A&E Suspends Phil Robertson

[rushmc 18]

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech

But

It is related to the federal equal opportunity employment laws

This is going to be fun to watch

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Southern_Man 0]

rushmc

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech

But

It is related to the federal equal opportunity employment laws

Please explain how?

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Channman 2]

We'll I guess your question of Who? was answered, sorry for the additional information as you already knew who I was talking about prior to your "WHO" reply.

[skypuppy 1]

AndyBoyd

***Tolerance means tolerance. For ALL points of view. Yes, you would be intolerant of a racist. I am intolerant of racists, and therefore I do not say that I am a "tolerant" person. I think people should quit calling "intolerance" "tolerance." Final question: are you tolerant of all viewpoints or are you intolerant of certain viewpoints? You cannot be tolerant and intolerant at the same time. My point is that "tolerance" has taken on a definition that is not neutral. "Tolerance" has become intolerance of certain viewpoints. The equal and opposite.

So a person for whom tolerance is a value must be tolerant of those who are intolerant? Your argument has some logical force, I concede. But how, then, does a tolerant person express disapproval of a racist or a homophobe? On your logic, the truly tolerant person can never do this, but instead must stay silent even when faced with viewpoints directly opposed to their values. How can change ever happen on your logic, where no one can ever stand up to the bigot and say, no, your attitude is wrong and hurtful, and we will not tolerate it?

that's not what he said at all. We've been talking about the differences between voicing opinions and taking actions. While A & E has the right to fire Phil, the better choice, IMO would have been to let him go on and see what America thinks. If they don't have a problem with Phil voicing his opinion, the show would continue. If they do, the audience will drop off, ad revenue would go down, the show would get cut. As it is, A & E is going to lose out big time. And they should, because while they have the right to cut Phil loose, the audience has the right to punish them for it by unsuscribing. We'll know in a couple of years.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[AndyBoyd 0]

Well, I concede that I could have misinterpreted his post. He is welcome to clarify his post, or explain why he thinks I am wrong. Judging from the content of his previous posts, he is fully capable of doing that. If he thinks I was mistaken in some way, he'll let me know.

To respond to your argument, A & E does not need this guy anywhere near as badly as you seem to think. There will always be another crop of attention seeking nitwits to populate TV reality shows. See Jersey Shore. They will find someone equally amusing very soon.

[jakee 1,279]

Quote

(4) Tolerance means tolerance. For ALL points of view. Yes, you would be intolerant of a racist. I am intolerant of racists, and therefore I do not say that I am a "tolerant" person. I think people should quit calling "intolerance" "tolerance."

Sorry dude, but that's just really stupid. You're using such an overly literal understanding to ignore the meaning intended. It's ok to be intolerant of homophobes, racists, ant-semites etc. It's not ok to be intolerant of gays, blacks, jews etc.

Quote

My point is that "tolerance" has taken on a definition that is not neutral. "Tolerance" has become intolerance of certain viewpoints.

Yes it has. See my lists above. For the purposes of conversation, what would you use? First order and second order intolerance? Good intolerance and bad intolerance? I think pretty much everyone can understand what is meant without splitting those hairs.

(BTW, you were also the first person in the thread to use the word 'intolerance', so where did this whole rant come from anyway?)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

His comments were about his religion

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[labrys 0]

rushmc

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

His comments were about his religion

Did you even read what you linked? It basically says that an employer can't *arbitrarily* fire someone for their religious beliefs or practices....

If an employer can show that an employees religious beliefs or practices are harmful to them, they're free to protect themselves.

ETA:

If a Walmart greeter got fired for standing in the door preaching and handing out religious tracts is that a violation of their first amendment rights and against the law you linked?

Owned by Remi #?

[rushmc 18]

So now you need to prove that the employer was harmed by their statements. I don't think you can do that.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[labrys 0]

rushmc

So now you need to prove that the employer was harmed by their statements. I don't think you can do that.

Customer complaints are fairly good indicators of harm in most cases.

Owned by Remi #?

[lawrocket 3]

jakee

Quote

(4) Tolerance means tolerance. For ALL points of view. Yes, you would be intolerant of a racist. I am intolerant of racists, and therefore I do not say that I am a "tolerant" person. I think people should quit calling "intolerance" "tolerance."

Sorry dude, but that's just really stupid. You're using such an overly literal understanding to ignore the meaning intended. It's ok to be intolerant of homophobes, racists, ant-semites etc. It's not ok to be intolerant of gays, blacks, jews etc.

Quote

My point is that "tolerance" has taken on a definition that is not neutral. "Tolerance" has become intolerance of certain viewpoints.

Yes it has. See my lists above. For the purposes of conversation, what would you use? First order and second order intolerance? Good intolerance and bad intolerance? I think pretty much everyone can understand what is meant without splitting those hairs.

(BTW, you were also the first person in the thread to use the word 'intolerance', so where did this whole rant come from anyway?)

So what you are saying is that tolerance should be maintained/enforced/allowed for only certain viewpoints.

Note: this is what has been popularly called "political correctness." In practical effect it means that tolerance is a one-way street. In practical effect it is bullying. Face the wrath unless you tolerate.

I have serious philosophical and practical issues with different rules for different viewpoints. It's an inherent inequality. And it comes down to the arbitrary - and frequently capricious - decision of what side lies on the correct side of the argument.

Explain to me how intolerance is "tolerance?" You can't. because the logic does not work. Sure, you may feel tolerant because "tolerance" has come to be defined as hatred and intolerance of those who disagree with me. Ever notice that "tolerance" is something always demanded of someone else? It's never a "we must learn to tolerate others." It's always "they must be made to tolerate..."

There certainly are subjective problems that make my solution of calling a spade a spade unworkable. There is no way bigots will allow themselves to self-identify as intolerant. It won't happen and logic can go fuck itself.

Logic and reason will not be tolerated if it makes me feel like I'm not what I wish I could be.

Quote

Good intolerance and bad intolerance?

I'm arguing that "tolerance" does not implicate good or bad. Tolerance is conduct. Note that "tolerance" is not "liking." Indeed, by its very nature, "tolerance" defines a person's actions in response to something that person does not favor. Example: I tolerate mushrooms. No, I don't like them but I will eat them. Example: I don't have to tolerate a blowjob. I enjoy them.

It's when people view their own personal opinions as the objective "good" that shit starts going downhill really fast. The self-centered and egotistical notion that if everyone believed like I do we'd all be better off.

So congrats, Phil Robertson. What works for you doesn't work for everybody. Your person view of good and bad is not matched by me. And congrats, jakee. What works for you doesn't work for me. Your personal view of good and bad is not matched by me.

My thoughts? It is okay to say "I hate bigots." Yes, to me "hatred" is not necessarily a bad thing. To me, "intolerance" is not necessarily a bad thing. I don't think anyone who is honest will disagree.

Quote

BTW, you were also the first person in the thread to use the word 'intolerance', so where did this whole rant come from anyway?)

Why is it even an issue with Phil Robertson? Why is what he said even an issue? Is it because, perhaps, he came off as intolerant? Or is it because the backlash is all patting him on the back about finally joining the lit glitz and nouveau rock riche?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,279]

Quote

So what you are saying is that tolerance should be maintained/enforced/allowed for only certain viewpoints.

Can you point out to me where I said any one of those things? I said that intolerance of things like racism, homophobia and anti-semitism is ok.

Quote

Note: this is what has been popularly called "political correctness." In practical effect it means that tolerance is a one-way street. In practical effect it is bullying. Face the wrath unless you tolerate.

Again, you can be one of the stupidest smart people I've talked to. So what you're saying is that intolerance of, say, homophobia is bullying, because it's intolerance. But homophobia must also be bullying, because homophobia is intolerance. But if we tolerate the original intolerance, then we're condoning bullying. So you must think it's ok for people to be racist, homophobic, anti-semitic bullies. Right?

Quote

I have serious philosophical and practical issues with different rules for different viewpoints.

So you don't see any qualitative difference between the statements "Niggers are all criminals" and "It's wring to say all black people are criminals". They're both the same form of intolerant bullying?

Quote

Explain to me how intolerance is "tolerance?" You can't.

why should I? I never said it was.

Quote

Ever notice that "tolerance" is something always demanded of someone else? It's never a "we must learn to tolerate others." It's always "they must be made to tolerate..."

No, I haven't noticed that, because it isn't true. But I probably shouldn't point that out for fear of being branded intolerant of liars.

Quote

I'm arguing that "tolerance" does not implicate good or bad.

And yet you're arguing that everyone should be intolerant towards everyone elses views, no matter how reprehensible. Why would you argue that unless intolerance was bad?

Quote

And congrats, jakee. What works for you doesn't work for me. Your personal view of good and bad is not matched by me. My thoughts? It is okay to say "I hate bigots." Yes, to me "hatred" is not necessarily a bad thing.

So what the fuck is your problem? If you think that intolerance of bigotry is bullying then I see where our views on good and bad differ, If you think that intolerance of bigotry is OK then I don't. Pick a side.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[winsor 191]

labrys

***So now you need to prove that the employer was harmed by their statements. I don't think you can do that.

Customer complaints are fairly good indicators of harm in most cases.

There was an article to the effect that Cracker Barrel had pulled their sponsorship (I just spotted the headline). Since advertising pays the bills, losing an account is a pretty compelling basis for canning an actor.

In the marketplace 'fairness' does not hold sway. You could, for instance, be the best newscaster in the world, but if Toys R Us is the primary sponsor they can insist that a pair of cute 6 year old twins replace you, and that is their prerogative. If you can find someone who will pay more than Toys R Us to keep you, you will likely stay.

You could have the most dismal ratings in your time slot, but a sponsor can pay an inordinate amount to have things their way, so even ratings are incidental to economics. If the advertising dollars are there, the show will stay on the air.

Whether Mr. Robertson's Bronze Age take on things is good, bad or indifferent is immaterial from the standpoint of staying in business. He had every right to say what he did, and he did so. A&E had every right to send him packing, and they did so.

Anyone who wants to hire him and get great ratings is free to do so, and I suppose he will get better offers than from A&E. It seems from my standpoint that things are working out for the best for everyone.


BSBD,

Winsor

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So what you're saying is that intolerance of, say, homophobia is bullying, because it's intolerance. But homophobia must also be bullying, because homophobia is intolerance. But if we tolerate the original intolerance, then we're condoning bullying. So you must think it's ok for people to be racist, homophobic, anti-semitic bullies. Right?

No. I'm saying that we should call it "intolerance." I'm saying that demanding that someone else be "tolerant" and not being tolerant of them is illogical and, yes, fucking stupid.

I am intolerant of bigots. I am also intolerant of those who call themselves "tolerant" when they are not at all tolerant. I cite this place: http://www.museumoftolerance.com/site/c.tmL6KfNVLtH/b.4865925/k.CAD7/HomeMOT.htm

Why not call it what it is: The Museum of Intolerance of Fucking Assholes. "Tolerance?" I assure you, there is little to that place that says, "Let us understand where the Nazis were coming from."

Quote

So you don't see any qualitative difference between the statements "Niggers are all criminals" and "It's wring to say all black people are criminals". They're both the same form of intolerant bullying?

They are both the same. One is a softer form of the same belief. I'll add another form of intolerant bullying: "African Americans cannot get ahead." To me, the difference is the subtlety.

Quote

And yet you're arguing that everyone should be intolerant towards everyone elses views, no matter how reprehensible

Negative. I'm arguing that it's all right to be intolerant of other people's views. I'm cool with being intolerant of bigots. I don't, however, demand them to be tolerant of others because I'm not tolerant of them.

I think we agree more than you know. But you're feeling pissed off or attacked.

Quote

If you think that intolerance of bigotry is bullying

I am intolerant of bigotry. I therefore detest the idea of "tolerance."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,279]

Quote

I'm saying that demanding that someone else be "tolerant" and not being tolerant of them is illogical and, yes, fucking stupid. I am intolerant of bigots.

So why are you being illogical and stupid?

Quote

Quote

So you don't see any qualitative difference between the statements "Niggers are all criminals" and "It's wring to say all black people are criminals". They're both the same form of intolerant bullying?

They are both the same. One is a softer form of the same belief.

Ok, I've made a typo there. I meant to say "It's wrong..." Would you care to change your answer in light of that?

Quote

Negative. I'm arguing that it's all right to be intolerant of other people's views. I'm cool with being intolerant of bigots. I don't, however, demand them to be tolerant of others because I'm not tolerant of them.

So if you don't want bigots to be tolerant of anyone, in what way are you intolerant of them?

If you're talking about illogical, using the fact that you think someone is wrong as a reason not to want them to stop doing what you think is wrong is quite staggering.

Quote

But you're feeling pissed off or attacked.

And I think you're contradicting yourself every other sentence because you've backed yourself into an absurd corner.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wolfriverjoe 1,368]

winsor

******So now you need to prove that the employer was harmed by their statements. I don't think you can do that.

Customer complaints are fairly good indicators of harm in most cases.

There was an article to the effect that Cracker Barrel had pulled their sponsorship (I just spotted the headline). Since advertising pays the bills, losing an account is a pretty compelling basis for canning an actor.

In the marketplace 'fairness' does not hold sway. You could, for instance, be the best newscaster in the world, but if Toys R Us is the primary sponsor they can insist that a pair of cute 6 year old twins replace you, and that is their prerogative. If you can find someone who will pay more than Toys R Us to keep you, you will likely stay.

You could have the most dismal ratings in your time slot, but a sponsor can pay an inordinate amount to have things their way, so even ratings are incidental to economics. If the advertising dollars are there, the show will stay on the air.

Whether Mr. Robertson's Bronze Age take on things is good, bad or indifferent is immaterial from the standpoint of staying in business. He had every right to say what he did, and he did so. A&E had every right to send him packing, and they did so.

Anyone who wants to hire him and get great ratings is free to do so, and I suppose he will get better offers than from A&E. It seems from my standpoint that things are working out for the best for everyone.


BSBD,

Winsor

Yes. For an example of your point about dismal ratings, look at televised golf. From a broad perspective, the ratings are pathetic. But because the demographic that does watch it is both very specific and fairly well off financially, the ad dollars are there (pay attention to who is doing the advertising).

And from a Disney point of view, the million or so that "signed" the online petition are next to nothing. They take a much wider view. They were one of the first to openly welcome gays in a major "Gay Day" at Disneyland (they didn't really call it that). And they've gone after minorities in a big way in recent years.
If they have to choose to alienate a huge group of gays and minorities or a fairly small group of intolerant bigots, it won't be much of a choice.

Disney has been in the business of image for a long time. They are one of the most ferocious at protecting their intellectual property. Try using an image of a Disney character commercially without permission.
I'm going to guess that the standard contract for anyone appearing on a show contains some sort of "public image" clause. That if the actor says or does anything in public that reflects badly on Disney, they can be fired immediately. No "proof of harm" needed.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kelpdiver 2]

lawrocket

So what you are saying is that tolerance should be maintained/enforced/allowed for only certain viewpoints.

Note: this is what has been popularly called "political correctness." In practical effect it means that tolerance is a one-way street. In practical effect it is bullying. Face the wrath unless you tolerate.

This is a great (well no, really just pedantic) debate club argument, but in the real world, it's just horseshit.

The funniest/saddest comment I saw out in retarded internet land was: "Gays won't be accepted until they accept all viewpoints." But the viewpoint in question is "gays aren't acceptable." The notion that their refusal to accept being unacceptable is an example of intolerance - not sure why you would try to defend such a lame stance. It only reflects poorly on you.

[regulator 0]

http://therightscoop.com/gay-tmz-founder-slams-glaad-they-preach-tolerance-but-they-wont-tolerate-phil-robertsons-religious-beliefs/

Levin says he is gay and doesn’t agree with Robertson, but given that this country is all about freedom of religion and freedom of speech, he believes Robertson is entitled to his opinion and shouldn’t be punished for it.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

My points:

(1) I don't like what he said at all.
(2) Calling him a "racist" isn't as big of a deal to me as calling him a redneck being a redneck - which is a bigoted comment. Would it be appropriate to say, "those complaining are just fags being fags?" Hell no. It's the double standard I dislike.
(3) The focus is on attacking the person who said it rather than the statement.
(4) Tolerance means tolerance. For ALL points of view. Yes, you would be intolerant of a racist. I am intolerant of racists, and therefore I do not say that I am a "tolerant" person. I think people should quit calling "intolerance" "tolerance."
(5) I posed a challenge earlier for people to explain why racial pejoratives are different from racial pejoratives. DO you think it's better to call white guys rednecks than to call women bitches or black people jigaboos? I don't. But I would certainly be willing to hear why it is different. People are too busy calling names to actually answer the question.
(6) What makes you think that the dude isn't backlashing against what he perceives is going on? In which case the backlash is to the backlash. It's a chicken-or-the-egg.


Final question: are you tolerant of all viewpoints or are you intolerant of certain viewpoints? You cannot be tolerant and intolerant at the same time. My point is that "tolerance" has taken on a definition that is not neutral. "Tolerance" has become intolerance of certain viewpoints. The equal and opposite.

Thanks for hashing all of that out for me. I get where you're coming from with a lot of what you said. I don't think people are trying to claim tolerance is intolerance and vice versa. Just like you said, "I'm intolerant of racists." Well, me too, but I'm not trying to say I'm tolerant by being intolerant. And you can be intolerant and it's OK. I kind of feel like you're saying it's not OK and once you are intolerant of a situation, you are no longer a tolerant person overall. Yes, there are situations or certain viewpoints (IE, racism) that I am not tolerant of. Most things that deal with any kind of blatant discrimination I would consider myself not tolerant of. And if it's a statement somebody made, it's not something I'm perceiving, and something that would be absolutely undebatable because it was said as fact-- well, that has everything to do with the statement instead of a situation you perceived. I'm not saying what you mention in #6 never happens, but saying the opposite is not true either.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[LyraM45 0]

AndyBoyd

***Tolerance means tolerance. For ALL points of view. Yes, you would be intolerant of a racist. I am intolerant of racists, and therefore I do not say that I am a "tolerant" person. I think people should quit calling "intolerance" "tolerance." Final question: are you tolerant of all viewpoints or are you intolerant of certain viewpoints? You cannot be tolerant and intolerant at the same time. My point is that "tolerance" has taken on a definition that is not neutral. "Tolerance" has become intolerance of certain viewpoints. The equal and opposite.

So a person for whom tolerance is a value must be tolerant of those who are intolerant? Your argument has some logical force, I concede. But how, then, does a tolerant person express disapproval of a racist or a homophobe? On your logic, the truly tolerant person can never do this, but instead must stay silent even when faced with viewpoints directly opposed to their values. How can change ever happen on your logic, where no one can ever stand up to the bigot and say, no, your attitude is wrong and hurtful, and we will not tolerate it?

^^ This. This is kind of what I was trying to ask, but couldn't put together in words as nicely as Andy :)

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[LyraM45 0]

RonD1120

I'm sorry but I can't attach any validity to your post. You simply do not know how to study the Bible, do not know the difference between the Old Testament or the Hebrew writings versus the New Testament or Christian writings and therefore do not know what you are talking about.

Jesus Christ paid the price for your sin, the sin you were born into. You need to grasp this concept first.

You simply do not know how to..... pick and choose what you want when its convenient for what you want to believe and argue. FIFY

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[AndyBoyd 0]

LyraM45

******Tolerance means tolerance. For ALL points of view. Yes, you would be intolerant of a racist. I am intolerant of racists, and therefore I do not say that I am a "tolerant" person. I think people should quit calling "intolerance" "tolerance." Final question: are you tolerant of all viewpoints or are you intolerant of certain viewpoints? You cannot be tolerant and intolerant at the same time. My point is that "tolerance" has taken on a definition that is not neutral. "Tolerance" has become intolerance of certain viewpoints. The equal and opposite.

So a person for whom tolerance is a value must be tolerant of those who are intolerant? Your argument has some logical force, I concede. But how, then, does a tolerant person express disapproval of a racist or a homophobe? On your logic, the truly tolerant person can never do this, but instead must stay silent even when faced with viewpoints directly opposed to their values. How can change ever happen on your logic, where no one can ever stand up to the bigot and say, no, your attitude is wrong and hurtful, and we will not tolerate it?

^^ This. This is kind of what I was trying to ask, but couldn't put together in words as nicely as Andy :)

Thank you for your kind words. We are still awaiting a response.

[jonstark 8]

kelpdiver

******Robertson said: "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."

He did add that HE didn't judge these people. "He can't agree with them but it isn't his place to judge them. This is up to God." Robertson said he'd "love 'em as a Christian should and let God sort it out in the end".


sure looks like judgement in the first block. Saying it's not in the second doesn't change that at all.

Being judgmental doesn't translate to judgment. Robertson knows that he is not the final judge and says so. He may condemn the behavior in his own mind and say so but believes that he is not the judge. Only God can be.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Being judgmental doesn't translate to judgment.

Sigh.

You know, religion didn't invent double-speak, but it certainly wields it adeptly.

[ryoder 1,410]

I went perusing the Duck Commander site out of curiosity:

http://duckcommander.com/store/duck-calls

Damn! Some of those calls cost up to $250!!!

The "Homeland Security Duck Call" did make me chuckle.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.