(December 21, 2013 at 7:33 pm)Chad32 Wrote: For those who don't know, Duck Dynasty is a reality TV show about rednecks having more money than they know what to do with.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if a show designed to mock a certain stereotype is suddenly upset when one of the characters lives up to the stereotype. Or maybe they're not surprised and just milking the controversy for ratings.

I don't know if this is a publicity stunt or not. Maybe it is, and they're planning to let the guy back in regardless.

undefined

Well this 'undefined' glitch is an inauspicious return to the forums. Anyways, after an hour here is my rant.

I don't watch the show, don't really care for those types of shows anyways. But I'm on Phil's side on this one. Obviously what he said is wrong, but he's entitled to his own opinion. If people truly don't like what he said they can choose not to watch the show, but if enough people are still watching the show there is no reason for them to end it. There is no reason to end a show if people that aren't watching the show find it offensive.

Also I'm completely against A&E for this whole fiasco. They've been doing this show for about a year now. The whole family are southern Bible Belt Christians, and from what I've heard from friends that watch the show they do a Sunday dinner at the end of every show. A&E is trying to make it seem like the entire time they filmed his whole family, no one ever once said something bad about anyone who is LGBT. I call bullshit! I can guarantee that A&E has footage (which they've probably burned by now) of him saying the exact same thing that he said in the GQ interview. They knew what his stance on homosexuality was and they never suspended him because they could always just edit that out of the final cut. This GQ interview they can't edit, so now they have to act (big emphasis on act) like they are offended by what he said because they are an LGBT friendly company.

Quote:Morals clause

A&E knew of Phil's controversial views, before the show premiered, and warned him not to overshare on "hot button" topics such as gay rights and race relations. All family members most likely signed contracts containing "morals clauses" in which they promised to, among other things, avoid anything that would embarrass or bring shame to A&E or the brand. Such clauses are standard in the entertainment and sports industries.[62]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_Dynasty#Morals_clause

And that's where A&E fucked up. They were expecting him to miss the reality tv money and apologize to to the world. But he's already got money so he can tell them to go screw. They don't have anything he doesn't got. However, Duck Dynasty has increased A&E's channel viewership by 10%. A&E shot themselves in the foot trying to act like the gave a shit but they don't. They knew they were hiring a redneck, they knew what his stances were on those "hot topics," they knew that what he believed went against the company's moral stance when they started the show, and now they are trying to take the moral high ground and pretend like they were surprised that he thought this. People should really be less pissed at Phil for just being a guy with his views then they should be at the producers at A&E for whoring themselves out at the expense of the morals they apparently hold in such high regard.

I find the whole duck shooting thing far more offensive myself.

I'm pretty sure they're eating the ducks. It's not like they shoot them for the hell of it. Though if you think we just shouldn't kill animals at all and eat meat, then you're free to think that.

(December 22, 2013 at 2:19 pm)plaincents822 Wrote: But I'm on Phil's side on this one. Obviously what he said is wrong, but he's entitled to his own opinion.

Oh really! I have a co-worker who is gay and about to retire. She is the sweetest person and extremely competent in her job. But according to you, it's just her damned problem that people spew fourth hate screeds on public television over the way she is by birth. She just has to listen to the ignorant "man ain't made like that" and "a vagina is only for a dick" snipits that are pervading the mediasphere.

Really, should the nice portion of the population that just happens to be attracted to the same sex be exposed to not just the ignorant ridicule and hate, but also to be exposed to it so blatantly on national popular television?

Should we also have a few hours on NBC for "Nigger talk" and a few hours on CBS for "damned wetback job thieves?"

Are you out of your mind?

That's the idea behind freedom of speech. We can't stop people from thinking what they do. What we can and should do it make laws against persecuting people like this.

(December 22, 2013 at 2:51 pm)Chad32 Wrote: That's the idea behind freedom of speech. We can't stop people from thinking what they do. What we can and should do it make laws against persecuting people like this.

I see. So he and his ilk (think Westboro) may say whatever vile, hateful, racial, bigoted things they like and no one is allowed to register their displeasure with same?

I have no problem with him saying what he likes. He's completely entitled to his opinion. What I have a problem with is the attempt to censure objections to his views by waving the "freedom of speech" banner. He can say what he likes. Others may say what they like in response.

Or is the "freedom of speech" thing just for the haters?

As for A&E's response, people get fired every day for making irresponsible comments. Again, he's entitled to his opinions. He should be prepared to accept the consequences for having them. Really, getting fired from his program -- from which he has already made millions, and only because A&E gave him the platform to begin with -- rises to "persecution?" You can honestly say that with a straight face? And if he signed the contract that permits them to terminate him, then I hardly think he has a leg to stand on.

Of course, he'll be back. The whole thing is just a farce. On this, we agree.

(December 22, 2013 at 2:40 pm)Brakeman Wrote:

(December 22, 2013 at 2:19 pm)plaincents822 Wrote: But I'm on Phil's side on this one. Obviously what he said is wrong, but he's entitled to his own opinion.

Oh really! I have a co-worker who is gay and about to retire. She is the sweetest person and extremely competent in her job. But according to you, it's just her damned problem that people spew fourth hate screeds on public television over the way she is by birth. She just has to listen to the ignorant "man ain't made like that" and "a vagina is only for a dick" snipits that are pervading the mediasphere.

Yes it is her problem, that is the price of free speech. People will say things that you ultimately disagree with. You're not legally protected from getting your feelings hurt. You know what I do when someone says something that I disagree with? I change the channel.

(December 22, 2013 at 2:40 pm)Brakeman Wrote: Really, should the nice portion of the population that just happens to be attracted to the same sex be exposed to not just the ignorant ridicule and hate, but also to be exposed to it so blatantly on national popular television?

Should we also have a few hours on NBC for "Nigger talk" and a few hours on CBS for "damned wetback job thieves?"

Are you out of your mind?

We all know that there is a large portion of the population that is against gay marriage. Do they just not get to have any television shows where those views are expressed because you or another group of people find it offensive? It's called target audience, you may not be in it.

If NBC wanted to air a show called "Nigger Talk" I wouldn't watch it, but that doesn't mean I'm going to keep them from doing the show either if they believe it is a smart business choice and will garner enough audience.