A&E suspends Phil Robertson over anti-gay remarks

[JohnT]

@Debaser

Why the need to invent things to smear Phil with? Why can’t we focus on what he actually said without twisting his statements beyond recognition?

Phil didn’t say this. He never mentioned civil rights legislation at all in the quote you are referring to. (Unless there’s another one that hasn’t been posted to the thread.)

From the interview:

Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field… They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!.. Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson#ixzz2o1lcd2jp

I highlighted the part that referenced the CRA. He didn’t mention it by name, but his meaning is very, very clear. Before “entitlement”, meaning before affirmative action, before the war on poverty.

Poor white trash were the most virulent racists. They had to be, because otherwise they would’ve been at the bottom of society. His “memory” of racial relations in the Jim Crow era is laughably poor, and a black person who said something as mild as "those doggone white people! had a good chance of being beaten for being uppity if s/he said it in front of the wrong white person.

[Debaser]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Yeah. So what if holding opinions like that potentially alienates your own children from what is one of the last and most important support networks available. So what if it teaches them to hate, and teaches them that it’s not okay to be who you are. Who cares? They’re just fine otherwise. They have guns!

:rolleyes:

This doesn’t deserve anything more than a rolleyes smiley. It really doesn’t.

Look, it just so happens that the full spectrum of human belief contains things which are fucking horrifying, and there’s nothing “juvenile” about being intolerant of the nastier parts. There is no room for dialog about whether or not gay people deserves to have the same rights as the rest of us. But the fact is simply that Roberton’s suspension has nothing to do with free speech. Literally nothing, regardless of how retarded the Bobby Jindals and Camille Paglias of the world may be. And to turn this into a discussion about freedom of speech and acceptance of ideas in the public view is dishonest and deplorable, and I can tell you right now exactly why they do it: because they don’t have the balls to say openly what this is really about: “I agree with the statements Robertson made and do not believe that there should be repercussions for saying things like that”. Because this is always about the gays. It’s always about the things these people already believe in. And they don’t have the common decency to say it.

Since you know exactly what is in the minds of all the millions of people who back the Robertsons on this, why even bother reading the thread?

Just to give you one example of a person who doesn’t fit into your over simplified stereotype: I’m an atheist who doesn’t believe in God or sin. How is it that I side with Phil?

[Debaser]

@JohnT

From the interview:

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson#ixzz2o1lcd2jp

Poor white trash were the most virulent racists. They had to be, because otherwise they would’ve been at the bottom of society. His “memory” of racial relations in the Jim Crow era is laughably poor.

Yes, I’ve read the quote. Have you?

He is clearly talking about entitlements and welfare, which many conservatives believe have done a lot more harm than good to poor people, especially blacks.

Nowhere in that quote does he mention civil rights legislation.

Read it.

[Simplicio]

@Debaser

But as an atheist I think it is a valid concern that atheist governments don’t have a great track record.

What does that have to do with what he said? Islamic gov’ts aren’t "athiest. Neither were the Nazi’s or Imperial Japanese.

[Debaser]

@Dostoyevsky

He also never said anything about “the destruction of black families,” but you seem to have inferred that that’s what he had in mind when he was complaining about entitlements. Seems only reasonable that others can also make their own inferences about what he had in mind.

Well, my inference is based on what he actually said. The civil rights legislation part is completely made up and isn’t based on anything he said. So there’s that.

[JohnT]

@Debaser

Yes, I’ve read the quote. Have you?

He is clearly talking about entitlements and welfare, which many conservatives believe have done a lot more harm than good to poor people, especially blacks.

Nowhere in that quote does he mention civil rights legislation.

Read it.

Yes he does. He’s referencing the 1965 Civil Rights Act and the subsequent War on Poverty. If he isn’t, why reference “black” people at all in relation to “entitlement” and “welfare”? What do you think he’s talking about when he mentions those two words, Debaser?

Read it. As a person who grew up in Georgia, I can tell you it is VERY clear what he’s referring to.

[Debaser]

@Simplicio

Islamic gov’ts aren’t "athiest.

Yes. I know.

Neither were the Nazi’s or Imperial Japanese.

Well the Nazi’s weren’t very tolerant of Christianity.

[JohnT]

@kopek

OK – here goes my neck but ----------- I think I understand where he’s coming from on that one. He was white trash pretty much like some of us and from that standpoint we really * didn’t* see it. The separate bathrooms and counters were in the cities and towns which were like the moon to many of us; you saw it in the distance but you could only dream of what it was like there. For us, we all pissed behind the same trees and blistered the same way. Even once we came “to town” it was basically in the ghettos so the Jim Crow effects weren’t all that visible at first. It wasn’t until one of us made it to college that all of a sudden we found out what things really were like. That made a difference - major difference - to all of us.

For all the money their company made, long before the show, I don’t know if Phil has yet to see “the moon”. See the US as it really was. Clearly he doesn’t see it as it is today. So that he still looks at all of us as having been “happy Godly field hands” together doesn’t shock me any. Sadden a little but no big surprise.
This does make me curious about one thing though -------- take the folks from “Axemen” or “Deadliest Catch” or “Devils Ride” or any of the other so-called reality shows. Anyone want to bet there is at least one “Phil” in each cast?

I don’t know your background, but growing up in Georgia I can assure you that white trash and black people were not banded together in class-harmony against their white/rich overlords… at least not in the South, they weren’t.

[Debaser]

@JohnT

Yes he does. He’s referencing the 1965 Civil Rights Act and the subsequent War on Poverty. If he isn’t, why reference “black” people at all in relation to “entitlement” and “welfare”? What do you think he’s talking about when he mentions those two words, Debaser?

He’s talking about “entitlements” and “welfare” when he uses the words “entitlements” and “welfare”. Not sure why you’re having so much trouble with this.

If you want to claim he’s somehow using code words that mean something else I guess you’re entitled to your opinion. But it seems to me you’re bending over backwards to find offense where none exists.

[Dostoyevsky]

@Debaser

Well, my inference is based on what he actually said. The civil rights legislation part is completely made up and isn’t based on anything he said. So there’s that.

:dubious: Granted not all inferences are created equal, but I can see how someone would think that he was pining for them there good ole days.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Debaser

:rolleyes:

This doesn’t deserve anything more than a rolleyes smiley. It really doesn’t.

Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot that for most people, the knowledge that parents finding out an integral part of who you are would lead to them tring to “fix” you or shun you or treat you as damaged or even straight-up kick you out of the home and cut off any support isn’t a big deal. I forgot that the suicide and homelessness rates of the gay youth is actually pretty much in line with the rest of the population. I forgot that yes, these things fucking matter.

Since you know exactly what is in the minds of all the millions of people who back the Robertsons on this, why even bother reading the thread?

I’m sorry, read the fucking post again. I believe that you could believe this is actually about “censorship”. You’re not a fucking congressman whose job it is to know things like this. I do not even for a second believe that Bobby Jindal is stupid enough to believe that this is a first-amendment issue. And if you do, I have a bridge to sell you.

Just to give you one example of a person who doesn’t fit into your over simplified stereotype: I’m an atheist who doesn’t believe in God or sin. How is it that I side with Phil?

You’re a homophobe with no serviceable knowledge of how the first amendment works? I dunno, I can’t figure it out either (oh, I have explanations, but they’re more suited to the pit). Come on, help me out here.

[Simplicio]

@Debaser

Yes. I know.

So were you going to answer my question?

Well the Nazi’s weren’t very tolerant of Christianity.

Forming a Protestant Reich Church isn’t very athiest.

[JohnT]

Here’s a question for ya, Debaser:

In modern American conservative thought and language, what two pieces of legislation began the “entitlement” and “welfare” mentality among African-Americans?

[Falchion]

@JohnT

Yes he does. He’s referencing the 1965 Civil Rights Act and the subsequent War on Poverty. If he isn’t, why reference “black” people at all in relation to “entitlement” and “welfare”? What do you think he’s talking about when he mentions those two words, Debaser?

Read it. As a person who grew up in Georgia, I can tell you it is VERY clear what he’s referring to.

Okay, I must be missing something. Maybe he was just speaking secret southern lingo and that’s just it.

But, I just don’t understand that the phrase “welfare” and “entitlement” is an obvious reference to the 1965 Civil Rights Act (by which I assume you mean either the 1965 Voting Rights Act or the 1964 Civil Rights Act, or both). I agree that it’s a reference to the War on Poverty acts (Social Security, Food Stamps, etc.). But I’m not sure how that’s inextricably linked to one of the CRAs. Maybe it’s my northern roots (or relative youth) but when people talk about entitlements and welfare, I think of things like social security, medicaid, and food stamps. Not segregation.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

Just because you can’t hear a dog whistle doesn’t mean it isn’t there, Debaser.

[Karrius]

Why I brought up the Civil Rights stuff was he used the term mistreatment. That was his word, and “mistreatment”, to me, speaks to Civil Rights, in the same way that you’re focusing on “entitlement”. I find it kind of weird people (even those on my side) are focusing on the wrong words! See this quote:

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once,” the reality star said of growing up in pre-Civil-Rights-era Louisiana. “Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field … They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’ — not a word!”

That to me is waaaaay more about “racism didn’t exist!” than the entitlement and welfare comment was, and is really, really awful.

[Falchion]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Just because you can’t hear a dog whistle doesn’t mean it isn’t there, Debaser.

This is certainly true. The problem is that the people who can hear the dog whistle are usually the ones calling other people the dogs.

[JohnT]

Eh, having grown up in Georgia it’s pretty clear to me what he’s referencing. I agree that it was unlikely he was thinking “Civil Rights Act of 1965” when he made those statements, but the references are quite clear:

“Pre-entitlement”

“Pre-welfare”

He wishes to roll back the clock to the state of racial relations in the Jim Crow era, prior to the Civil Rights Act and the War on Poverty, and he thinks racial relations will benefit from this. I don’t know how his statement could be interpreted any other way.

[randompattern]

Just have Paula Deen fill in on the show for him until all this blows over the he can come back. Problem solved.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

Well there’s egg on my face. Apparently Paglia is a gay, atheist feminist. Which does somewhat beg the question of how the hell she was that disgustingly wrong on this issue. I guess she’s not evil, just stupid. I stand by my statement WRT Jindal, though.