Thanks!
Immodium helps.
Pretty much every episode shown this season? It seems to be getting more scripted/outlined than it was in the beginning. Also noticed that the cast is saying “crap” a lot lately, and I didn’t notice it in earlier seasons. Maybe it’s their concession to the lack of profanity thing?
Not unlike The Count Censored!
SHOCKING NEWS!!!
Quotes from series patriarch Robertson in an interview with GQ:
" “It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus, that’s just me,” the reality star said.
“I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,” he explained when asked by GQ’s Drew Magary what exactly he considered sinful, “bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”"
A&E Networks suspended the series patriarch Phil Robertson from ‘Duck Dynasty’ after the interview was released.
Doesn’t A&E believe in freedom of speech?
This is good news for CMT.
I don’t have cable but caught the show a couple of times. I just don’t understand reality shows. At all. Not even a little.
Sure. So do I, but that doesn’t mean I would employ someone who embarrasses my company and makes statements that are best very rude, inappropriate, and offensive to many of my friends, family, customers, and other business associates.
What does freedom of speech have to do with commercial TV?
The entire young internet is seemingly learning this lesson tonight. Browsing through the comments on imgur is depressing as a handful of users are trying their best to explain the difference between free of government censorship and free of commercial consequences.
Robertson just sank his show. They’ll no doubt still be rolling in duck call and merch money - likely more as the pro-homophobic backlash kicks in in about five minutes (see Chick-fil-A).
If you refuse to give money to people who hate you, you’re “against freedom of speech”, unless those people are liberals, in which case you’re a brave, courageous american fighting the good fight.
Phil should have ducked this controversy.
I am shocked SHOCKED to learn that an elderly religious southern man holds homophobic views.
I’d say that A&E just sank their most popular show. The Robertsons OTOH will be just fine.
It was just a matter of time. The show is boring, their humor is stupid, bet they and their fans are happy happy happy
Would rather watch honey boo boo.
Duck Dynasty is one of those shows IMO which appeals to a certain segment of our society.
I tried watching it a couple of times. Obviously I’m not part of that segment.
I really have no patience for Rednexploitation shows.
That’s a good word. Did you make that up, or is it an established Thing?
I don’t watch the show or know anything about it except at a pop-culture trend awareness. I came into the thread because of this.
Man, this is what you call an Unforced Error. You’re a 100% Pop Culture Phenomenon. Do NOT go up against other Phenomena that, sure, have some Pop Culture relevance, but are rooted in an ages-long struggle for rights. You’re bringing a knife to a nuclear showdown.
Or they’re playing to their base. Even if A&E cancels the show, someone will pick it up. If my Facebook newsfeed is any indicator, they will not have lost any viewers.
It’s not just The Gays, it’s The Blacks, too! Apparently, they were all happy whistlin’ minstrels when he was a boy:
I’ve never seen an episode, but knew of the show. Yeah, anyone with any kind of experience with rural Southern evangelicals is shocked that the patriarch of such a clan has a negative opinion of homosexuality.
I also find it hilarious all the people who are railing about Phil’s “freedom of speech” and how they support his right to express his opinion. Well, when he wants to start his own cable network he can express his opinions on it all day long, but as long as A&E isn’t owned by Phil they have a right to decide what airs on their channel and what doesn’t. It’s always shocking when people fail to understand what the first amendment actually protects and from what we’re being protected.
I will say that I don’t entirely agree with GLAAD’s position on it. I didn’t go over Phil’s comments with a fine-toothed comb, but from what I read he said:
-
Prefers vaginal intercourse with a woman to anal sex with a man, and believes the former is a lot more appealing. That’s not really intrinsically offensive, as it represents the opinion of basically all homosexual males. I don’t think anyone would be offended if a gay man said vaginal intercourse with a woman was unappealing to him.
-
Condemned homosexuality as a sin, but also listed several other things like being a “drunkard.” GLAAD said this doesn’t represent the beliefs of “true Christians.” Well, I was raised Catholic and probably didn’t fully transition to atheism until my early 20s, and in all reality I don’t see how anyone can deny that at the very least there’s a strong argument you can view homosexual acts as sinful under established Christian theology. The bible can be interpreted in many different ways (see: intra-religious religious strife in Christianity, last 1800 years), while there are certainly Christian sects that would argue otherwise Phil is expressing what is essentially what I’m going to go ahead and call mainstream Christian doctrine.
Take this headline from the HuffPo (link), “‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Phil Robertson Makes Anti-Gay Remarks, Says Being Gay Is A Sin.” I don’t see how that in itself is either inappropriate or controversial. It’s a religious opinion. To me it’s much more important how he believes that religious opinion should intersect with society. If he believes that it means gays should be imprisoned, prohibited from marrying or mistreated then it is a bad thing. But if it’s along the lines of “hate the sinner not the sin, not my business what they do”, then that’s a lot less objectionable.
GLAAD also links Phil’s comments to the SSM movement, but I don’t see where he specifically comes out for or against SSM. I’m sure he’s against it, but from what I read he didn’t advocate against it or actually speak out against it.
- The only unambiguously objectionable thing that I can find that Phil said was linking homosexuality to greater moral societal decay and associating it with bestiality. That is genuinely offensive and GLAAD is right to condemn him for that; but it’s odd people are focusing on the fact he called homosexuality a sin or trying to link him to the SSM debate when he didn’t (from what I can see) specifically address SSM.