Duck Dynasty star canned for homophobic remarks

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Float I said. Carnival Float.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not just talking about bigotry against homosexuality... I'm talking all kinds. I mean, going completely politically correct would be... interesting. God forbid anyone ever put up a truth field ala Doctor Who. Though, I have to ask... is it not bigotry itself to ask, nay, demand people to suppress who they are and their opinions because they offend homosexual/transexual/other different folks (hm, interesting double standard here)

 

Are we looking at the same photo?
So they wore underwear and pulled on cock shaped costumes?
Well, that's all right then.

 

The problem is, much of liberal mythology is based on propaganda and social programming instead of logic. This is why its solution often creates problems while attempting to fix other problems. The constant increase in social costs show this bumbling effect. If someone with influence dares to speak, negatively, even with logic or ideas that predate the new mythology, they need to kill the messenger, since propaganda needs reinforcement and not neutralization.

The liberal system is based on an analogy of Hollywood creating a star, with a media blitz investing millions into programming the public. This person or idea is all superficial, but since the programming increases their image and prestige within culture, this is enough to give them a social status. This illusion requires that we maintain the viability of the image, since there is not enough below the mask that would justify the authority/prestige that is being deemed. A Hollywood star can have the social leverage of an Einstein, while never taking physics beyond knowing buzz words.

A good analogy is a TV doctor appearing to be a better doctor, than any real doctor, due to the way he is scripted to meet the needs and expectations of the audience. But it is all an illusion for the audience, and part of a fictional story line, but with some reality trim so it is more convincing. They need to be very protective of this mask. For example, if someone calls out the actor doctor to perform an operation, since he is upset at all the social dumbness for this actor playing doctor, this challenge could totally alter the dynamics of the prestige and burst the bubble. This will not be allowed. They will attack the messenger, rather than accept the challenge, trying to destroy their prestige and influence, to protect the illusion and to discount that the operation was ever suggested by call it a phobia or ism. The illusion lasts another day.

If the liberal illusion was real there would be open discussion and free speech, not censor based on some type of phobia or ism. Or censor based on PC rules which always seem to offer cover for liberal illusions. It is all about protecting the illusion that TV doctor, is better than real or natural.

The Duck Dynasty Guy is back on the show since the illusion of public outrage did not add up to reality. This is sort of new since this tactic is usually enough to work. It turned out that the Fascist organization could still smear the image, but since the old guy is not about image but has genuine appeal, what was left was not a empty shell like one would find in liberal mythology.

 

People aren't concerned with the DD Star,
because they think he is a joke.

Once, people like this had power over people,
but now people see through it and just laugh.

 

Nope. It's not bigotry to object to the bigoted views of a popular TV star. Bigotry would be if I agreed with his bigotry. See the diff? As far as what you propose we don't object to, what exactly do you mean besides bigotry and racism and sexism? What are you referring to under the blanket term politically incorrect?

 

I see. But holding people morally accountable for their chosen attitudes isn't really bigotry as I'm used to it. Bigotry is being prejudiced against someone for who they are: their race or ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation. Jumping somebody's shit for having an hateful and bigoted attitude is taking issue with something they willingly choose to think or say. They have a choice to be or not be a bigot, unlike a gay person who has absolutely no choice in being who they are.

 

So...Magical Realist, does a "gay person" have a "choice" in whether or not they are "hateful and bigoted" toward anyone who espouses their honest feelings and attitudes?
Feelings and attitudes that their society/culture/upbringing/religion have ingrained into them - effectively giving them "no choice" in "being who they are"?
So...Magical Realist, would it be "bigotry" if you are "prejudiced against someone for" being, as you put it, a "redneck asshole"?

 

Nope..since being an asshole is clearly a choice one makes then objecting to their assholism/bigotry isn't bigotry at all. Phil Robertson can enter the 21st century like the rest of us and quit deriving his morality from a 2500 old book of Jewish goatherder fables. It's not that hard. I did it.

 

Magical Realist, did you miss the part where I asked :

There are a lot of "choice(s) one makes".
If we "choose" to expect and demand full tolerance of our own "no choices", should we not be expected to express full tolerance toward anyone else's "no choices"?

Magical Realist, I'm not so sure who this "rest of us" you mention is/are, but that "2500 old book of Jewish goatherder fables", in one way or another, will be affecting the "morality" of a big part of the human population for at least the rest of the 21st century.

 

The Long and Short

Where does one even begin?

Ah, I've got it: Have you any idea how badly you're tying parents' hands with that? I mean, think of the children, sure, but you're validating they-made-me-do-it peer pressure.

My years at Sciforums have, among all the minor treasures and trials, provided one powerful glimpse of wisdom that I simply cannot deny. To the other, neither can I sketch it fully and appropriately at this point. But it has to do with ego defense and politics. For a long time, it's been apparent that political argument is largely ego defense, but this specific projection has been resolving to better focus, and you have offered up, in terms of gold or cocaine, a boulder of unknown but impressive weight and purity.

To take one's weakness and make it a strength by using it to attack one's opponent is an old political trick. It is also the rationalization and sublimation of simply projecting what one fears onto others. (On a different subject, this is part of what happened to the Republicans in last year's presidential election; they were overwhelmed by their own ego defense.)

Your proposition—

"There are a lot of 'choice(s) one makes'.
If we 'choose' to expect and demand full tolerance of our own 'no choices', should we not be expected to express full tolerance toward anyone else's 'no choices'?"​

—is absurd. But it makes sense in a dialectic of neurosis because it also expresses a sort of moral relativism frequently accused of others in such a manner as to strongly coincide with the nature of the larger principle you're presenting.

That is, for years, as people have struggled for just a little more freedom, just a little better equality—and regardless of whether it's something incredibly obvious like racism or incredibly silly like pop music lyrics—they have consistently been expected to answer for a sort of anarchy projected onto others by conservative fretting.

Indeed, Mr. Robertson is an example of that projection when he compares homosexual congress to bestiality. It's not actually that anyone else is going to lead the push from gay rights to animal sex liberation. Rather, it's that Mr. Robertson isn't smart enough to comprehend the difference. He is projecting his own ignorance onto others, creating his own straw man.

Rather than going with peer pressure, perhaps you might want to simply acknowledge the obvious point and make an ADA defense for homophobia.

One of the reasons people are so frequently astounded by such propositions as you have put forward is that there are so many problems showing through, it's hard to know where to start. The two that really stand out are the idea of peer pressure validating the necessity of bigotry and the projection of dysfunctional moral relativism.

Setting aside the question of whether you are or simply play the Dumbest Man on Earth (do not tell me you drink Dos Equis), the proposition certainly validated acceptance of your claim to superlative idiocy.

But it really doesn't help anyone else. With anything.

Or, to compress all of the above into two simple points:

(1) You're kidding, right?

(2) That makes more sense than you realize, just not in any way that helps you.​

 

It would make a lot more sense, to you, Tiassa, if you read it as a QUESTION!

Magical Realist brought up the "no choice" card - that "proposition" was his - not mine!

I was simply asking for clarification.

BTW, Mr. Robertson did not "compare homosexual congress to bestiality". He merely states, that to him, they are both "sins". - http://www.gq.com/entertainment/tele...?currentPage=1 - (3 pages)

 

Hi everyone. Happy New Year and a safe one!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A brief observation on this patently sophist 'Reverse Bigotry Defense' argument increasingly offered up by the bigots to claim 'equal freedom' status for their bigoted remarks/attacks against their victims and claiming 'equal high moral ground' for their victimizations.

In the past, most people had no access to proper balanced education, easy and immediate communication and experience further than their village precincts. In short, except for their immediate 'survival/subsistence mode' gains in practical knowledge to farm/trade etc, most people were born and died virtually ignorant of the greater world and its social constructs of different kinds/scales. They were easy meat for propagandists to exploit their ignorance and hence fears etc because they were like human mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed BS.

Fast forward to TODAY:

Where we have the Internet and immediate and ubiquitous access to information/communication globally. Where education in the 'developed world' gives a wider perspective on the world beyond one's immediate 'culture' and 'training' etc. Plus the bonus of HISTORY with all its warts and blemishes are available on any social/cultural subject/event under the sun that made us what we are today as a global social species.

Now consider:

Given that a person has the good fortune to be possessed of a reasonably healthy mind-brain; that they have grown and attained critical abilities beyond the 'juvenile' stage of development; that they have access to reasonable education/history/information social schooling/base; that they are able to learn and think critically about what they read/see/hear; that a person is not motivated by fear/hate/prejudice born of ignorance or mercenary/political motives etc, then is it too much to expect that a MODERN HUMAN BEING can 'rise above' their early childhood parental/church/cult/political ignorant/unbalanced propagandist programming?


The question becomes: Given all the above, is any reasonably healthy modern human ADULT (given they are in sound mind, and with independent BEYOND CHILDHOOD access to reasonable education/information/communication about any issue etc) fooling anyone but themselves by trying to claim that they 'have no choice' in their bigotry because it was inculcated into them via early childhood programming by parents/church/cult/political group etc?

In short, while ignorance and everything that flows from it can be remedied by education and social experience in ADULT years/stage, no amount of 'education' or 'choice' can change one's biological heredity (of 'hormonal development in the womb' resulting in possibly 'intermediate outcomes' where brain/body biological functions are not as well defined as in most as either male or female etc).

So the 'reverse bigotry defense' falls at two self-evident hurdles immediately; namely:

- Adult modern humans should be able to learn as they mature, and rise above early/faulty programming from whatever sources; else they are NOT modern humans at all, but rather throwbacks to the brute mentality of our ancestors who 'never grew up' in mentality or knowledge of the wider world/society; and...

- While early childhood mental programming CAN be altered by education and experience, one's biological state/functions CAN NOT be easily changed to the point that one 'has a choice' in the matter.


From all the foregoing it can be readily seen that an adult modern human's ignorance and bigotry is effectively a choice to remain as ignorant/bigoted as they were in childhood under control/ascendancy of parents/church etc, whereas someone born with particular 'non-standard' status of biological functions (ie, some are born geniuses, some are not, in a full spectrum of capabilities/potential, and some are born hetero-sexual and some not, etc) cannot do much about it (unless they are willing to medically/surgically mess with their 'inherited organs and hormonal balance' etc, with all the attendant medical risks of bad outcomes both psychologically as well as physiologically etc).


I trust my observations will be of some use to whomever is interested in a balanced view/discussion of this aspect and the attempt at 'reverse bigotry defense' introduced as an argument for retaining childhood programming in spite of access to global eduction/experience resources as an ADULT. Good luck to us all, irrespective of our luck so far in the natural/cultural/social evolutionary 'lottery' that is conception, birth, life, growth, enlightenment and death!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No. There is right and wrong, and that matters. Tolerating someone who won't eat meat is different than tolerating someone who thinks blacks would be better off under Jim Crow laws.

 

I don't know who Jim Crow is, but I fully agree with the sentiments of your post.