't go around talking about how being gay is a sin.

Right and there are no or few Christians who go around talking about how doing anything else (like wearing clothing of different kinds of materials) is a sin. Which is curious, if you ask me. Their religion is a justification for what they already think and feel about gay people and nothing more. So I'm fine with blaming Phil.

 

[mckmas8808]

Right and there are no or few Christians who go around talking about how doing anything else (like wearing clothing of different kinds of materials) is a sin. Which is curious, if you ask me. Their religion is a justification for what they already think and feel about gay people and nothing more. So I'm fine with blaming Phil.

Because scripturally speaking wearing clothes of a different fabric is not a sin. I believe it was one of the 600+ Mosaic laws in the Old Testament. But Jesus stated that those laws were to be done away with.

 

[makingmusic476]

Because scripturally speaking wearing clothes of a different fabric is not a sin. I believe it was one of the 600+ Mosaic laws in the Old Testament. But Jesus stated that those laws were to be done away with.

Since when?

Matthew 5:17-18:

"17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

But Christians like to ignore that.

 

[xelios]

Right and there are no or few Christians who go around talking about how doing anything else (like wearing clothing of different kinds of materials) is a sin. Which is curious, if you ask me. Their religion is a justification for what they already think and feel about gay people and nothing more. So I'm fine with blaming Phil.

Amen.

For all the times we hear that all sin is equal, God hates all sin the same and similar statements, homosexuality sure gets a disproportionate amount of attention (and funding and man hours from religious organizations for the battle against it).

People with these kinds of negative views on homosexuality don't feel that way because the bible tells them to, the bible just provides justification of their personal views and mitigation from criticism. Say "Religion!" and suddenly you feel you don't have to take personal responsibility for your racist/homophobic/transphobic/whatever beliefs; look no further for proof than the mass defense of Phil on social media as simply citing/spreading the word of God. It's a beautiful thing that, as our society evolves, this isn't the free pass it once was.

We should also really stop pretending that thinking someone's entire being is an affront to all that is holy and has them on the path to hell, but being nice to them in spite of this is tolerance and being a good [Christian] person ("Let God sort 'em out" and its ilk). "Love the sinner, hate the sin" in this instance is nothing more than patronizing and self-congratulatory bullshittery.

 

[mckmas8808]

Since when?

Matthew 5:17-18:

"17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

But Christians like to ignore that.

You have a slight misunderstanding of those verses. If you look at Galatians 3:23–25 it clearly states that we are no longer under the Mosiac law. It was always suppose to be a temporary arrangement. It was a "tutor leading to Christ".

And also Romans 7:4, Paul clearly states the same.

Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God

 

[makingmusic476]

You have a slight misunderstanding of those verses. If you look at Galatians 3:23–25 it clearly states that we are no longer under the Mosiac law. It was always suppose to be a temporary arrangement. It was a "tutor leading to Christ".

And also Romans 7:4, Paul clearly states the same.

Mind explaining exactly how I'm misinterpreting them? I'm genuinely curious.

All pointing to other, contradictory passages many books away does is further demonstrate the Bible's incoherence, in my opinion.

And only one of these passages is attributable directly to Jesus.

 

[casabolg]

I'm not attacking you at all, but you have to understand how non-sensical the bolded is. For Phil to act like black people were all happy in the 40s, 50s, and 60s is stupid. The guy has a Master's degree. He's not stupid at all. He KNOWS what was going on at that time. To act like he has this super small world view and know nothing that was going on outside of his 50 mile radius of living is insane.

And we know this because in the same interview he stated that welfare and the "entitlement" state is what start black people down the wrong path. So, why is it that all of a sudden his world view opens up? Post 1964 he magically got enlightened? Naw! He didn't want to recognize that was black people went through pre 1964 was some of the most racist stuff that the world has seen. He didn't want to admit that white people were the ones that created all this racial tension and are the main reason that black people aren't prospering today.

His entire comment is placed into the context of his own lived experiences. To assume his feelings and experiences is beyond us. We do the statement to call it ignorant than willfully ignorant, especially with nothing to go on but a feeling in the gut, possibly persuaded by our own biases.

Edit: Sorry to butt into your discussion.

 

[Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!]

His entire comment is placed into the context of his own lived experiences. To assume his feelings and experiences is beyond us. We do the statement to call it ignorant than willfully ignorant, especially with nothing to go on but a feeling in the gut, possibly persuaded by our own biases.

Edit: Sorry to butt into your discussion.

I'm just not sure how he could say "white trash" were the same as black people back then when they couldn't even drink out of the same water fountain

 

[Dune1975]

Right and there are no or few Christians who go around talking about how doing anything else (like wearing clothing of different kinds of materials) is a sin. Which is curious, if you ask me. Their religion is a justification for what they already think and feel about gay people and nothing more. So I'm fine with blaming Phil.

Because in general, most Christians do not in general still follow Leviticus. As pointed out already, the new testament pretty much did away with Leviticus as law as a new covenant was formed with mankind. So it is not a case of christians picking and choosing as those uneducated on the subject continue to state, that simply isn't true. They do not follow Leviticus because they no longer must.

Now I will agree that some Christians do still foolishly recite Lev. 20:13 as the causation behind religiously motivated homophobia, that is true. But the true impulse behind present day Christian based ideology that opposes homosexuals and therefore creates the impetus for the culture of opposition we see today is actually Rom. 1:26-27 where Paul stated:

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

 

[MrPressStart]

Jesse Jackson is now speaking out. You had to know it was only a matter of time before he offers his two cents. I wish he would give his opinion on his sons actions last year.

 

[Dune1975]

Jesse Jackson is now speaking out. You had to know it was only a matter of time before he offers his two cents. I wish he would give his opinion on his sons actions last year.

Two cents is about what his opinion is worth, guy has a serious ethos deficiency that is so bad that his just commenting on an issue automatically gives the opposing side credibility.

 

[MrPressStart]

Two cents is about what his opinion is worth, guy has a serious ethos deficiency that is so bad that his just commenting on an issue automatically gives the opposing side credibility.

100% agree. It's hard to believe he ran for president back in the day.

 

[CrankyJay]

Jackson is late.

 

[Dune1975]

Jackson is late.

He needed X-Mas money to turn his internet back on

 

[NobleXenon]

Because in general, most Christians do not in general still follow Leviticus. As pointed out already, the new testament pretty much did away with Leviticus as law as a new covenant was formed with mankind. So it is not a case of christians picking and choosing as those uneducated on the subject continue to state, that simply isn't true. They do not follow Leviticus because they no longer must.

Now I will agree that some Christians do still foolishly recite Lev. 20:13 as the causation behind religiously motivated homophobia, that is true. But the true impulse behind present day Christian based ideology that opposes homosexuals and therefore creates the impetus for the culture of opposition we see today is actually Rom. 1:26-27 where Paul stated:

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Perhaps, but I find most Christians don't read much of the Bible, if at all. It's whatever the pastor says, if they go to church that is.

It's interesting that ten years ago, people could get away with saying this regressive crap, but now people have to defend themselves and get support from where ever.

The belief in Christianity is also down year after year, so you would think they wouldn't do anything like this, but whatever.

 

[crimsonspider89]

A lot of Christians are renouncing "Christianity" because of the hypocrisy, falsehood and the harping on one sin constantly.

 

[Earthstrike]

People are entitled to an opinion as offensive and incorrect as it may be.

And people are entitled to call his opinion shit. And A&E is entitled to suspend him. Why is it whenever some conservative jackass says something idiotic, other conservatives are quick to point out his freedom of speech, but ignore the freedom of speech of others and the freedom of business?

 

[Dune1975]

The belief in Christianity is also down year after year, so you would think they wouldn't do anything like this, but whatever.

I think the main issue is that most Christians simply do not care, by definition, because if you truly believed in the ideology why would you? According to biblical dogma you have a duty to exclaim the word of God to the masses, so by definition rather or not Christianity is on the decline would be irrelevant in that regard and what an good christian ought to do. It is a religion whose very beginnings are a story of martyrdom and speaking out against the excesses and populist beliefs of the day, so its crazy to think fear of reprisal would influence the religion today. Most indeed see perceived prosecution of their beliefs as evidence they are correct.

 

[OccamsBlender]

Technically, the pre-slavery days were also pre-civil rights. I'm sure they were happy living normal lives before some jackass kidnapped them, broke up their families and did the most horrifying acts of brutality upon them...

 

[NobleXenon]

I think the main issue is that most Christians simply do not care, by definition, because if you truly believed in the ideology why would you? According to biblical dogma you have a duty to exclaim the word of God to the masses, so by definition rather or not Christianity is on the decline would be irrelevant in that regard and what an good christian ought to do. It is a religion whose very beginnings are a story of martyrdom and speaking out against the excesses and populist beliefs of the day, so its crazy to think fear of reprisal would influence the religion today. Most indeed see perceived prosecution of their beliefs as evidence they are correct.

Well, most of the conservative news outlets I watched talks about how the death of religion will be the demise of civilization, lol.

I remember saying at one point that science would do away with religion in a lot of cases, but I never expected religion to be its own demise. It's like with Mormons and Prop 8. If they never interfered, it wouldn't have passed and there wouldn't be two rulings against them at the Supreme Court. Now it's legal in the state of Utah, in part because of the precedent set by the Supreme Court, and pretty soon it'll affect all the other states. Mostly thanks to them.

It's almost like quick sand, just don't do anything or you'll sink faster.

 

[empty vessel]

Because in general, most Christians do not in general still follow Leviticus. As pointed out already, the new testament pretty much did away with Leviticus as law as a new covenant was formed with mankind. So it is not a case of christians picking and choosing as those uneducated on the subject continue to state, that simply isn't true. They do not follow Leviticus because they no longer must.

Now I will agree that some Christians do still foolishly recite Lev. 20:13 as the causation behind religiously motivated homophobia, that is true. But the true impulse behind present day Christian based ideology that opposes homosexuals and therefore creates the impetus for the culture of opposition we see today is actually Rom. 1:26-27 where Paul stated:

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

I don't see how that changes the point, which is that anti-gay sentiment is not driven by religious belief, but that religious belief is used to justify anti-gay sentiment.

 

[Dune1975]

I don't see how that changes the point, which is that anti-gay sentiment is not driven by religious belief, but that religious belief is used to justify anti-gay sentiment.

Because that isn't necessarily true, for that to be true you would have to prove that one would harbor the same anti-gay sentiments even if they were not religious which simply cannot be done. Prejudices are always learned behaviors and a product of environment, in this case religion is clearly the impetus for a great many of the issues in the US in regards to Anti-homosexual behaviour. Is it the only motivation?

Of course not, if that was the case Europeans would generally be more accepting of same sex marriages but the opposite is actually true, in general same sex marriage actually finds more support in the US than it does in the EU with something like 44% versus 60% I believe. This is in light of it being legal in many countries, which is surprising, but legality of an action does not equate to acceptance of it which is an important facet to note. But the issue in Europe is one of long standing cultural mores that are rooted in society and not religion because it is a more aesthetic culture there. And therein lies the issue, one must dig at the core of an group to find what its motivation is for an ideology and even if a shared one, the dogma that drives it may differ and usually does differ from demographic to demographic.

 

[mckmas8808]

Technically, the pre-slavery days were also pre-civil rights. I'm sure they were happy living normal lives before some jackass kidnapped them, broke up their families and did the most horrifying acts of brutality upon them...

I'm still surprised that his statements on race mostly got sweep under the rug.

 

[Downhome]

I just got an alert on my phone from FOX News that DD will resume filming with Phil soon so something must have pushed them to bring him back on board.

EDIT:

Here is the details...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/a-e-welcomes-phil-robertson-667647

Phil Robertson, the patriarch of A&E's Duck Dynasty clan who was suspended from his hit reality series on Dec. 18 following some incendiary comments about gay people, won't be put on hiatus after all.

The network and the Robertson family announced Friday that Phil will still be part of the series -- and since he didn't miss any filming, his temporary suspension will have no effect on the upcoming fifth season.

An A&E statement to The Hollywood Reporter read:

As a global media content company, A+E Networks' core values are centered around creativity, inclusion and mutual respect. We believe it is a privilege for our brands to be invited into people’s home and we operate with a strong sense of integrity and deep commitment to these principals.

That is why we reacted so quickly and strongly to a recent interview with Phil Robertson. While Phil’s comments made in the interview reflect his personal views based on his own beliefs, and his own personal journey, he and his family have publicly stated they regret the “coarse language” he used and the mis-interpretation of his core beliefs based only on the article. He also made it clear he would “never incite or encourage hate.” We at A+E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article, and reiterate that they are not views we hold.

But Duck Dynasty is not a show about one man's views. It resonates with a large audience because it is a show about family… a family that America has come to love. As you might have seen in many episodes, they come together to reflect and pray for unity, tolerance and forgiveness. These are three values that we at A+E Networks also feel strongly about.

So after discussions with the Robertson family, as well as consulting with numerous advocacy groups, A&E has decided to resume filming Duck Dynasty later this spring with the entire Robertson family.

We will also use this moment to launch a national public service campaign (PSA) promoting unity, tolerance and acceptance among all people, a message that supports our core values as a company, and the values found in Duck Dynasty. These PSAs will air across our entire portfolio.

In addition, an A&E source says the family and the network are going to work together to promote tolerance moving forward.

 

[eBay Huckster]

I just got an alert on my phone from FOX News that DD will resume filming with Phil soon so something must have pushed them to bring him back on board.

pretend this post is a GIF of Scrooge McDuck swimming in his vault and you'll get the general gist of it

 

[RPGCrazied]

All about the mighty dollar to them I guess. I guess food network can rehire paula deen, since now you can pretty much say what you want.

 

[Cyan]

I just got an alert on my phone from FOX News that DD will resume filming with Phil soon so something must have pushed them to bring him back on board.

Inevitable once the family said it was all of them or none of them.

 

[crozier]

A&E is in a lose-lose situation here. The left is simply going to respond with their own boycott threats. Chick-fil-A all over again. Hopefully without banning people who say they plan to watch A&E, though.

 

[Wilsongt]

I will continue not to watch the show and not to care about this trash.

 

[Velcro Fly]

Yeah no big surprise they would choose money over principle.

They are no better.

 

[crozier]

I will continue not to watch the show and not to care about this trash.

I had to pull up their website because I wasn't even sure what shows they offered. Rodeo Girls, Storage Wars, and Duck Dynasty on their mainpage. Guess it's not shocking they'd choose the right over the left.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

All about the mighty dollar to them I guess. I guess food network can rehire paula deen, since now you can pretty much say what you want.

Money talks. I don't think anyone misses Paula Deen, but this Duck Dynasty shit is huge for reasons I'll never understand.

I'm disappointed that they caved, but I'm certainly not surprised.

Whatever.

I'm still surprised that his statements on race mostly got sweep under the rug.

This is somehow less surprising.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

A&E is in a lose-lose situation here. The left is simply going to respond with their own boycott threats. Chick-fil-A all over again. Hopefully without banning people who say they plan to watch A&E, though.

I thought Chick's business improved?

 

[perfectchaos007]

I thought Chick's business improved?

Was gonna say....I don't think that ordeal hurt their bottom line. Will be interesting to see if advertisers still stick with A&E. I'm sure some will take a stand by bowing out.

 

[crozier]

I thought Chick's business improved?

It did. And their CEO won an equality award in November, lol.

This whole situation just strikes me as incredibly similar. It's quite possible A&E will be better off from it too, I guess. I didn't even know the show existed until the controversy started.

(For clarification, lose-lose is from a PR standpoint. There's nothing they can do to appease both sides)

 

[jerry1594]

Yeah no big surprise they would choose money over principle.

They are no better.

It's funny everyone was saying A&E was totally free as a business to fire a threat to it's profits, and now it's about principle.

 

[Camp Lo]

I just got an alert on my phone from FOX News that DD will resume filming with Phil soon so something must have pushed them to bring him back on board.

EDIT:

Here is the details...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/a-e-welcomes-phil-robertson-667647

Gay appreciation episode then all will be well with A&E and the fake hillbillies.

 

[Fenderputty]

Because it's ridiculous. Calling something genetic to someone a sin is damaging even if the people aren't intolerant. Calling it a sin means that to gay people who listen to that bullshit think they have something to apologize or repent for just for being alive.

I disagree with this. It's a sin for hetero people to lust and indulge bodily urges as well. I mean ... We all sin. The issue is the judgmental prick who seems to weigh the sin of homosexuality more so than the sin he himself commits.

 

[Dude Abides]

I disagree with this. It's a sin for hetero people to lust and indulge bodily urges as well. I mean ... We all sin. The issue is the judgmental prick who seems to weigh the sin of homosexuality more so than the sin he himself commits.

But hetero people have a God-approved way to indulge their urges, but gay people don't. In the view of people like Roberson, gay people are fundamentally broken in a way straight people aren't.

 

[Ichabod]

Even when all this controversy broke, I knew the endgame would come down to "Does A&E like money?" The outrage, sabre-rattling, and philosophical/moral tug of wars werejust white noise.

 

[Father_Brain]

Many of the mainstream outlets reporting on the A&E reversal aren't even mentioning the racism. :/

 

[Koomaster]

Nice bit of free advertising for the brand they got. Not really surprised by this outcome considering they have been running all day marathons of the show this entire week.

 

[Slayven]

Many of the mainstream outlets reporting on the A&E reversal aren't even mentioning the racism. :/

yeah they dropped that shit quick. I was not surprised.

 

[styl3s]

A&E is in a lose-lose situation here. The left is simply going to respond with their own boycott threats. Chick-fil-A all over again. Hopefully without banning people who say they plan to watch A&E, though.

DD is A&Es bread winner.

They can afford to lose that 1% that never watched DD or watched their channel to begin with. It is like Chick-fil-A in the sense that this is bad press but doesn't effect them in any real meaningful way. Chick-fil-A still rakes in a bajillion dollars a day and that's all that matters to these companies. They couldn't of cancelled DD even if they wanted to because one of 900 other networks would of picked up the show and A&E would be irrelevant again.