Duck Dynasty star canned for homophobic remarks

There's nothing wrong with describing that post and the beliefs expressed in it as delusional, ignorant, naive, etc. Those would be simply accurate terms, suitable for any reality based discourse. (The bizarre perception of the US media as dominated by "liberal" voices and conventions has long been identified with a particular US political faction known for exhibiting other symptoms of mental dysfunction, and is not found among the reality based).

But what we have here is an indiscriminating stereotyper - the Duck guy - being characterized as such in a discriminating, evidence based manner.

And see how he is defended:

Where the poster for some reason attempts to present gay pride activists dealing with a particular parade and a particular set of laws

(whose capriciousness remains unexamined - although we know most such laws are in fact weirdly capricious, with whatever perversions the local fundie religious official harbored a major influence on their formulation)

as if they were defying general principles of decent behavior as allegedly formulated in other laws found in other places.

Why do you suppose that poster did that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The reality is that science has yet to conclusively determine the issue, and if you believe it has, you are grossly overstating the science. And you obviously express a liberal bias, do not live in the US, and/or are just spouting political propaganda.

A study cited frequently by critics of a "liberal media bias" in American journalism is The Media Elite, a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. ... The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. ...

In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party. This leaves 24% undecided or independent.

A 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College, Press Bias and Politics, investigated the issue of media bias. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, Kuypers stated that the mainstream press in America tends to favor liberal viewpoints. They argued that reporters who they thought were expressing moderate or conservative points of view were often labeled as holding a minority point of view. Kuypers said he found liberal bias in reporting a variety of issues including race, welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control.

...

A 2005 study by political scientists Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri at Columbia attempted to quantify bias among news outlets using statistical models. The study findings showed "a strong liberal bias." The authors wrote that "all of the news outlets we examine[d], except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Liberal_bias​

Or do you have any studies that refute these? You know, "reality based" studies.

I was talking about the general stereotypes based on a hasty generalization of Phil Robertson as representative of all religious people.

Nice skirting of ad hominems there. At least you seem to take my point to heart.

I have not defended Phil Robertson's view, only his freedom to express them. Just pointing out some "reality based" reasons people may still associate homosexuality with deviancy. Laws tend to reflect social norms, so they are anything but capricious ("sudden and unaccountable changes"). Perhaps you meant to say they were "arbitrary" or something.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right. And the case here is that a vocal minority is trying to force a network to do something it does not want to do. Should oligarchies rule the network?

Do conservatives believe in the right of a network to employ whoever they choose?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No one can "force" the network to do anything. A&E has merely succumbed to market pressures, which is in their interest as a business. Notice all the talk about taking the show to another network, in lieu of anyone forcing them to do anything.

I did not see anyone dispute the right of an employer to suspend employees, although firing on the basis of religious beliefs is illegal in the US. So long as constitutional protections are not violated, yes, conservatives generally do promote freedom.

 

What infringing is done by extending the EXACT same rights, privileges, and benefits to homosexual couples? Recognition is NOT an intrinsic human right. Recognition requires the participation of others, and that participation should not be coerced in a free society. Civil unions, with full marriage rights, serve all the same legal social contract recognitions that the State is capable of offering, even to heterosexual marriage. And mandating general social recognition infringes on general freedom. You cannot legislate thought, à la 1984.

You really have no say in the matter, as even with legislated gay-marriage, many will not respect, accept, or recognize their status socially. No one has a human right to enforce acceptance on anyone else.

The human right to freedom of thought is much more intrinsic than you imagine some supposed right to recognition of status. I fail to see how you can justify demonizing the defense of the freedom of thought.

Yeah, it's called propaganda.

You made no such qualification earlier. You freely generalized all Christian Conservatives, and you did not say a thing about "women's health", so that would seem to be a non sequitur red herring. Who said anything about "morally corrupting children"?! Another non sequitur. I said the Russians "may not be so crazy" IF 'these activists [are] promoting "indecency... in front of children"'.

Lewd behavior in front of children can be problematic, as no one here has stepped up and defined where the line should be drawn. So I will ask again, where does lewd behavior in view of children become sexual abuse or morally inappropriate? Anything shy of touching the child? What about pornography? Where exactly is the line?

Yet the polls showing acceptance of gay marriage necessarily rely on a significant portion of social conservatives (as the largest ideology in the US). And fundamentalists make up only ~30% of all Christians. So what "greater majority"? Oh right, it was just a hasty generalization. You fell for your own bullshit.

I never said otherwise, only that stereotyping epithets beget response in kind.

Again, you would infringe on freedom of thought to secure some supposed freedom of recognition of status.

Sure, just like you are not a child-molesting pervert. You think the basic human freedom of thought is subordinate to acknowledging some non-intrinsic status (in contrast to an intrinsic status such as personhood).

So the supposed context I missed of an article about a Texas gay pride parade was Russia?! Non sequitur. Is that just a red herring so you can avoid answering the question?

Why would the activists be outraged unless they, by their own estimation, thought that some expected behavior may violate indecency laws?

 

Brief Notes

Brief Notes

This one was so stupid I didn't want to get involved. But, to take it from the top:

Nobody's First Amendment rights were trampled.​

The outrage shown over a faux "suspension" is pretty stupid; after all, this is hardly a new phenomenon. People face sanctions from their employer all the time for things they say outside of work. At no time before this duck kerfuffle had I ever heard conservatives suggest this sort of thing was problematic. Indeed, I recall many prominent conservatives were gratified to witness the firing of one Shirley Sharrod, employed by the U.S. government, because someone else deliberately misconstrued something she said years ago. Or professional athletes suspended for criticizing league officials. There are plenty of prominent people who have been punished by their employers for saying stupid things, so why is this suddenly new?

Furthermore, while it's true that conservatives see freedom in a different context from others, this was still a pretty boneheaded tantrum on the right.

A&E Is a Television Network​

This cuts both ways. To wit, I am among those who wonder why Discovery, TLC, A&E, and other networks once alleged to enlighten television viewing waste their time on these shows. Or maybe that's not correct; there's no need to wonder. This is, after all, America, and this is what the market wants. Americans want to come home from work and watch either hapless boobs embarrassing themselves for a record deal, pathetic boobs going to work, or stupid boobs being stupid. The only reason I don't laugh at the Downton Abbey hullaballoo is that it isn't "reality" television.

But to A&E: You're a network, you want your stars to get exposure for the shows. Interviews aren't just desired, they are expected and often contractually obliged. As such, when sending intellectual degenerates out to promote shows, you have to expect that stupid celebrities are going to say some pretty idiotic things. Get used to it. Recommended approach next time: Issue a statement explaining that while your network does not endorse such bigotry, the reality is that this kind of brain death is what the market demands, and the only way to get rid of it is for viewers to stop watching. I mean, hell, since you're a business, and all, and making money is what you do, and such things as decency and propriety don't sell well enough for dropping the show entirely to seem palatable.

Which reminds me ....

To the viewers: It's a television show. A "reality" show. Which means there is exactly zero reality about it. Consider that just before this scandal opened, the murmur about the duck show was that the producers were sticking unnecessary bleeps into the dialogue to suggest a virginal-mouthed family cussed like soldiers. In a broader context, I wish I could still find the blog post from the producer's assistant for one of the storage unit shows explaining how he would go to the storage units before filming and plant spectacular and fascinating objects, lest they have no drama for the show. But in the case of the waterfowl imperium, the whole point is to watch a bunch of stereotypes fulfill a stereotype. The whole pretense for this sector of reality television is to offer the audience something to look down at and laugh derisively. So the question becomes how we elevate this negative stereotype to something of virtue.

A Dose of Reality​

The suspension likely only helped the stars of the show. After all, next season is already wrapped, so they had a year before they had to figure out to do with their most problematic living stereotype. Meanwhile, you could still get the Chia gardens, the plastic ducks that make however many sounds, and all that other merchandise. The result of this scandal is increased merchandise sales and yet another demonstration of how stupidity is much similar between mob and marketplace mentalities.

Religion and Gayness​

Religion and sexual orientation are different. While many try to hide behind "totally bogus 'religious' exemption[s]", the reality is that this question is already settled for this issue. Consider that throughout the American gay fray, the fact that I have no religious prohibition against gay marriage or homosexuality in general means absolutely nothing in a court, else this would have been settled decades ago. But the fact that relgious outlooks do not agree with each other has long been insufficient reason to overturn laws that, while not specifically religious, are clearly driven by superstitious faith.

Mulberry Bush​

One of the odd reversals taking place in recent years is that liberals and conservatives find themselves arguing opposite points compared to thirty years ago. Then again, the rhetoric is slightly different. Where conservatives thirty years ago said that songs like "Snowblind"—about the perils of cocaine addiction—would turn children Satanic, or "Suicide Solution"—about the dangers of alcoholism—would encourage kids to shoot themselves, they now deny the possibility that telling people to put opposition politicians in the crosshairs, or demanding Second Amendment solutions, might contribute to violent outbursts by mentally unstable people. Similarly, where liberals laughed at the idiocy of the desperate, would-be music censors, they now fret about bigotry to the point of dysfunction. The only difference is that the empowerment issue remains the same; conservatives want the power to control people, while liberals want the power to ... uh ... er ... right. We want the power to free people from that control, but ... er ... something, something, mumble, murmur.

The difference between marriage prohibitions and no is fairly obvious. To the other, it's true that this was one of those weird episodes where the shock and dismay seemed entirely artificial. So a two-bit sleazeball getting famous for being a moron goes out and acts like a moron ... and no, it's not the setup to a joke. The difference is easy enough to see; it's much akin to the silly proposition that rejecting racism or other bigotry outright is itself a form of bigotry that ought to be curbed.

 

Now you seem to be backpedaling. I already said all humans (including homosexuals, since you seem to need that explicit distinction) have the right to recognition of personhood. And homosexual difference is an objective fact, defining the term and not subject to belief. You were claiming that recognition as married was an intrinsic human right, even though people regularly fail to recognize even heterosexual marriage when they engage in adultery. Are adulterers bigots to heterosexual rights? At least the case could be made that they are violating the social contract of marriage. You have failed to make any case that civil unions with full spousal benefits/obligations would somehow infringe on some supposed right. Instead, you avoid the question.

Straw man. Making hasty generalizations and exaggerations about anyone who disagrees with your position is propaganda. And now you are implying I am just generally bigoted?

What specific argument are you claiming would have been used "against blacks"? Seems you are doubling-down with the fallacies, poisoning the well.

Yes, I skimmed through your argument by verbosity and took what you wrote at face value:

Nowhere in that post did you make ANY mention of Christian fundamentalists (just like this link of yours: http://world.time.com/2012/12/04/viewpoint-ugandas-anti-gay-bill-a-christmas-alarm-for-christians/), and you even explicitly said that "Christian Conservatives" both condemned and contributed to the issue in Uganda. No differentiation. Seems you are now just using the wording in some of those articles to backpedal.

Personally, I see any sort of fetishism or overt sexual behavior inappropriate in front of children. This would include bump and grinding, nudity, and other otherwise heterosexual behavior that makes things like Mardi Gras equally inappropriate for children. I have no double-standard on the matter, just a standard.

My use of Russia was rhetoric, intended to illicit a rebuttal. But no one has been able to tell me where the line between lewd behavior and what is morally inappropriate in front of a child lies. Do you consider that line to be so vague as to make it difficult to define?

Inciting violence against any group is hate speech, deplorable, and does tend to indicate a level of feeling threatened that could justify calling it a phobia. Seems you are unable to make such a simple distinction.

Yet you STILL cannot define the line. Is your moral compass really that hazy? Here, I will repeat what I just said:

Personally, I see any sort of fetishism or overt sexual behavior inappropriate in front of children. This would include bump and grinding, nudity, and other otherwise heterosexual behavior that makes things like Mardi Gras equally inappropriate for children. I have no double-standard on the matter, just a standard. ​

What is your standard? Do you have one? Or are you too hell-bent on vilifying anyone who disagrees with you that you cannot even be bothered to justify your own position?

Again, you say "social conservatives" when you supposedly mean Christian fundamentalists. You do not seem to be able to keep your own bullshit straight.

Who said homosexuals "hate children"?! Just another straw man attempt to poison the well. And who said "endanger"?! See how you consistently exaggerate the language your opposition uses? That is the definition of propaganda.

I already said, in my last post, that personhood is an intrinsic, protected status. Nowhere do my views detract from the personhood of any homosexual. On the contrary, it is homosexuals who make their sexuality their primary defining identity.

Really? Your sexuality defines you? Mine would not define me unless I were a sex addict or had some compulsive fetish or something. I am too much more than my sexual orientation for that to come anywhere near defining what or who I am. And again, you fail to define from what "intrinsic human rights" homosexuals are ostensibly separated. Vagary is no argument.

Where did you answer the question?

Where? What article did you read? You are simply making up what you wish were there. Quite to the contrary, most views against such lewd behavior in that article are from homosexuals.

The parade is organized by the Dallas Tavern Guild, an association of gay bars. Its executive director, Michael Doughman, said the change this year did not involve any new rules – but rather a warning that existing rules would be more strictly enforced.

These rules, he said, were drafted to conform with the city's public nudity ordinance and the state's anti-obscenity law, which bars the parade from featuring sexual paraphernalia and "real or simulated sex acts."

"Most people abided by the rules – but we had some individuals who decided to push the envelope a little to see how far they could go," Doughman said of recent parades. "So we asked our police security officer to bring it up as a reminder."

"We aren't trying to stifle anybody's right to be gay or express themselves," he added. "We are trying to create a friendly environment for everybody. We can be gay without being naked."

...

"I got involved in gay politics 20 years ago in order to win the right to serve in the military, have a job, and get married, among others," he wrote. "It had nothing to do with public nudity... I'm open to a good explanation of how this links back to our civil rights, but I've not heard a good one yet."

...

The group's executive director, Gabriel Blau, says he and his husband marched earlier this year in New York City's pride parade with their 5-year-old son – even though there were parts of the parade they considered too risque for him to see. - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/16/gay-pride-parade-debate-_n_3936596.html​

It was the gay organizers who "asked our police security officer to bring it up as a reminder". You cannot claim I am anti-gay for just agreeing with these homosexuals about the inappropriateness of some behavior in gay pride parades.

And where is this supposed comparable lewdness from straights that children are subjected to? I already said Mardi Gras is not generally appropriate for children, and I am sure any law enforcement would agree. You are demonstrably blinded by your bias.

 

Anyone who thinks the US media is biased toward anything accurately describable as a "liberal" point of view is operating in world of delusion, and science cannot excuse them (anyone who uses the term "liberal bias" has established their lack of scientific footing - it's a nonsense term).

Note that all of your supposed "scientific" evidence there was a bunch of surveys counting Democrats and "left" viewpoints - apparently you think Democrat = Liberal, "Liberal" = "Left", and bias is established by labeling the political allegiances of the media employees. Like I said, a world of ignorance and delusion.

The marriages of adulterers are recognized by everyone, including themselves - that's how the misdeed is defined. What gay people want is the same recognition of marriage you automatically grant adulterers, as their human right.

 

Strawman. I've never seen nipples or genitals exposed in public at gay parades or pride festivals. Have you? How many gay parades have you actually witnessed? You seem to know a lot about this subject. Are you sure you aren't confusing it with Mardi Gras?

 

So you have no "reality based" refute. Got it. And those media employees were not "labeled", they were surveyed and self-reported their own political allegiance.

 

And We're Not Even Close to "Rape Culture" Yet

If we might, let us drive that nail because it needs to be made clear.

• Example — William Pryor is a federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Before this, he was the attorney general for Alabama. During his time as AG, he filed an amicus brief in the famous Lawrence v. Texas in which he compared homosexuality to bestiality and child rape. What his argument lacked was any respect for the notion of consent in sexual congress.​

This is a problem the homophobes have had for a couple of decades. Future generations will spend far too much time trying to unravel the sexual neuroses that drove so much of our political history. Personally, I have heard this argument from homophobes for over twenty years, and none of them seem to see the problem about consent.

Frankly, this worries me. Beyond the gay fray, what is it about so many of my conservative neighbors in the United States that consent is irrelevant to sexual union?

Seriously, my father used to explain to me, "... but he's not someone I would trust my kids around". I get it; like the time he let me go for a ride in a friend's Morgan convertible. Gorgeous car. The dude had a double bourbon rocks in his steering wheel hand as he drove and shifted with his free hand. And he had about four of those double bourbon rocks in his bloodstream. I get it; he's a nice guy, good to do business with, but not someone you want watching your kids.

Compared to that? Well, you know, sometimes parents make bad calls and let you go for a ride in a classic sports car with a drunk pilot, but that's got nothing on the idea of leaving my daughter unattended with people who think consent is irrelevant to sexual intercourse.

 

You seem to have missed the part I emphasized, i.e. "evidence of intent to shock, arouse or offend other persons (lewd conduct) is evidence of prohibited conduct", which is not limited to nudity. Simulated sex, such as bumping and grinding, is also lewd, whether done by hetero or homosexuals. And I have already made the point that Mardi Gras is a straight example of lewdness inappropriate for children. Again, not necessarily only due to nudity.

But again, why can you not answer the simple question of where the line lies between lewd behavior and being appropriate for children? I have, and you can go look if you really need a clue.

 

So? You presented a couple of surveys of political Party membership frequencies and labelings such as "left", by the very mainstream media sources you pretend to be evaluating, as evidence of "liberal bias".

I presented that as evidence you live in world of ignorance and delusion. How else could you be taking seriously Democratic Party affiliation as evidence of "liberal bias"?

"Science" is not going to help you, if you think Democrat and/or "left" means "liberal", or political Party allegiancies of journalists and other employees establishes the direction of ideological bias in media news delivery. Only a reasonable attempt to learn something about the real world, and drop a few fairly silly and obviously crippling blinkers, will do that.

Start here: "liberal bias" nowdays is a meaningless term in itself. It refers to whatever Rush Limbaugh or some Fox News charlatan says it refers to on any particular day, and has no other meaning. You cannot specify in advance what attributes of a news item delivery would count as "liberal bias", reasoning from the meanings of the words and the term (if you did that you would find bias in favor of gun rights and free markets is liberal bias, for example) - you have to wait until they are established by the propaganda authorities whose business it is to make those assessments for you (that's how an advocate of authoritarian State confiscation of handguns gets labeled "liberal", and their bias "liberal bias", in your world). So clear that term and everybody who uses it out of your vocabulary and support, and take stock of your situation.

And yet the implications of the obvious point that Mardi Gras events are handled differently than gay pride events, by the police and Christian fundies and so forth, escapes you. Heterosexuals do not risk arrest by kissing each other on the street during Mardi Gras, for example.

 

An Obvious Point

I would only add that nobody holds Mardi Gras as evidence that heterosexuals are inherently dangerous to kids. Nor the frequency of heterosexual rape, nor heterosexual flamboyance.

 

Oh, you mean like being compared to racist bigots, violent homophobes, etc.? Those do not deny my personhood, and even if they did, they say more about the person making such exaggerated comparisons then they do me.

No, a heterosexual adulterer would run afoul laws against polygamy/bigamy if they sought to marry (as they would not be adulterers unless they were already married). But good news, polygamists are using the human rights precedent set by gay marriage to change that as well.

Hey, if you really want to recognize gay, polygamous, animal marriages, etc., who am I to stop you? Have at it. But you still cannot legislate thought short of advocating totalitarianism. Is that what you are advocating?

Detail these accusations. You know, quoting my words instead of making up some exaggerated propaganda. You know, intellectual honesty. If you cannot then you are only making a transparent attempt to poison the well.

Personhood and equal rights/obligations under the law are separate issues from recognition and acceptance. Full spousal benefits/obligations in civil union affords equal rights under the law, without assuming a totalitarian stance on thought.

Again, personhood is intrinsic, where circumstantial status is not. By definition, circumstantial status in extrinsic. Recognition by the State is only ever in terms of legal privileges and obligations, not any sort of cognitive acceptance. You seem to have naively conflated, or equivocated, the two uses of the word recognition. The State only uses the word as "acknowledgment of legality".

I am denying that Christian Conservatives, in general, both condemned and condoned the issue. It is very easy for a rational person to deny broad generalities.

Could it be that this thread is expressly about homosexuality? Should I digress to an off-topic rant about EVERYTHING that may be inappropriate for children? Complete nonsense. Beaches are also subject to the same indecency laws, again whether hetero or homosexual. These laws are not inherently discriminatory, nor is my criteria of lewdness.

Uh, you just quoted me as defining lewd behavior, so that is a demonstrable lie. Who said that everything on TV was appropriate for children?! Many shows even have parental disclaimers. Is your sense of what may be inappropriate for children so hazy that you cannot even recognize it when it has a disclaimer as warning?

And again, you continue to lie about that article, which never addressed straight lewd behavior, as it was solely about gay pride parades, including ONLY opinions from homosexuals. Do you get that? the LGBT community, itself, is divided on the issue, and I have expressed nothing about lewdness but what gays expressed in that article.

Your bias has completely blinded you, even to what gays themselves have said.

Like I said, propaganda. Easily dismissed as such and indicative of a lack of intellectual honesty.

Straw man. You made that up to suit your lies and propaganda. I have even given you straight examples, such as Mardi Gras.

Wow, you do not seem to have any clue what propaganda is. No wonder you employ it so freely. What posts? Quote where I ever said homosexuals "hate children" or "endanger" them. You cannot, because these are exaggerated lies (i.e. propaganda, as well as defamation).

Are you claiming that gays will become less visible (in proportion to their actual numbers in society) once these "rights" are established? Will they no longer feel the need for gay pride parades? You know, since you claim their sexuality is not their primary defining identity.

For example, Spain has the highest gay approval in 2013, per http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/.

Today Spain provides one of the highest degrees of liberty in the world for its LGBT community. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Spain​

Apparently not. http://gaytravel.about.com/od/previewsofpridefestivals/qt/Madrid-Gay-Pride.htm

So now you presume to tell me what defines my identity? Things like my orientation and the fact that I am a human are given, rarely considered when I think about my identity, and very far from primary.

iden·ti·ty
: who someone is : the name of a person

: the qualities, beliefs, etc., that make a particular person or group different from others​

The quality that makes homosexuals "different from others" is their orientation. But you is your sexuality your primary identity?

Lazy evasion.

So backpedaling again. Since I showed you that it was the event organizers who asked the police to reiterate the law, and that many homosexuals objected to the lewdness, you think the fact that they got the message means something significant?

Again, why the initial outrage then? You never answered that, as all you did was lie about the content of that article.

 

Nonsense equivocation.

Liberals thereby form the largest united typological demographic within the Democratic base. According to the 2008 exit poll results, liberals constituted 22% of the electorate, and 89% of American liberals favored the candidate of the Democratic Party. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)#Liberals

In the 2000, 2004 and 2006 elections, the vast majority of liberals voted in favor of the Democrats... - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States#Demographics_of_American_liberals​

At Mardi Gras even homosexuals kissing would be unlikely to risk arrest, as the event is generally considered an adult event unsuitable to children. Whereas a parade down main street during the day is much more likely to have children in the audience.

Quite to the contrary, preachers have been arrested for homophobic epithets on Bourbon Street. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...nce-arrests-anti-gay-preachers_n_1854356.html