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.

(USA Today)   Support for LGBT community may have skyrocketed on college campuses, but most college students agree, this Duck Dynasty crap needs to stop   (usatoday.com) divider line 122
    More: Interesting, LGBT, LGBT community, students, Phil Robertson, cultural norm, Matt O'Brien  
•       •       •

3542 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 24 Dec 2013 at 11:08 AM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-24 10:57:43 AM
They got a right to speak their opinions. They don't have a right to their employer not punishing them for making said employer look bad.

Freedom of speech means the government can't persecute you for your opinions. It doesn't protect you from all consequences of saying something rotten, damaging, or otherwise ill-advised.
 
2013-12-24 11:12:33 AM
Glad semester break is on now that I think about it.
 
2013-12-24 11:15:08 AM
Why were they watching it in the first place?  It would only take two seconds to realize it isn't the kind of show you want to see if you dislike Christians and hate freedom of speech.  Plus they are all really bad actors and gays usually have better taste in entertainment.
 
2013-12-24 11:17:32 AM
Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. That is the way it has always been.
 
2013-12-24 11:19:39 AM

Weatherkiss: Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. That is the way it has always been.


Yup, the queers are going to find out that being intolerant of people who don't like them is going to have ramifications they're not ready to face
 
2013-12-24 11:19:41 AM
Support for LGBT community may have skyrocketed on college campuses, but most two college students agree, this is Duck Dynasty crap needs to stop

fxt
 
2013-12-24 11:24:31 AM

Smeggy Smurf: Weatherkiss: Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. That is the way it has always been.

Yup, the queers are going to find out that being intolerant of people who don't like them is going to have ramifications they're not ready to face


Pretty sure discrimination against gay people, including hate crimes has not been anything new to them. You don't come out of the closet not knowing what the consequences might be.
 
2013-12-24 11:25:58 AM

Smeggy Smurf: Weatherkiss: Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. That is the way it has always been.

Yup, the queers are going to find out that being intolerant of people who don't like them is going to have ramifications they're not ready to face


You keep on trying to push this bullshiat in every single one of these threads... You're embarrassing yourself with this nonsense.
 
2013-12-24 11:30:30 AM

Smeggy Smurf: Yup, the queers are going to find out that being intolerant of people who don't like them is going to have ramifications they're not ready to face


Cry some more.
 
2013-12-24 11:41:29 AM

keylock71: Smeggy Smurf: Weatherkiss: Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. That is the way it has always been.

Yup, the queers are going to find out that being intolerant of people who don't like them is going to have ramifications they're not ready to face

You keep on trying to push this bullshiat in every single one of these threads... You're embarrassing yourself with this nonsense.


But this is SO true.  Gays that get the media attention seem to think that freedom of expression and freedom of speech is WONDERFUL until someone has an opinion other than theirs.  It's amazing how intolerant some tolerance-preaching folks can be.
 
2013-12-24 11:42:03 AM
For farks sake, now I'm seeing "Support Phil, sign a petition for A&E to reinstate him" on Fark.
andrewjpatrick.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-12-24 11:43:56 AM

Smeggy Smurf: Weatherkiss: Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. That is the way it has always been.

Yup, the queers are going to find out that being intolerant of people who don't like them is going to have ramifications they're not ready to face



That sounds an awful lot like a threat of hostility, rather than the typical limpdick rationalization of homophobia.


/This whole DD fiasco IS absurd, though
//Both sides
 
2013-12-24 11:46:00 AM

dinwv: But this is SO true. Gays that get the media attention seem to think that freedom of expression and freedom of speech is WONDERFUL until someone has an opinion other than theirs. It's amazing how intolerant some tolerance-preaching folks can be.


Amazing how people are intolerant of intolerance. Its like they don't want to put up with assholes or something.

You can cry some more as well.
 
2013-12-24 11:46:47 AM

dinwv: But this is SO true.  Gays that get the media attention seem to think that freedom of expression and freedom of speech is WONDERFUL until someone has an opinion other than theirs.  It's amazing how intolerant some tolerance-preaching folks can be.


I've noticed this as well. But it's pretty universal (not confined to a specific group). Freedom of expression is great unless it's someone expressing themselves in a way that contradicts their beliefs. People are all the same, no matter what their colour, religious beliefs, gender, or sexual orientation.
 
2013-12-24 11:49:04 AM

dinwv: But this is SO true.  Gays that get the media attention seem to think that freedom of expression and freedom of speech is WONDERFUL until someone has an opinion other than theirs.  It's amazing how intolerant some tolerance-preaching folks can be.



(sigh)

Once again.

Your right to express your vile, irrational bigotry is equal to my right to criticize you for it.

Your freedom of expression is not jeopardized just because people disagree with you.

In fact, it's the most direct evidence that freedom of expression remains largely intact.

Big tough guys can dish it out but they can't take it.

You sad, angry, dumbfark hypocrites.
 
2013-12-24 11:50:46 AM

Saborlas: They got a right to speak their opinions. They don't have a right to their employer not punishing them for making said employer look bad.

Freedom of speech means the government can't persecute you for your opinions. It doesn't protect you from all consequences of saying something rotten, damaging, or otherwise ill-advised.


This. At the same time, that cuts in every direction. A&E is entitled to oppose Robertson, but people are free to oppose either one, or neither, or even both (though that would be pretty strange), as they choose.
 
2013-12-24 11:50:54 AM

Smeggy Smurf: Weatherkiss: Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. That is the way it has always been.

Yup, the queers are going to find out that being intolerant of people who don't like them is going to have ramifications they're not ready to face


Who isn't going to get a big shiat-sandwich "one of these days" in your books?
 
2013-12-24 11:51:29 AM
Can't we all just go back to hating the Dutch?
 
2013-12-24 11:52:52 AM

SovietCanuckistan: Who isn't going to get a big shiat-sandwich "one of these days" in your books?


Everyone but his rugged individualist self, of course.
 
2013-12-24 11:55:48 AM

dinwv: But this is SO true. Gays that get the media attention seem to think that freedom of expression and freedom of speech is WONDERFUL until someone has an opinion other than theirs. It's amazing how intolerant some tolerance-preaching folks can be.


Imagine that... Taking offense to being compared to pedophiles and animal farkers. How intolerant of these "gays"... Or those "blacks" getting upset about being told they were happier when they were treated like second-class citizens back in the 'good old days". Over sensitive drama queens. *rolls eyes*

No one is stifling this redneck asshole's freedom of speech. He's quite free to spout whatever ignorant bullshiat he feels like.
He is not, however, free from the consequences of his ignorance.
 
2013-12-24 11:56:48 AM

Millennium: Saborlas: They got a right to speak their opinions. They don't have a right to their employer not punishing them for making said employer look bad.

Freedom of speech means the government can't persecute you for your opinions. It doesn't protect you from all consequences of saying something rotten, damaging, or otherwise ill-advised.

This. At the same time, that cuts in every direction. A&E is entitled to oppose Robertson, but people are free to oppose either one, or neither, or even both (though that would be pretty strange), as they choose.


I oppose both. The guy sucks, the show sucks and the entire A&E network sucks.
 
2013-12-24 11:59:11 AM
It's about time we successfully whitewashed Jim Crow.
 
2013-12-24 12:01:49 PM

Saborlas: They got a right to speak their opinions. They don't have a right to their employer not punishing them for making said employer look bad.

Freedom of speech means the government can't persecute you for your opinions. It doesn't protect you from all consequences of saying something rotten, damaging, or otherwise ill-advised.


People who value freedom of speech have every right to condemn A&E for disrespecting the freedom of speech of others.  And People who value freedom of religion have every right to condemn A&E for discriminating based on religion.  And People who value the Bible have every right to condemn A&E for disrespecting the Bible too.  A&E can face the consequences for those things.
 
2013-12-24 12:04:41 PM

Old Man Winter: Why were they watching it in the first place?


College students love getting together and watching crap TV.  Can't explain it, but it's happened as long as there was a common room with a console TV in it.
 
2013-12-24 12:04:44 PM
The musings on vagina vs anal sex were just sad, but the claim that blacks were 'happier' under Jim Crow were the really offensive remarks.
 
2013-12-24 12:10:22 PM
does a company have the right to fire or suspend their employees for things the employees says when they are not at work?  if i go on facebook and say how much i like obama, can my boss punish me because he hates obama and says that my opinions do not reflect well on the company?  because that's what this is really about.  employees should be allowed to voice their opinions without fear of being fired because their bosses don't agree with what they say.

what i find funniest about this whole duck dynasty thing is that i can almost guarantee that a&e set up that interview in the first place.  i can't imagine that guy did an interview with a magazine like gq on his own.  a&e probably told him to do the interview to promote the show, and now they're punishing him for answering the questions honestly!
 
2013-12-24 12:10:54 PM
It seems quixotic to try to support a show by boycotting it. I mean, really strange. That's like trying to support chick-fil-a by not buying their sandwiches.
 
2013-12-24 12:12:41 PM
Why is no one talking about this douche's bigoted anti-black screed too? Why are we only hearing about teh gays?
 
2013-12-24 12:13:40 PM
Oh good lord, hasn't reality caught up with anyone yet?  Any day now A&E will realize there are way more fundy christan rednecks and idiot knuckleheads watching this show and buying their branded crap than there can ever be offended gay people and they will get right back to appeasing their base.

Basic economics will win in the end and A&E will put out a lame statement about reality TV and the views of the people not representing the views of A&E.
 
2013-12-24 12:13:47 PM

enderthexenocide: does a company have the right to fire or suspend their employees for things the employees says when they are not at work?  if i go on facebook and say how much i like obama, can my boss punish me because he hates obama and says that my opinions do not reflect well on the company?  because that's what this is really about.  employees should be allowed to voice their opinions without fear of being fired because their bosses don't agree with what they say.

what i find funniest about this whole duck dynasty thing is that i can almost guarantee that a&e set up that interview in the first place.  i can't imagine that guy did an interview with a magazine like gq on his own.  a&e probably told him to do the interview to promote the show, and now they're punishing him for answering the questions honestly!


In some states, you can be fired for any reason. In cases like this, there is certainly a Contract which stipulates how the employer can suspend or cancel it.
 
2013-12-24 12:15:54 PM
In other news, college students still know everything.
 
2013-12-24 12:16:01 PM

SkinnyHead: Saborlas: They got a right to speak their opinions. They don't have a right to their employer not punishing them for making said employer look bad.

Freedom of speech means the government can't persecute you for your opinions. It doesn't protect you from all consequences of saying something rotten, damaging, or otherwise ill-advised.

People who value freedom of speech have every right to condemn A&E for disrespecting the freedom of speech of others.  And People who value freedom of religion have every right to condemn A&E for discriminating based on religion.  And People who value the Bible have every right to condemn A&E for disrespecting the Bible too.  A&E can face the consequences for those things.


A&E will laugh its way to the bank irregardlessness of whether they support or censure Duck Dynasty Guy.
 
2013-12-24 12:18:50 PM

deadsanta: Why is no one talking about this douche's bigoted anti-black screed too? Why are we only hearing about teh gays?


Because there was no bigoted anti-black screed.  The effort to twist his words, to make it sound like he said something racist, has gained no traction.
 
2013-12-24 12:19:41 PM

LasersHurt: In some states, you can be fired for any reason. In cases like this, there is certainly a Contract which stipulates how the employer can suspend or cancel it.


Exactly... This clown most likely signed a very detailed contract with the media company that owns this blight on our society they call a TV show.

But I'm not seeing how A&E or the parent media company (can't remember the name) is going to suffer from an army of angry, mulleted rednecks watching the marathons (just a coincidence, I'm sure) and buying all the cheap, stupid crap branded for this show.
 
2013-12-24 12:28:32 PM
I support A and E----gettings back to Arts and Entertainment. Focus more on the Arts.

History---get back to actual History
TLC- I'd like to learn about things that don't have to do with a medium, a psycic, or a cake boss.
Discovery- help me discover about things about the world...not just about gold miners and bike makers
etc...
 
2013-12-24 12:31:31 PM

enderthexenocide: does a company have the right to fire or suspend their employees for things the employees says when they are not at work?


It depends, but remember these people are being employed as entertainers, and the contract law for them is often different than for a normal person.  There's always a "morals clause" which lets the network fire someone for more or less any reason (Charlie Sheen being a very rare exception, which was why he couldn't be fired so long as he showed up to work). There's also usually a clause to prevent an entertainer from speaking about certain causes they might be involved in (you never hear Tim Robbins talking about his pro-pot stance when he's promoting a film).

Look at it another way: if MSNBC was within their rights to fire Alec Baldwin over a homophobic rant on the street (and they were) then A&E was within its rights here.
 
2013-12-24 12:32:00 PM

StopLurkListen: The musings on vagina vs anal sex were just sad, but the claim that blacks were 'happier' under Jim Crow were the really offensive remarks.


Please show where this was said.
 
2013-12-24 12:36:10 PM

Weatherkiss: Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. That is the way it has always been.


That's exactly what they said when they came for the Dixie Chicks because they made a joke about the president. Say only what we approve of, or we will lynch you.

There are always crazy wingers that believe they are in charge of everybody.

this Duck Dynasty crap needs to stop

It already stopped. It was DOA. It only exists now to embarrass the left wing crazy politically correct and their knee-jerk reaction to their Outrage of the Day. You lost. Badly.
 
2013-12-24 12:37:15 PM

gnosis301: A&E will laugh its way to the bank irregardlessness of whether they support or censure Duck Dynasty Guy.


Maybe so.  But in the future, companies that reflexively give in to anti-free speech pressure groups may think twice before doing so, now that it appears that people who value freedom of speech are willing to push back.
 
2013-12-24 12:42:25 PM

Dr Jack Badofsky: StopLurkListen: The musings on vagina vs anal sex were just sad, but the claim that blacks were 'happier' under Jim Crow were the really offensive remarks.

Please show where this was said.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/19/phil-robertson-black-people _n _4473474.html
"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field.... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people'-not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

The Human Rights Campaign and the NAACP wrote a joint letter to the president of A&E, expressing deep concern over Robertson's remarks:
"We want to be clear why Phil Robertson's remarks are not just dangerous but also inaccurate. Mr. Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow. What he didn't see were lynching and beatings of black men and women for attempting to vote or simply walking down the street."
 
2013-12-24 12:49:19 PM

StopLurkListen: Dr Jack Badofsky: StopLurkListen: The musings on vagina vs anal sex were just sad, but the claim that blacks were 'happier' under Jim Crow were the really offensive remarks.

Please show where this was said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/19/phil-robertson-black-people _n _4473474.html
"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field.... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people'-not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

The Human Rights Campaign and the NAACP wrote a joint letter to the president of A&E, expressing deep concern over Robertson's remarks:
"We want to be clear why Phil Robertson's remarks are not just dangerous but also inaccurate. Mr. Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow. What he didn't see were lynching and beatings of black men and women for attempting to vote or simply walking down the street."


That is simply the human rights people and the NAACP trying to get exposure by twisting words around. This has already been covered.  If it were true, this would have been much more loudly discussed than it has been.
 
2013-12-24 12:57:27 PM

enderthexenocide: employees should be allowed to voice their opinions without fear of being fired because their bosses don't agree with what they say.


"My boss is a jerk, and the company I work for sucks ass." You think this is OK to say on Twitter?
 
2013-12-24 01:00:45 PM

Dr Jack Badofsky: StopLurkListen: The musings on vagina vs anal sex were just sad, but the claim that blacks were 'happier' under Jim Crow were the really offensive remarks.

Please show where this was said.


The problem is we haven't provided been provided the question asked by GQ, only his response. The GQ article said the statement was on what it was like in Louisiana before the Civil Rights Era. His answer doesn't mention civil rights at all, just that he knew of no black mistreatment during the period or any racial animosity towards whites until black people started getting welfare and "entitlements", at which point they lost their religiousness and became mean-spirited.

It's entirely possible he didn't have the Civil Rights Act in mind when giving his answer and the GQ staff didn't bring it up, but it's simply ignorant to claim that blacks were better off in those Acadian days of his youth than they are in the modern era, and it does betray a degree of racial hostility. Do you disagree?
 
2013-12-24 01:04:54 PM

Snatch Bandergrip: dinwv: But this is SO true.  Gays that get the media attention seem to think that freedom of expression and freedom of speech is WONDERFUL until someone has an opinion other than theirs.  It's amazing how intolerant some tolerance-preaching folks can be.


(sigh)

Once again.

Your right to express your vile, irrational bigotry is equal to my right to criticize you for it.

Your freedom of expression is not jeopardized just because people disagree with you.

In fact, it's the most direct evidence that freedom of expression remains largely intact.

Big tough guys can dish it out but they can't take it.

You sad, angry, dumbfark hypocrites.


Well said other Farker whose handle also has the potential for really awesome nicknames :D
 
2013-12-24 01:05:31 PM

Dr Jack Badofsky: That is simply the human rights people and the NAACP trying to get exposure by twisting words around. This has already been covered. If it were true, this would have been much more loudly discussed than it has been.



How are they twisting his words? He's claiming before welfare and "entitlements" blacks weren't angry at the white man and were happy. All that statement is missing is a bunch of black folks jumping around with big smiles on their faces, singing "De Camptown Ladies". Yes, it's his personal opinion, and he's entitled to it, but it's an ignorant statement, plain and simple, and he deserves to be called out for it.
 
2013-12-24 01:08:24 PM

SkinnyHead: deadsanta: Why is no one talking about this douche's bigoted anti-black screed too? Why are we only hearing about teh gays?

Because there was no bigoted anti-black screed.  The effort to twist his words, to make it sound like he said something racist, has gained no traction.


While some hick on a show hawking shiat to hicks and therefore pretty irrelevant to most people in day to day life, this doesn't detract from his "blacks were happier being the white man's biatch" jackassery, nor does it detract from your jackassery for essentially agreeing with him that blacks should always be oppressed by white people.
 
2013-12-24 01:11:34 PM

dinwv: keylock71: Smeggy Smurf: Weatherkiss: Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. That is the way it has always been.

Yup, the queers are going to find out that being intolerant of people who don't like them is going to have ramifications they're not ready to face

You keep on trying to push this bullshiat in every single one of these threads... You're embarrassing yourself with this nonsense.

But this is SO true.  Gays that get the media attention seem to think that freedom of expression and freedom of speech is WONDERFUL until someone has an opinion other than theirs.  It's amazing how intolerant some tolerance-preaching folks can be.


Civil rights aren't an opinion, you piece of sub-human filth.
 
2013-12-24 01:19:03 PM
Wow, het another article that fails to even acknowledge that he made racist statements as well.
 
2013-12-24 01:20:21 PM

Dr Jack Badofsky: StopLurkListen: Dr Jack Badofsky: StopLurkListen: The musings on vagina vs anal sex were just sad, but the claim that blacks were 'happier' under Jim Crow were the really offensive remarks.

Please show where this was said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/19/phil-robertson-black-people _n _4473474.html
"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field.... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people'-not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

The Human Rights Campaign and the NAACP wrote a joint letter to the president of A&E, expressing deep concern over Robertson's remarks:
"We want to be clear why Phil Robertson's remarks are not just dangerous but also inaccurate. Mr. Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow. What he didn't see were lynching and beatings of black men and women for attempting to vote or simply walking down the street."

That is simply the human rights people and the NAACP trying to get exposure by twisting words around. This has already been covered.  If it were true, this would have been much more loudly discussed than it has been.


Really? You're just putting your hands over your ears and saying "NOT UH?"

Wow. The non equal rights for Blacks part is the least abiguous of all it. He has the same view most ignorant Southern conservatives have, which is that all Black people are welfare taking, cadillac driving, lobster eating, diamond loving drains on society. I say this because a coworker expressed this exact opinion to me and its on Fox News every day.

There's no reach here. It's pure ignorance from incredibly uneducated white people and it DESERVES to be shouted down for the racist, out of touch with reality opinion that it is.

You're allowed to be a bigot, and I'm allowed to call you one. If you don't like it I strongly suggest you stop being such a piece of shiat. (using the royal you here - goes for any dumbass who doesn't understand the constitution and wants their invalid opinion to have equal weight in the name of discrimination)
 
2013-12-24 01:23:42 PM

Saborlas: They got a right to speak their opinions. They don't have a right to their employer not punishing them for making said employer look bad.

Freedom of speech means the government can't persecute you for your opinions. It doesn't protect you from all consequences of saying something rotten, damaging, or otherwise ill-advised.


Meh, this bru ha ha is all a marketing ploy. Duck Dynasty ratings had fallen, it's merchandise was not moving, so they sent this Poppa character out to drum up interest and boy howdy did he deliver. Anybody who thinks this is about gays just does not understand marketing.
 
Displayed 50 of 122 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report