I actually think it was brilliant (as a business matter). As I understand it, they’ve already filmed the next season (with him in it). And they’re fully prepared to show them. So, you make a big deal about suspending him, continue to show the episodes, and then “forgive” him when it comes time to film the following season.
He switched to the next definition below it.
The family is saying if he’s out, they are too (which was predictable), so they may not be able to show the next season anyway.
It’s not my fault if you pick and choose on that page what to read, nor is it my fault you have to have a website to explain it to you.
After 4 times or whatever, I’m not linking it again.
It’s your fault if you quote the wrong things in support of your argument.
I would assume that A&E owns the already recorded episodes (and can show them).
I linked the entire page, but as noted, most intelligent people don’t need a webpage, in any event, to define for them such a thing as civil liberty.
Go ahead, though, and repeat the same old tired things over and over and over.
Let me know when you find some intelligent people to explain your position, then.
Poor choice of words. I mean they’re not exactly going to draw huge ratings if the Robertsons are refusing to do promotional work and/or asking people not to watch.
I’m not sure what you’re driving at here. Even if one thinks that punishing Phil Robertson was justified, there’s no reason to punish the rest of the cast, and that’s what A&E would be doing by cancelling the show. Also, I’m not sure how you’re using the term hypocrite, but it would only be hypocritical of A&E if, as a channel, it issued similar remarks about gay and black people itself while condemning others who did the same.
ETA: if you’re using hypocrite to mean, “Making money off Phil, while condemning him,” keep in mind that that isn’t hypocritical. They aren’t making money off his recent marks, and the show was never marketed by the network as “Anti-gay Stuff.” They’re making money despite his recent remarks, and that’s not hypocritical.
Fair enough. So, what are your views on Paglia’s comments concerning the topic at hand?
And Jesus wept.
Is that what you feel about Paglia’s comments? Which ones? Do you agree with any of what she’d said on the subject?
The first two sentences. The rest is drivel.
She’s falling into the same trap as many by calling it a free speech issue (basically invoking the first amendment where it doesn’t apply) and uses the same sort of inflammatory language that I’ve come to expect from her. She may have a valid point in there somewhere, but it’s lost in the rhetoric.
I have seen the Duck Dynasty show and find it to be somewhat silly and contrived as I find most reality shows.
Mr Robertson has his right to have any opinion he wishes. He has freely associated with A&E and both are free to act within the bounds of whatever contract exists between them. Because of that association, Mr Robertson does not have the right to take to a massively public forum and say anything he wishes with no repurcussions from A&E. In the context of employment, there are two areas that simply don’t belong in the workplace - religion and sexuality. Bring either into the workplace and you are dancing on the razor’s edge.
At the same time, no employer should be allowed to act against employees for the mere act of being something be it black, hispanic, white, female, male, Christian, Muslim, homosexual, etc.
I object intensely to anyone who holds beliefs in Nazis and Hitler, but if you keep your views to yourself and don’t wear for example, a swastika, your employer should not be able to act against you. Nobody should be able to discriminate based on unexpressed beliefs as misguided as I or an employer might think that they are. At the same time, if you as a nazi lover want to get on Facebook where you list your employer and espouse your beliefs, all bets are off.
While I say this, I know that in the practical world, that just isn’t the way it works. Homosexuals, blacks, hispanics and women are often discriminated against.
As for Mr Robertson’s comments regarding blacks, I am not sure I agree with what he is saying because what he is saying depends heavily on what he means because he expresses it confusingly.
I was born in Alabama and for whatever reason, I was not exposed to discrimination. Until I was thirteen, if you had asked if blacks were badly treated, I wouldn’t know. When I was 13, my cousin was going to visit his partner in a bricklayer business. He said, “he is a N—, but he is a good guy.” Honestly, I would have thought nothing of the guy being black or going to his home, but once my cousin said that, I had to wonder why he thought I needed telling that. To this day, some 40 years later, I have not personally witnessed any discrimination against blacks in Alabama. What I have witnessed is how some of my family speak of blacks when in common company.
I grew up in Charleston in the sixties. Our local newspaper would say this in its editorials. In code, of course.
If you don’t mind, I’m going to fix this analogy to make it closer to Duck Dynasty:
The important parts are that Robertson creates product, doesn’t just move product–things might be different if he were an ad rep for A&E. He spoke as part of his official duties (i.e., during a puff-piece interview that works as show promotion), not during off-hours. His speech was part of the product. It wasn’t just religious speech, it was religious speech that was actively hostile toward a significant section of his employer’s clientele.
The analogy to the Muslim woman would be exact if one of the show’s sound engineers were fired for wearing a crucifix, and I’d support the sound engineer. It’d be pretty close if Robertson were fired for wearing a crucifix, and I’d support Robertson. But as it is, the analogy is very far afield, and supporting both the hijab-wearing woman and the firing of Robertson is wholly consistent.
You’re off base in a bunch of places here.
It could be more accurately called a hit piece than a puff piece.
I don’t think gays are a “significant” portion of the shows viewers. Certainly the religion aspect of the show gains it much more viewers than it costs it.
It was during off hours, and the comments weren’t a product of the show.
It wasn’t “actively hostile” towards anyone. He didn’t call to action. He disapproved. That’s it.
Whatever, that’s a matter of opinion and is in any case irrelevant.
A&E’s clientele aren’t just this show’s viewers, they’re the entire network’s viewers. A&E is owned by Disney, so if a boycott were organized, the entire Disney company could be targeted. In any case, it’s the business’s call whether gays are a “significant” portion of their clientele, not yours.
I’m sorry, do you think GQ was interviewing Robertson in a man-on-the-street format? No: they were interviewing him due to his celebrity status because of the show. His persona is what A&E sells, and his celebrity is entirely due to his presence on the show. This is, again, very different from some random schmuck who works on the show: what he says is the product.
What constitutes “actively hostile” speech in your world, calls to violence? That’s not what I meant by “actively hostile.”
It isn’t just the gay audience for the show that the suits need to worry about - it’s about the far, far larger audience that believes in basic fairness and respect for others, and doesn’t appreciate Phil’s comments that he opposes them.