Phil Robertson - Duck Dynasty

Turtle · Dec 22, 2013

muttly said:
Interesting article regarding this situation and another perspective.

Why Did BuzzFeed & Co. Target Justine Sacco for Online Assassination

What's most interesting, at least from a journalistic perspective, is that he never actually gives the answer to the question. Seems more than anything he has a problem with Buzzfeed. He should probably focus more on how social media allows mob mentality to rule the day.

"Going to Africa, hope I don't get Aids" would be considered a joke, not a creative joke, or a good one, but a joke nonetheless. Inserting race into it takes the humour out of it entirely and makes it come across as mean spirited. The real irony is not that she's a PR exec, but a South African native.

She's put out a written statement apologizing for the Tweet. She'll be alright, though, her dad is a South African mining magnate worth $1.5 billion.

muttly · Dec 22, 2013

Turtle said:
What's most interesting, at least from a journalistic perspective, is that he never actually gives the answer to the question. Seems more than anything he has a problem with Buzzfeed. He should probably focus more on how social media allows mob mentality to rule the day.

"Going to Africa, hope I don't get Aids" would be considered a joke, not a creative joke, or a good one, but a joke nonetheless. Inserting race into it takes the humour out of it entirely and makes it come across as mean spirited. The real irony is not that she's a PR exec, but a South African native.

She's put out a written statement apologizing for the Tweet. She'll be alright, though, her dad is a South African mining magnate worth $1.5 billion.

Yeah, I think I've seen quite a few different stories from them about their 'issues' with buzzfeed.

aristotle · Dec 22, 2013

Pilgrim said:
When the phrase "singing the blues" is used by people of Robertson's generation or older, they're referring to complaining, feeling sorry for themselves or engaging in self-pity. Keep in mind Robertson was referring to the black individuals he was personally acquainted with - not blacks as a whole.

On a more upbeat note - it didn't take Cracker Barrel long to change its tune.

Some executive at Cracker Barrel might be singing the blues today. Didn't Cracker Barrel execs understand who the bulk of their customers are? Many loyal Duck Dynasty fans go directly from church to Cracker Barrel on Sundays. CB cannot afford another PR blunder on cultural issues anytime soon.

Pilgrim · Dec 22, 2013

Turtle said:
What's most interesting, at least from a journalistic perspective, is that he never actually gives the answer to the question. Seems more than anything he has a problem with Buzzfeed. He should probably focus more on how social media allows mob mentality to rule the day.

Right on - here's a couple of articles from Mark Steyn that does exactly that, except his target is GLAAD.

The Age of Intolerance | National Review Online

Re-Education Camp | National Review Online

"Going to Africa, hope I don't get Aids" would be considered a joke, not a creative joke, or a good one, but a joke nonetheless. Inserting race into it takes the humour out of it entirely and makes it come across as mean spirited. The real irony is not that she's a PR exec, but a South African native.

Imagine this joke being told today, as it was in 1975 (from the first Steyn article):

Bob Hope, touring the world in the year or so after the passage of the 1975 Consenting Adult Sex Bill:
“I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.”

Is there any doubt that even someone of Bob Hope's stature would get the same treatment as Justine Sacco from BuzzFeed? Maybe her dad could just buy BuzzFeed and jettison the speech Nazis in the manner they deserve.

asjssl · Dec 22, 2013

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

letzrockexpress · Dec 22, 2013

Pilgrim said:
Right on - here's a couple of articles from Mark Steyn that does exactly that, except his target is GLAAD.

The Age of Intolerance | National Review Online

Re-Education Camp | National Review Online

Imagine this joke being told today, as it was in 1975 (from the first Steyn article):

Is there any doubt that even someone of Bob Hope's stature would get the same treatment as Justine Sacco from BuzzFeed? Maybe her dad could just buy BuzzFeed and jettison the speech Nazis in the manner they deserve.

Bob Hope? Aw, c'mon.. First of all, he's dead. He would be like 110 if he were alive today... Telling that joke to his fans ( most of whom are also dead) would be like preaching to the choir. Different generation, not, IMHO, applicable here, though I sorta get your point.

letzrockexpress · Dec 22, 2013

aristotle said:
Some executive at Cracker Barrel might be singing the blues today. Didn't Cracker Barrel execs understand who the bulk of their customers are? Many loyal Duck Dynasty fans go directly from church to Cracker Barrel on Sundays. CB cannot afford another PR blunder on cultural issues anytime soon.

My experiences with Cracker Barrel (and other restaurants) is that many of employees are gay. I don't know if this has anything to do with it but it might.

cheri1122 · Dec 22, 2013

So, how many of you who are defending Phil Robertson's right to speak his mind did the same for the Dixie Chicks when they were ashamed of George Bush [in his race to invade Iraq]?
Their music was banned from 'country' stations, bonfires were held in public and people invited to toss their CDs into the flames, they got death threats! They were one of the best of 'country' music's talents, until Natalie Maines offended the conservatives. Even an apology 4 days later for disrespecting the office of the POTUS made no difference - most 'country' stations still won't play their music. [And she was right to be ashamed of Bush's eagerness to invade Iraq.]
And you wonder why conservatives are often seen as hypocrites?

davekc · Dec 22, 2013

I'm not sure they are the same thing whether you support either one of them. She went out of her way to make her statements directed at one person. The Robertson guy was giving his opinion in a interview in which he was asked the questions.
As far as hypocrites, both parties have their fair share.

paullud · Dec 22, 2013

cheri1122 said:
So, how many of you who are defending Phil Robertson's right to speak his mind did the same for the Dixie Chicks when they were ashamed of George Bush [in his race to invade Iraq]?
Their music was banned from 'country' stations, bonfires were held in public and people invited to toss their CDs into the flames, they got death threats! They were one of the best of 'country' music's talents, until Natalie Maines offended the conservatives. Even an apology 4 days later for disrespecting the office of the POTUS made no difference - most 'country' stations still won't play their music. [And she was right to be ashamed of Bush's eagerness to invade Iraq.]
And you wonder why conservatives are often seen as hypocrites?

The example of demanding someone be fired and not endorsing them is completely different and not relevant in the least. GLAAD would be completely reasonable in not watching the show or advertising on the show but demanding that he be silenced and fired is idiotic. I wonder why people make invalid comparisons so that they can claim people are hypocrites. Now if you said GLAAD was a bunch of hypocrites because they are a completely intolerant group demanding tolerance, that would make sense. Maines had every right to say what she said and I still listened to their music but other fans were still completely within reason to stop listening. It would be no different than people that didn't like what Robertson said to stop watching, that is reasonable.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

cheri1122 · Dec 22, 2013

I don't see how an entertainer onstage with a mic, commenting on a huge current event can be described as 'going out of her way', but anyhow: both expressed an opinion that offended people.
When the conservatives were offended, there wasn't a whisper of freedom of speech, but when they agree with the speaker, they shout real loud.
And yes, there are surely liberal hypocrites, but in both cases, it's the conservatives yelling the loudest. And they have some trouble admitting when they're wrong, too - Natalie Maines was spot on in her criticism of Bush, but many stations still won't play the Dixie Chicks' music.

cheri1122 · Dec 22, 2013

paullud said:
The example of demanding someone be fired and not endorsing them is completely different or relevant in the least. GLAAD would be completely reasonable in not watching the show or advertising on the show but demanding that he be silenced and fired is idiotic. I wonder why people make invalid comparisons so that they can claim people are hypocrites. Now if you said GLAAD was a bunch of hypocrites because they are a completely intolerant group demanding tolerance, that would make sense. Maines had every right to say what she said and I still listened to their music but other fans were still completely within reason to stop listening. It would be no different than people that didn't like what Robertson said to stop watching, that is reasonable.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

GLAAD promotes tolerance, but is that supposed to include tolerance for anything & everything?
You don't suppose they tolerate mass murder, do you? Lynching, maybe? Roasting babies?
The tolerance they promote is for treating others with respect, and when Phil Robertson equates gay people with murderers, bestiality, etc, that is not something many people will tolerate.
If it were just the fans who stopped listening to [and buying] the DC's music, that'd be fine, but it was the radio stations that refused to play their music - and they still do. Without the airplay, their fan base cannot expand, and it only shrinks as other new artists are heard on the air, every day. Intolerance tried it's best to kill their career, despite the talent that was much loved before Natalie Maines spoke her mind.

paullud · Dec 22, 2013

cheri1122 said:
I don't see how an entertainer onstage with a mic, commenting on a huge current event can be described as 'going out of her way', but anyhow: both expressed an opinion that offended people.
When the conservatives were offended, there wasn't a whisper of freedom of speech, but when they agree with the speaker, they shout real loud.
And yes, there are surely liberal hypocrites, but in both cases, it's the conservatives yelling the loudest. And they have some trouble admitting when they're wrong, too - Natalie Maines was spot on in her criticism of Bush, but many stations still won't play the Dixie Chicks' music.

Apples and oranges, you aren't comparing the same things. When people decided to stop listening to the group because of what she said their career was still able to go on and the people that didn't care we're still able to listen.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

paullud · Dec 22, 2013

cheri1122 said:
GLAAD promotes tolerance, but is that supposed to include tolerance for anything & everything?
You don't suppose they tolerate mass murder, do you? Lynching, maybe? Roasting babies?

What are you talking about? We are talking about someone being able to say something without losing their job, not doing something illegal or harming another person. Why are you trying to make these completely ridiculous comparisons?

The tolerance they promote is for treating others with respect, and when Phil Robertson equates gay people with murderers, bestiality, etc, that is not something many people will tolerate.

He stated that gays are committing a sin which if you study Christian beliefs a little bit you would know that a sin is a sin. He was comparing a sin to a sin not saying that on a human level that a murderer is the same as being gay, this is why ignorance causes so many problems.

If it were just the fans who stopped listening to [and buying] the DC's music, that'd be fine, but it was the radio stations that refused to play their music - and they still do. Without the airplay, their fan base cannot expand, and it only shrinks as other new artists are heard on the air, every day.

Do you realize that people that listen to country music listen to radio stations? If the fans don't want to listen to their CD's then they don't want to listen to it on the radio either. The inability to grow their fan base is the result of their marketing the same as if people decide not to watch Duck Dynasty as a result of Phil's comments.

Intolerance tried it's best to kill their career, despite the talent that was much loved before Natalie Maines spoke her mind.

No, Maines running her mouth for no reason about something her fans were passionate about caused it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

Pilgrim · Dec 23, 2013

cheri1122 said:
So, how many of you who are defending Phil Robertson's right to speak his mind did the same for the Dixie Chicks when they were ashamed of George Bush [in his race to invade Iraq]?
Their music was banned from 'country' stations, bonfires were held in public and people invited to toss their CDs into the flames, they got death threats! They were one of the best of 'country' music's talents, until Natalie Maines offended the conservatives. Even an apology 4 days later for disrespecting the office of the POTUS made no difference - most 'country' stations still won't play their music. [And she was right to be ashamed of Bush's eagerness to invade Iraq.]
And you wonder why conservatives are often seen as hypocrites?

This is a perfect example of trying to compare apples and pinecones. Natalie Maines made a fool of herself with an unsolicited political statement during a time of war at a concert on foreign soil - one which offended the very core of her group's fan base; stupid is as stupid does. Consequently, she and her group were thrown in the ash heap because she spouted off her uninformed political opinions in what she thought was a liberal theater instead of sticking to her one and only talent - singing country music to a conservative fan base. She was obviously too stupid to realize most of their records were being sold in the USA. On the other hand, Robertson responded to a question from his interviewer about his views on sin - a philosophical subject. His answer was consistent with his core beliefs and those of his fan base. The people up in arms are those who have likely never seen his show or bought his duck calls to begin with. There is no hypocrisy involved here - it's just the opposite. The Dixie Chicks were rejected by their fan base, the Duck Dynasty guys were applauded and supported by theirs.

Turtle · Dec 23, 2013

cheri1122 said:
GLAAD promotes tolerance...

No they don't. They promote intolerance.

Tolerance is defined as the ability to tolerate, endure, to allow the existence, occurrence or practice of something which is objectionable and disagreeable.

They have redefined tolerance to mean something to be accepted, celebrated and embraced fully, something that cannot be objected to or disagreed with.

GLAAD finds religious views which condemn homosexuality as objectionable and disagreeable, and they will not tolerate it. They are wholly intolerant of it, and that is what they promote.

The tolerance they promote is for treating others with respect, and when Phil Robertson equates gay people with murderers, bestiality, etc, that is not something many people will tolerate.

It's the Bible, not Phil, which equates the sinners as those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. And it's the Bible, and those who speak of it in public, that GLAAD can not and will not tolerate. They demand tolerance, and respect, but give neither to anyone who doesn't embrace homosexuals and homosexuality.

RLENT · Dec 23, 2013

letzrockexpress said:
My experiences with Cracker Barrel (and other restaurants) is that many of employees are gay. I don't know if this has anything to do with it but it might.

I think you just ruined Sunday brunch for someone ...