Since his intolerance was only aired in GQ, maybe that's the outlet we should be protesting instead? AFAIK no one has claimed the television show itself was racist or homophobic.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Duck Dynasty's Phil: Black People were happy pre-civil rights era, pre-welfare, etc..
- Thread starter cartoon_soldier
- Start date
- Status
Really? Doesn't the show have crazy high ratings? I'm sure he's reaching more people than just intolerant rednecks.
Even if that's not the case, there's probably an argument to be had for someone famous or important saying that and not being punished being seen as empowering for the bigoted.
Skid 4 Dead
Member
I'd just like to say that Duck Dynasty has ruined beards. I had to shave mine because of all the Duck Dynasty references.
Those bastards.
Is this supposed to be the racism of Phil Robertson? It's not racist. I don't believe him to be racists. He has black grandchildren. No one has ever accused him of racists acts. It's inarticulate but I don't believe it to be racists.
I have no problem with A&E bringing them back. I thought it was a stupid thing to bar him from TV anyway. I am with Bill Maher. Anytime someone makes a mistake now and days we have to make them go away.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
MWS Natural
Member
Is this the new, "I have a black friend"?
I'm not sure it's racist, but it's definitely fucking stupid.
Nothing he said was racist. This has to do with the culture war and this just allows the culture warriors (on both sides) to point to this as a way to raise money and feel superior to the other side. He isn't racist. And, I don't think he hates gay people either.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I don't know if he's racist, although his comment was pretty ignorant to put it lightly. But when someone compares gay people to bestiality and calls them sinners...they're pretty much in the "hate gay people" camp bro.
metalslimer
Member
Give me a break.
I don't disagree. But, I would have loved to listen to the audio tape of the interview. All we have is a cutout from the GQ piece with "Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana". We know that he grew up dirt poor and was poor until he hit it big with his business. I think far too often we try to demonize the other side and try to use anything to our advantage. It's a permanent culture war and I'm not a fan. I think we should strive to assume positive intent, especially when someone has no track record of hate. (which Phil doesn't have)
Growing up dirt poor in the backwoods of louisiana doesn't mean someone is automatically a racist. Not every southerner in the jim crow era was a clan member or racists. We have this caricature of the south that if we used for another population we would be demonized for.
I am going to assume this is the quote:
Again, I don't think he's comparing homosexual behavior to bestiality, even though he uses it in the same line of thought. He compares it to sin. And, in Christian orthodoxy, homosexuality is a sin. If you believe in Christian orthodoxy, you believe gay people are sinners. I think for me, someone to be a "hate gay people" they actually have to hate gay people. I think if someone is of the mind that we are all sinners and that someone's sin of being gay is no better or worse than someone's sin of being a drunkard, greedy, etc etc isn't hating on gay people.
I think even most gay christians will admit to that it takes some mental gymnasts to get over the fact that in the faith homosexuality is a sin. I'm with Pope Francis that we shouldn't be spending any time on it as Jesus never seemed to care about homosexuality (he never mentions it) and he paled around with sinners. But, for a lot of fundamentalists sin seems to begin with sex. I just don't think the dude is hateful.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Oh wow, I guess there had to be one defender on the forum.
PhoenixDark
Banned
"But he's just quoting the Bible!"
One could argue that Christianity itself is homophobic. He's pretty much paraphrasing Romans in that video. Which was an excerpt of a video which is an hour long and also, on youtube.
The bible? It definitely contains some homophobic texts, and people who choose to focus on and quote those passages to support their negative views of gays are homophobic as well. The fact that it's a religion doesn't change that.
It's racist in the way that denying the holocaust is anti-semitic. By definition neither acts are racist nor anti-semitic but denying something about the history of the group, even somewhat (as Phil's statement was said in the context of his small worldview and not wholly), is offensive to the group as a whole by principle and people will attach the most offensive relateable word to the original act.
empty vessel
Member
A&E is the only reason GQ wants to interview Phil Robertson. A&E has created the celebrity Phil Robertson. By turning him into a celebrity, they have given him a platform. GQ simply exposed him.
This reflects an extremely naive understanding of mass media and how human minds are influenced. Of course it matters who has access to a microphone. If there's 10,000 people in a room, and only one microphone, the person with the microphone will be far more effective at conveying messages and influencing the room than any other individual in the room. And that's what A&E has done and has said it will continue to do: give Phil Robertson a microphone to repeat a message of intolerance in a friendly manner and influence people towards that worldview.
You know this guy is college educated, right? He has a masters in education. He knows exactly why black people didn't complain to white people during the jim crow era. I find it hard to believe it's anything but racism motivating this denial and whitewashing of history. .
So much for that.
Unless you can demonstrate the show itself actually promotes intolerance you have no reason to protest the network outside of their material support for someone whose views you disagree with--which is fine as far as it goes, but a far cry from validating your sad attempt at shaming PD.
empty vessel
Member
As far as the show goes, I really do not think it in itself gives anyone a platform to voice their beliefs since opinions on neither race nor homosexuality ever come up on the program. So if one was to watch the show solely, there is a real non-issue here. Now I will concur that his status as a whole due to the show could lend impetus to racial and homophobic thoughts to an select few who actively seek his opinions out, but the issue will be if he does so voice them in the future. This could well of been an isolated event in which he honestly did not know how strongly his words would impact people, and this situation may of taught him a valuable lesson in that next time he is more guarded. If so, then the issue of him having a platform is mote, since he would choose not to use it.
It can be frustrating talking to white people about race. I was hanging with a group recently and the answer to one of their questions honestly and logically had to do with race and systemic discrimination. As soon as race was brought up, 3 out of 5 of them tuned out, with 1 of them actively trying to change the topic. It was a complex question, and I had a max 20 second response before the topic totally shifted. LOL it was like bringing a barrel full of garlic to a vampire party. These are liberals, mind you... White libs want to point and laugh at the south when their refusal to even think acknowledge racism is a major part of the problem. I dunno wth was the point of asking me a question you don't want answers to?
Super privilege position.
I see a lot of "I don't see it or experience it, so it must not exist" in those discussions.
Or even worse "why don't black people pull up their pants?" dismissal.
One of my best friends is a tall white man, handsome, president of his frat (way back when), athletic, engineer at boeing making over 6 figures and the most liberal person I know. He's damn near a socialist on a lot of issues. But, mention white male privilege and the most ignorant shit ever comes out of his mouth. His own mother (the whole family are liberals from Montana) got into an argument with him about it and he just denies that it's that big of a deal. I've talked to him about sexism and it's like some of the gaf threads about feminism. If I never hear him utter the words, "I find that hard to believe" again I'll be a happy black woman.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
That's not what you are doing. You are drawing a line and saying that you are supporting racism and a homophobia, and that line is watching a show about a family that runs a duck hunting company. You are validating homophobia and racism as not that big a deal by equating them with such an inconsequential act.
Him saying that black people have been corrupted by welfare isn't racist?
edit: wait, you yourself quoted that piece and didn't see anything wrong with it? o_0
empty vessel
Member
That's masterful, truly. Not everybody agrees that the platform A&E has given Phil Robertson to spread his message of bigotry is "an inconsequential act," least of all the LGBT and African-American advocacy organizations that complained to A&E about it. PD is free to disagree with those orgs, but you are not the arbiter of what is consequential or what is not. I'm explaining to PD why I think it is.
Now would be a good time for you to articulate your position on the matter.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Is this reason somehow more poignant now, compared to before? I mean, this is the exact same reason they suspended Phil in the first place.
At least we could pretend to believe that they cared about quashing bigotry.
btw make no mistake, what he said was racist as fuck and I'm legitimately shocked it wasn't a bigger deal. Shit on gays all you like and you can do OK in America, but usually when you say something that racist, there are at least some consequences.
Shamrock7r
Member
At least he is putting together a reasonable response with points that adds to the discussion rather than a tired cliche "A defender for everything!!" post that adds absolutely nothing.
As far as him coming back, I assume behind the scenes there were discussions moving forward about what he will or won't be allowed to say in a public capacity when it comes to this subject matter. In any case his ignorance is out there and it's now up to the viewing public to make a statement with viewer ratings and merchandise sales.
The Righties were pretty clever in this instance. They made sure to put all the focus on the gay comments since it would be much easier to defend.
THIS x100! I have long hair and a beard and I always get duck dynasty comments. A little part of me dies inside every time.
I don't think the Racial comments ever came up as much was because the groups that usually pounce on them never really spoke up to the degree they usually do. Hell Money Eyed Jackson showed up late to the party trying to extort A&E for money. The LGBT groups responded very swiftly and the narrative showed that
empty vessel
Member
HRC and the NAACP wrote a joint letter to A&E.
Letters don't get the airtime. while its a proper method to respond with it is one that will get passed over when you have other groups vocal and on TV
Devolution
Member
Have you actually been watching TV? There have been several spokesmen and women, including anchors already on TV denouncing the racial aspect.
theignoramus
Member
Oh god, I knew there'd be some mental gymnastics in the course of some silly effort to defend this ignorant buffoon.
It's not overtly antagonistic on the surface and I don't think he consciously meant any harm by it, but every part of that answer is loaded with very clear and very troubling prejudices bubbling furiously under the surface.
"I didn't see it, so it wasn't a problem." You can't wave away the treatment of blacks in the pre-civil rights era with "welp, out of sight, out of mind." You couldn't have grown up in Louisiana in that era and not have seen Whites Only and Colored Only signs all over the place; You couldn't have never heard through the grapevine that boy, there's been a disturbing amount of violence against blacks in this state; You can't have seen the civil rights movement come to a head and thought "These are the actions of a race contented with their treatment." Whether or not he saw mistreatment actually occurring, there's no way he wasn't aware it was an issue. Waving that away on the technicality of "It never happened directly in front of my eyes" is intellectually dishonest, and the underlying implication that the race's issues were blown out of proportion is violently inappropriate.
Oh, they were viewed on a similar social stratum as a group that has the word 'trash' in it? That's not damning at all. This statement is less "They were viewed equally as good as my kin" and more "They were viewed equally as bad as my kin".
I'm sure the fact they lived in a state that was fourth in the nation in lynchings and the fact that they minded their Ps and Qs around their white colleagues are totally unrelated. Not exactly the best state of affairs for candid discourse.
A blanket conflation of welfare and entitlement as part-and-parcel with the black community, and a direct implication that the acceptance of assistance from these programs moves people away from happiness and away from God.
As a two-faced answer, it's one for the books.
Black people = entitlement and welfare seems pretty racist to me.
googleplex
Member
Yes it was racist. This isn't some backwoods hillbilly. He has a college education and a master's degree. But he went on to compare the civil rights movement with entitlements and welfare! And him claiming that he never personally witness anyone mistreating black people is not a fucking excuse for the completely ignorant shit that came out of his mouth.
"No one was singing the blues"? Are you kidding me?
evilromero
Member
Not a chance. It created a publicity frenzy. There's more focus on the show now more than ever before.
googleplex
Member
There was plenty of Jesus in the south when other human beings were treated as property.
- Status