George Takei just posted on this subject on Facebook:
He’s backwards and offensive, but… it strikes me that is kind of the entire point of the show, so for A&E to be surprised or feel the need to take action seems counterintuitive to me.
Why give money (and that’s what ratings are) to people you don’t like?
Someone should make a graph based on what people today think and then compare it with a graph of what the people of the fifties and sixties thought
Times are changing aren’t they? A&E has to pay for the air time using commercials that the people of todays modern society would boycott if they thought A&E agreed with this man’s redneck comments about gay’s.
A&E thought about it and slapped him for his comments, the air waves now belong to people who think you should only think and act as they do. Someday all of you will be in the same boat agreeing with each other and ready to turn on anyone that is different that has a perspective of what God thinks based simply on his word.
Back to those two graphs … the difference in what people think today vs what people thought fifty years ago must have had something to do with up bringing, uh?
Your point being?
Either way, either A&E has people in charge who have deep seated opinions on the matter who required reassurance on the matter. Or (cynically) they realize a significant portion of their audience has such opinions.
In what way does upbringing make any difference? In one case, they cynically follow the dictates of their market. In the other, they follow the dictates of their hearts. In no case does “upbringing” have any bearing on the matter.
For sure. If upbringing was the end all be all, I’d be a far right wing conservative and possible an evangelical pastor. We see how that ended.
**ELUCIDATOR **! Give Mr. Takei his facebook passwords back right this minute !
Eh, opprobrium against public figures for controversial statements is a pretty standard way of reinforcing societal norms (or things you’d like to become societal norms). It’s not so much one particular instance as the cumulative effect. Certainly someone that thinks Jews are running the world might think twice about advocating those views after watching Mel Gibson’s recent career trajectory, for example.
So I’m not sure its so much that we’re worried there are masses of people who have their conscious dictated by interviews given by the Duck Dynasty guy, or that we’re in tears because some random reality show star has crummy views on Gay people, but that expressing our displeasure is a useful way of signaling that we think generally of people who declare that being gay is evil.
Of course that works both ways, plenty of pernicious societal norms are reinforced the same way (including, until recently, intolerence of gay people). But to the extent that people think ragging on gay people is a bad thing and should be discouraged, expressing dislike of Robertson’s statement is a useful means to achieve that end.
Which, in your graph between today and earlier, would be a flat line. The airwaves, (and the print media), have always been the province of those who could afford to supply the media, and people, in general, tend to think that everyone should think as they do. The particular beliefs of people will be different in many areas, but the desire for people to promote their own beliefs is pretty nearly identical.
There are networks, today, that will broadcast hedonism as high art and networks that will broadcast only things that agree with their own brand of religion. Robertson is perfectly free to go negotiate a contract with one of the networks that claim to promote “family values” and, if he is truly popular, he will be a success for himself and the network.
Odd statement. Again, people have always preferred to associate with others of similar beliefs. Nothing in Robertson’s situation has changed that in any way.
Because gun shooting is SO what Jesus loves.
I like George Takei…but the puns, man. THE PUNS.
I’ve always wondered if this was a confusion of cause & effect, mainly because of the crazy outpouring of support for places like Chik Fil A. The public reacting to a situation is often very different than the media reaction to a situation. I wonder if this is because the people who didn’t want to “reinforce these beliefs” thought that the public figure reactions were driving the mainstream reaction instead of the opposite being true, the reactions were because they were considered what the mainstream would want to see.
I sorta view this sort of “social engineering” in the same vein as “video games are turning our kids into killers.”
Yes.
My FB is blowing up with people saying to boycott “Duck Dynasty” and any related products because that’s all owned by A&E. But to go out and buy lots of duck calls and other items from “Duck Commander” because that’s the company owned by the Robertsons and doesn’t give any money to A&E.
I’m not sure of the truth of this, but it makes sense to me. The “Duck Commander” company pre-dates the show and is a real company.
I’ll fix it:
I recall reading earlier stories the Phil Robertson in particular has been at odds with A&E over how the show portrays the families religion, rural lifestyle and hunting. For instance, he had fought with them over the inclusion of the dinner prayer at the end of the episode and them removing the “in Jesus name” from it. Also they argued about showing guns firing that occurs frequently.
Happy now?
I suppose that if one is a moral purist about these matters then he wouldn’t give either. Fair enough, and I can respect that. However, I tend to think moral purity is a high, high standard, and that, eventually, there’d be few people I’d end up doing business with. (And admittedly someone could put me on their moral shit list as well for something, I’m sure.) The real world requires compromise. It requires making peace with people that you disagree with, even sometimes making them wealthier in the process of making peace with them. And while some might say, “Well, maybe you have to compromise on important issues, but surely something as trivial as not watching a show isn’t essential to life,” those people are missing the broader point that, though entertainment isn’t biologically imperative, some entertainment is essential to the quality of one’s life and a person might be constituted in such a way that Robertson’s show is his essential entertainment. And in that situation I wouldn’t begrudge him his druthers.
Do they live in a right to work state? Because a lot of times those clauses forbidding them from working for X period of time aren’t valid.
I agree that expressing dislike for what he said is acceptable. In fact, I’m tempted to say that it’s also obligatory, but I hesitate to put moral requirements on others. I just don’t think he should’ve been canned. He certainly should be criticized.
Well, I’m not reading all these comments, and I’ve never watched the goofy program and don’t intend to. What comments I have read, though, it seems that many want civil liberties for most, but this yahoo Robertson fellow, and his fans, shouldn’t be allowed their own.
Seems hypocritical to me.
I haven’t called my gay niece or my gay nephew, to get their opinion about it, but knowing them as I do, they probably don’t much give a leap about it all.
Well, when one’s reason for being offended is X (comparing homosexuality to bestiality) and then it is shown that that did not happen, yeah, it does mitigate the offense. Of course it mitigates the offense.