Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

When did damn_registrars get his lobotomy?

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about 10 months ago

User Journal 23

While the point about A&E being private property is well-taken, I'd like to challenge d_r, who referred to Phil's remarks as a "homophobic rant" in his JE, to look at what was actually said and justify either adjective:

While the point about A&E being private property is well-taken, I'd like to challenge d_r, who referred to Phil's remarks as a "homophobic rant" in his JE, to look at what was actually said and justify either adjective:

Everything is blurred on what's right and what's wrong... Sin becomes fine. 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." Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians from the Bible: "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers--they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."
And if that wasn't explicit enough, the "Duck Commander" added: "It seems like, to me, a vagina--as a man--would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. 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.

To call these remarks either homophobic OR a rant is to be either lobotomized or just an abject, lying fool. I fail to grasp how any sober, mature, honest person, even if not in agreement, can characterize the fauxtrage of d_r and ilk as anything other than "Utterly fascist and utterly Stalinist:

". . .this is the level of punitive [political correctness], utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades. It's the whole legacy of the free speech 1960's that have been lost by my own party."

All I can say, d_r, is: you GO, girl!

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The homophobic rant is in your quote (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45744603)

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.

Right in those lines he shows that he is preaching discrimination based on lack of understanding. Homosexuality does not lead to those things. Indeed the best known polygamous societies in particular have also preached homophobia.

Why, if you are supposed to be preaching for a religion (claiming to be) interested in love, are you supporting a message of hate? And would Jesus support you writing a JE that attacks me in its very subject line? You could have attacked the statement in your subject but instead you lowered yourself to attacking me directly, that does not seem very moral.

And as far as your suggestion of

"Utterly fascist and utterly Stalinist:

You are painting the wrong person as being aligned with Stalin. He was a homophobe himself. Indeed he took it even further than what most conservatives currently are willing to say in public, he was willing to send the homosexuals straight to the gulags (or worse). Even more so though

this is the level of punitive [political correctness]

The punitive action is being taken by a private entity. The government is not involved in any way, shape or form. If you walk into wal-mart and start shouting racist epithets they would be within their rights to throw you out. A&E heard this guy sharing his hateful viewpoint and said they didn't want to associate with him for a while.

However, being as there is "Duck Dynasty" merchandise being sold everywhere now, and plenty of like-minded people who support his homophobic stance, there is a fair chance that this will produce more, not less, revenue for the family.

Re:The homophobic rant is in your quote (1)

Arker (91948) | about 10 months ago | (#45745357)

"However, being as there is "Duck Dynasty" merchandise being sold everywhere now, and plenty of like-minded people who support his homophobic stance, there is a fair chance that this will produce more, not less, revenue for the family."

There is also the Streisand affect, as well as the natural resistance to being told what to think and what thoughts you are allowed to say or not.

I think this is a real danger with all political correctness, whether private or public. And I am afraid I cannot agree that A&E is a fully private entity. Unfortunately we live in a world where my pocket is constantly being picked in order to broadcast 'public service announcements' to preach stuff at me that I disagree with and find offensive. A world where television broadcasters are certainly regulated, directly and indirectly, by the government. It's by no means obvious whether or not A&E would have taken the same step, were it a fully private entity acting in a free market.

I agree that the comments quoted here are ignorant and wrong, by the way. But I do not think that pillorying people for making such statements is helpful. What do you accomplish? You build up walls, you make people afraid to *speak* such things perhaps, but they continue to think them. So now you dont know who it is thinking these thoughts, since their expression is forbidden. You dont know who to educate, or just who to avoid. And they (rightly) resent the coercion and will look for chances to strike back. It's a completely counterproductive way to deal with it, it weakens and divides civil society.

The cure for bad speech is more speech, not less.

Re:The homophobic rant is in your quote (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45745499)

And I am afraid I cannot agree that A&E is a fully private entity.

if we were talking about an over-the-air broadcast network I would say there is good reason to say that. However being as A&E is a cable network, they are under far less regulation on what they do.

Unfortunately we live in a world where my pocket is constantly being picked in order to broadcast 'public service announcements' to preach stuff at me that I disagree with and find offensive. A world where television broadcasters are certainly regulated, directly and indirectly, by the government.

Granted, I don't watch much cable myself, and when I do it's usually on DVR so I'm skipping the commercials and PSAs anyways. However on the occasions when I do watch live TV I can't recall a time I have ever seen a PSA on cable, unless you count Red Cross fundraisers (specifically for Katrina or 9/11) as PSA.

It's by no means obvious whether or not A&E would have taken the same step, were it a fully private entity acting in a free market.

I think the more difficult argument to make here is that external forces from the government - and not from private associations such as GLAAD - were the influential players behind this action. Of course we can't study these actions in a vacuum, and I have yet to hear any statements from A&E board members (as I understand they are partly owned by Disney and someone else) so we can't really say what brought about their actions.

It's a completely counterproductive way to deal with it, it weakens and divides civil society.

As I've said before, I see A&E as a private enterprise. If I were to walk into Wal-Mart and start shouting out racist epithets or other inflammatory language, I can expect them to throw me out of their store. They have that right as the owners of private property, just as I could throw someone out of my own home if they said such a thing or otherwise offended me. One could make an argument that the notion of

You dont know who to educate, or just who to avoid.

Will just bring people to suspect gulags, re-education camps, and the like. Besides, hateful language is just language. He did not advocate for killing homosexuals, he just said that he thought they were bad people. He is free to hold negative thoughts based on whatever basis he likes. However his first amendment rights do not extend to the point where others have to listen to what he says; people can turn him off in the same way they can turn off their TV when the POTUS gives the State of the Union address.

The cure for bad speech is more speech, not less.

The action from A&E does not prevent him from speaking elsewhere. He can write to the newspaper, he can take out a billboard, he can start a blog, he can do whatever he wants to spread his message. He could even get a show on a different TV network or buy airtime through some other network (so long as those are not prohibited by the contract that he willingly signed for his show). They haven't stifled his ability to speak, they just said they won't carry what he wants to say.

Re:The homophobic rant is in your quote (1)

Arker (91948) | about 10 months ago | (#45746345)

"If I were to walk into Wal-Mart and start shouting out racist epithets or other inflammatory language, I can expect them to throw me out of their store. They have that right as the owners of private property, just as I could throw someone out of my own home if they said such a thing or otherwise offended me."

Sure, if you are shouting and creating a disturbance that would make sense, regardless of what exactly you were shouting. And if you were in MY store being aggressive/insulting to other customers or employees you would certainly be asked to desist and then quickly after to leave, if you did not.

But I dont believe that is the sort of situation we have here. Was he assaulting anyone? Or was he just rambling on about what he believes? It was my impression it's the latter. And it was on a show that normally spends a lot of time with him rambling about whatever comes to mind, was my impression, is that not correct?

" One could make an argument that the notion of

You dont know who to educate, or just who to avoid.

Will just bring people to suspect gulags, re-education camps, and the like."

Huh? Sorry I do not follow you at all here. I was just saying I would rather the racists have and exercise their first amendment rights, let them speak, and rebut them, than to have them driven underground and have no idea who around me is in that group. And if you have the empathy to imagine yourself as a racist for a moment, consider this as well. If the views you hold, for whatever reason, are forbidden from expression, then you will never see those views laid out and analyzed and rebutted clearly. There is a natural assumption that if the other side of the argument will not even debate the issue, their position is weak and likely wrong. This will make you much less likely to ever change your mind on the subject.

But if you are free to argue your views and people, instead of screaming you down, calling you names, calling the cops, getting you fired from your job, etc... if people instead of doing that simply pointed out, calmly and politely, the reasons they disagree, your chances of re-examining the subject and changing your mind will be much higher.

And I think it's really, really key here to focus on eliminating rac*ism* rather than rac*ists*. We dont want to get rid of the people. We just want them to learn better, right?

Re:The homophobic rant is in your quote (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45751015)

Why, if you are supposed to be preaching for a religion (claiming to be) interested in love, are you supporting a message of hate?

Hate whom, specifically? We're seeing somebody disagree with behavior, and encounter "Utterly fascist and utterly Stalinist" behavior. That the media justifies the swarming behavior offers you cover to call this "homophobic" (I see no fear afoot here) and a "rant" (whatever). You haven't justified either adjective.
My thought is that the Robertson clan is probably out of material (I've never watched the show) and this is probably the way they part company with A&E.
Phil is correct; you are not.

Re:The homophobic rant is in your quote (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45751405)

Why, if you are supposed to be preaching for a religion (claiming to be) interested in love, are you supporting a message of hate?

Hate whom, specifically?

You are endorsing a homophobic rant. The rant itself is a message of hate; particularly when voiced in the way it was, presenting the "slippery slope" line and all.

We're seeing somebody disagree with behavior, and encounter "Utterly fascist and utterly Stalinist" behavior.

Except that Stalin himself was deeply opposed to homosexuality and sent them to the gulags [wikipedia.org] :

In 1933, Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years in prison with hard labor. The precise reason for Article 121 is in some dispute among historians. The few official government statements made about the law tended to confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and was tied up with a belief that homosexuality was only practiced among fascists or the aristocracy.

So as usual, the fascists / Stalinists are from the right and not the left.

That the media justifies the swarming behavior

Think (I know, not easy for you these days, especially in this kind of scenario) of what would happen if you walked into your local Wal-Mart and started shouting out racist epithets. Now compare that to what would happen if you did that in Central Park. Where Duck man shared his homophobia was in private, and someone else who owns private property that he interacts with did not approve of what he said so they said he should take a break.

The matter that I was bringing up - in case you missed the point - is that the right wing media circus is trying to claim that his right to freedom of speech was infringed upon. That argument is 100% utter bullshit. He can still go share his homophobia elsewhere, he just isn't welcomed on one cable network for an indefinite period of time.

Phil is correct; you are not.

If you are referring to an interpretation of an old multi-author book of mythology, you might almost be right. Otherwise you are almost certainly wrong. However he claims to be from the "Church of Christ", which has other congregations that not only welcome homosexual members but even homosexual clergy; suggesting that his interpretation is not even in line with the denomination he claims to belong to.

Re:The homophobic rant is in your quote (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45753187)

It would help considerably if you justified the "phobia" you see. Because there isn't any. You're crapflooding with the worst of them.

Of course it's a homopobic rant... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#45745439)

And you post the same bigoted drivel, so you aren't expected to understand.

But, the ratings are up. It made the front page and has the whole internet aflutter. Mission accomplished. All is well in the garden. And you and d_r remain stuck in the sand trap of the superfluous that keeps the power structure afloat.

Most definitely, you go, girls! You should fill in the vacant time slot with this stuff.

Fuck your hate [blogspot.com] .

Re:Of course it's a homopobic rant... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 10 months ago | (#45746137)

But, the ratings are up. It made the front page and has the whole internet aflutter. Mission accomplished. All is well in the garden.

If you would read my comments you would have noticed that I already suggested that possibility...

And you and d_r remain stuck in the sand trap of the superfluous that keeps the power structure afloat.

... but that would be asking too much of you.

Re:Of course it's a homopobic rant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45752945)

"Fuck your hate [blogspot.com]. "

That guy at the link says the duck dude is "homophobic".

"Homophobia", to an educated person, means of course "fear of homosexuals"

It seems to me the duck dude does not "fear" homos. It seems to me he just thinks their sinful and disgusting. A big difference.

Re:Of course it's a homopobic rant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45752953)

yaya "they're".

In the home stretch (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 10 months ago | (#45753823)

It's my goal to make it to the end of the year without knowing what a "duck dynasty" is. I think it's a TV thing, but that's as far as I know.

It's December 21st, and I'm doing pretty well.

I think it means I'm really old when I start taking great pride in being blissfully unaware of the important cultural issues of the day.

And, I'm pretty sure that all the anti-homosexual references in the New Testament are added by Paul, who was trying to twist the teachings of Jesus to fit his own personal/political agenda. There's a biblical scholar and historian at a religious university near me who believes the character Paul was really just a pseudonym for Joseph of Aramathea, who was doing his best to co-opt Christ for Rome. And "Paul" was the one who introduced all of the tropes the Religious Right likes to describe. Strange that you don't really find any of those things in the actual words of Christ.

Re:In the home stretch (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45753895)

I've never watched it, either, but it's this bayou family which has made a lot of money on duck calls, while still keeping their CCR feel.

And, I'm pretty sure that all the anti-homosexual references in the New Testament are added by Paul, who was trying to twist the teachings of Jesus to fit his own personal/political agenda.

That's a theory, but ignores the fact that the New Testament merely restates the Old Testament for a Hellenistic setting. There isn't a single fresh idea in the New; it all flows clearly from the Old. All of it.

Re:In the home stretch (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 10 months ago | (#45755799)

I've never watched it, either, but it's this...

La la la la, I can't hear you!.

Seriously, I stopped reading when I saw that you were about to tell me about duck dynasty.

Not going to do it. We're arguing about something stupid while a surveillance state is being set up to take away our privacy forever.

I don't care what your politics are. If you're against the government doing surveillance on hundreds of millions of Americans without warrants, we are on the same side. There is no other issue. No other problem in our society can ever get seriously better until that one is dealt with. We could end poverty tomorrow and have free markets and jobs for everyone and universal health care and teach biblical creation in grammar schools and cure cancer and stop abortion and free the gays and (am I leaving anything out?) and put God in the Constitution and take God out of the courthouse and stop gun violence and have less income inequality and kill all the liberals and kill all the right wing nutjobs and end terrorism and have immigration amnesty and close the borders up tighter than Sarah Palin's mind but nothing gets really better until the surveillance state has been taken down, broken in pieces and forced to be transparent.

I am now a single-issue, single-minded voter who believes the president should be impeached and the one before that imprisoned and the one before that put in the stocks and the one before that... all because they contributed to this surveillance state

Re:In the home stretch (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 10 months ago | (#45755825)

Oh, and that string of presidents who should be shamed, defamed, blamed and have their presidential libraries torn down to make basketball courts includes Ronald Wilson Reagan who was the first to throw a ton of money at the intelligence/technology/corporate/police state apparatus. He wasn't the first one to spy on Americans who were not suspected of any crime, but he was the one to turn it into a big money pot and then turn the corporate spooks loose to do whatever they want.

Re:In the home stretch (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45756133)

All I can tell you is that governments are going to spy. At issue here is how, in the Information Age, we define privacy and the individual/state dividing line. Hint: we're on a course toward unlimited government.

Re:In the home stretch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45754409)

"I think it means I'm really old when I start taking great pride in being blissfully unaware of the important cultural issues of the day."

And yet you are here, discussing such an important cultural issue. That's how "unaware" you are.

What a dolt.

Re:In the home stretch (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 10 months ago | (#45755701)

I'm discussing what? December 21, afternoon, and I still don't know what a "duck dynasty" is.

Re:In the home stretch (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 10 months ago | (#45814597)

It's been over a week now. How's it working out for you?

Re:In the home stretch (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45815371)

Actually saw a couple episodes last night. It wasn't bad. The amusing thing was the array of other A&E shows advertised which looked like utter dreck.

Re:In the home stretch (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 10 months ago | (#45818393)

It's been over a week now. How's it working out for you?

Still good. Though I have learned that Duck Dynasty has something to do with the television picture-box. I assume it is a cartoon involving Huey, Dewey and Louie or something similar.

Re:In the home stretch (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 10 months ago | (#45823413)

It's been over a week now. How's it working out for you?

Still good. Though I have learned that Duck Dynasty has something to do with the television picture-box. I assume it is a cartoon involving Huey, Dewey and Louie or something similar.

Close enough.

Re:In the home stretch (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45825169)

Watched a couple of episodes. Wasn't bad.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?