(May 10, 2014 at 10:11 am)Esquilax Wrote: I'm not really sure what you mean, when you say "gay agenda" as though the reaction that gay people and their allies are having isn't justified. It's simple cause and effect: these people expressed that they believe that a certain subset of the populace deserve to be killed for something they can't control, and for a lot of right thinking people, that's a really fucked up and hateful position to take. Their distaste at those statements, and the fact that they voiced them, seems entirely justified to me. In turn, the network opted to take them off air rather than take the hit to their reputation, which is just business. Some people were dissatisfied with the product the network was producing, they complained, and the producers reacted.
I guarantee you we wouldn't be hearing any shit about "the black agenda" if someone on a popular tv show had come out and said that all black people deserve to die, and got fired for it.
Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see anything in the CNN link or the Right Wing Watch article where either one of them said anything about killing gays. Is this in reference to how you think all Christians view homosexuality? If so I think you're confusing a small vocal group with the majority. Those numbers may even out more on the topic of gay marriage, but as far as killing gays goes I'm pretty sure the large majority of Christians lean to the opposite side of that.
But look, what you said is the same exact justification used to keep gays off television in the past. "I find gays distasteful. Other people find gays distasteful. Lets keep gay people off of television because we all don't like their personal view." And that's what bugs me. There is this liberal notion that they're creating a more open society. But they're not changing the rules, they're just swapping positions. You're not saying that we should keep an open forum on social issues, you're saying we should accept the ones you like, and fuck the rest. Just like the other guy.
And here's the other thing too. By keeping this stuff you don't like off television or radio, you're not ending bigotry. You're sweeping it under the rug. A&E knew The Roberston family's views before their scandal and HGTV knew the Benham brothers' views before their scandal. But they still hired them. Liberals talk a lot about how racism is hidden now, people are secretly racist. And that's true, because these PC liberals caused it. You're forcing it underground, and then are shocked when it pops back up when the first black president decides to run? It didn't go away, you moved it out of sight. You want to know how you end homelessness? Allow the homeless to build shanty towns in the middle of our cities, because then people have to actually notice the problem and address it. You want to know how to end racism and bigotry? Put racists and bigots on T.V.! They would look ridiculous and it would force us to actually talk about these social issues.
(May 10, 2014 at 10:11 am)Esquilax Wrote: And to be clear, this isn't being "punished" for having views, either; nobody has the right to their own tv show.
Again to reiterate one of my earlier points, if a gay guy got a job on a television show during a time when being publicly gay was not acceptable, and then people found out he was gay and subsequently fired because of it, would that not be punishment for his views? I feel like that would be.
(May 10, 2014 at 2:48 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Why do people insist on conflating free speech with immunity from public condemnation?
(May 10, 2014 at 2:48 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(May 10, 2014 at 2:43 pm)FlyingNarwhal Wrote: Equal rights = good
Censoring free speech = bad
And again, they weren't arrested, and hence their free speech wasn't violated. Free speech means the government can't intervene in the speech of private individuals, it doesn't obligate private entities to give people a platform for their speech.
I want to be clear, I know that their free speech wasn't impeded upon by the government. But it was censored by the public. What is the point of having free speech, if we are going to censor it? You're using this technicality of non-governmental involvement as a workaround to censor speech, particularly speech that is offensive to you. Do you think that helps or harms the next disenfranchised group that comes up? When the public uses the same reason that people used to use to keep blacks off television, gays off television, women off television, atheists off television, and that you are now using against a group you don't like. Look I agree with you that racism and bigotry are pointless, stupid, ignorant, and harmful. I don't see any good coming from. But the fact of the matter is, is that offensive points of view need to be allowed to given air time, obviously that can't be made into law but it is our social responsibility to allow it. For the reason that at one time things like racial equality, gender equality, gay equality, and religious equality were all at one point considered offensive by the societal majority.
(May 10, 2014 at 2:48 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You have the right to say things. You don't have the right to be heard on national television, and you don't have the right to skip out on criticism and the professional consequences of your actions. These people took a job as representatives of a network, as part of their product lineup; if you make an ass out of the company you're representing, you can expect to be fired.
Again, my whole gay guy living in a time unacceptable to gays speal.
