Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   It's about 61 years late, but it's still welcome - Queen pardons Alan Turing, founder of modern computer science and one of the people who broke Nazi codes, for his 1952 conviction for homosexuality. Tag is for Alan Turing   (bbc.co.uk ) divider line 94
    More: Hero, Dr Alan Turing, Bletchley Park, pioneers in computer science, Prime Minister Gordon Brown  
•       •       •

1582 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Dec 2013 at 1:13 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



94 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-23 11:56:54 PM  
Queen pardons queen?
 
2013-12-23 11:57:50 PM  
www.markallencam.com

/oblig
 
2013-12-24 12:03:06 AM  
None other than Steve jobs said the story about the apple logo (Turing supposedly took a bite of a cyanide-laced apple when committing suicide) was BS.   It is in the Jobs biography from a year or so.
 
2013-12-24 12:40:17 AM  
Too late for the man, but yet another acknowledgement of the legacy. It was going to happen eventually anyway, it's just good that QEII did it on her watch.
 
2013-12-24 12:54:26 AM  
Wow...that article was very sanitized. He went to report a theft from his boyfriend at the time.

The British goverment found out and he revealed his relationship with the guy.

They (the goverment) convected him of homosexuality; and offered either prison or chemical castration.
He took the chemical 'cure' of hormone treatments that drove him insane and drove him to suicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
 
2013-12-24 01:17:50 AM  

optikeye: They (the goverment) convected him of homosexuality; and offered either prison or chemical castration.


076dd0a50e0c1255009e-bd4b8aabaca29897bc751dfaf75b290c.r40.cf1.rackcdn.com
 
kab
2013-12-24 01:36:33 AM  
Reading Cryptonomicon right now actually, so getting a kick....
 
2013-12-24 01:39:15 AM  
Is it really Queen if Freddie Mercury has passed away? I'm sure he would have agreed with the pardon, but we'll never know, will we?
 
2013-12-24 01:48:16 AM  
Can they posthumously kick everyone responsible for persecuting Turing in the balls? Please?
 
2013-12-24 01:56:59 AM  
images.huffingtonpost.com
"You mean you can do that to 'em and they kill themselves off?"
 
2013-12-24 01:57:58 AM  
It's about time.
 
2013-12-24 02:01:29 AM  

kab: Reading Cryptonomicon right now actually, so getting a kick....


What a fantastic book that is.
 
2013-12-24 02:03:30 AM  

fusillade762: [www.markallencam.com image 440x570]

/oblig


oh WOW!

I think the world fell down a rabbit hole that day
 
2013-12-24 02:13:53 AM  
THANKS QUEEN!

static.guim.co.uk
 
2013-12-24 02:25:29 AM  

cretinbob: [images.huffingtonpost.com image 498x500]
"You mean you can do that to 'em and they kill themselves off?"


you sir, though your highly offensive and libelous failed attempt at humor. just displayed more hate than phil did in his entire interview.

congrats. (and read the damn interview before using this man as a posterboy for hate)
 
2013-12-24 02:26:35 AM  
As a result of this action I believe we can declare the queen a human and not AI.
 
2013-12-24 02:35:58 AM  

I sound fat: cretinbob: [images.huffingtonpost.com image 498x500]
"You mean you can do that to 'em and they kill themselves off?"

you sir, though your highly offensive and libelous failed attempt at humor. just displayed more hate than phil did in his entire interview.

congrats. (and read the damn interview before using this man as a posterboy for hate)


bigislandnow.com
 
2013-12-24 02:52:57 AM  

optikeye: He took the chemical 'cure' of hormone treatments that drove him insane and drove him to suicide.


Or his death was an accident, as the evidence actually suggests...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092
 
2013-12-24 02:55:58 AM  
Well done, ma'am. Parliament disgraced themselves a few years ago by refusing a posthumous pardon on the grounds that homosexuality was illegal in 1952. Good of her to correct their mistake and to take this one step towards acknowledging the gross injustice of that law.
 
2013-12-24 02:58:59 AM  

drumhellar: optikeye: He took the chemical 'cure' of hormone treatments that drove him insane and drove him to suicide.

Or his death was an accident, as the evidence actually suggests...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092


So one person who's looking for publicity has a dissenting opinion
 
2013-12-24 03:22:59 AM  
He was a homosexual. It was illegal at the time. He was rightfully prosecuted for homosexual acts. The law was broadly supported by the people. This is farking stupid.

The message is: if you're a sufficiently important individual the law is set aside just for you, all the others can piss off.
 
2013-12-24 03:26:13 AM  

Gordon Bennett: Well done, ma'am. Parliament disgraced themselves a few years ago by refusing a posthumous pardon on the grounds that homosexuality was illegal in 1952. Good of her to correct their mistake and to take this one step towards acknowledging the gross injustice of that law.


how was it a mistake? It was illegal at that time and he was lawfully and correctly convicted under the law at the time.
 
2013-12-24 03:29:17 AM  

Suede head: He was a homosexual. It was illegal at the time. He was rightfully prosecuted for homosexual acts. The law was broadly supported by the people. This is farking stupid.

The message is: if you're a sufficiently important individual the law is set aside just for you, all the others can piss off.


The message is: The law was foolish and it cost precious lives. We should consider our laws more carefully.
 
2013-12-24 03:47:28 AM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Suede head: He was a homosexual. It was illegal at the time. He was rightfully prosecuted for homosexual acts. The law was broadly supported by the people. This is farking stupid.

The message is: if you're a sufficiently important individual the law is set aside just for you, all the others can piss off.

The message is: The law was foolish and it cost precious lives. We should consider our laws more carefully.


I think the objection is that only he was pardoned. I think its a valid objection.

It would have been better if the law was denounced instead of granting a special person a special exemption.
 
2013-12-24 04:04:58 AM  
There are 10 kinds of people who understand gay computer scientists...
 
2013-12-24 04:38:26 AM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Suede head: He was a homosexual. It was illegal at the time. He was rightfully prosecuted for homosexual acts. The law was broadly supported by the people. This is farking stupid.

The message is: if you're a sufficiently important individual the law is set aside just for you, all the others can piss off.

The message is: The law was foolish and it cost precious lives. We should consider our laws more carefully.


The message is: Unjust laws are only unjust if they fark over someone important. Nobody cares if you're the victim of one.
 
2013-12-24 04:45:09 AM  

SquiggsIN: rickythepenguin: None other than Steve jobs said the story about the apple logo (Turing supposedly took a bite of a cyanide-laced apple when committing suicide) was BS.   It is in the Jobs biography from a year or so.

All apples are arsenic-laced.  The seeds can be toxic if you eat too many of them / or chew them up (which can leech a lot more arsenic into your body during digestion)


Suede head: He was a homosexual. It was illegal at the time. He was rightfully prosecuted for homosexual acts. The law was broadly supported by the people. This is farking stupid.

The message is: if you're a sufficiently important individual the law is set aside just for you, all the others can piss off.

"rightfully prosecuted" ?   Not a chance.  That law, like plenty of others in history was never in place "rightfully" no matter what the majority opinion was or is.  Uganda is a perfect example, Utah is a perfect example, Russia etc..

History is littered with names of people who have stood up to unjust laws.  Names like Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela, etc.  The law existing doesn't make it "right" in any manner.


I believe he meant "legally" placed. "Rightfully" is up for debate. Legality and "rightfully" are two different beasts.
 
2013-12-24 05:18:13 AM  

SquiggsIN: cretinbob: [images.huffingtonpost.com image 498x500]
"You mean you can do that to 'em and they kill themselves off?"

dragging the thread further off-topic perhaps : Never seen the show, don't plan on watching it (my mom told me she likes it)  I fully support his right to say what he said and it doesn't matter if I agree with him or not.  He has every right to respond to a question and give his opinion on the matter regardless of what popular opinion is or isn't.  I don't understand the national backlash against him. (quote below)  I don't understand the need to show support for him.

One of my favorite lines from The American President :
"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"

The 1st amendment might be the singular, most-American thing about our country.  It might be the single greatest statement in any document in our nation's history.


I dont think anyone is saying that Duck Dynasty Old Beard can't say what he said. I find what he said disgusting, horrible, stupid, and all sorts of other things. But I never thought for a moment he shouldn't be allowed to say it.

The issue is that words have consequences. Freedom of speech? Yeah, I can go to you and say you are "A farking douchebag" (not calling you that, an example), and I've a right to do that. And then I'll get punched in the face.

If I was employed with, oh let's say the New York Times in some sort of visible role, people know my name, etc. And I say something like "I think that all the Tea Party Republicans are racist bigots who ought to be herded into camps, then transported to Somalia, but I don't advocate reducing the quality of life for the Somali people", I'm perfectly allowed to say that. And then the Times is perfectly allowed to fire me for it.

Unless, of course, Republicans and Conservatives are suddenly arguing FOR the basic principle of Tenure. Which... is par the course for their hypocrisy.
 
2013-12-24 05:29:15 AM  

Summercat: SquiggsIN: cretinbob: [images.huffingtonpost.com image 498x500]
"You mean you can do that to 'em and they kill themselves off?"

dragging the thread further off-topic perhaps : Never seen the show, don't plan on watching it (my mom told me she likes it)  I fully support his right to say what he said and it doesn't matter if I agree with him or not.  He has every right to respond to a question and give his opinion on the matter regardless of what popular opinion is or isn't.  I don't understand the national backlash against him. (quote below)  I don't understand the need to show support for him.

One of my favorite lines from The American President :
"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"

The 1st amendment might be the singular, most-American thing about our country.  It might be the single greatest statement in any document in our nation's history.

I dont think anyone is saying that Duck Dynasty Old Beard can't say what he said. I find what he said disgusting, horrible, stupid, and all sorts of other things. But I never thought for a moment he shouldn't be allowed to say it.

The issue is that words have consequences. Freedom of speech? Yeah, I can go to you and say you are "A farking douchebag" (not calling you that, an example), and I've a right to do that. And then I'll get punched in the face.

If I was employed with, oh let's say the New York Times in some sort of visible role, people know my name, etc. And I say something like "I think that all the Tea Par ...


Only for people saying homophobic/racist/anti-democrat rhetoric. For the rest of it, not so much.
 
2013-12-24 05:46:40 AM  

SquiggsIN: All apples are arsenic-laced.  The seeds can be toxic if you eat too many of them


Arsenic comes from apple seeds, AFAIK, so technically ALL apples are 'laced' with arsenic.

/the spice must flow
 
2013-12-24 05:57:21 AM  

Suede head: Gordon Bennett: Well done, ma'am. Parliament disgraced themselves a few years ago by refusing a posthumous pardon on the grounds that homosexuality was illegal in 1952. Good of her to correct their mistake and to take this one step towards acknowledging the gross injustice of that law.

how was it a mistake? It was illegal at that time and he was lawfully and correctly convicted under the law at the time.


Pardons are for people who were lawfully convicted. That's the whole point of it.
 
2013-12-24 06:04:45 AM  
Smoking GNU: *snip*

Sorry, I'm an idiot. Could you please elaborate?
 
2013-12-24 06:36:34 AM  

SquiggsIN: Summercat: I dont think anyone is saying that Duck Dynasty Old Beard can't say what he said. I find what he said disgusting, horrible, stupid, and all sorts of other things. But I never thought for a moment he shouldn't be allowed to say it.

The issue is that words have consequences. Freedom of speech? Yeah, I can go to you and say you are "A farking douchebag" (not calling you that, an example), and I've a right to do that. And then I'll get punched in the face.

I agree with you but....
Here's my problem with it... there are always consequences but, why do people become so offended by the fact that there are people who disagree with them?  A&E is censuring the guy basically because he exercised a right to express his opinion, albeit an opinion that is in decline according to polls.  They were so worried about backlash that they pulled him off the show and in the process they are getting backlash from people supporting his viewpoint and/or his right to express it.  We've become so afraid of offending everyone; when did we get to the point that agreeing to disagree was no longer an option.  His opinion doesn't change mine and mine wouldn't change his.


It's a simple calculus that A&E did.

Guy goes rogue, while technically representing A&E and probably under contract not to, says divisive Statement.

X people like Statement.
Y people hate Statement.
Z people don't care about Statement.

Z is negligable in this case, leaving us with X and Y.

This leads to two things A&E can do:

1) Censure Guy, which will upset people X
2) Say nothing, which will upset people Y.

For our purposes, "Upset" means "Will stop providing revenue to A&E".

A&E has (presumably) done the math, and determined that People Y pay more money than People X. At that point, it's a business decision at that point: Which will suck less.

Using a fictitious example, if I ran a club that catered to both hatless and hatted people, and hired a band. One day, the lead singer calls hatted people bad names and upsets them. The hatless don't see any problem with what he said and like the band a lot, but the hatted people are threatening to stop showing up to my club if I don't replace/fire the band.

What do I do in the following scenarios:

1) There is a 50/50 split in the hatted vs hatless
2) The hatted outnumber the hatless
3) The hatless outnumber the hatted.
 
2013-12-24 06:38:08 AM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Suede head: He was a homosexual. It was illegal at the time. He was rightfully prosecuted for homosexual acts. The law was broadly supported by the people. This is farking stupid.

The message is: if you're a sufficiently important individual the law is set aside just for you, all the others can piss off.

The message is: The law was foolish and it cost precious lives. We should consider our laws more carefully.

thecryptojournalist.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-12-24 07:01:34 AM  

Summercat: A&E has (presumably) done the math, and determined that People Y pay more money than People X.


Or, conversely, alienating People X will cost them less money than alienating People Y, even if there's far more People X than People Y. Especially if People X respond by hoarding all of the merchandise in protest...merchandise A&E gets a cut of.
 
2013-12-24 07:21:40 AM  
Hey, maybe we can find a modern day queer who can invent a time machine and make this actually be significant to the people involved!
 
2013-12-24 07:38:49 AM  

Suede head: He was rightfully prosecuted for homosexual acts.


That's kind of the rub, always has been. He never ever hid being gay. Ever. Before the war, no one gave a shiat. During the war you better believe no one gave a shiat. After the war no one gave a shiat until someone decided they didn't like Turing. And it's not like he was the only openly gay man around in England at the time. There plenty of them. Only a very tiny number ever faced any legal actions. It's like Oscar Wilde, it was never really about what he did, but that the father of one of his interests really didn't like gay people. And since he had a fancy title, he threw his weight around. Never mind there were god knows how many men in London doing just as Oscar had done and never facing any legal problems.
 
2013-12-24 07:56:55 AM  
SquiggsIN:
Here's my problem with it... there are always consequences but, why do people become so offended by the fact that there are people who disagree with them?  A&E is censuring the guy basically because he exercised a right to express his opinion, albeit an opinion that is in decline according to polls.  They were so worried about backlash that they pulled him off the show and in the process they are getting backlash from people supporting his viewpoint and/or his right to express it.

IMO a lot of the backlash is being manufactured by the RW media talking heads who are working around the clock to insulate their viewers/listeners that they are still in the majority and their views are perfectly reasonable. Seeing someone get canned from a tv show for expressing anti-gay and anti-black views that you share makes it pretty hard to pretend you're still in the majority.

/kinda like Duck Dynasty, but they sure as he'll keep that BS off the finished broardcast.
 
2013-12-24 08:08:05 AM  

WhyteRaven74: That's kind of the rub, always has been. He never ever hid being gay. Ever. Before the war, no one gave a shiat. During the war you better believe no one gave a shiat. After the war no one gave a shiat until someone decided they didn't like Turing.


I've always thought Turning and Oppenheimer got the same treatment: as long as they were useful to the government, they were tolerated, but as soon as the war was over and they voiced their opinions on various subjects, they were quickly discredited and marginalized.  In Turning's case, for being gay, in Oppenheimer's for his long-held political beliefs.
 
2013-12-24 08:11:43 AM  

SquiggsIN: rickythepenguin: None other than Steve jobs said the story about the apple logo (Turing supposedly took a bite of a cyanide-laced apple when committing suicide) was BS.   It is in the Jobs biography from a year or so.

All apples are arsenic-laced.  The seeds can be toxic if you eat too many of them / or chew them up (which can leech a lot more arsenic into your body during digestion)


Suede head: He was a homosexual. It was illegal at the time. He was rightfully prosecuted for homosexual acts. The law was broadly supported by the people. This is farking stupid.

The message is: if you're a sufficiently important individual the law is set aside just for you, all the others can piss off.

"rightfully prosecuted" ?   Not a chance.  That law, like plenty of others in history was never in place "rightfully" no matter what the majority opinion was or is.  Uganda is a perfect example, Utah is a perfect example, Russia etc..

History is littered with names of people who have stood up to unjust laws.  Names like Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela, etc.  The law existing doesn't make it "right" in any manner.


If a law is stupid and unjust it is the duty of every man woman and child to break it as often as possible. Ok mabey not the homosexual law.
 
2013-12-24 08:16:01 AM  

Target Builder: SquiggsIN:
Here's my problem with it... there are always consequences but, why do people become so offended by the fact that there are people who disagree with them?  A&E is censuring the guy basically because he exercised a right to express his opinion, albeit an opinion that is in decline according to polls.  They were so worried about backlash that they pulled him off the show and in the process they are getting backlash from people supporting his viewpoint and/or his right to express it.

IMO a lot of the backlash is being manufactured by the RW media talking heads who are working around the clock to insulate their viewers/listeners that they are still in the majority and their views are perfectly reasonable. Seeing someone get canned from a tv show for expressing anti-gay and anti-black views that you share makes it pretty hard to pretend you're still in the majority.

/kinda like Duck Dynasty, but they sure as he'll keep that BS off the finished broardcast.


Agreed.  Let me add that the RW noise machine is also pretty good at drumming up a sense of victimhood.  I know we get a lot of complaints of "omg the Politically Correct police is freaking out because of such and such, LIEBERULS and DEMONRATS are so thinskinned and perpetual victims who need da gubbernment to protect them!"  Then, they turn around and say "WE'RE the real victims, it's not the homos, or the darkies, or the wimmenz, it's US that are the victims!"

And really, when it comes to the Duck Dynasty insanity, none of my coworkers or friends have mentioned how "horrific" Duck Dynasty Dad was or anything.  Yes, it's anecdotal, but the majority of the left-leaning opinions I've heard have been "Oh, what he said was ugly, but he has the right to say it, and A&E has the right to do what it wants to do as well."  On the other hand, the majority of right-leaning opinions have been "He's being unfairly prosecuted, he has the right to free speech, the homosexuals are overreacting and fark A&E and fark the liberals."
 
2013-12-24 08:28:39 AM  

Smoking GNU: Summercat: SquiggsIN: cretinbob: [images.huffingtonpost.com image 498x500]
"You mean you can do that to 'em and they kill themselves off?"

dragging the thread further off-topic perhaps : Never seen the show, don't plan on watching it (my mom told me she likes it)  I fully support his right to say what he said and it doesn't matter if I agree with him or not.  He has every right to respond to a question and give his opinion on the matter regardless of what popular opinion is or isn't.  I don't understand the national backlash against him. (quote below)  I don't understand the need to show support for him.

One of my favorite lines from The American President :
"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"

The 1st amendment might be the singular, most-American thing about our country.  It might be the single greatest statement in any document in our nation's history.

I dont think anyone is saying that Duck Dynasty Old Beard can't say what he said. I find what he said disgusting, horrible, stupid, and all sorts of other things. But I never thought for a moment he shouldn't be allowed to say it.

The issue is that words have consequences. Freedom of speech? Yeah, I can go to you and say you are "A farking douchebag" (not calling you that, an example), and I've a right to do that. And then I'll get punched in the face.

If I was employed with, oh let's say the New York Times in some sort of visible role, people know my name, etc. And I say something like "I think that all the Tea Par ...

Only for people saying homophobic/racist/anti-democrat rhetoric. For the rest of it, not so much.


You mean like Martin Bashir who got fired like a month ago for saying hatefull stuff about Sarah Palin? If you are going to act persecuted at least wait more than a month till people don't remember a specific case that illustrates you're full of shiat.
 
2013-12-24 08:32:34 AM  

gtraz: Smoking GNU: Summercat: SquiggsIN: cretinbob: [images.huffingtonpost.com image 498x500]
"You mean you can do that to 'em and they kill themselves off?"

dragging the thread further off-topic perhaps : Never seen the show, don't plan on watching it (my mom told me she likes it)  I fully support his right to say what he said and it doesn't matter if I agree with him or not.  He has every right to respond to a question and give his opinion on the matter regardless of what popular opinion is or isn't.  I don't understand the national backlash against him. (quote below)  I don't understand the need to show support for him.

One of my favorite lines from The American President :
"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"

The 1st amendment might be the singular, most-American thing about our country.  It might be the single greatest statement in any document in our nation's history.

I dont think anyone is saying that Duck Dynasty Old Beard can't say what he said. I find what he said disgusting, horrible, stupid, and all sorts of other things. But I never thought for a moment he shouldn't be allowed to say it.

The issue is that words have consequences. Freedom of speech? Yeah, I can go to you and say you are "A farking douchebag" (not calling you that, an example), and I've a right to do that. And then I'll get punched in the face.

If I was employed with, oh let's say the New York Times in some sort of visible role, people know my name, etc. And I say something like "I think that all the Tea Par ...

Only for people saying homophobic/racist/anti-democrat rhetoric. For the rest of it, not so much.

You mean like Martin Bashir who got fired like a month ago for saying hatefull stuff about Sarah Palin? If you are going to act persecuted at least wait more than a month till people don't remember a specific case that illustrates you're full of shiat.


Preeeeeeeecisely.
 
2013-12-24 09:06:32 AM  
Only on the internet...

What could have been a discussion of one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, who along with Cantor, Godel and Lorenz did for mathematics what quantum theory did for physics; how he was fatally damaged by a morality law that shouldn't have existed in the first place...

And it devolves into a heated discussion about some asshole from a reality show that will be forgotten in 5 years.
 
2013-12-24 09:12:43 AM  
A little early for First Amendment rhetoric isnt it?
 
2013-12-24 09:12:54 AM  
I love the smell of Politics Tab in the morning.  It smells like... trolling.
 
2013-12-24 09:16:06 AM  

fusillade762: [www.markallencam.com image 440x570]

/oblig


His/Her penmanship is incredi.......wait...s/he didn't do those signs by hand?
 
2013-12-24 09:28:04 AM  
This is one of the stories that helped me break free of my Catholic "burn the homos" upbringing. This man was a hero. He was one of the most important people in WWII. His country treated him shamefully. He should have had parades and awards, but he was punished for being gay. It's obscene.
 
2013-12-24 09:31:46 AM  

Suede head: He was rightfully prosecuted for homosexual acts.


So brave!
 
2013-12-24 09:33:57 AM  

Gato Blanco: Target Builder: SquiggsIN:
Here's my problem with it... there are always consequences but, why do people become so offended by the fact that there are people who disagree with them?  A&E is censuring the guy basically because he exercised a right to express his opinion, albeit an opinion that is in decline according to polls.  They were so worried about backlash that they pulled him off the show and in the process they are getting backlash from people supporting his viewpoint and/or his right to express it.

IMO a lot of the backlash is being manufactured by the RW media talking heads who are working around the clock to insulate their viewers/listeners that they are still in the majority and their views are perfectly reasonable. Seeing someone get canned from a tv show for expressing anti-gay and anti-black views that you share makes it pretty hard to pretend you're still in the majority.

/kinda like Duck Dynasty, but they sure as he'll keep that BS off the finished broardcast.

Agreed.  Let me add that the RW noise machine is also pretty good at drumming up a sense of victimhood.  I know we get a lot of complaints of "omg the Politically Correct police is freaking out because of such and such, LIEBERULS and DEMONRATS are so thinskinned and perpetual victims who need da gubbernment to protect them!"  Then, they turn around and say "WE'RE the real victims, it's not the homos, or the darkies, or the wimmenz, it's US that are the victims!"

And really, when it comes to the Duck Dynasty insanity, none of my coworkers or friends have mentioned how "horrific" Duck Dynasty Dad was or anything.  Yes, it's anecdotal, but the majority of the left-leaning opinions I've heard have been "Oh, what he said was ugly, but he has the right to say it, and A&E has the right to do what it wants to do as well."  On the other hand, the majority of right-leaning opinions have been "He's being unfairly prosecuted, he has the right to free speech, the homosexuals are overreacting and fark A&E and fark the liberals."


That's because what he said while stupid was not anything more then I would expect from him. I think the real issue is that A&E is loosening out on the merchandising for the show ( if it says duck commander on it the network does not get a cut if it says duck dynasty they do) and have been wanting to redo the contract for a while.
 
Displayed 50 of 94 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report