No, because they were happy. And Godly, can’t forget Godly.
It’s interesting that you’re referring to us here as the “highly educated” while Phil Robertson is “an old man from the hills,” because despite the redneck persona he has a bachelor’s degree in physical education and a master’s degree in education, and in fact spent several years as a school teacher.
Just a few days after this broke, my husband and I, upon reading how the Duck boys were now crying censorship, realized that A&E no doubt suspended Phil due to him breaking their morality clause and we laughed our asses off. 'Bout time that shoe dropped on the other foot of homophobes and racists who think their actions are “godly.”
Cite?
The guy directly insulted me and mine. Why shouldn’t I take a little joy in seeing him suffer for it? Imagine a guy calls your wife a whore, then walks into a telephone pole. You’re telling me you wouldn’t laugh your ass off at that guy?
I wouldn’t, any more than I might laugh at anyone bumping into a pole. Some random person’s innacurate opinion of my wife means absolutely nothing to me. If it upset the missus (unlikely) I would console her. The fact that he had the lack of manners to share that opinion would lower my opinion of him (if I even had one to begin with). If he were an acquantance I may elect not to associate with him any longer. But I would not wish him ill.
I brought my kids up the same way. If they complained that someone called them a name I would ask “Are you?”. When they replied “No!”, I would say something like “OK, then ignore it and go back to what you were doing. You will often run across people with wrong opinions as you grow older. Don’t let them color what you know to be true”.
I din’t read the article but from what I gather here,all of what Phil said was opinion. Some were provably wrong. Others were based on his experience. A sample size of one is not statistically significant. I just can’t get worked up about this (or Mylie Cyrus’s political opinions, or Donald Trump’s marital advice, etc).
I hope I’m being whooshed, because that makes absolutely no sense. By definition, if you do not tolerate all views you are intolerant:
What you are advocating is “selective tolerance”. In reality, most people operate in that realm. The problem is, people can’t agree on what selections go in which bucket.
I don’t see that as a problem.
I was thinking the same thing when I read it. Sadly my favorite music came out of hard times. What an ignorant thing to say. Of course he didn’t hear black people bad-mouthing white people back then. That’s how one found himself hanging under a tree.
Now he may have had a childhood like mine where I didn’t hear the word nigger bandied about. I lived near a military base and we had a lot of military kids in school of every size shape and color. We didn’t know we were suppose to hate each other.
But how an adult can be so unaware of the racial vulgarities that transpired in American history is mind boggling.
If you tolerate hateful racist homophobic views you make them acceptable, thus lowering tolerance for those groups. It is not complicated.
Nigel Powers: “There are only two things I can’t stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people’s cultures… and the Dutch.”
I live in Topeka, Kansas and often drive down 12th Street, where the Westboro Baptist Church compound is located.
They have a sign, with a message they change every week or so, on the northeast corner of the property.
This week it’s saying *“DUCK DYNASTY’S PHIL ROBERTSON IS RIGHT! SODOMY IS A SIN! QUACK! X-MAS IS A SIN!” *
Not sure what that last clause has to do with the rest of it, it’s probably a holdover from last week, in which Christmas was called pagan idolatry.
People expected these guys to be something other than far right wing?
Speaking for myself only, I didn’t have any expectations at all. Two weeks ago, I was only vaguely aware that there was a TV show called “Duck Dynasty,” and if I’d thought about it for even half a second, I’d have probably assumed it was a cartoon show.
Now that I know that this guy isn’t just an ignorant yahoo, but rather an ignorant yahoo with a couple of degrees under his belt, I’d say he’s got even less excuse than I originally thought he did.
The whole thing’s most interesting as a litmus test. A lot of people are showing their true colors (or in some cases, simply removing all doubt) by rallying around these bozos.
The Wal-Mart down here where I’m visiting the in-laws in central Florida has Duck Dynasty merchandise prominently displayed. Evidently the folks who run WallyWorld feel that if you can make a buck off promoting a bunch of racist, homophobic bigots, it’s just as good as any other buck. And according to religion blogger Fred (“Slacktivist”) Clark, the evangelical Christian community is rallying around these guys in a big way. True colors.
Nonsense, you can’t selectively decide which views are acceptable and which are not. Disagree all you want but freedom of speech doesn’t just apply to your views or the majority view.
Like hell i can’t.
True. And the point at which it becomes hate speech is the instant I disagree with it.
Regards,
Shodan
The Slate Culture Gabfest did a segment on the show ages ago, before they’d annoyed me into giving up on them by being simultaneously too pretentious and too lowbrow. As I recall, they all admitted that they could see the appeal–that it was a good show, depicting a real family with the usual dynamics and love and blah blah, and specifically that it would appeal to a certain demo. Based on their impressions, I felt that I could see the appeal as well (though I felt no need to actually watch the thing).
Tee-hee. I enjoy the QUACK! Now I’m imagining the whole thing in Donald Duck’s voice. Hehehe. If you should happen to see any of the WBC crew 'round town, feel free to thank them for giving this bisexual atheist sodomite a giggle. QUACK QUACK QUACK!
A&E said never mind about the suspension, it’s business as usual for the show.
Freedom of speech is not a moral concept. I can and do decide what views are acceptable and which are not, as do you. Morality demands I do so. And I mean that literally. If I can’t selectively decide which views are acceptable and which ones are not, then I don’t have a morality, since I can’t even prefer my own views.
Freedom of speech is a legal concept designed to allow for a functioning democracy. It allows people to voice their political views without fear of being silenced by others. It is a way to stop the tyranny of the majority by allowing a minority to suggest other directions to go.
It is not a moral concept that we should let people say whatever they want without consequences. The fact that there are apparently no lasting consequences to Mr. Robertson is a moral tragedy.