Duck Dynasty and Phil Robertson

[sunshinehighway]

It is obvious by reading this thread who watches the show and who doesn't.

Phil believes you need to work hard for what you earn, including his children and grandchildren.

You (general you, of course) shouldn't be handed something for nothing. You want it, you work for it.

But what does that have to do with with black people in pre civil rights south vs. now?

 

[luvsJack]

Perhaps that is what he saw and believed as a child. The problem is that now as an adult he should be able to look back, with all that he now knows, and see it wasn't reality.

The fact that he throws entitlement and welfare in there really does make it more than just him talking about what he experienced as a child.

We have already been over the difference in what someone saw in their area and what was happening elsewhere.






I am not so sure we will ever know the complete context from which his words came. The article does not tell us what questions were asked. And in some places it seems like the writer was trying to portray Phil in a certain light.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

But what does that have to do with with black people in pre civil rights south vs. now?

That is open for interpretation

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

So you're allowed your opinion, but others that have different life experiences or opinions aren't. Got it.

No, it appears you do not.

I do try to understand the perspectives of those who are different than me and therefore try to consider how my actions, words and beliefs impact those around me. In this case I do not, however, view things only through the duck fellow's eyes but also through the eyes of those he hurt with his comments, which is why I object to them. He, however, nor apparently you (the specific you, since you're engaging me on this subject) and others on this thread are either not looking at the world through the eyes of those he is hurting, or even worse, you and he are considering who you are hurting and still choose to hurt those people intentionally. Neither is acceptable in my opinion.

I do not view the world solely through my eyes and assume it is reality. It is why I refuse to allow intolerance to go unchallenged. There is no point in history where tolerance of intolerance has led the intolerant to change their views, but there are myriad examples of where tolerance of intolerance has led to genocide and massive oppression.

Imagine if the world had remained tolerant of antisemitism? Imagine if we'd remained intolerant of the equality of women? Imagine if we'd remained intolerant of those who felt interracial dating and marriage was inappropriate? Imagine if we'd remained tolerant of those who felt slavery was acceptable because it is ordained within their values? Imagine if we'd remained tolerant of those who feel that homosexuals were not worthy of the same legal rights as heterosexuals?

Tolerance of intolerance is how genocide and oppression happen and I--and many others--will not stand by and allow it to be unchallenged. To do otherwise is to violate my own values and I cannot do that and live with myself.

You are welcome to your opinions. I will continue to challenge them.

 

[Mkrop]

Pre-entitlement, Pre-welfare is exactly what it sounds like. It's his comments on what he views as failed policies. It has zero to do with Jim Crow or the Civil Rights Act.

You can certainly disagree, with his view. But I see someone suggesting we kill off welfare. I do not see someone suggesting we bring back segregation.

 

[OceanAnnie]

What was striking to me was the overwhelming support Phil got. Agree or disagree with his statements, he hit a nerve. People responded.

 

[Uncle Remus]

We have already been over the difference in what someone saw in their area and what was happening elsewhere.






I am not so sure we will ever know the complete context from which his words came. The article does not tell us what questions were asked. And in some places it seems like the writer was trying to portray Phil in a certain light.

No question in my mind, here's what he said in 2010, there's even a YouTube of it:

“Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another,” Robertson said. “They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”

Read more: Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty Called Gays 'God-Haters' in 2010 | TIME.com http://entertainment.time.com/2013/...e-insolent-arrogant-god-haters/#ixzz2osZ8vt2G

 

[luvsJack]

Pre-entitlement, Pre-welfare is exactly what it sounds like. It's his comments on what he views as failed policies. It has zero to do with Jim Crow or the Civil Rights Act.

You can certainly disagree, with his view. But I see someone suggesting we kill off welfare. I do not see someone suggesting we bring back segregation.

Exactly!

It is obvious by reading this thread who watches the show and who doesn't.

Phil believes you need to work hard for what you earn, including his children and grandchildren.

You (general you, of course) shouldn't be handed something for nothing. You want it, you work for it.

I agree. And he proves that very thing on the show. He believes in hard work, I wish I knew what was so wrong with that.

Lots of things are very obvious in this thread. Who watches the show and who doesn't is one of the least telling and least relevant things that it conveys, in my opinion.

Simply because you are taking everyone's words and making them to mean something else.

If someone says "In my (or mother or grandmother's) experience. . ." they are racist. If someone says what is said in the Bible, they are homophobic or anti-gay rights. Not true in the least.

 

[Uncle Remus]

No, it appears you do not.

I do try to understand the perspectives of those who are different than me and therefore try to consider how my actions, words and beliefs impact those around me. In this case I do not, however, view things only through the duck fellow's eyes but also through the eyes of those he hurt with his comments, which is why I object to them. He, however, nor apparently you (the specific you, since you're engaging me on this subject) and others on this thread are either not looking at the world through the eyes of those he is hurting, or even worse, you and he are considering who you are hurting and still choose to hurt those people intentionally. Neither is acceptable in my opinion.

I do not view the world solely through my eyes and assume it is reality. It is why I refuse to allow intolerance to go unchallenged. There is no point in history where tolerance of intolerance has led the intolerant to change their views, but there are myriad examples of where tolerance of intolerance has led to genocide and massive oppression.

Imagine if the world had remained tolerant of antisemitism? Imagine if we'd remained intolerant of the equality of women? Imagine if we'd remained intolerant of those who felt interracial dating and marriage was inappropriate? Imagine if we'd remained tolerant of those who felt slavery was acceptable because it is ordained within their values? Imagine if we'd remained tolerant of those who feel that homosexuals were not worthy of the same legal rights as heterosexuals?

Tolerance of intolerance is how genocide and oppression happen and I--and many others--will not stand by and allow it to be unchallenged. To do otherwise is to violate my own values and I cannot do that and live with myself.

You are welcome to your opinions. I will continue to challenge them.

Amen!!

 

[chobie]

What was striking to me was the overwhelming support Phil got. Agree or disagree with his statements, he hit a nerve. People responded.

I'm not at all surprised at the number of people who support his vile comments. It's still a minority view, though.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I'm not at all surprised at the number of people who support his vile comments. It's still a minority view, though.

I don't know about that. There have been multiple websites in support of him (one in particular numbering in the hundreds of thousands), the Duck Dynasty merchandise has been selling out. A & E were reeling from the backlash. That's why they put him back on.

ETA: Correction. On one website alone there were over a million in support of Phil.

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2013/12...g-ae-following-duck-dynasty-stars-suspension/

 

[JanaDee]

I'm not at all surprised at the number of people who support his vile comments. It's still a minority view, though.

No, it isn't.

 

[chobie]

Pre-entitlement, Pre-welfare is exactly what it sounds like. It's his comments on what he views as failed policies. It has zero to do with Jim Crow or the Civil Rights Act.

You can certainly disagree, with his view. But I see someone suggesting we kill off welfare. I do not see someone suggesting we bring back segregation.

Ok, lets just say for the sake of the argument that it totally slipped his mind that those glory days he was being nostalgic about included segregation, lynchings, etc., and that was not was he was referring to - how then did he make the leap to talk about black people and welfare?

How did that come up? And how is that ok, in any context?

 

[luvmy3]

Just curious as I don't watch the show.
Does he use it as a pulpit to preach his "vile" comments, intolerance and hate for homosexuals and blacks, and anyone else? Does he use it to encourage others to fight against the laws, or fight to take away those in place that have given those people equal rights?

 

[chobie]

I don't know about that. There have been multiple websites in support of him (one in particular numbering in the hundreds of thousands), the Duck Dynasty merchandise has been selling out. A & E were reeling from the backlash. That's why they put him back on.

ETA: Correction. On one website alone there were over a million in support of Phil.

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2013/12/19/hundreds-of-thousands-support-boycotting-ae-following-duck-dynasty-stars-suspension/

And there are how many people in this country? 300 million or so?

 

[Gracie09]

No, it isn't.

says who? Just because there is a vocal minority doesn't make it the majority view. Several national polls have shown a majority of American support gay marriage. A million people liking a Facebook page is not exactly a cross section of the American population

 

[Mkrop]

I'm not at all surprised at the number of people who support his vile comments. It's still a minority view, though.

And I think you are mistaking a lot of people supporting his vile comments with supporting his rights to say his vile comments...there is a huge difference.

I do not agree with Phil one iota about homosexuality being a sin, but he has the right to his belief even if I am a gazillion other people disagree with him. He can say them and those who disagree can then make the decision to watch his show or buy his merchandise, just like with Chick Fil A and Barilla.

The one thing I do agree with Phil on is that God will sort through all of this in the end. Homosexuality may very well be a sin, I personally dont think so, and I would like those couples to have equality and to enjoy their lives, but in the end, who are we, all sinners, and God will decide then.

I agree with A&E can hire/fire who ever they want based on comments, I just think they are hypocritical bc they knew who Phil was before they hired him and now that they reinstated him it just screams more of hypocripsy than before.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Ok, lets just say for the sake of the argument that it totally slipped his mind that those glory days he was being nostalgic about included segregation, lynchings, etc., and that was not was he was referring to - how then did he make the leap to talk about black people and welfare?

How did that come up? And how is that ok, in any context?

Post #283 tells you what you need to know, complete with a wink. I'm assuming there is no nudge smiley or that would be there too.

 

[luvsJack]

No question in my mind, here's what he said in 2010, there's even a YouTube of it:

Thanks for the link.

I don't go to his church or even know the denomination. Our church, while Christian, rarely mentions homosexuality but I know the belief that is there.

So, it seems to me that the interviewer of GQ knew EXACTLY where he stood. Why rehash it? If not to purposely make him look bad, then why?

You know, a lot of people can have beliefs that are against our own and not be horrible people. Other famous people have said worse things than Phil said. He said what he believes. If one doesn't like it, fine. No one is going to agree with or like what everyone says or believes. He didn't call for action to be taken on his beliefs (in the interview, I didn't listen to the whole sermon), in fact quite the opposite.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

No, it appears you do not.

I do try to understand the perspectives of those who are different than me and therefore try to consider how my actions, words and beliefs impact those around me. In this case I do not, however, view things only through the duck fellow's eyes but also through the eyes of those he hurt with his comments, which is why I object to them. He, however, nor apparently you (the specific you, since you're engaging me on this subject) and others on this thread are either not looking at the world through the eyes of those he is hurting, or even worse, you and he are considering who you are hurting and still choose to hurt those people intentionally. Neither is acceptable in my opinion.

I do not view the world solely through my eyes and assume it is reality. It is why I refuse to allow intolerance to go unchallenged. There is no point in history where tolerance of intolerance has led the intolerant to change their views, but there are myriad examples of where tolerance of intolerance has led to genocide and massive oppression.

Imagine if the world had remained tolerant of antisemitism? Imagine if we'd remained intolerant of the equality of women? Imagine if we'd remained intolerant of those who felt interracial dating and marriage was inappropriate? Imagine if we'd remained tolerant of those who felt slavery was acceptable because it is ordained within their values? Imagine if we'd remained tolerant of those who feel that homosexuals were not worthy of the same legal rights as heterosexuals?

Tolerance of intolerance is how genocide and oppression happen and I--and many others--will not stand by and allow it to be unchallenged. To do otherwise is to violate my own values and I cannot do that and live with myself.

You are welcome to your opinions. I will continue to challenge them.

It's not a question of doing something or doing nothing. It's a question of doing "what", precisely.

Dismissing someone's opinion as irrelevant, outdated, or uneducated isn't a challenge at all.

Responding to perceived "hate" WITH hate IS a challenge, but clearly a poor choice that's only likely to have the effect of seeing the challenged feel their views are justified.

One could instead embrace Phil, try to understand where he's coming from, and offer him a rational, well thought out opposing point of view.

What would Ghandi do?