GD's next crap thread: Free speach or blatant attempt to discredit gays?

[Stoked]

We'll just agree to disagree. I think the fact that A&E was alive and well years before Duck Dynasty ever came along is pretty solid evidence that the network can turn a profit without them.

True but Duck Commander is also wildly popular. Losing that show still hurts their bottom line. Why throw out a golden egg just becuase you can still make it?

 

[Stoked]

You, as a moderator, are allowed to do that?

Dang it, Jason, would you get your s**t together and post the moderator rule book already?

When I became a mod I removed everyone from the ignore list. Since then two people have gone back on the list. just can't read their crap. Hurts my eyes.

Mods have all the power and in return we become robots and have no opinions or feelings on any subject. Power for our very souls.

 

[PearlWatson]

Back on ignore you go. Ugh.

You are gonna miss some great advice from Phil.

And some good insults to fling at One Brow:

 

[One Brow]

1. They don't have any real data on what people will think about this
...
Does that work for you?

You don't think they've seen the results of other people making similar statements over the years? They don't know their own demographics? Their advertisers weren't quick to respond?

I can see where an argument could be made for this action not being moral, perhaps. I don't think any of us are in a position to say its bad business. I'm still not sure which point, if either, you're trying to argue.

 

[Stoked]

You don't think they've seen the results of other people making similar statements over the years? They don't know their own demographics? Their advertisers weren't quick to respond?

I can see where an argument could be made for this action not being moral, perhaps. I don't think any of us are in a position to say its bad business. I'm still not sure which point, if either, you're trying to argue.

I say it was a bad move. I think ultimately they lose a wildly popular show. Possibly to a rival.

 

[Nate505]

Of course everything is fine after smoking some pot.

So are you the stupid version of Hantlers or is Hantlers the stupid version of you.

 

[Harambe]

You don't think they've seen the results of other people making similar statements over the years? They don't know their own demographics? Their advertisers weren't quick to respond?

I can see where an argument could be made for this action not being moral, perhaps. I don't think any of us are in a position to say its bad business. I'm still not sure which point, if either, you're trying to argue.

What this guy has said was very mild compared to a chick filet, or even hobby lobby's ban on Chaunnakah and Passover items.

Balance that against possibly loosing the biggest show they've had in some time, and they made a piss poor knee jerk move.

 

[Stoked]

What this guy has said was very mild compared to a chick filet, or even hobby lobby's ban on Chaunnakah and Passover items.

Balance that against possibly loosing the biggest show they've had in some time, and they made a piss poor knee jerk move.

I agree the results of statements similar to Mr. Robertsons are to make them a pariah amoung the left and a hero amoung the right or the reverse depending on what was said.

 

[bordelais7]

Number of people I've seen think they're doing everyone else a service by proclaiming on the internets that "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences": approximately a lot. Generally this statement begins with "Okay, listen people..."

Number of people I've seen make the "A&E had no right to do this because of Free Speech" argument: Sarah Palin

Am I alone in experiencing this as a clarification/chastisement to a virtually nonexistent argument? Or do I need to hang out with dumber friends?

 

[Stoked]

Number of people I've seen think they're doing everyone else a service by proclaiming on the internets that "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences": approximately a lot. Generally this statement begins with "Okay, listen people..."

Number of people I've seen make the "A&E had no right to do this because of Free Speech" argument: Sarah Palin

Am I alone in experiencing this as a clarification/chastisement to a virtually nonexistent argument? Or do I need to hang out with dumber friends?

No you are not.

 

[One Brow]

What this guy has said was very mild compared to a chick filet, or even hobby lobby's ban on Chaunnakah and Passover items.

I saw a few things he said, like homosexuality leading to bestiality and how black people were so happy when they were working in the fields. It's not mild.

 

[One Brow]

Am I alone in experiencing this as a clarification/chastisement to a virtually nonexistent argument? Or do I need to hang out with dumber friends?

Actually, since everyone agree A&E had the right to do, I'm just wondering why it's an issue at all. Stoked seems to think it's a bad business decision (I have no way to gauge if that is accurate), but doesn't seem to feel the decision was immoral in any way. I don't know what ElRoach0 thinks is the problem.

 

[Stoked]

I saw a few things he said, like homosexuality leading to bestiality and how black people were so happy when they were working in the fields. It's not mild.

That is not what he said. He was talking about sins. He just ran off a list beginning with homosexuality and bestality just happened to be next on the list. He was not directly linking them beyond that they are both sins.

 

[Harambe]

Number of people I've seen think they're doing everyone else a service by proclaiming on the internets that "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences": approximately a lot. Generally this statement begins with "Okay, listen people..."

Number of people I've seen make the "A&E had no right to do this because of Free Speech" argument: Sarah Palin

Am I alone in experiencing this as a clarification/chastisement to a virtually nonexistent argument? Or do I need to hang out with dumber friends?

The Freedom of speech concept is very clear: the guy has it. Not a big deal at all.

The consequence part has to happen. Which is happening now. Which I don't think anyone has a problem with accepting that backlash is going to happen. More just the question of what that backlash actually is.

From a moral stand point, I don't feel A&E represented itself well overall. They pay a guy to be himself, and then they suspend him for doing just that.

From a business and financial stand point, I also feel they made a mistake here trying to gain some leverage for a demographic the show likely doesn't pander to, pitting the potential gain(keeping the show going for years) against the sensitive.

 

[Harambe]

Actually, since everyone agree A&E had the right to do, I'm just wondering why it's an issue at all. Stoked seems to think it's a bad business decision (I have no way to gauge if that is accurate), but doesn't seem to feel the decision was immoral in any way. I don't know what ElRoach0 thinks is the problem.

The guy is paid to be a bumpkin. He kicks his bumpkinism up a notch, and he gets suspended for it.

Does that make more sense?

 

[One Brow]

To be clear, I've altered my position from "meh" on the decision of A&E to "morally justified".

That is not what he said. He was talking about sins. He just ran off a list beginning with homosexuality and bestality just happened to be next on the list. He was not directly linking them beyond that they are both sins.

Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men

Morph means changing from one thing into another, similar thing. It's not just a list.

 

[One Brow]

From a moral stand point, I don't feel A&E represented itself well overall.

I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field. ... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' -- not a word! ... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.

From a moral standpoint, they were justified.

The guy is paid to be a bumpkin. He kicks his bumpkinism up a notch, and he gets suspended for it.

Does that make more sense?

Yes, they paid him for a certain type of "bumpkinism" (I don't like that word much), he offered a sort they didn't like, and he let them go.

Maybe I think more highly of poor, rural whites than you.

 

[Gameface]

I guess the problem I have is that more and more we are linking people's personal opinions that have no impact on their professional responsibilities to their career. Cutting someone off from their profession and livelihood because they hold unrelated personal opinions is a sort of ideological coercion. I think it's a bad thing.

 

[Stoked]

To be clear, I've altered my position from "meh" on the decision of A&E to "morally justified".

Morph means changing from one thing into another, similar thing. It's not just a list.

You are dealing with a backwoods redneck. If you want to insist that he is directly linking the two then fine. I do not believe he was.

 

[bordelais7]

I guess the problem I have is that more and more we are linking people's personal opinions that have no impact on their professional responsibilities to their career. Cutting someone off from their profession and livelihood because they hold unrelated personal opinions is a sort of ideological coercion. I think it's a bad thing.

Agreed, but there is a difference between not hiring someone because of their opinions, and telling them "you represent us now, don't say anything stupid please, ok?"

("oh, and here's the script for the next show with a bunch of stupid things we'd like you to say")