Your claim that if you found a comment repugnant enough to cause you to disassociate yourself from the author that you would do it completely.
A less black-and-white world view would allow for nuance. Since you made the comment in the context of a TV network that had not made any such absolute statement as you describe, it follows that you were attempting to establish your own binary world view as a point of discussion.
ehheh. Yeah. Ok. That’s the ticket.
I’m probably the only person in this black and white world that finds it to be hypocritical for A&E to…suspend… business with Robertson due to what they have decided is his repugnant (your word) attitude or opinions, but continue to make money off the shows he has already done for them.
It’s kind of like- “I’m offended by your remarks, but I’m not so offended that I’m going to pass up this easy money I"m making off you”.
Yeah. That’s the ticket.
Agreed. When Shonda Rhimes fired Isaiah Washington from Grey’s Anatomy for using homophobic slurs nobody told her she had to give back all the money she made off the show while he was on it.
The difference, and it’s a big one, is that Grey’s Anatomy is a drama (I’m guessing. I’ve never see it, either), and the guy was most surely playing a character . In this case, it’s a reality show, and it’s not a character, but supposedly for real. Furthermore, the entire family is supporting this Robertson fellow, so they evidently believe the same way the Dad does. So, is A&E “suspending” him because of his views, or because he had the audacity to tell the truth when asked about his views. Is it about principle or not?
You couch your statements in sarcasm, but you and I both know that that is probably true. Besides, I have already noted that they have taken no “moral” stance on the issue, basing their decision on their supposed financial returns on the matter. When they perceived that they would take a hit from various audiences in various other shows who would choose to boycott the entire network, they tried to cut their losses by suspending one character, (not the whole cast), of one show, limiting the suspension to the one character who made the statements that offended other viewers.
The only apparent point of your sarcasm is to suggest that there is hypocrisy in the actions of A&E, but since their decisions are financially, not “morally,” based there is no hypocrisy.
No. Why are you pretending that it is?
About what, then, is it? Why did A&E “suspend” (as you say it is) the guy? Did they suspend him because his comments may insult some viewers, thus causing them to not watch the show, or… shudder…not watch A&E at all, or did they “suspend” him because his comments are offensive?
Those are not the comments from the GQ article, which is the subject of this thread.
The guy talked about what he actually saw and experienced. Nothing more.
And while you’re busy patting yourself on the back for arguing A&E isn’t making a moral stand here, you’re late to the party, as usual. I pointed that out a long time ago, in this very thread.
You’re wrong if you think that is what he said. He said he did not see those things happening.
It’s possibly a mix of both, but it’s almost certainly mostly the former.
When his comments aired, there was immediate push back from a number of people and groups who criticized A&E for having a show that featured an outspoken homophobe. A&E took the initial reaction to be a predictor of future controversy (and potential lost sales) and “separated” Phil from their product with the narrowest actions available, “suspending” him while not firing him and taking no action against the rest of the characters.
Agreed.
I’ve never understood why the uppity northern blacks, or the limp-wristed liberal pansies get upset when Southern whites would say “Our nigras were perfectly happy. It was those northern agitators who were the ones who stirred up trouble.”
Robertson said nothing like that. Don’t think anyone in this thread has said that either. I certainly haven’t.
They do, however, establish that Phil is, indeed, a homophobe, a point that you chose to pretend his GQ comments did not.
Piffle. He said, “I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once.” This is, at best, disingenuous. At worst, it is a lie. He may not “himself” seen a black person whipped or beaten, but his weasel words ignore the fact that he had to have seen signs that limited “colored” people to separate restrooms and drinking fountains and prohibited them entry to specific places of business. He had to have known that they were forced to go to separate schools, generally underfunded. His claim would be pretty much the same as a good German claiming that he had never seen a Jew thrown into a box car. I am curious why you are defending him on this point.
So what? I have made no claim that the idea originated with me. I have mentioned the matter only in the context of posts to which I have responded. You appear to be much more concerned with patting your back, with your claim of chronological primacy.
No, a point his GQ comments clearly did not, to anyone with the reading skill of your average fourth grader.
So now you know exactly what he saw and experienced growing up? Cool. You’re freaking psychic. What numbers should I play in the lottery oh enlightened one?
:rolleyes:
However, once one has reached sixth grade, the homophobia is obvious.
I have already acknowledged that he may not have seen a black person beaten. However, the only way that he could have avoided seeing the signs restricting the rights of “colored” people would have been to fail to learn to read until he was 20 years old, or more. They were ubiquitous in the South until the mid 1960s. I never missed seeing them when I visited and I am younger than he is.
That is not all he said. He also made blanket statements about the inner thoughts of African-American during that period. He said "Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.” Did he do a third-party poll to figure out if they were actually happy? I doubt it. He’s a racist who casually dismisses the rampant and pervasive terrorism inflicted on African-Americans during this period, and tries to attribute his own idiotic thoughts to African-Americans.
He also brings up welfare, which means he is trying to tie that into larger political and economic policy. Anybody who thinks that African-Americans were happy under the terrorist regimes of the Jim Crow era, but somehow became unhappy because of welfare is a racist moron.
Robertson is a vile racist. What I can’t figure out is why there is always a swarm of people eager to defend racists.
What amazes me is not the A&E actions - those are somewhat predictable and understandable, and in the end A&E will apologize to Phil and get him back on the show. What is amazing is that some people get “outraged” over this kind of stuff.
To those who are “outraged” - why in the world would you care that someone, somewhere, doesn’t hold homosexuality in the highest regard? Or that, when asked, he expresses that opinion? Or that he has a part in a show that you watch (or don’t watch for that matter)? How is it relevant to you?
Example: I am a big fan of Pink Floyd and Roger Waters. Yet, on the subject of Israel and Palestinians Waters not only holds an opinion that is 180 degrees from mine, but he expresses that stupid opinion often and forcefully. That doesn’t affect my appreciation of his musical talent and of his music or make me think of “boycotting” his concerts or albums. Why would it? How is it relevant?
I am sure many actors in the shows that I watch hold silly lefty opinions. I don’t care, really, and if one was brought to my attention, I would ignore it. Why should I (or anyone) care what an actor’s political opinion is? How is that relevant to the actor’s performances?
I’ll just add that if Robertson had merely said that he got along with African-Americans and that they all liked each other, I wouldn’t be calling him racist. But once he started speaking on behalf of African-Americans and bringing up government policy, then he moved from relating his personal experience into racist thinking which sanitizes the past.
This is only a big story because the Right got all *outraged *that A&E dare suspend the guy for speaking his mind. Remember that? I mean, it was only a few days ago.