December 23, 2013
Althouse: What the Hell Happened to the Left and Free Speech?
— Ace Camille Paglia had earlier raged:
— Ace Camille Paglia had earlier raged:
"I speak with authority here because I was openly gay before the 'Stonewall Rebellion,' when it cost you something to be so," she said. "And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech. In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as they have the right to support homosexuality -- as I 100 percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right to religious freedom there … to express yourself in a magazine in an interview -– this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades. It's the whole legacy of the free speech 1960's that have been lost by my own party."
[S]ome liberals are making the predictable narrowly legalistic point that freedom of speech has only to do with rights held against the government. This is a point I've strongly objected to over the years, most obviously, in debating the liberal Bob Wright (see "When did the left turn against freedom of speech?" and "[W]hat free speech means in the context of saying Roger Ailes needs to kick Glenn Beck off Fox News").
1, he's not a liberal, he's a progressive.
2, this argument drives me bananas.
"A company has the right to fire an employee" is a completely disingenuous argument. Let me explain.
When someone doesn't wish to defend an odious point that they nevertheless wish to win the day, they resort to arguing the point collaterally. They will not argue the actual point, as that would be rhetorically challenging.
Instead, they'll attempt to argue for some more abstract principle.
This isn't necessarily dishonest. I actually disagree with Phil Robertson on homosexuality (and the purported contentedness of blacks in the 1950s), and I don't mind saying so. I will argue, however, for his right to speak his mind, even if he is wrong.
The freedom of speech must include the right to be wrong. Without that, what is there? No one ever seeks to squelch speech they believe to be right. People only seek to silence speech which they believe is wrong.
Unless a man agrees that people have the right to speak, even if what they're speaking is false, then that man simply does not believe in the right to free speech at all.
However, this shift from the particular (what is being said or being done) to the abstract (the general right involving the speech or action) can and frequently is a dishonest tactic.
For all of those saying that A&E has the right to suspend Phil Robertson: Let me concede, for the sake of argument that A&E can terminate Phil Robertson at-will for any reason. (Actually, his contract may specify the reasons for which he may be fired or suspended, and we don't know the terms of that contract. It could very well be that A&E is in contractual breach for presuming to "suspend" him for private statements made not in connection with the show. But I will concede, just to simplify things, that A&E can suspend him.)
So, okay, where are we now? A&E has the right to fire or suspend Robertson. So what? The argument is not about what people can do, it's about what they should do.
98% of political (or cultural) arguments are not about what people may legally do, but what they should do.
A person who insists that the question is "Does A&E have the simple legal right to undertake this action?" is either deceptive or stupid. He either deliberately conflates what may be done with what should be done, in order to dishonestly confuse an audience, or he confuses these two things because he is confused himself.
I have the right to use the word "retard" as much as I want on the blog. Some readers have objected, noting that, as parents of mentally-challenged kids, it makes them wince every time they see this mean word in print.
It would be the height of dishonesty and evasiveness for me to reply, "I have the right to use that word." Of course I have the right to use that word. The readers objecting to it never suggested I didn't have the right to use it. That argument was never made in the first place, so it evades the question to answer it that way. It's a non-sequitor.
What they actually said was something like, "It's emotionally tough for a reader to keep seeing that word in print, so I'd appreciate it if, as a matter of decency and respect, you didn't use it any more, or at least used it less." Any response about my "rights" here would deliberately avoid the actual issue -- which is a request that an upsetting word be avoided. (I do try to use it less, but I still do use it. But usually I only say it when I'm not thinking about it. If I think about it, I use a different word.)
The PC Goons who keep braying "A&E has the right to fire Robertson" are deliberately avoiding a difficult question -- "Should media companies, of all people, be in the business of using coercive tactics to compel a particular mode of belief and expression?" -- by instead answering a very simple one.
They hope you don't notice the fact that their answer is a non-sequitor. But you should notice, and you should notice it to their faces.
Similarly, it is beyond doubt that IAC had the right to fire Justine Sacco. But that is not the question. The question is, "Should a company (again-- a media company, of all things!) employ coercive tactics to chill free speech just because a mob of giddy bullies tells them to?"
The people defending this bullshit know it's pretty illiberal -- intolerant and hostile to free speech and thought -- to answer "Yes" to those questions. Which is precisely why they keep answering the question they wish you asked, the easy question, the question about a company having the right to fire an at-will employee.
The real question is this:
As between one of two possible worlds -- one in which freedom of thought and expression is generously and broadly encouraged not only by the state but by other powerful institutions, such as corporate employers, permitting a wide latitude in speech and respecting large zone of personal autonomy, or one in which freedom of thought and expression is sharply curtailed and discouraged by the threat of economic coercion against anyone dissenting against this week's folly -- which world would we prefer to live in?
I would like to hear the New Puritans answer that question, instead of continuing serving the slippery, soupy answer about employers having the right to fire at-will employees.
At the end of her post, Althouse asks:
Why is the left taking the narrow view of the concept of freedom? It's a general principle, not something you save for your friends. Like Paglia, I remember the broad 1960s era commitment to free speech. There was a special zeal to protect those who said outrageous things. Today, we're back to the kind of repression that in the 60s seemed to belong to the 1950s. What the hell happened?
I can answer this: They came into power.
This is a human thing, I'm afraid, and not a failing specifically located on the left.
Those who have less power -- who fear coercion more -- will naturally tend to argue for the widest possible latitude, the largest zone of tolerance, for "weird" beliefs, statements, or practices.
Those with more power -- who fear coercion less, because, end of the day, they'll be the ones doing the coercing -- will naturally become more and more hostile to the idea that people can do whatever they like.
Like Mayor Bloomberg, they will stop fearing coercion and start seeing it as a useful and valuable tool for guiding people into becoming the best people they can possibly be.
Which is to say: People exactly like themselves. Mayor Bloomberg is a big fan of the exercise of coercive power... because he's the one exercising it, and he knows that every edict laid down in NYC will be in furtherance of turing everyday average joes into the ne plus ultra of enlightened humanity -- people who share Mayor Bloomberg's tastes, preferences, and worldview.
The sixties radicals were once culturally disfavored and so championed the maximum possible freedom of thought and expression. But they're not culturally disfavored anymore -- thanks to Gramsci's long march through the institutions, they are the culture.
And so now it doesn't appear quite so important that people be permitted a large zone of free movement in the sphere of thought, belief, and speech.
Now the Cultural Deciders -- like Mayor Bloomberg -- understand that to the extent people will be compelled to speak, think, believe and feel a certain way, they'll be compelled to speak, think, believe and feel the same way as the Cultural Deciders themselves, and what's wrong with that?
They were right when they were younger, and they're wrong now that they're old, rich, fat and comfortable, and have their soft chubby hands on the levers of corporate, academic, and bureaucratic power.
They should have listened to their 1968 selves-- Never trust anybody over thirty. Especially yourself.
Posted by: Ace at
02:16 PM
| Comments (326)
Post contains 1609 words, total size 10 kb.
3
merry christmas
Posted by: oc joe at December 23, 2013 06:18 PM (hqVUe)
I'm afraid this post may offend Jews, Muslims, and atheists and must be reported.
Posted by: WalrusRex at December 23, 2013 02:21 PM (XUKZU)
4
even if what they're speaking is false...
Thank you, I'll consider that my authorization...
Posted by: Barry Soetero at December 23, 2013 02:21 PM (FcR7P)
5
Perhaps I need to be sent the Bill of Correct Opinions. Does President Obama offer an app for that?
Posted by: i like anchors at December 23, 2013 02:21 PM (O4pD9)
6
Hmm. I do not place much value on the opinion of anyone under 50.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 23, 2013 02:21 PM (aDwsi)
7
Holder's next program against hate crimes: The Dream Police. And you better hope their are no scantily clad womyn in your dreams.
Posted by: WalrusRex at December 23, 2013 02:22 PM (XUKZU)
8
1, he's not a liberal, he's a progressive.
Maybe I'm out of the loop, but exactly what is the difference between the two?
Can anyone name a policy position held by liberals which progressives disagree with?
I've always been under the impression that liberals simply wanted to adopt "progressive" because of the negative association with the word "liberal".
Oh and Merry Christmas, retards.
Maybe I'm out of the loop, but exactly what is the difference between the two?
Can anyone name a policy position held by liberals which progressives disagree with?
I've always been under the impression that liberals simply wanted to adopt "progressive" because of the negative association with the word "liberal".
Oh and Merry Christmas, retards.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 23, 2013 02:24 PM (SY2Kh)
9
What a weird post... 'New Puritans'? What 'should' the company do, now that all are in agreement that no First Amendment issues were raised by the Duck Dynasty brouhaha? They should do exactly what they perceive is in their company's best interests. Period. Why should it be otherwise? Why on earth would, or should, a company 'encourage' certain types of expression?
Posted by: splatter at December 23, 2013 02:24 PM (0Qt2V)
10
(and the purported contentedness of blacks in the 1950s)>>
I watched the link to I am Second linked earlier. I believe he probably meant that they were contented like he was contented as a poor kid in the 50s knowing nothing else but poor. Being ignorant of what they were missing because in the 50s there was no media to show you what you were missing they were just as happy as him.
I watched the link to I am Second linked earlier. I believe he probably meant that they were contented like he was contented as a poor kid in the 50s knowing nothing else but poor. Being ignorant of what they were missing because in the 50s there was no media to show you what you were missing they were just as happy as him.
Posted by: The Hickster at December 23, 2013 02:26 PM (TI3xG)
12
Hey Ace, great point!
Where was it when Martin Bashir was making his odious comments?
Or Alec Baldwin...
Where was it when Martin Bashir was making his odious comments?
Or Alec Baldwin...
Posted by: MunDane at December 23, 2013 02:27 PM (V9zL0)
13
>>>What a weird post... 'New Puritans'? What 'should' the company do, now that all are in agreement that no First Amendment issues were raised by the Duck Dynasty brouhaha? They should do exactly what they perceive is in their company's best interests. Period.
such a weird failure of imagination.
It's strange, but some people think that all actors can be criticized and pressured, EXCEPT for corporate actors, who they essentially hold as being inviolable.
Corporations are pressured, and chiefly by the left, to fire people for Un-PC statements.
Why do you object so strenuously to my attempt to pressure them back the other way, into affording their employers more liberty without Pinkslip Consequences?
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 02:27 PM (/FnUH)
14
>>>What a weird post... 'New Puritans'? What 'should' the company do, now that all are in agreement that no First Amendment issues were raised by the Duck Dynasty brouhaha? They should do exactly what they perceive is in their company's best interests. Period.
such a weird failure of imagination.
It's strange, but some people think that all actors can be criticized and pressured, EXCEPT for corporate actors, who they essentially hold as being inviolable.
Corporations are pressured, and chiefly by the left, to fire people for Un-PC statements.
Why do you object so strenuously to my attempt to pressure them back the other way, into affording their employers more liberty without Pinkslip Consequences?
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 02:27 PM (/FnUH)
15
The Bill of Rights has become the Bill of Wants & Desires that Must Be Fulfilled. The left thrives on morphing the lexicon. How many times have democrats referred to tax as charity?
Do what you want, just don't hurt anyone not involved and pay for it yourselves seems fair enough, doesn't it?
Posted by: i like anchors at December 23, 2013 02:27 PM (O4pD9)
16
Personally I think it's refreshing to see how many people are suddenly supportive of a large corporation's right to fire anyone at any time for any reason.
Not sure they'd hold this position if a man had been speaking openly about the open marriage he and his husband have and got fired for that. Baby steps...
Posted by: major major major major at December 23, 2013 02:28 PM (fRYRo)
17
Turing? Maybe turning?
Picky, yeah, but at least I read the whole thing.
And Merry Christmas!
Posted by: Tutu at December 23, 2013 02:28 PM (BDHOa)
19
They stormed the beaches of Normandy so guys could prefer anus to vagina.
Posted by: WalrusRex at December 23, 2013 02:29 PM (XUKZU)
20
phil played football and terry bradshaw was his backup. he has a masters degree. and he is laughing all the way to heaven.
Posted by: go figure at December 23, 2013 02:29 PM (hqVUe)
21
Similarly, it is beyond doubt that IAC had the right to fire Justine Sacco. But that is not the question.
The question is, "Should a company (again-- a media company, of all
things!) employ coercive tactics to chill free speech just because a mob
of giddy bullies tells them to?"
I still say the Sacco thing will turn out to be a personal vendetta. The alternative is horrifying.
I still say the Sacco thing will turn out to be a personal vendetta. The alternative is horrifying.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at December 23, 2013 02:30 PM (Gk3SS)
22
The left only supports "at will" labor when its consequences are directed its opponents.
Posted by: Texican Santa Clause at December 23, 2013 02:30 PM (rCS6C)
23
Similarly, it is beyond doubt that IAC had the right to fire Justine Sacco. But that is not the question.
The question is, "Should a company (again-- a media company, of all
things!) employ coercive tactics to chill free speech just because a mob
of giddy bullies tells them to?"
Sorry, but the Sacco affair is a bit different.
She publicly presented herself as a spokesperson for her employer (via her Twitter profile), and I believe her Tweet was related to a work-related trip.
Is someone with such poor judgement really a person you want publicly representing your company?
Sorry, but the Sacco affair is a bit different.
She publicly presented herself as a spokesperson for her employer (via her Twitter profile), and I believe her Tweet was related to a work-related trip.
Is someone with such poor judgement really a person you want publicly representing your company?
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 23, 2013 02:31 PM (SY2Kh)
24
OK, I'll say it. The agenda of the prog/left/islamo/commie is not good for civilized countries like America. Sound harsh? Then realize that in their hearts, they want Christians nailed to crosses on both sides of the road. They just can't say it out loud yet.
Posted by: EROWMER at December 23, 2013 02:31 PM (OONaw)
25
>>> watched the link to I am Second linked earlier. I believe he probably meant that they were contented like he was contented as a poor kid in the 50s knowing nothing else but poor. Being ignorant of what they were missing because in the 50s there was no media to show you what you were missing they were just as happy as him.
yeah I'm not saying it's the worst thing I ever heard. But it is surely wrong.
Look, I get this a lot from Southerners, especially older ones. They don't believe Jim Crow was *right*, mind you. But they also sort of don't want to fully fess up to how bad it is, so they sort of get into this whole "Blacks were just fine back then, it was Yankee troublemakers coming in that caused all the problems, before the courts and yankees came stirring everything up we all got along fine..."
Now there's no hate in that statement. But I do think it's wrong. It's an attempt -- probably subconscious -- to avoid thinking too hard about a bad regime in which one was either a passive or even an active participant.
Again, I can say Phil Robertson is wrong -- and I'd say so to his face; respectfully, but I'd say so -- without claiming he ought to be subject to the PC Goon Squad for being wrong.
The only people who would possibly call for someone to be punished for merely being wrong are people who think that they're NEVER wrong.
And that's what's going on here. We have a lot of jackasses who actually believe they are right about everything, so if they hear Phil Robertson say something wrong, they think it's a firing offense.
After all, they're never wrong themselves. So being wrong is perfectly avoidable. Ergo, it is a firing offense to ever say anything wrong.
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 02:32 PM (/FnUH)
27
This isn't necessarily dishonest. I actually disagree with Phil Robertson on homosexuality (and the purported contentedness of blacks in the 1950s), and I don't mind saying so.
--------------------------
You're saying a vagina DOESN'T have more to offer than a man's anus?
Huh.
I guess that's just how you were raised.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 23, 2013 02:32 PM (PjzsR)
28
Hey, Reddit editors, you jerk-offs reading this?
"Unless a man agrees that people have the right to speak, even if what they're speaking is false, then that man simply does not believe in the right to free speech at all."
--Ace
"Unless a man agrees that people have the right to speak, even if what they're speaking is false, then that man simply does not believe in the right to free speech at all."
--Ace
Posted by: Blanco Basura at December 23, 2013 02:33 PM (JawqV)
29
I just can't get myself offended over anything anyone says about anything. I loathe the perpetually outraged nature coming out of certain segments in our society every day. I believe I was around four when momma told me, "Sticks and stones can break your bones but words can never hurt you." As true now as it was then. We need to start throwing some fucking bricks.
Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at December 23, 2013 02:34 PM (kUgpq)
31
>>>She publicly presented herself as a spokesperson for her employer (via her Twitter profile), and I believe her Tweet was related to a work-related trip.
Is someone with such poor judgement really a person you want publicly representing your company?
...
I'd prefer living in a world, yes, where companies offered statements like the following:
Miss Sacco's tweet does not represent us. We feel odd even having to state such an obvious thing.
We direct all criticism of the statement to Miss Sacco herself.
As a media company, we believe in a fairly broad and strong conception of the spirit of the First Amendment. So we will not be taking any official action against Miss Sacco.
Thank you for your Concerns, and good day.
Sincerely,
IAC
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 02:34 PM (/FnUH)
32
Ace, could Robertson sue because he was not allowed to practice his religion?
Posted by: Madamex at December 23, 2013 02:35 PM (yG4eh)
33
Fen's Law in action.
Posted by: Mikey NTH - Don't Wait to the Last Minute to Purchase that Special Someone a Squabble Set! at December 23, 2013 02:35 PM (gmoEG)
34
Mistake #1 is assuming there is a scintillia of sincerity in ANY of the Left's gripes, grievances, and causes.
Posted by: soothsayer at December 23, 2013 02:35 PM (cylDG)
35
I guess that's just how you were raised.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 23, 2013 06:32 PM (PjzsR)
Wrong! Ace was born that way. It's a gene or something.
Posted by: Bean Pies! at December 23, 2013 02:36 PM (Qev5V)
36
I wish Breitbart hadn't abbreviated the Paglia quote; it's a key point that she says:
"If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right to religious freedom there[now on the other hand, to what degree that people can use a platform that is privately funded, on the media, this is another issue. But]to express yourself in a magazine in an interview.."
The point that's getting lost is that this wasn't Phil putting out his own material and self-promoting, this was an interview into the mind of a celebrity, i.e., the point was to get information about this man straight from the source. And if you're going to beat that down, well, that's different from disagreement with an argument that's put forward as an argument, and instead it's saying certain people *because of who they are*, should not be in public.
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at December 23, 2013 02:36 PM (Y5I9o)
37
" I actually disagree with Phil Robertson on homosexuality (and the purported contentedness of blacks in the 1950s), and I don't mind saying so."
Why?
About the contentedness of blacks were you there and witnessed what Phil did? Curious to the answer which is secondary to the discussion of course.
My (step)father was a black man who believed in hard work and rose through the ranks at the foundry he worked at. Ultimately it was he who instilled the values of hard work & pride into my being.
He despised "fellow" blacks who were lazy and abused the system. I never heard him complain "the man" was keeping him down.
Posted by: gdonovan at December 23, 2013 02:37 PM (1vJAv)
38
>>>What a weird post... 'New Puritans'? What 'should' the
company do, now that all are in agreement that no First Amendment issues
were raised by the Duck Dynasty brouhaha? They should do exactly what
they perceive is in their company's best interests. Period.
such a weird failure of imagination.
It's strange, but some people think that all actors can be criticized and pressured, EXCEPT for corporate actors, who they essentially hold as being inviolable.
Corporations are pressured, and chiefly by the left, to fire people for Un-PC statements.
Why do you object so strenuously to my attempt to pressure them back the other way, into affording their employers more liberty without Pinkslip Consequences?
<<<
I didn't object strenuously - or otherwise - to your attempt to do anything or criticize anyone. Both are healthy, IMO. You asked what companies 'should do' in regard to free speech - I thought it was an odd question, but answered that they should do exactly whatever best suits their interests. As far as who, what, or how you 'pressure' - I heartily encourage you to speechify about anyone or anything as much as you like, criticizing or not as you feel is appropriate.
such a weird failure of imagination.
It's strange, but some people think that all actors can be criticized and pressured, EXCEPT for corporate actors, who they essentially hold as being inviolable.
Corporations are pressured, and chiefly by the left, to fire people for Un-PC statements.
Why do you object so strenuously to my attempt to pressure them back the other way, into affording their employers more liberty without Pinkslip Consequences?
<<<
I didn't object strenuously - or otherwise - to your attempt to do anything or criticize anyone. Both are healthy, IMO. You asked what companies 'should do' in regard to free speech - I thought it was an odd question, but answered that they should do exactly whatever best suits their interests. As far as who, what, or how you 'pressure' - I heartily encourage you to speechify about anyone or anything as much as you like, criticizing or not as you feel is appropriate.
Posted by: splatter at December 23, 2013 02:37 PM (0Qt2V)
39
I'll put it in a way that AllenG and residents of Rio Linda can understand:
When the Left makes an argument, the whole point is to Fuck With You.
Posted by: soothsayer at December 23, 2013 02:37 PM (cylDG)
40
I apply the "the sexual revolution was won about 30 years ago" approach of yours to it:
"First, as I always say, the sexual revolution was won about 30 years ago. But people with very low ambitions and fairly low intellects continue to do victory laps over it. They keep proclaiming they need to "free people from their restraint" in a culture awash in pornography, sex toys, divorce, affairs, etc.
It's obviously a way to draw attention to oneself, dressing one's attention-whoring up as some sort of Nobel Crusade to set people free of Sexual Restraint.
Who, exactly, in this year 2013 AD, is not sexually liberated, except for 70 year old ladies? Are we really determined to get them to rock a vibrator too? How much swings on this Goal?
The other thing I'd say is this: Like Miley Cyrus, this 20 year old has discovered Sex Is Awesome!!! and just wants us all to know that.
Yeah Sugar-Tits we sort of know. We've been enjoying it for years, but without quite as much Noob Squeeing about it.
Nothing like being told by a 17 year old how awesome beer is. Like drunkenness? Awesome!!! Like you get all effed-up, you know, bro? And then you just walk around all dizzy like, "Wha...?" It's crazy!
Yes. Yes it is. Now calm down, junior, and sit on a stable surface before you fall on your fool head."
they're here, they're queer. we're used to it.
becoming they're here, they're queer, celebrate them!
Posted by: i like anchors at December 23, 2013 02:37 PM (O4pD9)
41
Never trust anybody over thirty.
Posted by: Ace at 06:16 PM
As the only cob under 30, couldn't agree more.
Posted by: CAC at December 23, 2013 02:38 PM (UTgqO)
42
It seems Ace did not like Triumph of the Will.
Posted by: fluffy at December 23, 2013 02:38 PM (Ua6T/)
43
If you like your anus, you can keep your anus...
Posted by: Barry, the Anus King at December 23, 2013 02:38 PM (Qev5V)
44
I would assert that surrendering to gentle remonstrations over the use of sometimes hurtful words is similar to the broken window theory of crime.
By surrendering to the pleas of others to not use this or that word because of the hurtful feelings those words arouse in those individuals we open the door to further and further claims of "hurtfulness".
And that's what we've seen as PC as become more and more widespread because more and more people use it. Many times solely for the reason of the power it gives them to shut down and control those they don't like or are angry at for other reasons but which reasons wouldn't be allowed.
We're now having a ridiculous debate over the naming of a football team because some tender souls believe it's a pejorative (despite historical records contrary to this belief).
Now with Phil it's not just the words he used, it's what they believe his words meant.
We're allowing our enemies (and make no mistake when someone tells you shouldn't use words that THEY don't like, they're your enemy as they seek to control your behavior in light of THEIR fixations and emotional inadequacies) to control what we say, when we say it and where we say it.
A complete turn around to the intent of the 1st amendment.
Words that hurt peoples feelings are still just words. Any hurt caused is in the minds of the hearer and not necessarily in the mouth of the speaker. Let them who are hurt find a way to not be hurt by air vibrations.
PC is mind control and seems reasonable but we're now at a precipice. If we continue to allow PC to have power, soon we'll be like Britain and other places that CRIMINALIZE words.
And it all starts with heart felt pleas about how it hurts someone's feelings to hear this word or that word spoken in their presence. Even if their presence is voluntary and the words are formed by pixels on a screen or a speaker that they've turned on to listen with.
They can turn it off or walk away. They have control of whether it affects them or not. But that's not what they want, they want control OF YOU. To take away your spontaneity, your freedom to think and speak as you feel.
We give away these freedoms every day and then wonder why we don't have as much freedom as we used to.
By surrendering to the pleas of others to not use this or that word because of the hurtful feelings those words arouse in those individuals we open the door to further and further claims of "hurtfulness".
And that's what we've seen as PC as become more and more widespread because more and more people use it. Many times solely for the reason of the power it gives them to shut down and control those they don't like or are angry at for other reasons but which reasons wouldn't be allowed.
We're now having a ridiculous debate over the naming of a football team because some tender souls believe it's a pejorative (despite historical records contrary to this belief).
Now with Phil it's not just the words he used, it's what they believe his words meant.
We're allowing our enemies (and make no mistake when someone tells you shouldn't use words that THEY don't like, they're your enemy as they seek to control your behavior in light of THEIR fixations and emotional inadequacies) to control what we say, when we say it and where we say it.
A complete turn around to the intent of the 1st amendment.
Words that hurt peoples feelings are still just words. Any hurt caused is in the minds of the hearer and not necessarily in the mouth of the speaker. Let them who are hurt find a way to not be hurt by air vibrations.
PC is mind control and seems reasonable but we're now at a precipice. If we continue to allow PC to have power, soon we'll be like Britain and other places that CRIMINALIZE words.
And it all starts with heart felt pleas about how it hurts someone's feelings to hear this word or that word spoken in their presence. Even if their presence is voluntary and the words are formed by pixels on a screen or a speaker that they've turned on to listen with.
They can turn it off or walk away. They have control of whether it affects them or not. But that's not what they want, they want control OF YOU. To take away your spontaneity, your freedom to think and speak as you feel.
We give away these freedoms every day and then wonder why we don't have as much freedom as we used to.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at December 23, 2013 02:39 PM (LSDdO)
45
Ace,
#31 is a brilliant response. Don't we wishÂ….
On a semi-related note, and sorry if I missed an earlier mention: I was pleased to see National Review's publisher come down squarely and publicly on the side of Mark Steyn in that little Steyn-Steorts spat.
Posted by: JPS at December 23, 2013 02:39 PM (8FgxV)
46
Look, I get this a lot from Southerners, especially older ones. They
don't believe Jim Crow was *right*, mind you. But they also sort of
don't want to fully fess up to how bad it is, so they sort of get into
this whole "Blacks were just fine back then, it was Yankee troublemakers
coming in that caused all the problems, before the courts and yankees
came stirring everything up we all got along fine..."
-
I wonder. When blacks voted primarily for Republicans, they rose from slavery to the Civil Rights Act of the early 1960s. Then LBJ bought them off with his Great Society and since then to now they have, what? Risen? Their families are destroyed. Their neighborhoods are cess pools of drugs and violence. Many have no ambition besides getting more gravy from Uncle Sam. I think a good argument could be made that from 1865 until 1965 blacks were achieving more and more acceptance and prosperity. Since 1965, I'd say the record is good deal less positive.
-
I wonder. When blacks voted primarily for Republicans, they rose from slavery to the Civil Rights Act of the early 1960s. Then LBJ bought them off with his Great Society and since then to now they have, what? Risen? Their families are destroyed. Their neighborhoods are cess pools of drugs and violence. Many have no ambition besides getting more gravy from Uncle Sam. I think a good argument could be made that from 1865 until 1965 blacks were achieving more and more acceptance and prosperity. Since 1965, I'd say the record is good deal less positive.
Posted by: WalrusRex at December 23, 2013 02:40 PM (XUKZU)
48
Look, I get this a lot from Southerners, especially older ones. They
don't believe Jim Crow was *right*, mind you. But they also sort of
don't want to fully fess up to how bad it is, so they sort of get into
this whole "Blacks were just fine back then,>>
I am a Yankee other than the 2 years we lived in West Virginia when i was 5-6 yrs old. But I am also old and if I tell you stories from my youth there is always going to be glamorization of a simpler time unless it is about some single issue. There was one black kid in my school so I have very little experience or insight into that issue.
I am a Yankee other than the 2 years we lived in West Virginia when i was 5-6 yrs old. But I am also old and if I tell you stories from my youth there is always going to be glamorization of a simpler time unless it is about some single issue. There was one black kid in my school so I have very little experience or insight into that issue.
Posted by: The Hickster at December 23, 2013 02:40 PM (TI3xG)
49
You lost me here ...
" I will argue, however, for his right to speak his mind, even if he is wrong."
Phil isn't "wrong," he merely has a different point of view.
This isn't, from a Societal stand point, about right and wrong. This isn't about truth, it's about preference.
" I will argue, however, for his right to speak his mind, even if he is wrong."
Phil isn't "wrong," he merely has a different point of view.
This isn't, from a Societal stand point, about right and wrong. This isn't about truth, it's about preference.
Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at December 23, 2013 02:40 PM (e8kgV)
50
(and the purported contentedness of blacks in the 1950s)
I would opine that Phil was not justifying Jim Crow, or even being an apologist for it; rather, I suspect he was (awkwardly) trying to make a "why does the caged bird sing" equivalency. What you also fail to recognize, Ace, is that poor, "white trash" Southerners of that era were treated barely a step above AAs at that time.
I would opine that Phil was not justifying Jim Crow, or even being an apologist for it; rather, I suspect he was (awkwardly) trying to make a "why does the caged bird sing" equivalency. What you also fail to recognize, Ace, is that poor, "white trash" Southerners of that era were treated barely a step above AAs at that time.
Posted by: Country Singer at December 23, 2013 02:40 PM (FNL3q)
51
Again, I can say Phil Robertson is wrong—and I’d say so to his face; respectfully, but I’d say so—without claiming he ought to be subject to the PC Goon Squad for being wrong.
If you did that youÂ’d be having a conversation with him; offering him the opportunity to clarify what he said. Rather than jumping up and yelling *jackpot* and running off to your typewriter, you would be having a dialogue about race.
As youÂ’ve written in the past, thatÂ’s not a dialogue weÂ’re allowed to have.
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at December 23, 2013 02:40 PM (WX3R9)
52
Hickster, that's what I took it to be as well. Whites of his social status were pretty much in the same boat as blacks. Yes, they weren't discriminated against like blacks, i.e. up one social rung, but in a small town there probably was not much of a chance to discriminate. Hence, they were in the same boat.
Plus, when did the general statement of "I didn't see discrimination and black discontent in my neck of the woods," become racist or a statement to condemn? Maybe his statement is true.
Posted by: Chris at December 23, 2013 02:41 PM (crkWb)
53
"Homophobia"? No, I'm not afraid of homosexuality. I just think based on my Biblical upbringing, and on science, and logic, that it isn't a normal thing that people do, and don't agree that it should be mainstreamed and that we be forced to celebrate it as the most Holy Sacrament (well, second, after Abortion until the 209th trimester) of life.
And I'm not "against" homosexuals, either. Just don't really want my kids propagandized with wall-to-wall Ghey Is Glorious!!!!! for their entire lives.
And I'm not "against" homosexuals, either. Just don't really want my kids propagandized with wall-to-wall Ghey Is Glorious!!!!! for their entire lives.
Posted by: Sharkman at December 23, 2013 02:41 PM (TM1p8)
54
The most detestable thing about all this braying from these fascist fuckwits is that it is creating a society that's incredibly dull and colorless. Phil Robertson is being attacked because of an underlying political agenda; he's an old Southern Christian who has old Southern Christian views, so BURN THE WITCH!!! This Sacco woman is just some poor girl with a lack of comedic talent that is getting swept up in the liberal lynch mob that is in a bloody feeding frenzy right now.
Grow the fuck up, you sissies. No one ever promised you a life without bruised feelings.
Posted by: UGAdawg at December 23, 2013 02:42 PM (e/9tl)
55
Jeremiah--
The interviewer also sought these statements. He pushed to get them.
Now, if Robertson's "offense" is having said something offensive -- Aren't GQ & the interviewer equally guilty for having solicited the "offensive" speech?
Think about it. IF THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE MUSTN'T SAY (OR WRITE) THINGS THAT WILL "OFFEND" SOMEONE, aren't GQ and the interviewer also complicit in doing just that?
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 02:42 PM (/FnUH)
56
It drives me nuts when the mfm gives their interpretation of a quote instead of the quote itself.
Posted by: real joe at December 23, 2013 02:42 PM (xXhgd)
57
I think Reagan's demeanor is a good example of how conservatives should address this kind of issue. Confident, unbowed, but not deliberately offensive or demeaning. Dignified and respectful, but firm and unyielding. Assertive and persuasive, not shrill and antagonistic.
Posted by: splatter at December 23, 2013 02:43 PM (0Qt2V)
59
"She publicly presented herself as a spokesperson for her employer (via her Twitter profile), and I believe her Tweet was related to a work-related trip."
I tell people at work that wither they like it or not they are representatives of a company and making statements on Twitter or Facebook is like shouting on a street corner for all to here.
Many an employee has been fired for saying or posting something stupid online, there is ample precedent for it. I have little sympathy for people who are let go under such circumstance.
Don't. Post. Stupid. Stuff. Online.
Its there forever and a future employer will find it if inclined. Hell I had to pass several background checks before I could get hired at where I'm at.
When in doubt shut up.
Posted by: gdonovan at December 23, 2013 02:43 PM (1vJAv)
60
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 06:34 PM (/FnUH)
I'd have been OK if they had asked her to add the standard "tweets do not represent my employer" bullshit line to her profile.
As I said, she was guilty of poor judgment broadcasting what probably should have been a joke amongst friends to the public. That should have earned her a "pay more attention to your surroundings!" not a firing.
Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at December 23, 2013 02:43 PM (GaqMa)
61
Because they are fucking communists and they've so taken over that they don't have to pretend to be "liberals" any more.
Really, do you people not see this? They do not now, nor have they ever, given a fuck about any of that shit they said like "civil rights", "peace", etc. It was all a ruse to get you moron fuckwads to go along with the plan. And boy, did you.
Merry Christmas.
Posted by: Randall Hoven at December 23, 2013 02:43 PM (0oPDq)
62
The left for free speech? When? They are for porn and for attacking the right. But anyone who disagrees with them they want to shut up.
Posted by: Barry, the Anus King at December 23, 2013 02:44 PM (Qev5V)
63
Because so many homosexuals watch Duck Dynasty
Posted by: Barry at December 23, 2013 02:44 PM (uBVzH)
64
>>>I would opine that Phil was not justifying Jim Crow, or even being an apologist for it; rather, I suspect he was (awkwardly) trying to make a "why does the caged bird sing" equivalency. What you also fail to recognize, Ace, is that poor, "white trash" Southerners of that era were treated barely a step above AAs at that time.
eh, I don't know if I'd say "apologism" but there's certainly a bit of Rose-Colored Glasses here. It's easy for a white guy to say "blacks were just fine with it all." I mean, how would a white guy know?
In any event, it's not a big deal. He's not saying "Jim Crow was a valid system which we should re-implement."
The left is big on getting the right to Confess Its Sins.
The left apologized for and abetted the deaths of 100 million under communism, both Chinese and Russian. In addition, they supported Hitler, during the period in which Hitler was an ally of their true patriot cause, the Soviet Union.
Try getting them to confess their own sins on that.
You will get a lot of Rose Colored Glasses stuff about Uncle Joe.
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 02:45 PM (/FnUH)
65
Now that there is that new analbum ointment avaliable pajama boy can live in peace.
Posted by: Killerdog at December 23, 2013 02:45 PM (+nAra)
66
The problem isn't "free speech" and by framing it this way you are actually weakening our side. The real issue is homosexual fascism. They want to normalize gay pathology. If you aren't willing to stand up to homosexual ideology you have already lost the argument.
Posted by: CK at December 23, 2013 02:46 PM (LmD/o)
67
It's easy for a white guy to say "blacks were just fine with it all." I mean, how would a white guy know?
Well, when you're the poor white trash guy that is out there in the fields sharecropping right next to them, you kind of know. Ya know?
Well, when you're the poor white trash guy that is out there in the fields sharecropping right next to them, you kind of know. Ya know?
Posted by: Country Singer at December 23, 2013 02:47 PM (FNL3q)
68
I'm afraid I strongly disagree. An employer is not in the business of providing jobs. The idea that an employer is morally obliged to retain a person who, in the judgment of the employer, harms the employer's business is giving the person being paid the right to harm the person doing the paying. That makes neither moral nor economic sense. (Notice I am not making the legal argument that Ace rightly says evades the question. I am going directly to the moral question that he poses.)
Now I think A&E is idiotic for its actions, but it is perfectly moral for them to refuse to do business with someone they disapprove of. I seem to remember some of us fussing (rightly in my view) about bakers and photographers being compelled to support homosexual marriages. They wanted to refuse, and many of us found it disgusting that they were not permitted to do so. Just depends on whose ox is gored, I guess. Unlike Ace, the only point where I'd question A&E's right to determine its own moral positions, its own freedom of association, and its own freedom to express its views is if it is violating a contractual promise that it voluntarily made.
A&E has a moral right to do business with whom it chooses. If you do not buy that, then why is it wrong to force people to supply cakes and photographs where they do not want to? If you do not like what A&E does, you are free to exercise your freedom of association, your freedom to express yourself, your freedom to choose.
Posted by: JeffM at December 23, 2013 02:47 PM (LIc41)
69
"Plus, when did the general statement of "I didn't see discrimination and black discontent in my neck of the woods," become racist or a statement to condemn? Maybe his statement is true."
Exactly. The whole outrage is based off of taking Phil's words about his own experience and own thoughts and treating them like he was making authoritative blanket statements. Read his quote again about his experience with blacks growing up. It doesn't at all sound to me like he's talking about anyone else other than the people he knew personally and saw personally growing up.
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at December 23, 2013 02:47 PM (Y5I9o)
70
>>>The problem isn't "free speech" and by framing it this way you are actually weakening our side. The real issue is homosexual fascism. They want to normalize gay pathology. If you aren't willing to stand up to homosexual ideology you have already lost the argument.
I don't, so yes, I've lost.
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 02:47 PM (/FnUH)
71
and if you disagree with ace, you're all a bunch of douchebags
Posted by: chemjeff on the phone at December 23, 2013 02:47 PM (GiftD)
72
>>>"Plus, when did the general statement of "I didn't see discrimination and black discontent in my neck of the woods," become racist or a statement to condemn? Maybe his statement is true."
i don't think it's racist, I think it's wrong. As far as it being locally true -- it could be true of five people he knew and yet still wrong as far as offering an accurate picture of black contentedness.
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 02:48 PM (/FnUH)
73
What I'd like is to have a grown-up discussion on the effects of being offended.
Specifically, I want to learn about the *damage* caused by offense by reading or hearing the *offending* words.
Is it possible as I sit here with untold miles of distance between us for any of you to 'offend' me? How so?
Posted by: soothsayer at December 23, 2013 02:49 PM (cylDG)
74
>>>71 and if you disagree with ace, you're all a bunch of douchebags
Obviously. Not sure why it even needs mentioning.
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 02:49 PM (/FnUH)
75
"It's easy for a white guy to say "blacks were just fine with it all." I mean, how would a white guy know? "
I doubt many thoughtful ones really say that. What is hard to deny, however, is that the state of black culture has not been helped by the destruction of the family, rampant absentee fathers, or being told by white liberals who don't actually associate with any black people that blacks are free from any civic responsibility.
Posted by: UGAdawg at December 23, 2013 02:49 PM (e/9tl)
76
This may be the worst post of all of time. actually the worst post.
Posted by: @BuzzFeedAndrew at December 23, 2013 02:49 PM (3p7iG)
77
eh, I don't know if I'd say "apologism" but there's certainly a bit of
Rose-Colored Glasses here. It's easy for a white guy to say "blacks
were just fine with it all." I mean, how would a white guy know?
You're leaving out a bit of context that matters here. The white guy (Phil in this instance) knows because he said it of the blacks he worked along side, so from personal observation.
You're leaving out a bit of context that matters here. The white guy (Phil in this instance) knows because he said it of the blacks he worked along side, so from personal observation.
Posted by: Retread at December 23, 2013 02:50 PM (cHwk5)
78
>>> It drives me nuts when the mfm gives their interpretation of a quote instead of the quote itself.
Fuckin A
Posted by: Larry Summers at December 23, 2013 02:50 PM (Ua6T/)
79
i don't think it's racist, I think it's wrong. As far as it being locally true -- it could be true of five people he knew and yet still wrong as far as offering an accurate picture of black contentedness.
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 06:48 PM (/FnUH)
Who said it was supposed to be a bigger picture?
He was asked "what was it like growing up in Louisiana during Jim Crow?"
Not "Tell me everything you know about all black people everywhere.."
Taking it for more than it is, really isn't a good idea.
Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at December 23, 2013 02:51 PM (GaqMa)
80
I don't, so yes, I've lost.
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 06:47 PM (/FnUH)
Didn't you major in "Gay Pathology", Ace?
Posted by: CAC at December 23, 2013 02:51 PM (UTgqO)
81
Tenure.
Lefties lionize tenure as being vital to the free exchange of ideas, so that academics can freely engage in all sorts of horseshit without fear of losing their jobs.
Yet this doesn't apply to we proles out of academia-- us, we need the stomp-down.
Posted by: --- at December 23, 2013 02:51 PM (MMC8r)
82
You will get a lot of Rose Colored Glasses stuff about Uncle Joe.
>>
And there is a lot of rose cohered glasses viewing of what LBJ's policies did for blacks after Jim Crow. Both polices have done harm but the later is what is hurting them now the former are gone.
And there is a lot of rose cohered glasses viewing of what LBJ's policies did for blacks after Jim Crow. Both polices have done harm but the later is what is hurting them now the former are gone.
Posted by: The Hickster at December 23, 2013 02:51 PM (TI3xG)
83
The left is big on getting the right to Confess Its Sins.
Well actually its more that the left wants the right to take the blame for the sins of the left.
Posted by: buzzion at December 23, 2013 02:52 PM (LI48c)
84
Don't confuse leftism with liberalism. The Left has always hated free speech.
Posted by: rrpjr at December 23, 2013 02:52 PM (s/yC1)
85
>>they're wrong now that they're old, rich, fat and comfortable, and have their soft chubby hands on the levers of corporate, academic, and bureaucratic power.
And are really scared of losing it.
Which may go without saying, but there, I said it anyway.
Posted by: Mama AJ at December 23, 2013 02:53 PM (SUKHu)
86
>>>A&E has a moral right to do business with whom it chooses. If you do not buy that, then why is it wrong to force people to supply cakes and photographs where they do not want to?
Where did I propose a public law compelling corporations to behave this way?
Right now corporations fire anyone who is a little odd or strange because it's the easiest way to avoid heat.
What if the situation where changed, such that the easiest way to avoid heat was to say "we're sticking up for a broad first Amendment"?
Yes, in the current circumstances, it is in a corporation's interest to accede to the PC police, swiftly and without even thinking about it.
Do you want this state of affairs to continue?
What I am suggesting is not a law "compelling" anyone to keep anyone as an employee.
What I am suggesting is a more enlightened view of what liberty means and agitating for THAT so that the bullies, scolds, prigs, offense-junkies, and latter day Salem Witch Accusers are not the ONLY people pressuring corporations and employers, so that a firing isn't the knee-jerk, easy obvious course of action.
Wouldn't it be nice if they THOUGHT about it for three seconds first?
Wouldn't it be nice if there were someone, ANYONE out there saying "This fucking bullshit is bullshit and needs to stop?"
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 02:53 PM (/FnUH)
87
The modern left are not liberals they are Progressives which is about a 1/4 inch from Fascists so of course they have no honest interest in free-speech even if they claim otherwise.
Posted by: DrEvil007 at December 23, 2013 02:53 PM (YIriA)
88
""Blacks were just fine back then, it was Yankee troublemakers
coming in that caused all the problems, before the courts and yankees
came stirring everything up we all got along fine...""
Well yeah, but race relations have never been as stark as history would have us believe. My grandfather, a democrat for life, was racist. Straight up, used the "n" word and complained about all those damn conspiring Jews and Catholics, racist. Now, he never said something really derogatory towards any individual that I ever heard. It was more "that n-boy over there helped me mow the lanw" or whatever. His best friend growing up, however, was also a black boy whose family helped out his parents when their house burned down.
People are complicated and not easily put into the neat little boxes that make us feel comfortable. So a 70 year old saying that the black families he knew seemed happy? Yeah, that doesn't shock me.
As for further disagreement...uh ace are you advocating for the anus, nttawwt...
Posted by: Lauren at December 23, 2013 02:53 PM (hFL/3)
89
Ah the old May versus Should argument.
Life us a variable thing. You are a 17 year old single girl who is pregnant in an unplanned sort of way. In your home state you may get an abortion. Should you?
That my friend is a whole can of moral and ethical whoopass
I don't know the answer. Like so much in life it depends.
Posted by: Comanche Voter at December 23, 2013 02:53 PM (VAche)
90
"I doubt many thoughtful ones really say that. What is hard to deny, however, is that the state of black culture has not been helped by the destruction of the family, rampant absentee fathers, or being told by white liberals who don't actually associate with any black people that blacks are free from any civic responsibility. "
Just look at music- Popular black music sounds like a pile of smoking crap to my ears. Now listen to music in the 40-50-60's and tell me what is art and what isn't?
Rappers screaming about bitches and 'ho's isn't music.
Posted by: gdonovan at December 23, 2013 02:54 PM (1vJAv)
91
I wonder. When blacks voted primarily for Republicans, they rose from slavery to the Civil Rights Act of the early 1960s. Then LBJ bought them off with his Great Society and since then to now they have, what? Risen? Their families are destroyed. Their neighborhoods are cess pools of drugs and violence. Many have no ambition besides getting more gravy from Uncle Sam. I think a good argument could be made that from 1865 until 1965 blacks were achieving more and more acceptance and prosperity. Since 1965, I'd say the record is good deal less positive.
Posted by: WalrusRex at December 23, 2013 06:40 PM (XUKZU)
---------
I've read a fair amount of Thomas Sowell, and he often makes the same point.
Posted by: Darth Randall at December 23, 2013 02:54 PM (Zswg6)
92
>>>You're leaving out a bit of context that matters here. The white guy (Phil in this instance) knows because he said it of the blacks he worked along side, so from personal observation.
whatever. I'm sure you're right, blacks were A-OK with being semi-officially and even officially treated as second-class citizens.
Duck Commander said so, so.
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 02:54 PM (/FnUH)
93
As for further disagreement...uh ace are you advocating for the anus, nttawwt...
Well he was really excited about that claim that Anne Hathaway was a fan of it.
Posted by: buzzion at December 23, 2013 02:55 PM (LI48c)
94
Now, the "N" word, that's where the line is drawn, right?
Posted by: tubal the bad at December 23, 2013 02:56 PM (YEQ2h)
95
Nice ace. It's called Newspeak and Orwell warned us about it 50 years ago. Surprised you didn't pick up on that from "1984".
http://tinyurl.com/2uwdqj
Posted by: Nip Sip at December 23, 2013 02:56 PM (0FSuD)
96
Why does the Left feel they *own* Blacks?
And women? Homos? Immigrants? Rape?
It's like the Left has copyrights and trademark rights to All Things Black. If I were Black, I would be deeply offended.
Posted by: soothsayer at December 23, 2013 02:57 PM (cylDG)
97
the difference between a liberal and a progressive?
a liberal is inherently suspicious of all institutions that wield power, including government and corporations
progressives worship the state as an almighty force for creating 'good' results
Posted by: chemjeff on the phone at December 23, 2013 02:57 PM (GiftD)
98
It's easy for a white guy to say "blacks were just fine with it all." I mean, how would a white guy know?
-----------------------
Just like when you said there was no qualitative differences between a U.S. Army Infantryman and a Somali pirate, because after all, "they're just guys running around shooting."
How would you know?
#JeffHoldsGrudges
#AiringOfGrievances
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 23, 2013 02:57 PM (JDIKC)
99
They have ALWAYS been this way.
I encountered a prominent biking activist a few years ago, an older woman who has since passed.
A friend was also there, and had a minivan with Bush stickers on it...
She took one look at the van and her demeanor changed and she got a bit pissy...
Her male friend, also older and with a small dog, and very feminine, said the old crusty "I defend your right to blah blah blah"...wel the older woman, shrieked, literally shrieked, I SURE AS HELL DON'T!!!!
They have always been this way, the difference perhaps is the internet and news reaching people quicker.
The New Left is a devious bunch of sleazebags, with Chairman Mao christmas ornaments.
Someone who would make an ornament with Mao, and proclaim that he was their fave philosopher, prolly doesn't give a single fuck about free speech of rednecks and conservatives.
But we play the game like they are just misguided, and all that, and be nice, and be like Paul Ryan and Boner, and not upset the apple cart.
That's not the game they are playing.
They have ALWAYS been this way.
I encountered a prominent biking activist a few years ago, an older woman who has since passed.
A friend was also there, and had a minivan with Bush stickers on it...
She took one look at the van and her demeanor changed and she got a bit pissy...
Her male friend, also older and with a small dog, and very feminine, said the old crusty "I defend your right to blah blah blah"...wel the older woman, shrieked, literally shrieked, I SURE AS HELL DON'T!!!!
They have always been this way, the difference perhaps is the internet and news reaching people quicker.
The New Left is a devious bunch of sleazebags, with Chairman Mao christmas ornaments.
Someone who would make an ornament with Mao, and proclaim that he was their fave philosopher, prolly doesn't give a single fuck about free speech of rednecks and conservatives.
But we play the game like they are just misguided, and all that, and be nice, and be like Paul Ryan and Boner, and not upset the apple cart.
That's not the game they are playing.
Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz Commissar at December 23, 2013 02:57 PM (HQml1)
100
At the heart of this argument is the proposition that the 1960s left genuinely believed in free speech, and that somewhere along the way to where the 1960s left are today (embedded like ticks all through the institutional power structures), they quit believing in free speech.
I used to buy that proposition. I don't any longer.
I instead am inclined now to credit Prof. Reynolds when he says that the left never actually believed in free speech at all, at any time. That they purported to uphold free speech in the 1960s was a tactical necessity because "free speech" was required in order to help shield their friends in the Communist wing of the left.
When Communism qua Communism went away, so did the requirement for the left to pretend to believe in free speech.
I used to buy that proposition. I don't any longer.
I instead am inclined now to credit Prof. Reynolds when he says that the left never actually believed in free speech at all, at any time. That they purported to uphold free speech in the 1960s was a tactical necessity because "free speech" was required in order to help shield their friends in the Communist wing of the left.
When Communism qua Communism went away, so did the requirement for the left to pretend to believe in free speech.
Posted by: torquewrench at December 23, 2013 02:58 PM (gqT4g)
101
I actually disagree with Phil Robertson on homosexuality (and the purported contentedness of blacks in the 1950s), and I don't mind saying so.
With all due respect, you did not experience the 50's, right? I lived in a pretty much pearly white neighborhood in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Had a couple black families in the township. Nice folks. We did not point our finger or say the 'n' word behind their back. They were part of our community.
My black friend and I climbed the fence before practice and stole apples from the local orchard before practice because we both were hungry. We had to run nearly 10 miles in the ensuing 'practice' for a game. We ran up the hill in front of the school on nothing but vapors at the end. Ended up at the end of that year in second place to a team with a couple of white boys who went on to a couple decade long career in the NFL. Matt and Chris, I seem to remember their names.
Fast forward to the class reunion 15 years later and my friend, despite years of me paying the tab for him at 'tittie bars' is now an angry black male. He's pissed at me, pissed at everyone, and I didn't do a damn thing but treat him as if he was my actual brother.
But he's somehow pissed at me because of the color of my skin? Fuck that. I don't play the victim game. We're all victims. It's called life. He's not 'content'? No one is content. But his life is not some miserable pit from hell. He got into and graduated a top accounting school. I didn't. While he took classes, I worked. Then I went home and worked some more. Then worked on weekends and every holiday.
He had every opportunity, while I took every opportunity. So he's pissed off? I do not give a fuck.
Posted by: Regular Moron [/i] at December 23, 2013 02:58 PM (6Nqkf)
102
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 06:54 PM (/FnUH)
Maybe I'm tainted by the tons of Sowell I've read, but I thought he was trying to say government found another way to trap them, and in fact make them worse off than they were before. (Which wasn't great at all they were poor, and if he calls himself white trash, I assume it implies everyone doing the cotton picking then was trash, but they had faith and now they've lost that.)
Although like I said, I'm probably imparting Sowell's take on that.
Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at December 23, 2013 02:58 PM (GaqMa)
103
. In your home state you may get an abortion. Should you?
That my friend is a whole can of moral and ethical whoopass
I don't know the answer. Like so much in life it depends."
Oh yes, let's just hop on the moral relativism bandwagon. No, the answer is no you don't get an abortion because killing another human being is wrong. Simple.
Posted by: Lauren at December 23, 2013 02:58 PM (hFL/3)
104
For the Anus!!
Once more unto the anus, dear friends, once more...
Posted by: Anuses United at December 23, 2013 02:58 PM (Qev5V)
105
actually blacks started voting en masse for Democrats starting witb FDR, not LBJ
Posted by: chemjeff on the phone at December 23, 2013 02:59 PM (GiftD)
106
The Right to Freedom of Speech, is a Natural or God Given Right.... ACKNOWLEDED not given by the US Constitution.
It existed before the US, and will exist long after the US changes its form...
The Constitution simply says that the Government may pass no law infringing on that Natural Right to Free Speech...
It does not say we cannot hold people accountable for what they say..... BUT... as there is NO Right to not be offended... it is patently UnAmerican to Punish someone, for something they say.
Argue all you want.... that's purely American IMO... but to punish by taking someone's livelihood?
What would happen if Someone Fired a GAY person, for saying they were Gay???? Would there not be not only a Public outrage, but in many States a LEGAL consequence?
I really don't care.... I have no Dog in this hunt... EXCEPT that I'm really tired of Hypocrisy... and I'm REALLY tired of people using Emotional Blackmail to attempt to change my behavior and beliefs...
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 23, 2013 03:00 PM (lZBBB)
107
The thing I get hung up on with the Sacco affair is that she was the Director of Public Affairs and as such, the public face of the company. I don't like at all the public flogging she received, but as an executive she should have shown much better judgement. Now, if she had been anyone else withing this company, say VP of Sales, who posted something stupid on Twitter or FB that would be one thing, but the head of PR? Sorry, criminal stupidity.
Having said all of that, I still deplore the treatment she received from the PC police. and Buzzfeed can DIAF.
Having said all of that, I still deplore the treatment she received from the PC police. and Buzzfeed can DIAF.
Posted by: Duke Lowell at December 23, 2013 03:00 PM (o9Rp5)
108
>>>Maybe I'm tainted by the tons of Sowell I've read, but I thought he was trying to say government found another way to trap them, and in fact make them worse off than they were before.
that certainly may be true but that's a partisan argument -- Progressivism was WORSE for blacks than forced segregation.
Fine.
May be so.
But can we not say both were wrong?
The fact that the Dependency Trap has been awful for blacks doesn't have anything to do with whether segregation was right or wrong. That stands alone as it its own quesiton.
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 03:00 PM (/FnUH)
110
"Wouldn't it be nice if there were someone, ANYONE out there saying "This fucking bullshit is bullshit and needs to stop?" "
Yes. It would.
Posted by: i like anchors at December 23, 2013 03:02 PM (O4pD9)
111
Ace, as parents of a mentally challenged son, thank you for not using the word "retard."
Posted by: Ed Schultz's Parents at December 23, 2013 03:02 PM (StySt)
112
8
1, he's not a liberal, he's a progressive.
Maybe I'm out of the loop, but exactly what is the difference between the two?
Can anyone name a policy position held by liberals which progressives disagree with?
I've always been under the impression that liberals simply wanted to adopt "progressive" because of the negative association with the word "liberal".
Oh and Merry Christmas, retards.
Maybe I'm out of the loop, but exactly what is the difference between the two?
Can anyone name a policy position held by liberals which progressives disagree with?
I've always been under the impression that liberals simply wanted to adopt "progressive" because of the negative association with the word "liberal".
Oh and Merry Christmas, retards.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 23, 2013 06:24 PM (SY2Kh)
====
I am with you. I cannot see any reason to do the taxonomy thing with assholes. "Means of production" and all that other blithering about various subcategories is just a hair-splitting exercise that bogs people down in the details rather than focusing on the real point.
None of it really matters anyway because they change their name every time people start to figure out who they really are. (and who they are is the scum that claim to own the lives of other people. To me, there is no reason to give a damn whether they claim to own me for my own good, just cuz they can, cuz I am not PC, cuz they scream 'fair' the loudest, or any other reason they dream up.)
So, I just tend to call them all 'slavers' no matter what they call themselves.
Posted by: jc at December 23, 2013 03:02 PM (i8c5b)
113
the movie had anal so of course ace wrote a 5000 word review 
Posted by: chemjeff on the phone at December 23, 2013 03:03 PM (GiftD)
114
69 "Plus, when did the general statement of "I didn't see discrimination and black discontent in my neck of the woods," become racist or a statement to condemn? Maybe his statement is true."
Exactly. The whole outrage is based off of taking Phil's words about his own experience and own thoughts and treating them like he was making authoritative blanket statements. Read his quote again about his experience with blacks growing up. It doesn't at all sound to me like he's talking about anyone else other than the people he knew personally and saw personally growing up.
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at December 23, 2013 06:47 PM (Y5I9o)
Well since Phil was recounting his personal experiences working in the fields along with other poor black field hands, it's hard to see how he is 'wrong'. Now perhaps he was a bit naive about things or his fellow black workers didn't feel fully comfortable sharing some things with him but that doesn't necessarily make him wrong or a racist.
Exactly. The whole outrage is based off of taking Phil's words about his own experience and own thoughts and treating them like he was making authoritative blanket statements. Read his quote again about his experience with blacks growing up. It doesn't at all sound to me like he's talking about anyone else other than the people he knew personally and saw personally growing up.
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at December 23, 2013 06:47 PM (Y5I9o)
Well since Phil was recounting his personal experiences working in the fields along with other poor black field hands, it's hard to see how he is 'wrong'. Now perhaps he was a bit naive about things or his fellow black workers didn't feel fully comfortable sharing some things with him but that doesn't necessarily make him wrong or a racist.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 23, 2013 03:03 PM (XkotV)
115
whatever. I'm sure you're right, blacks were A-OK
with being semi-officially and even officially treated as second-class
citizens.
Duck Commander said so, so.
Duck Commander said so, so.
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 06:54 PM (/FnUH)
OK, I didn't make my point very well. I got the sense that Phil was talking of his observation of the blacks he worked around, rather than making a larger, blanket statement about blacks in the South generally.
Posted by: Retread at December 23, 2013 03:03 PM (cHwk5)
116
Hey Maet, I sent you a link for ONT use. Hope it's worthy.
Posted by: Country Singer at December 23, 2013 03:04 PM (FNL3q)
117
1) the hippie trash were never the powerless...the vanguard of the unwashed and smelly were the git of the east coast elite and thier like. Bill Ayers was never in danger of legal retribution for anything he did.
Sure, lower-class hippies were subject to a clubbing here and there, but the same class of folk, whether hippie or not, were not of the protected ones.
After the FBI destroyed the KKK on the mid 60's, they went after the leftist and black terrorist groups...nipped in the bud by Ivy league 5th columnists (see COINTELPRO)
2)Neither Ace or Phil R can tell how content or not Southern black folk in the 60's were. PR expressed his impressions from dealing with those folk on a daily basis.
3)Soothsayer nailed it; the Left never believed a word it said. It rolled up (and still rolls up) every "useful idiot" that believes sappy propaganda. The only principle the Left is interested in is absolute power
Posted by: just passin by at December 23, 2013 03:04 PM (A9KzJ)
118
Why does the Left feel they *own* Blacks?
And women? Homos? Immigrants? Rape?
It's like the Left has copyrights and trademark rights to All Things Black. If I were Black, I would be deeply offended.
ditto
Posted by: i like anchors at December 23, 2013 03:04 PM (O4pD9)
119
I used to buy that proposition. I don't any longer.
The Left has always worshiped free speech as a method to opening the door. Only incidentally as a matter for individuals to exercise, the real goal is deconstruction (and dissolution) of established Western standards.
Like multi-culti says all cultures are equal, then uses that to diminish only this one, the goal is always dissolution.
Posted by: --- at December 23, 2013 03:05 PM (MMC8r)
120
At the heart of the "government cannot control speech" argument is the lie that gov't does not control speech, particularly in the workplace and in schools. The DoL regs do not allow me to put a cross in my office, lest someone pretend to be offended. I cannot talk about my thoughts on Gay rights (to stick with the Robertson situation) unless I am 100% enthusiastic supporter supremo. However my fellow male employee can enter the building wearing a rainbow tutu and talk about scumbag gun owners and laugh about someone shitting in Palin's mouth. We already lost the right to judge him because he is a protected species. His hate is not strictly protected, but HE is. And in practice, he can shit all over Christians and use REAL "code words" against guys like Phil and we will all scramble to apologize for nothing and feel relief when their cruel gaze wanders from us.
Posted by: mongbat at December 23, 2013 03:05 PM (6FAmX)
121
Ace said: "I will argue, however, for his right to speak his mind, even if he is wrong."
That presumes that Ace is "right" ... it should have been written "...even if I believe he is wrong." Or "...even if I disagree."
That presumes that Ace is "right" ... it should have been written "...even if I believe he is wrong." Or "...even if I disagree."
Posted by: AAA at December 23, 2013 03:05 PM (fG412)
122
>>>At the heart of this argument is the proposition that the 1960s left genuinely believed in free speech, and that somewhere along the way to where the 1960s left are today (embedded like ticks all through the institutional power structures), they quit believing in free speech.
I used to buy that proposition. I don't any longer.
...
I half believe what you say. It is definite they do not believe in it any longer.
As for whether they EVER believed in it-- let's stipulate it's easier to believe in a principle when that principle benefits you, and harder to believe in it when that principle restricts your actions.
As that Obamacare victim said, "I'm all for paying for health care for the poor but I didn't think I'd be the one paying for it!"
It's possible they "believed" in it once because it pleased them to believe in it.
But whether they did or didn't, they've all gotten very comfortable with stamping out any off-key statement they don't like.
As for the hard left, the actual communist strand of the left--
They never believed in it. Communists always viewed classic liberals as *WEAK,* unwilling to do what NEEDED TO BE DONE, unwilling to get their hands dirty, too concerned with abstract rules and principles.
But of the people in power today, not all are former communists. The left is a broad coalition, and includes communists/stalinists/maoists and such, plus Lifestyle Liberals, plus former liberals who are now "progressives," meaning, they're communists' bitches.
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 03:05 PM (/FnUH)
123
...as a matter of decency and respect...
****
Ultimately, this is the crux of the matter, in so many ways. My general rule of thumb is to meet people with the same level of decency and respect that they offer to me. Sometimes there is a little wary circling to determine where that level will be.
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon- Uncle Si quacks me up at December 23, 2013 03:06 PM (N/Sup)
124
I actually disagree with Phil Robertson on homosexuality (and the purported contentedness of blacks in the 1950s), and I don't mind saying so. -ace
For the most part a very thought provoking thread & well written. However, to disagree with Phil Robertson on homosexuality is a fight never to be won. Conservative Christians believe homosexuality is a sin. But then again we be believe that coveting is a sin to. That doesn't mean we hate gays or people who covet.
What it boils down to is that JesusChrist foretold of this type of discrimination & persecution. It's easier to pick on Christians who turn the other cheek rather than the Muslim who would gladly slit your throat if you condemn his beliefs on homosexuality.
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at December 23, 2013 03:06 PM (HVff2)
125
The fact that the Dependency Trap has been awful for blacks doesn't have anything to do with whether segregation was right or wrong. That stands alone as it its own quesiton.
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 07:00 PM (/FnUH)
---
But that's precisely what it sounds like he wasn't asked. That is, he wasn't asked, "Was segregation good?" It seems he was asked, "What was growing up pre-civil rights like?" And if he said he knew a lot of happy black people, it's really a stretch to turn that into 'blacks were happy with segregation'. The best you can say is weasel it into, "He knew a lot of blacks under segregation, and he said they were happy, therefore he believes that blacks were happy with segregation." But that's unbelievably disingenuous.
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at December 23, 2013 03:06 PM (Y5I9o)
126
A&E can fire Robertson, but not without cost.
Speech is never made without cost.
Let A&E fire Robertson and let them pay the price for doing so.
Eventually, we will get to the point where people see that ace is right about tempering your thirst for exercising rights with a bath of good faith and good judgement.
When that day comes we will all be long dead.
Posted by: eman at December 23, 2013 03:07 PM (EWsrI)
127
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas." -- Stalin
Later, all.
God bless. :-)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at December 23, 2013 03:07 PM (x1aCh)
128
Shorter Ace:
Retard -> OUT
Phil -> Ambushed
Justine -> Nitwit
Anus -> Okey dokey for some (not saying who)
Blacks -> victims even when they didn't know they were victims
My take:
Homo Phobia. (Is that even a real word?) I have no fear of homos, yet but I'm beginning to as I can see how they might like having people declare their feelings publicly and get people fired or forced out of their homes if they say the wrong thing.
Retard -> OUT
Phil -> Ambushed
Justine -> Nitwit
Anus -> Okey dokey for some (not saying who)
Blacks -> victims even when they didn't know they were victims
My take:
Homo Phobia. (Is that even a real word?) I have no fear of homos, yet but I'm beginning to as I can see how they might like having people declare their feelings publicly and get people fired or forced out of their homes if they say the wrong thing.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at December 23, 2013 03:07 PM (LSDdO)
129
It reminds me of when Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon made this big indignant televised speech about how their speech was being repressed in the Bush era.
Televised.
I think it was at the baseball hall of fame or some other inappropriate venue.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 23, 2013 03:08 PM (T0NGe)
130
Those of us born on the 70s and later cannot fathom this notion that blacks were happy before the civil rights era. (Can we even say "black"? African American has always been the term used during our lives).
Schooling and media indoctrination says: (1) before JFK, Jim Crow was everywhere; (2) every step of improvement among blacks, from slavery to today, occurred as a result of the 60s and the Selma march; (3) all racists switched to voting Republican because of Nixon's Southern Strategy.
Posted by: wooga at December 23, 2013 03:09 PM (StySt)
131
"That's not the game they are playing."
experienced hand to hand close quarters killers vs boxers looking for the ref
Posted by: i like anchors at December 23, 2013 03:09 PM (O4pD9)
132
"Eventually, we will get to the point where people see that ace is right
about tempering your thirst for exercising rights with a bath of good
faith and good judgement."
Cannot be said better.
Cannot be said better.
Posted by: Duke Lowell at December 23, 2013 03:09 PM (o9Rp5)
133
It reminds me of when Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon made this big indignant televised speech about how their speech was being repressed in the Bush era.
Televised.
I think it was at the baseball hall of fame or some other inappropriate venue.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 23, 2013 07:08 PM (T0NGe)
It pisses me off to this day that they were in one of the best baseball movies ever. But they were good in it, I'll give them that.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 23, 2013 03:09 PM (t3UFN)
134
98 It's easy for a white guy to say "blacks were just fine with it all." I mean, how would a white guy know?
Well, a White sharecropper, like Robertson grew up as, would be just a low as any Black in town. White Trash clung to the idea that they were better than Blacks, but it was a false claim and everyone knew it, especially the Whites that worked with Blacks.
The South, after The War of Northern Aggression, was a completely ruined and occupied country. Think of Eastern Europe for a 100 years. A third of your population has been killed and almost all your capital lost.
Posted by: Nip Sip at December 23, 2013 03:10 PM (0FSuD)
135
I bet susan sarandon likes anal
Posted by: chemjeff on the phone at December 23, 2013 03:10 PM (GiftD)
136
What's with this Phil Robertson comparing adulterers and gigolos to bestiality? That's some vile bigotry! For shame!!11!
Posted by: wooga at December 23, 2013 03:11 PM (StySt)
137
Was Robertson's statement about blacks about segregation, or was it about welfare? I remember him actually saying welfare, I don't remember him saying 'Jim Crow.'
Posted by: --- at December 23, 2013 03:11 PM (MMC8r)
138
hell I bet tim robbins likes anal too
Posted by: chemjeff on the phone at December 23, 2013 03:11 PM (GiftD)
139
I watched the link to I am Second linked earlier. I believe he probably meant that they were contented like he was contented as a poor kid in the 50s knowing nothing else but poor.
Yeah, I love how the Robertsons are supposed to have the same noblesse oblige that the latte-sipping crowd has internalized.
Yeah, sorry, no.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 23, 2013 03:11 PM (T0NGe)
140
>>>
Maybe I'm out of the loop, but exactly what is the difference between the two?
Can anyone name a policy position held by liberals which progressives disagree with?
I've
always been under the impression that liberals simply wanted to adopt
"progressive" because of the negative association with the word
"liberal".
...
you're right as to why they switched terms.
However, what we call "liberal" (or once called liberal) has changed over the years. There was a time when liberals really were liberal. (Bear in mind many conservatives call themselves classic liberals-- I think of myself that way. And keep in mind Australia's conservatives are the Liberal Party. Liberal used to mean freedom.)
However, over 40, 50, 60 years, the actual liberalism has departed from what we call "liberal" politics.
One thing I'm doing lately is denying "liberals'" self-definition as liberal, and insisting they are in fact illiberal.
They're not liberal. Liberals (at least as the term was once defined) would not approve of speech codes. Actually, they also wouldn't approve of a behemoth state.
The Democratic Party was a populist party in the 30s. It was losing votes to Socialist and Communist parties. It co-opted those movements by incorporating socialist and communist-flavored planks.
Where it was once infected with socialism, socialism is now the party, period. There are few liberals left in the Democratic party.
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 03:11 PM (/FnUH)
141
And if he said he knew a lot of happy black people, it's really a
stretch to turn that into 'blacks were happy with segregation'. The
best you can say is weasel it into, "He knew a lot of blacks under
segregation, and he said they were happy, therefore he believes that
blacks were happy with segregation." But that's unbelievably
disingenuous.
Ding, ding, ding. My point, earlier, but better expressed. It seemed to me, reading the interview, that Phil was speaking of his limited, personal observation. Other people have extrapolated it into a broader meaning.
Ding, ding, ding. My point, earlier, but better expressed. It seemed to me, reading the interview, that Phil was speaking of his limited, personal observation. Other people have extrapolated it into a broader meaning.
Posted by: Retread at December 23, 2013 03:12 PM (cHwk5)
142
Not racism but growing up during the Vietnam war I never was exposed to the anti war movement. We had block parties for returning warriors and celebrated their accomplishments. I was shocked to learn when I went out into the larger world how many veterans were spit upon and had trouble re assimilating. The US is really not a very homogeneous society and we mostly only know our little bit of it and are surprised at how different other parts of our nation really are when exposed to them.
Posted by: The Hickster at December 23, 2013 03:12 PM (TI3xG)
143
136 What's with this Phil Robertson comparing adulterers and gigolos to bestiality? That's some vile bigotry! For shame!!11!
Posted by: wooga at December 23, 2013 07:11 PM (StySt)
And don't forget the drunkards as well. They're also on the Group W bench.
Posted by: wooga at December 23, 2013 07:11 PM (StySt)
And don't forget the drunkards as well. They're also on the Group W bench.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 23, 2013 03:12 PM (XkotV)
144
138 hell I bet tim robbins likes anal too
Posted by: chemjeff on the phone at December 23, 2013 07:11 PM (GiftD)
Who doesn't?
Posted by: Wonkette at December 23, 2013 03:13 PM (0FSuD)
146
135 I bet susan sarandon likes anal
ATM.
And now I will spank it listening to Susan Sarandon narrating "Good Night Moon" (on YouTube).
Posted by: wooga at December 23, 2013 03:13 PM (StySt)
147
If saying stupid things were a crime, there would be no one on the streets
Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 23, 2013 03:13 PM (t3UFN)
148
I bet susan sarandon likes anal
Posted by: chemjeff on the phone at December 23, 2013 07:10 PM (GiftD)
---------------------
She always struck me as someone who gave good beak.
Very sultry.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 23, 2013 03:13 PM (JDIKC)
149
I still say the Sacco thing will turn out to be a personal vendetta. The alternative is horrifying.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at December 23, 2013 06:30 PM (Gk3SS)
Also, it went out of control. I don't think it was meant to go as far as Buzzfeed.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 23, 2013 03:13 PM (T0NGe)
151
yup, modern liberalism is now just weak-sauce socialism.
Posted by: chemjeff on the phone at December 23, 2013 03:14 PM (GiftD)
152
I thought buzzfeed originated the Sacco thing?
Posted by: Lauren at December 23, 2013 03:14 PM (hFL/3)
153
>>>Was Robertson's statement about blacks about segregation, or was it about welfare? I remember him actually saying welfare, I don't remember him saying 'Jim Crow.'
you're right, he never said Jim Crow. However, the timeframe he specified -- "before welfare, before entitlements" -- referenced 1965 or thereabouts being the break-point between blacks being okay and blacks being not so okay. Which is pretty much the time of the federal push to end Jim Crow.
Johnson's Great Society of Welfare and the push to end Jim Crow happened at the same time.
In my post, I didn't say Jim Crow, either, because he didn't say that.
But he does seem to overlook the good part of the changes of 65. I'd agree with him about the Dependency Trap the progressives created for blacks. but I would not agree they were just fine in the pre-65, Jim Crow south, either.
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 03:15 PM (/FnUH)
154
I hope they do fire them so they can get a better contract. They get 200k per episode with a 16 episode season. Sheen makes 10 million for a 26 episode season. DD has more than twice the audience than Anger Management. Is anyone demanding that Sheen be suspended for posting that his exwife and PR and bestiality? Nope.
Posted by: Anuses United at December 23, 2013 03:16 PM (Qev5V)
156
I still say the Sacco thing will turn out to be a personal vendetta.
Yeah, I can't see that a publication aching for legitimacy would go on a tear against some random nobody. There's something going on under the surface here.
Posted by: --- at December 23, 2013 03:16 PM (MMC8r)
157
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 07:15 PM (/FnUH)
I can imagine a part of Louisiana though so poor that very little discrimination is happening as a practical matter. Everyone is in the same boat as it were.
But maybe I'm naïve.
Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at December 23, 2013 03:16 PM (GaqMa)
158
oh yeah I can see susan sarandon hitting up the ATM machine IYKWIM
Posted by: chemjeff on the phone at December 23, 2013 03:17 PM (GiftD)
159
>>>Ding, ding, ding. My point, earlier, but better expressed. It seemed to me, reading the interview, that Phil was speaking of his limited, personal observation. Other people have extrapolated it into a broader meaning.
the guy was not speaking of a dozen black people he knew. He was clearly generalizing from the particular, making a large statement about blacks then and now.
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 03:17 PM (/FnUH)
160
I wish I had my own water fountain.
We have very intimate contact with water fountains, when you think about it.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 23, 2013 03:17 PM (JDIKC)
161
>>I can answer this: They came into power.
close, but...
Jonah Goldberg talks about this kind of hypocrisy a lot, and I think he sums it up well when he says that progressivism will take whatever course is necessary to attain power. This means that they are fundamentally without principals and, for example, when in the minority in the senate they will defend the filibuster, but when in the majority they do away with it.
For progressives, it was never about free speech, it was about destroying the "establishment." Now it is about destroying the culture of their opponents. They have not changed because they came to power, they have only adapted their tactics to whatever works. If, in the 60's, a Berkeley student spoke up against sit ins and draft card burning, they would have been pummeled just as bad as the duck dude is now.
Posted by: Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest at December 23, 2013 03:18 PM (LWu6U)
162
The strain to "denormalize" unfavorable conduct was also seen in the recent NYc e-cigarette ban:
Councilman James Gennaro sponsored the bill to forbid the public smoking of e-cigarettes. “ err on the side of caution,” with this ban, he said, pointing out that the city’s prohibition of smoking in public, outdoor areas, had more to do with public approval than actual science. “Those second set of measures were more about sociology and denormalizing than they were hard medical science,” he said. “We thought it was important to make sure smoking was completely denormalized
Posted by: wooga at December 23, 2013 03:18 PM (StySt)
163
I bet tim robbins could suck a water fountain dry
Posted by: chemjeff on the phone at December 23, 2013 03:19 PM (GiftD)
164
One of the reasons for white trash violent antipathy towards blacks is because they occupied the same economic and social strata and competed for housing and work at the same level.
That builds up a lot of resentment.
On both sides.
Phil may have thought he was white trash but he probably wasn't as no self respecting (there's an oxymoron) white trash would work with blacks or vice versa.
it sounds like he was more rural farm poor (which can be white trash) alongside the same of blacks. They went to church (both baptist but different churches), believed in Jesus and God and were proud and had standards.
Now later he became white trash but that's another story.
That builds up a lot of resentment.
On both sides.
Phil may have thought he was white trash but he probably wasn't as no self respecting (there's an oxymoron) white trash would work with blacks or vice versa.
it sounds like he was more rural farm poor (which can be white trash) alongside the same of blacks. They went to church (both baptist but different churches), believed in Jesus and God and were proud and had standards.
Now later he became white trash but that's another story.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at December 23, 2013 03:19 PM (LSDdO)
165
155 I still say the Sacco thing will turn out to be a personal vendetta.
Yeah, I can't see that a publication aching for legitimacy would go on a tear against some random nobody. There's something going on under the surface here.
Posted by: --- at December 23, 2013 07:16 PM (MMC8r)
Not necessarily. Human nature can be pretty ugly and the internet is often an amplifier and accelerator for peoples' darker impulses.
Yeah, I can't see that a publication aching for legitimacy would go on a tear against some random nobody. There's something going on under the surface here.
Posted by: --- at December 23, 2013 07:16 PM (MMC8r)
Not necessarily. Human nature can be pretty ugly and the internet is often an amplifier and accelerator for peoples' darker impulses.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 23, 2013 03:19 PM (XkotV)
166
But he does seem to overlook the good part of the changes of 65. I'd agree with him about the Dependency Trap the progressives created for blacks. but I would not agree they were just fine in the pre-65, Jim Crow south, either.
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 07:15 PM (/FnUH)
He's a freaken TV personality, not a History Teacher at a leading University ( and G-D knows some of the shit they are teaching now a days). Most people have a few loans to pay off, a job to keep, maybe 2 jobs, kids to bring up, a wife to keep happy, and occasionally time to have a beer and steak with your friends. How cares what he said. People need to get their heads screwed on straight and worry about the important shit.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 23, 2013 03:19 PM (t3UFN)
167
"And don't forget the drunkards as well. They're also on the Group W bench."
haven't seen anything about how pissed off offended they are. or the millions and millions of twenty something year old fornicating singles for that matter.
Breaking News: Christian TV star announces that everyone is a sinner!
Posted by: i like anchors at December 23, 2013 03:19 PM (O4pD9)
168
Dependency Trap the progressives created for blacks. but I would not agree they were just fine in the pre-65, Jim Crow south, either.
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 07:15 PM (/FnUH)
Acording to Jonah Goldgerg, Progressives were responsible for Jim Crow, or at least Democrats were.
Remember in the 1890's blacks were republicans in the Old South
Posted by: #7 moron at December 23, 2013 03:20 PM (uk1X0)
169
I'll go ya one better. DON'T TRUST ANYONE! Period.
Thanks for posting this, and best of the season to all of y'all.
Posted by: georgeofthedesert at December 23, 2013 03:20 PM (Eq2MX)
170
"never trust anyone over 30" needs to be understood in light of the true meaning of "if you like your health coverage you can keep it.
Posted by: Mallfly at December 23, 2013 03:20 PM (bJm7W)
171
"I actually disagree with Phil Robertson on homosexuality.."
What exactly do you disagree with? That most men prefer vagina over anus? That homosexuality from the Bible's stance is a sin? What?
Posted by: seems legit at December 23, 2013 03:20 PM (A98Xu)
172
Sorry ACe but black families were MUCH better off before Welfare and the great leftist meddling in society.
The illegitimacy rate in 1950 among blacks was below 30 percent and its north of 70 percent today.
Posted by: ashleymedlock@yahoo.com at December 23, 2013 03:21 PM (oDRvb)
173
We need to tell every lefty this:
When you have destroyed Western Christendom, don't be surprised when you find that you have lost the Bill of Rights.
When you have destroyed Western Christendom, don't be surprised when you find that you have lost the Bill of Rights.
Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at December 23, 2013 03:21 PM (V70Uh)
174
Excellent posting, ace, particularly starting from "The real question is this:"
Well done!
Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars [/i] [/b] [/s] at December 23, 2013 03:22 PM (HsTG8)
175
Great great post Ace. You distill things so well; can't wait to see who quotes you next, hah.
Phil and the Duck clan don't need A and E and the media; the media need them. Phil is not genuflecting and bowing to their whims, this must be destroyed. It is kind of fascinating to watch. Ann Coulter said that Duck Dynasty is her favorite show and she has never even watched it, I presume for this very reason.
Posted by: LizLem at December 23, 2013 03:22 PM (Jelfu)
176
But he does seem to overlook the good part of the changes of 65. I'd agree with him about the Dependency Trap the progressives created for blacks. but I would not agree they were just fine in the pre-65, Jim Crow south, either.
I'm just wondering what the full context was-- did it come up talking about race, or was it talking about the dependency state?
And there's also the possibility that Robertson was talking about Christ's statements on slavery-- roughly, that He wasn't there to bring Earthly liberty, and that there were more important issues that concerned him.
Posted by: --- at December 23, 2013 03:22 PM (MMC8r)
177
It's the liberals that are destroying free speech and a free economy. See a pattern here comrades
Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 23, 2013 03:23 PM (t3UFN)
178
Populism is extremely dangerous. Never Again means we've got to beware wolves in sheep's clothing.
Posted by: i like anchors at December 23, 2013 03:24 PM (O4pD9)
179
but the real question is, if tim robbins and susan sarandon got together, who would be the bottom?
Posted by: chemjeff on the phone at December 23, 2013 03:24 PM (GiftD)
180
Let us all not forget, nothing happens in a vacuum. AE is owned by Hearst and Disney, not very conservative outfits.
The producer of DD?
Oh yeah, he was once a gay pron star.
http://tinyurl.com/m853n5z
Posted by: Nip Sip at December 23, 2013 03:24 PM (0FSuD)
181
As long as I get to post pics of cheerleaders my ox isn't the one being gored.
It sickens me that a noisy few screechers can demand and exact economic penalties for their perceived grievances, and let's face it using whatever they can - however vile it is - to harm people they hate.
I'm going to bring up the Todd Akin example now. What Akin said about rape and pregnancy was stupid, ignorant and incidentally may have cost him an election. A lot of us (I'm including me in "us") wanted him to withdraw because we believed what did happen would happen.
I wasn't thinking about his free speech rights. I was thinking about the consequences of him sayin something dumb, and I sure as shit wanted him to step aside and give us a shot at taking McCaskill's seat.
Not exactly an economic penalty, but a real one.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 23, 2013 03:24 PM (l7DqC)
182
Sorry ACe but black families were MUCH better off before Welfare and the great leftist meddling in society.>>
It aint just blacks anymore. That meddling is destroying all races now (mostly innercity). It is a fucking disease being fed by public education.
It aint just blacks anymore. That meddling is destroying all races now (mostly innercity). It is a fucking disease being fed by public education.
Posted by: The Hickster at December 23, 2013 03:24 PM (TI3xG)
183
The push to end Jim Crow started in the late '50's with schools, buses, voting and later other discriminatory regulations.
It was southern recalcitrance to that effort that forced the enactment of the Civil Rights Act.
But then who could get upset about a bunch of uppity smart ass yankees coming into your neighborhood and telling you how to live and work. And doing so with such friendliness and charm.
(not that they would've had an easier time otherwise) Still the tactics used were meant to be provocative. Who can be blamed if people were provoked?
And doing some pretty stupid stuff in reaction. But like I said above about white trash it was emotional and financial.
It was southern recalcitrance to that effort that forced the enactment of the Civil Rights Act.
But then who could get upset about a bunch of uppity smart ass yankees coming into your neighborhood and telling you how to live and work. And doing so with such friendliness and charm.
(not that they would've had an easier time otherwise) Still the tactics used were meant to be provocative. Who can be blamed if people were provoked?
And doing some pretty stupid stuff in reaction. But like I said above about white trash it was emotional and financial.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at December 23, 2013 03:25 PM (LSDdO)
184
Ace
I did not say anything about the law, nor did I say that you were advocating a particular kind of law.
You were making a moral point. I was and am disagreeing with it on moral grounds. I believe that baker and that photographer had a moral right not to support a homosexual wedding. That means that A&E had an equivalent moral right not to continue doing business with someone whose views they, at least presumably, dislike. (I am ignoring the legal issue of contract.)
Nor did I say that we just have to shut up if we do not like A&E's actions. We can elect not to watch A&E. We can elect not to buy from companies that advertise on A&E. We can elect to sell shares in whatever company owns A&E. We too have a moral right to refuse doing business with people whose views we find distasteful. The Cracker Barrel fiasco shows that the PC crowd can be beaten at this game.
Posted by: JeffM at December 23, 2013 03:25 PM (LIc41)
185
I have the opposite view in that I support Robertson's comments (in a cultural sense) by also support the right of A&E to fire/suspend him.
My big problem is the Left's viewpoint on every issue is also always protected by MSM/government/big business/academia etc, but never the "Right" side of the aisle. It's always being scrutinized and cut off at the knees. They always seem to get their pound of flesh.
Had Robertson said something like "people who oppose gay marriage are bigots" he would NEVER be disciplined. In some alternate universe had he been fired, he'd probably be able to sue in actual court and and win under some ridiculous pretense.
That being said, he works for A&E, and if they don't like the image he's giving the brand, they should be allowed to exercise their options according to their contract in order to get rid of him.
If ESPN had a black commentator that liked to go off on tirades about how white athletes that don't support Obama are closet racists, I think ESPN would be well within their rights to fire him.
My big problem is the Left's viewpoint on every issue is also always protected by MSM/government/big business/academia etc, but never the "Right" side of the aisle. It's always being scrutinized and cut off at the knees. They always seem to get their pound of flesh.
Had Robertson said something like "people who oppose gay marriage are bigots" he would NEVER be disciplined. In some alternate universe had he been fired, he'd probably be able to sue in actual court and and win under some ridiculous pretense.
That being said, he works for A&E, and if they don't like the image he's giving the brand, they should be allowed to exercise their options according to their contract in order to get rid of him.
If ESPN had a black commentator that liked to go off on tirades about how white athletes that don't support Obama are closet racists, I think ESPN would be well within their rights to fire him.
Posted by: Uniden at December 23, 2013 03:25 PM (pS6g3)
186
I speak with authority here because I'm openly gay ...
Blah Blah Blah. Seriously.
I speak as somebody that hoards ammo and food, fried chicken, and pussy. Not particularly in the order.
But if that's not your thing ... OK.
Just don't make a big deal about it. I don't carry around a "more ammo" sign.
Posted by: ScoggDog at December 23, 2013 03:25 PM (6/+vz)
187
171 Sorry ACe but black families were MUCH better off before Welfare and the great leftist meddling in society.
The illegitimacy rate in 1950 among blacks was below 30 percent and its north of 70 percent today. Posted by: ashleymedlock@yahoo.com at December 23, 2013 07:21 PM (oDRvb)
The left can do no wrong. During Thanksgiving my relatives were slamming Reagan and the rampant homelessness that was prevalent during his administration; as if he personally caused it. I asked how LBJ's great society had helped contribute to that rate of homelessness and of course got crickets.
Posted by: LizLem at December 23, 2013 03:26 PM (Jelfu)
188
Another thing that struck me about this is the complete lack of desire to persuade or engage. Sure the GLAADhander talked about Phil "meeting with gay families" but that sounded less like an attempt to persuade than to bully.
But most of the mob was only interested in boycotts, silence and abuse. They have the cultural upper-hand by a mile but still don't feel that they can even be the least bit persuasive.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 23, 2013 03:26 PM (T0NGe)
189
179 Let us all not forget, nothing happens in a vacuum. AE is owned by Hearst and Disney, not very conservative outfits.
The producer of DD?
Oh yeah, he was once a gay pron star.
http://tinyurl.com/m853n5z
Posted by: Nip Sip at December 23, 2013 07:24 PM (0FSuD)
No, per the link he played a gay pron star in a 2001 movie about the pron industry.
The producer of DD?
Oh yeah, he was once a gay pron star.
http://tinyurl.com/m853n5z
Posted by: Nip Sip at December 23, 2013 07:24 PM (0FSuD)
No, per the link he played a gay pron star in a 2001 movie about the pron industry.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 23, 2013 03:26 PM (XkotV)
190
And really, 'freedom of speech' and other natural rights don't exist just in a government context: a God-given freedom like 'freedom to speak' is 'freedom to speak, period'.
Posted by: PersonFromPorlock at December 23, 2013 03:26 PM (lILC0)
191
The Leftist rebellion in the '60's was so successful because it gave a certain segment of Baby Boomers a great two-fer - they got to feel brave and daring for Standing Up To The Man AND the things they were fighting for just happened to be things that are hugely enjoyable, particularly at age 20. Boo, Vietnam War - who wants to sweat your ass off in a jungle surrounded by VC, with a good chance of stepping on a mine or seeing your buddies shot to hell when you can loaf around and smoke pot and lay a bunch of hippie chicks? The "peace" and "love" bull was a pretty thin veneer - what the '60's generation fought for was themselves and their right to party and screw around. Yay! Co-ed dorms! Yay! Drugs! Yay! Fucking anybody I want without guilt or consequences!
That's the reason the Boomers rebelled against their parents and why their own kids, Gen Y or Z or whatever letter they are seem, in general, to be so conformist and non-rebellious, swallowing their elders propaganda about Obama and agreeing to the campus speech codes. It isn't just that they've been brainwashed by the educational system and the media (although they have), it's that the '60's leftists rebelled against authority and responsibility. Lenny Bruce said things that would never, ever be acceptable in 2013 America - but he also talked dirty and offended a lot of religious types, and that's fun if you're a leftist, so he gets a pass. Phil Robertson doesn't get a pass, because he's telling people that their fun activities are sinful.
For young people today, Standing Up To The Man would mean that they would demand to be treated like adults instead of coddled nitwit Pajama Boys. It would be like saying "Nope, I don't want cake and ice cream, give me brussels sprouts instead."
Posted by: Donna V. at December 23, 2013 03:27 PM (R3gO3)
192
The Cracker Barrel fiasco shows that the PC crowd can be beaten at this game.
Posted by: JeffM at December 23, 2013 07:25 PM (LIc41)
Because CB can be effected directly. Because of the way Cable TV is set up, A&E not so much.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 23, 2013 03:27 PM (t3UFN)
193
Can I speak with authority here because I prefer vagina?
Yea, didn't think so.
Posted by: USA at December 23, 2013 03:27 PM (VIaw0)
194
I don't trust anyone over 30 and I'm 53.
Posted by: freaked at December 23, 2013 03:27 PM (mOJT1)
195
No, per the link he played a gay pron star in a 2001 movie about the pron industry.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 23, 2013 07:26 PM (XkotV)
Isn't playing a gay pron star the same as being a gay pron star? It's a movie.
What's your point?
Posted by: Nip Sip at December 23, 2013 03:28 PM (0FSuD)
196
GQ asked Robertson his OPINION on sin.
Robertson gave his OPINION.
What is opinion based on ? religious belief ?
Life experience ? upbringing ?
You can disagree with someone's opinion, but it doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
The whole thing was contrived.
Posted by: seamrog at December 23, 2013 03:28 PM (0i4f6)
197
It would be like saying "Nope, I don't want cake and ice cream, give me brussels sprouts instead."
I'm over 50 and I don't evan say that ...
Posted by: Adriane... at December 23, 2013 03:28 PM (m3Cp/)
198
Also, like Ace said just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
Posted by: freaked at December 23, 2013 03:29 PM (mOJT1)
199
I don't trust anyone over 30 and I'm 53.
Posted by: freaked at December 23, 2013 07:27 PM (mOJT1)
Trust but verify, and lock up the knives
Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 23, 2013 03:29 PM (t3UFN)
200
weird how the left is allowed to be bigots against bigotry in the robertson cycle. someone in the horde called them christophobes. during the zimmerman cycles they were allowed to be vigilantes against vigilantism.
just saying it is weird that they seem to feel like champions of a greater cause therefore their own rules cannot apply to them. correct opinions and all that.
Posted by: i like anchors at December 23, 2013 03:29 PM (O4pD9)
201
There's another aspect of this whole affair that bothers me: the turning of it into nothing more than a freedom of expression issue. Phil Robertson's actual point: that homosexuality is unnatural as well as immoral, is the question he posed. It's the argument many of us would like to hear gays respond to.
Putting a penis into an anus is not just wrong morally; it's unnatural and illogical. Robertson wryly added, "But that's just me" but of course, it isn't. It is 90-some percent of us.
I'm a libertarian. I don't care what gays do with their penises. I do care how they argue that putting them into men's anuses is logical, natural, and wholesome. The best answer I've seen on this is that they can't help who they are and where their penises desire to go. But this answer makes them into puppets of their DNA. Is that really want they want to believe about themselves?
Posted by: Befuddled at December 23, 2013 03:29 PM (deaac)
202
It *is* very much a human thing and very much a "they came to power" thing -- to wit, the Republican party F'ing it when they had both halves of Congress and the White House, '01-'06.
Posted by: SFGoth at December 23, 2013 03:30 PM (J2QLB)
203
Seemed more like a freedom of religion thing than a free speech thing, but that's just me.
Nevertheless, that little Napoleon in NYC will someday be on the short stick of things if he can find a tall enough ladder.
Seemed more like a freedom of religion thing than a free speech thing, but that's just me.
Nevertheless, that little Napoleon in NYC will someday be on the short stick of things if he can find a tall enough ladder.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 23, 2013 03:30 PM (MaP11)
204
Isn't playing a gay pron star the same as being a gay pron star? It's a movie.
No. Cocks v. Stunt cocks and Ass v. Stunt ass .... Unless the director / producer is a cheapskate. Then all bets are off ...
Posted by: Adriane... at December 23, 2013 03:31 PM (m3Cp/)
205
"Look, I get this a lot from Southerners, especially older ones. They
don't believe Jim Crow was *right*, mind you. But they also sort of
don't want to fully fess up to how bad it is, so they sort of get into
this whole "Blacks were just fine back then, it was Yankee troublemakers
coming in that caused all the problems, before the courts and yankees
came stirring everything up we all got along fine..."
Let's see, back then blacks had:
1. An intact family structure.
2. An intact religious community.
3. An intact small business structure.
Which of those do they still have in This Great Society the Democrats have wrought? And how is it wrong to assume blacks are less happy today because of it?
Let's see, back then blacks had:
1. An intact family structure.
2. An intact religious community.
3. An intact small business structure.
Which of those do they still have in This Great Society the Democrats have wrought? And how is it wrong to assume blacks are less happy today because of it?
Posted by: Richard McEnroe at December 23, 2013 03:31 PM (XO6WW)
206
Here's a link to the GQ article:
http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/ duck-dynasty-phil-robertson
And this is what appears in the article:
Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. 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.”
http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/ duck-dynasty-phil-robertson
And this is what appears in the article:
Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. 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.”
Posted by: Retread at December 23, 2013 03:32 PM (cHwk5)
207
Of all the posts to read on a phone, I chose this wordy bitch.
Posted by: Garrett at December 23, 2013 03:32 PM (SZpZX)
208
to wit, the Republican party F'ing it when they had both halves of Congress and the White House, '01-'06.
Posted by: SFGoth at December 23, 2013 07:30 PM (J2QLB)
remember NRO chirping that deficets don't matter back then
oh and the lightbulb ban perscription drug coverage....
Posted by: #7 moron at December 23, 2013 03:32 PM (uk1X0)
209
Will you all just say PORN!
Good grief. it's as bad as pwned a typing mistake made by a stupid gamer in the dawn of the computer age. It was okay for the first 10-15 years but it's getting ridiculous now.
Owned
Porn
c'mon type them along with me. You can do it if you try.
Good grief. it's as bad as pwned a typing mistake made by a stupid gamer in the dawn of the computer age. It was okay for the first 10-15 years but it's getting ridiculous now.
Owned
Porn
c'mon type them along with me. You can do it if you try.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at December 23, 2013 03:32 PM (LSDdO)
210
Posted by: Uniden at December 23, 2013 07:25 PM (pS6g3)
The problem is that A&E HIRED him for that EXACT Image...
The one they now say they condemn...
And in fact, THEY scheduled the interview, KNOWING his views, and allowed those questions to be asked.
And now he is Suspended.... for saying what they knew he would say, when THEY set up the venue for those questions to be asked?
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 23, 2013 03:32 PM (lZBBB)
211
I think everyone is forgetting one of your civil rights is not to be fired from a private employer for expressing your religious beliefs. I wish someone would bring this lawsuit, to see was a court does with the gay lobby vs. the Bible. The two are irreconcilable.
Posted by: artemis at December 23, 2013 03:33 PM (2XMD1)
212
Isn't playing a gay pron star the same as being a gay pron star? It's a movie.
What's your point?
Posted by: Nip Sip at December 23, 2013 07:28 PM (0FSuD)
Nope - just like acting the part of president or doctor doesn't make you the president or an actual medical doctor.
My point is honesty. Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you get to make up shit about them.
What's your point?
Posted by: Nip Sip at December 23, 2013 07:28 PM (0FSuD)
Nope - just like acting the part of president or doctor doesn't make you the president or an actual medical doctor.
My point is honesty. Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you get to make up shit about them.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 23, 2013 03:33 PM (XkotV)
213
In short, everyone acknowledges that the 1st Amendment only refers to laws, but there is also a spirit of Free Speech: Tolerant people should seek to persuade rather than punish those who disagree with them.
Americans reacted strongly against the Duck Dynasty suspension because they identified with the speaker's opinion and saw that they too could be punished for blasphemy.
Americans reacted strongly against the Duck Dynasty suspension because they identified with the speaker's opinion and saw that they too could be punished for blasphemy.
Posted by: My Sisters' Brother at December 23, 2013 03:33 PM (mTuTB)
214
Can I speak with authority here because I prefer vagina?>>
I'm with ya and the best kind is the vagina that says Yes.
And that is not antigay just my wish to get a yes from is vagina. DADT
I'm with ya and the best kind is the vagina that says Yes.
And that is not antigay just my wish to get a yes from is vagina. DADT
Posted by: The Hickster at December 23, 2013 03:33 PM (TI3xG)
215
195
GQ asked Robertson his OPINION on sin.
Robertson gave his OPINION.
What is opinion based on ? religious belief ?
Life experience ? upbringing ?
You can disagree with someone's opinion, but it doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
The whole thing was contrived. Posted by: seamrog
I happen to have the same views as Robertson's, but I think what made the gayz flip out was the bestiality comparison. Basically that homosexuality is a gateway perversion. Had Robertson just said "I believe homosexuality is a moral sin" it would have gone nowhere.
My view is if you're "born" a homosexual, than I guess pedophiles are also "born" that way too. But that's not something I like to talk about in polite company.
Robertson gave his OPINION.
What is opinion based on ? religious belief ?
Life experience ? upbringing ?
You can disagree with someone's opinion, but it doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
The whole thing was contrived. Posted by: seamrog
I happen to have the same views as Robertson's, but I think what made the gayz flip out was the bestiality comparison. Basically that homosexuality is a gateway perversion. Had Robertson just said "I believe homosexuality is a moral sin" it would have gone nowhere.
My view is if you're "born" a homosexual, than I guess pedophiles are also "born" that way too. But that's not something I like to talk about in polite company.
Posted by: Uniden at December 23, 2013 03:33 PM (pS6g3)
217
I think everyone is forgetting one of your civil rights is not to be fired from a private employer for expressing your religious beliefs. I wish someone would bring this lawsuit, to see was a court does with the gay lobby vs. the Bible. The twoare irreconcilable.
Posted by: artemis at December 23, 2013 07:33 PM (2XMD1)
My personal opinion, and mind you now I have no idea what I am talking about usually: If he had stopped with the gay stuff and not went on to the black stuff he would have been ok.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 23, 2013 03:35 PM (t3UFN)
218
whatever. I'm sure you're right, blacks were A-OK with being semi-officially and even officially treated as second-class citizens.
Duck Commander said so, so.
Posted by: ace at
It's not only African Africans who were treated as second class. Poor whites who worked along side them were also. I know, that is my roots. My white grandmother (orphan) grew up as a slave long after Abe Lincoln. Hell, in the early 70s, I saw poor whites, African American and Hispanic chasing swamp bunnies and cottontails as they ran from burning sugar cane fields in south Florida. The all needed food and it wasn't like the whites got first in line for the chase.
As I posted on here before my dad (born 1922) always told me, "we didn't know there was a depression, we were already poor." A lot of those people all over the South (outside the cities) lived and worked and hurt right along side with African Americans, and were too busy feeding five-six children to hate.
Posted by: traye at December 23, 2013 03:36 PM (KpUGj)
219
Speaking of free speech...Ace the trailer for the new Kate Upton movie has been out a while, any chance we can get a pre-movie review? Even if it just a bunch of "I'd bang that faster than..." jokes? The next Olivier she is not, but that was never the point, considering her character's nickname is "the boobs."
Posted by: LizLem at December 23, 2013 03:36 PM (Jelfu)
220
Ok. let me throw this molotov cocktail onto the fire.
Wanna know why a lot of blacks and white retirees want the Mexicans to be legalized?
They both want the immigrants to pay the taxes to keep the free shit coming.
Wanna know why a lot of blacks and white retirees want the Mexicans to be legalized?
They both want the immigrants to pay the taxes to keep the free shit coming.
Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at December 23, 2013 03:36 PM (V70Uh)
221
Jeesh, everybody still here? I've been out trying to concoct cream of shrimp soup, but I digress. The Left would be proud, us having a frank conversation about race and all. The "NNNNNNN" word is an example of where freedom of speech ends. If I used it here, Ace would ban my ass in a second. It's his right, it's his blog. If I used "that word" in my local hood, I'd be curb-stomped in a second. The brothers would take issue. Is this right in a utopia? We don't have one, never will. We, as a people, have been conditioned not to use "that word", by and large. The only time you hear it is in private, by those unacceptable people, and it makes us cringe, and look around really fast to see who is standing nearby. Some things are not OK to use our freedom for, and we are generally in agreement about it. That's probably the take that A&E had on what Phil said.
Posted by: tubal the bad at December 23, 2013 03:37 PM (YEQ2h)
222
Posted by: Befuddled at December 23, 2013 07:29 PM (deaac)
Yeah.... just about every Major religion says its a Sin....
And from a Darwinian perspective, it does not help Race Survival in any way...
So believe in a Plan, or design... it sure don't make a lot of sense...
But we are now not just supposed to Tolerate it.... we are supposed to CELEBRATE it.
And considering that I don't have a single Homosexual person in my life anymore... it sure does seem to be taking up a lot of intellectual time...
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 23, 2013 03:37 PM (lZBBB)
223
219 Ok. let me throw this molotov cocktail onto the fire.
O/T but you are spot on.
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at December 23, 2013 03:38 PM (HVff2)
224
"I actually disagree with Phil Robertson on homosexuality"
Ace Likes me! He Really, Really likes me!
Couldn't resist.
Just for the record, I pretty much agree with Phil right down the line. Homosexuality, along with fornication and several other behaviors, is a sin. And I also think that vaginas have more to offer a man than an anus.
And I try, as Phil mentions, to hate the sin, not the sinner.
Ace Likes me! He Really, Really likes me!
Couldn't resist.
Just for the record, I pretty much agree with Phil right down the line. Homosexuality, along with fornication and several other behaviors, is a sin. And I also think that vaginas have more to offer a man than an anus.
And I try, as Phil mentions, to hate the sin, not the sinner.
Posted by: Anus at December 23, 2013 03:38 PM (iMxEz)
225
Seasons Greetings, Ace.
One quibble. Why is it that you expect the media to be paragons of virtue on this issue?
I mean, they're the media! Dishonest - intellectually or otherwise - is what they *do*. May as well be pissed off at the sun for rising, eh?
Mew
Posted by: acat at December 23, 2013 03:38 PM (4UkCP)
226
The push to end Jim Crow started in the late '50's with schools, buses, voting and later other discriminatory regulations. It was southern recalcitrance to that effort that forced the enactment of the Civil Rights Act.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger
The nice thing about being a big Northern city is you can be just as discriminatory toward minorities, and in the exact same fashion, but you don't have to spend half a century and counting under the Federal Civil Right Act yoke.
Posted by: Boston - School Desegregation Moi?
The push to end Jim Crow started in the late '50's with schools, buses, voting and later other discriminatory regulations. It was southern recalcitrance to that effort that forced the enactment of the Civil Rights Act.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger
The nice thing about being a big Northern city is you can be just as discriminatory toward minorities, and in the exact same fashion, but you don't have to spend half a century and counting under the Federal Civil Right Act yoke.
Posted by: Boston - School Desegregation Moi?
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 23, 2013 03:39 PM (kdS6q)
228
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at December 23, 2013 07:32 PM (LSDdO)
Using 'pron' is just our way of making the HQ a little more palatable to that crazy buyout cash from Salem Communications.
Using 'pron' is just our way of making the HQ a little more palatable to that crazy buyout cash from Salem Communications.
Posted by: Bivalve Curious at December 23, 2013 03:41 PM (aGqSh)
229
Owned
Porn
c'mon type them along with me. You can do it if you try
--
fcuk that
Posted by: fluffy at December 23, 2013 03:41 PM (Ua6T/)
230
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 23, 2013 07:32 PM (lZBBB)
This.
When a fart in a crowded elevator is released, somebody on board is lying.
At least one.
Maybe everyone.
Posted by: eman at December 23, 2013 03:44 PM (EWsrI)
231
"I happen to have the same views as Robertson's, but I think what made the gayz flip out was the bestiality comparison. Basically that homosexuality is a gateway perversion."
I do note with some satisfaction that the much derided Slippery Slope argument concerning gay marriage-- that it would lead to acceptance of polygamy, etc, -- has now been shown to be spot on. Polygamy today! Beastiality tomorrow!
Posted by: Nervous at December 23, 2013 03:44 PM (deaac)
232
I like that Ace doesn't call liberals liberal. They aren't. But why call them progressive? They're not that either.
I call them leftists.
I call them leftists.
Posted by: Mr Estrada at December 23, 2013 03:45 PM (5piqN)
233
Regarding the "race" part of the comments, can we at least agree that's incredibly stupid and insulting to approach an issue like that with a tone of "things were a lot better for these blacks before civil rights"
I 100% agree that LBJ's War on Poverty was incredibly destructive, but we don't want to be on the wrong side of things like segregation and Jim Crow, and that's how most people are interpreting his comments.
When you come at an angle like Robertson did, it almost reminds when I hear people making the case that blacks were better off under slavery. It's way too radioactive to come at it that way.
I 100% agree that LBJ's War on Poverty was incredibly destructive, but we don't want to be on the wrong side of things like segregation and Jim Crow, and that's how most people are interpreting his comments.
When you come at an angle like Robertson did, it almost reminds when I hear people making the case that blacks were better off under slavery. It's way too radioactive to come at it that way.
Posted by: Uniden at December 23, 2013 03:45 PM (pS6g3)
234
Hasn't anyone considered that we've all been trolled?
1) Phil gets to make definitive statements about his christian beliefs and gets "penalized" for it.
2) AnE gets to look all contrite and sorry for the redneck disaster (to lefties) they've perpetrated on them. Yet they still are showing the program.
3) GLAAD gets to look like the savior and warrior protecting Gay Rights everywhere and all powerful and stuff.
4) AnE and Phil get a fuck ton of publicity. which means do-re-mi (note how the DD stuff flew off the shelves in Walmart)
5) GLAAD may be a loser in this. (maybe a cut of the gross?) Only time will tell.
6) Cracker Barrel: Collateral damage. They fell for it and momentarily went to the wrong side but immediately reversed themselves (probably got a frantic call from some AnE exec telling them what the scam was.)
They're ALL business men. They're all smart and have many people who think sideways about stuff. They're ACTORS. And they like money. so why wouldn't they do this? Who would believe anyone who tried to leak the true story? And what difference would it make.
Note: Phil wasn't fired and has taken NO monetary damage from this (to the contrary). AnE still is making money and owns the franchise. (think: the fake rivalries on WWF. Scripted to the last wrist hold). GLAAD is taking flak but from who? A bunch of rednecks? They don't care. Everybody is making more money after this.
Where's the downside?
1) Phil gets to make definitive statements about his christian beliefs and gets "penalized" for it.
2) AnE gets to look all contrite and sorry for the redneck disaster (to lefties) they've perpetrated on them. Yet they still are showing the program.
3) GLAAD gets to look like the savior and warrior protecting Gay Rights everywhere and all powerful and stuff.
4) AnE and Phil get a fuck ton of publicity. which means do-re-mi (note how the DD stuff flew off the shelves in Walmart)
5) GLAAD may be a loser in this. (maybe a cut of the gross?) Only time will tell.
6) Cracker Barrel: Collateral damage. They fell for it and momentarily went to the wrong side but immediately reversed themselves (probably got a frantic call from some AnE exec telling them what the scam was.)
They're ALL business men. They're all smart and have many people who think sideways about stuff. They're ACTORS. And they like money. so why wouldn't they do this? Who would believe anyone who tried to leak the true story? And what difference would it make.
Note: Phil wasn't fired and has taken NO monetary damage from this (to the contrary). AnE still is making money and owns the franchise. (think: the fake rivalries on WWF. Scripted to the last wrist hold). GLAAD is taking flak but from who? A bunch of rednecks? They don't care. Everybody is making more money after this.
Where's the downside?
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at December 23, 2013 03:46 PM (LSDdO)
235
Ace-
So what do you propose exactly? Your objections and thoughts on the matter - and those of the millions like you - have been heard, dismissed and disdained.
So what do you propose to resolve this situation?
Posted by: SlapNutz at December 23, 2013 03:47 PM (vVSAz)
236
Ace, it was never about free speech, tolerance, or diversity.
It is about the Progressives sweeping aside society so that they can rebuild it in their own delusional vision.
To do this they they used the actual tolerance and fairness of American society to grab a foot hold and then shamed American society into shutting up guiltily because America is not perfect (but then nothing is).
"Free speech" was always just an escuse and atool to be discarded.
Further, to justify everything they do, they demonize the opposition as evil incarnate. This way, no matter how bad they are, they can just declare that they are good because they are not the absolute evil they have previously delineated.
We can see this over Robertson's quotes on Blacks. I've only read the excerpt, but if that is the worst of it, then he is being unfairly maligned. He didn't say Jim Crow was great, but that the stereotype of the pre-1960's South was not lynchings and Bull Conner style beatings 24/7, and that Blacks, could be secure in God and even find some happiness in that.
The rabid Left declare that anything short of what they want is just complete surrender to the KKK. They deny that there was anything good, and that anything reminiscent of those times is racism incarnate.
This is their manichean world view. The Social Marxists refer to this as the "superstructure" (AKA, the cultural narrative), and they are replacing one that is fundamentally good (though not without sin), with one that is 100% evil.
Posted by: The Political Hat at December 23, 2013 03:49 PM (/YkzI)
237
Bottom line, what the duck guy was saying was that ignorance was bliss... for him and those around him including black folks
Posted by: Albie Damned at December 23, 2013 03:50 PM (cGaCp)
238
Seems to me that Robertson said "in his neck of the woods". I don't see how you can claim he was talking in general...
Posted by: [/i][/b]KG at December 23, 2013 03:51 PM (IPz9m)
239
Dead thread and probably a waste of time, but I really do not see the equivalence between Sacco's behavior and the repercussions she suffered and some/most of these other cases.
I rather suspect that the braying of thousands of people on Twitter or wherever was only partly to blame for her firing. Because she was tweeting childish stupidity on a Twitter account in which she identified both herself by name (and picture) AND her employer, it was kind of inevitable that her employer would get wind of it. As soon as it became a widely disseminated thing (after all, number of followers is not what determines if something is "public" on Twitter), the employer was very publicly embarrassed by her behavior. And I really disagree with the characterization of her as some random nobody cubicle dweller. She had a pretty significant job, that had at its center dealing with the public & clients, at a very big place. This wasn't some gal working in the mailroom tweeting anonymously who was outed.
I think those of us who have worked in jobs in which we were the face of our organizations realize that we are under enhanced scrutiny. In fact, we're usually explicitly told that when we're interviewed and/or have behavior clauses in our offer letters or contracts. That's simply life.
The only surprising thing is that she was so dimwitted as to be conducting herself like a 13 year old under her real name and picture for so long without it biting her on the ass.
To me this sort of person and her situation holds no greater lessons. She behaved like a jackass. It embarrassed her company. End of story. It's not about her political views, but about her level of professionalism. I certainly wouldn't want to be her client.
I think bigger lessons come from cases of people exercising their political rights in a not particularly public, in your face manner. For example, the person from that San Francisco arts org (opera? museum? I can't recall) whose crime was writing a $50 check in support of Prop 8 in my case was a much more chilling example of PCness run amok because I very much doubt that any of the clients with whom that person worked, even if they were SSM proponents, would have even KNOWN about the donation had the gaystapo not outed his donation.
What's next? You can't work for an arts org (or AIDS org or higher ed etc) if you're a registered Republican, even if you never utter a single word about politics at the office?
Posted by: Y-not at December 23, 2013 03:55 PM (zDsvJ)
240
It's important to realize how undeniable and obvious it it that people who weren't even alive in the 50's but went to "elite" universities are SO smart that they know FAR MORE about the contentedness of Louisiana black people then than people who were ACTUALLY THERE AT THE TIME
Posted by: DAve at December 23, 2013 03:56 PM (b7yum)
241
That's because they watched (or read) "The Help," DAve.
Posted by: Y-not at December 23, 2013 03:58 PM (zDsvJ)
242
That's because they watched (or read) "The Help," DAve.
Posted by: Y-not at December 23, 2013 03:58 PM (zDsvJ)
243
Robertson was fired for expressing the same views on gays that Obama did in 2008. I think the reason people are upset about this has absolutely nothing to do with A&E's right to fire him. I think the reason people are upset is because of the reason why they chose to exercise that right.
It says a lot about us as a society.
It says a lot about us as a society.
Posted by: JohnJ at December 23, 2013 04:00 PM (TF/YA)
244
Robertson was fired for expressing the same views on gays that Obama did in 2008. I think the reason people are upset about this has absolutely nothing to do with A&E's right to fire him. I think the reason people are upset is because of the reason why they chose to exercise that right.
It says a lot about us as a society.
It says a lot about us as a society.
Posted by: JohnJ at December 23, 2013 04:00 PM (TF/YA)
245
remember NRO chirping that deficets don't matter back then
Those deficits didn't. Not really. They were miniscule compared to today. And going down. The 2007 deficit was significantly smaller than 2006.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 23, 2013 04:01 PM (T0NGe)
247
@211
I didn't make anything up. I linked the story. Appears to be playing a gay porn star makes you gay porn star. Should I say a he's a straight actor that plays a gay? Why, how do we know, and what difference does it make. It made a porn movie.
And This?
No. Cocks v. Stunt cocks and Ass v. Stunt ass .... Unless the director / producer is a cheapskate. Then all bets are off ...
Posted by: Adriane... at December 23, 2013 07:31 PM (m3Cp/)
Man, that's rough! ha ha
Posted by: Nip Sip at December 23, 2013 04:02 PM (0FSuD)
248
I happen to have the same views as Robertson's, but I think what made the gayz flip out was the bestiality comparison.
This I don't get. The compassionate tolerant elite draws the line at bestiality?
Why? Why there?
Posted by: AmishDude at December 23, 2013 04:02 PM (T0NGe)
249
Better read Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Then re-read this article.....
The "Employment At Will" doctrine is nearly extinct.
Posted by: Devan at December 23, 2013 04:02 PM (1NdUg)
250
The duck guys comments..
<<“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.>>
Hard to see racism here. He never mentioned Jim Crow or the civil rights acts of the 60's.
What I do see...objectively?... is him talking about the shared experience he had with blacks who were pretty much his peers in his own little world, and a commentary of how the welfare state probably has prevented black advancement
<<“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.>>
Hard to see racism here. He never mentioned Jim Crow or the civil rights acts of the 60's.
What I do see...objectively?... is him talking about the shared experience he had with blacks who were pretty much his peers in his own little world, and a commentary of how the welfare state probably has prevented black advancement
Posted by: Albie Damned at December 23, 2013 04:03 PM (cGaCp)
251
240 Yeah if Forest Whittaker sez it it must be so.
He wouldn't look you straight in the eyes and lie about something like that.
Besides every Oprah production benefits from the stellar reputation for integrity of their matron
Posted by: DAve at December 23, 2013 04:05 PM (b7yum)
253
I am not gay but my boyfriend is and he has informed me that he once met Robertson on a hunting trip and slipped him a crippler behind a bush.I think that this whole debacle may be a delusional cover up by Phil to cleanse himself of past sins.Or it could simply be a ploy by the producers to boost ratings and notoriety by grabbing the attention of factions within our society,both for and against, and manipulating them to a point where they actually give a shit about this contrived drivel.
Posted by: nobhead at December 23, 2013 04:16 PM (au0fK)
254
.Or it could simply be a ploy by the producers to boost ratings and notoriety by grabbing the attention of factions within our society,both for and against, and manipulating them to a point where they actually give a shit about this contrived drivel.
Posted by: nobhead at December 23, 2013 08:16 PM (au0fK)
Any press is good press...
Posted by: A&E at December 23, 2013 04:17 PM (/YkzI)
255
Robertson was fired for expressing the same views on gays that Obama did in 2008.
But everybody knew Obama was lying.
But everybody knew Obama was lying.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at December 23, 2013 04:18 PM (LSDdO)
256
The argument the libs are presenting is an underhanded lie for one reason:
Companies can be held liable by the government for "hostile workplace environments", and the government defines what is hostile and what is not. Most companies are so paranoid about government prosecution that they punish employees for "hostile" public utterances made even during the employee's own personal time.
Posted by: Ken at December 23, 2013 04:21 PM (SgBGg)
257
I fired that little dick tattoo years ago.
Posted by: RicardoM at December 23, 2013 04:23 PM (mOJT1)
258
Ace, for once I think you have completely missed the point.
People shout "Free Speech", and think it means that they get to stand up wherever they please, and say what ever they want, and nobody can act against them. That's not how it works.
First, you have to "own the stage". The Valedictorian evangelical who wants to use his school's stage to preach to all in attendence, it isn't allowed because it's not his stage. He is free to rent a room, or gather whoever will come to his OWN house, and say whatever the hell he wants. The government's role is to defend his right to do that, not to provide him with whatever stage he wants.
Secondly, the government is not allowed to come after you for what you say. That doesn't mean that people can't get up and walk out, and decide they never want to see you again. In short, the govt is not there to protect you from consequences; they just can't dole out any consequences of their own.
As to the question being "SHOULD...?", that is the question, but that is for A&E to answer, because it is their stage, and they have answered it. It's obvious to most of us they they got it wrong, and for a number of reasons, social, moral and business, but it is not for us to answer.
My second point applies more to A&E than it does to Robertson. They have alienated the stars of their most popular show, and so therefore have not only bitten the hands that fed them, but also tarnished their reputation for a pretty large population of potential viewers. They've pretty much asked to become the next MSNBC. (Good luck with that, A&E!) The execs should be fired for making such an profoundly incompetent business decision.
This really comes down what the contract says, and I would be surprised if its written in such a way that Phil doesn't have the makings of a HUGE lawsuit. I can't believe that Phil would have signed a contract that says "we can ban you from the show whenever we feel like it".
Regardless, even if A&E allows him back, they need to get the hell away from A&E, who are obviously hostile to them. A&E needs him more than he needs them.
Posted by: Optimizer at December 23, 2013 04:28 PM (saDM3)
259
Read Clarence Thomas's autobiography and Thomas's grandfather is who Robertson is talking about. They may have been rightfully resentful and full of scorn but most rural blacks never outwardly showed it. At least that was my experience growing up in Louisiana in the 60's.
Posted by: Roc Ingersol at December 23, 2013 04:31 PM (u+9Sb)
261
@257: Hey, "Tonawanda"! That's my home town!!
Posted by: Optimizer at December 23, 2013 04:38 PM (saDM3)
262
For what GLAAD has been operating is a classic blacklist operation.
Its object is not to persuade those who disagree with it over the morality of same-sex relationships to change their minds. Nor is it principally intended to prevent such views being expressed publicly (though that is one of its purposes). Its main purpose is to drive those who hold such views out of their professions and to deprive them of their livelihoods unless they recant, promise not to offend in future, and remain within the boundaries of acceptable opinion laid down by the blacklist operators. And if that is done, it should make anyone think twice or three times before using his freedom of speech to express similar views.
Its object is not to persuade those who disagree with it over the morality of same-sex relationships to change their minds. Nor is it principally intended to prevent such views being expressed publicly (though that is one of its purposes). Its main purpose is to drive those who hold such views out of their professions and to deprive them of their livelihoods unless they recant, promise not to offend in future, and remain within the boundaries of acceptable opinion laid down by the blacklist operators. And if that is done, it should make anyone think twice or three times before using his freedom of speech to express similar views.
Posted by: Rupert Holmes at December 23, 2013 04:41 PM (e8kgV)
263
@238 "...To me this sort of person and her situation holds no greater lessons. She behaved like a jackass. It embarrassed her company. End of story. It's not about her political views, but about her level of professionalism. I certainly wouldn't want to be her client. ..."
I presume she was only fired because people who can't read thought it sounded like anti-black racism. If the reading-impaired realized that it was an anti-white racist reference to "white privilege" that would have been OK, even though it's equally assinine. I don't believe for a minute that it was about "professionalism" (but I would love to be wrong).
Posted by: Optimizer at December 23, 2013 04:44 PM (saDM3)
264
Paglia made sense until she said "homophobic". Using a PC term then saying she hates PC talk? Uh-uh.
Posted by: bretzysdude at December 23, 2013 04:54 PM (TaoTu)
265
I believe Ace is mistaken about one thing in his analysis. The Left has never been in favor of maximum free speech. They are only in favor of their own speech. They have consistently advocated for their views, and consistently shouted down and attacked those whose express views contrary to theirs. Leftist views used to be extreme, and now they are mainstream, while the prior mainstream is now considered "extreme" by those in power - now the Left. So it is not a matter of the Left changing their behavior once in power because human nature. They have been consistent in pushing their views and excluding everyone else's views.
Posted by: whoever at December 23, 2013 04:57 PM (zu9Ee)
266
#262 whoever........
I am by no means a liberal but does that not happen on both sides of the political mud wrestling pit?
Posted by: nobhead at December 23, 2013 05:03 PM (au0fK)
267
It's so nice that one of our intellectual betters would take the time to illuminate us mental midgets with such an utterly and clearly brilliant defence of Phil Robertson...
I am humbled and dumb-struck with awe!
And I still think Paglia is a pretentious windbag!
Posted by: Zohydro at December 23, 2013 05:08 PM (C4Zwk)
268
I never comment. But you have never been so right. Well, maybe a couple times, but still...
What happened to the hippies is they got what they wanted, and perverted it to what they hated. Which was, after all, what they really wanted. Power.
RATHER ANARCHY, THAN MONARCHY!
What happened to the hippies is they got what they wanted, and perverted it to what they hated. Which was, after all, what they really wanted. Power.
RATHER ANARCHY, THAN MONARCHY!
Posted by: rick at December 23, 2013 05:17 PM (snYrg)
270
Phil made the comment that a women's vagina has more to offer a man, than another man's anus. I can't say I know about the latter, just the former. One question that comes immediately to mind is, is Phil talking about a comparison he has done, and how does he know that one has more to offer than the other?
I kid ... I kid...
Ace is dead on right on his point. Liberals and progressives are completely intolerant of speech and writing at odds with their belief. I know I used to be one, and I used to think the same way. It took a number of years and a lot of maturing for me to realize how incredibly childish, petty, and simply, plain old wrong this was.
I don't fault Phil's viewpoint. I can disagree with it, but he has the right to express it. Others can disagree with his viewpoint. Or agree with it.
The essence of freedom of speech is that people can express their thoughts in words, verbal, printed, or otherwise. Freedom of speech means we can be free to ignore speech as well. And do so civilly.
Without freedom of speech, we would not know whom the complete and utter idiots are as easily as when they have the right to make absolute fools of themselves by opening their mouths.
The government, nor the instruments of government should not infringe upon speech. Those who believe themselves as responsible adults should not seek to limit others speech. Imposing one's will upon others, for any reason, is never a good idea. It leads to more conflict. This is true whether it is externally imposed limits on speech or government mandated (im)morality, or whatnot else. They are all examples of things that should not be done.
Posted by: N.O. Body at December 23, 2013 05:23 PM (80GjT)
271
32
Ace, could Robertson sue because he was not allowed to practice his religion?
Not likely. He was being interviewed GQ magazine. He was asked a question, and he answered it. I doubt that would qualify as practicing his religion.
Not likely. He was being interviewed GQ magazine. He was asked a question, and he answered it. I doubt that would qualify as practicing his religion.
Posted by: jbarntt at December 23, 2013 05:26 PM (UNFot)
272
Think about it. IF THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE MUSTN'T
SAY (OR WRITE) THINGS THAT WILL "OFFEND" SOMEONE, aren't GQ and the
interviewer also complicit in doing just that?
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 06:42 PM (/FnUH)
I would not be surprised if the interviewer regarded himself (and the gang of thugs who mobbed up as if on cue regarded him) as a sort of interrogator tasked with ferreting out those committing Thoughtcrimes.
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 06:42 PM (/FnUH)
I would not be surprised if the interviewer regarded himself (and the gang of thugs who mobbed up as if on cue regarded him) as a sort of interrogator tasked with ferreting out those committing Thoughtcrimes.
Posted by: The inexplicable Dr. Julius Strangepork at December 23, 2013 05:27 PM (EAosr)
273
Using a PC term then saying she hates PC talk?
Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only person who noticed that.
Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only person who noticed that.
Posted by: NR Pax at December 23, 2013 05:29 PM (ODsL5)
274
I doubt that would qualify as practicing his religion.
I would argue that he expressed his religion in an interview as a private citizen (And not on A&E's dime) and is being punished for it.
I would argue that he expressed his religion in an interview as a private citizen (And not on A&E's dime) and is being punished for it.
Posted by: NR Pax at December 23, 2013 05:30 PM (ODsL5)
275
Ace,
I know that you know that a company has right to fire employees. Another way of saying it is to say that it is a moral act to fire an employee. It is moral to act within your rights. The fired employee doesn't have a right to the job, and you are not required to employ them. It may not be wise, or it may be the best decision ever made, but either way it was a moral act to fire them. If we can agree to this point then I ask: what is right if no one is morally wrong?
You think it was wrong for Robertson to be fired. The people running A&E thought it was a proper response. It's hard to disagree with either of you. I don't like people getting fired for nothing-burgers, but I also understand that gay marriage is sweeping the nation and a very gay-heavy Winter Olympics is right around the corner so there is probably a heightened sense right now and no one wants to be 'that guy'.
A cable channel nods to the cultural zeitgeist (not just GLAAD) which is sympathetic to homosexual discrimination and a rugged, self-sufficient multi-millionaire proudly shares religious beliefs with no hesitation.
Who is 'right' here?
I know that you know that a company has right to fire employees. Another way of saying it is to say that it is a moral act to fire an employee. It is moral to act within your rights. The fired employee doesn't have a right to the job, and you are not required to employ them. It may not be wise, or it may be the best decision ever made, but either way it was a moral act to fire them. If we can agree to this point then I ask: what is right if no one is morally wrong?
You think it was wrong for Robertson to be fired. The people running A&E thought it was a proper response. It's hard to disagree with either of you. I don't like people getting fired for nothing-burgers, but I also understand that gay marriage is sweeping the nation and a very gay-heavy Winter Olympics is right around the corner so there is probably a heightened sense right now and no one wants to be 'that guy'.
A cable channel nods to the cultural zeitgeist (not just GLAAD) which is sympathetic to homosexual discrimination and a rugged, self-sufficient multi-millionaire proudly shares religious beliefs with no hesitation.
Who is 'right' here?
Posted by: obamuh at December 23, 2013 05:31 PM (2whSJ)
276
I love how corporations don't have the right to determine what wages to pay their employees, but they have the right to fire people for expressing their opinions on their own time.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 23, 2013 05:33 PM (bf+1U)
277
On the bright side I will enjoy NEVER HEARING ABOUT THE FUCKING HOLLYWOOD BLACKLIST AGAIN.
Posted by: Dave M at December 23, 2013 05:40 PM (dbm77)
278
I've commented maybe 3 times in all the years I've been reading the site but I had to chime in here. Absolutely brilliant piece. Would read again.
Posted by: Tokin42 at December 23, 2013 05:42 PM (/xKME)
279
#44 "By surrendering to the pleas of others to not use this or that word because of the hurtful feelings those words arouse in those individuals we open the door to further and further claims of "hurtfulness"."
I disagree. Pleas are fine. They can plead with me all day long not to use certain words. If they've got good arguments, I might even end up agreeing with them, or at least working out how much saying this particular word means to me versus the bad effects it might have. I'm not perfect; not every word that falls from my lips is solid gold. Maybe I could replace an expression or two from my repertoire without doing any harm, or maybe even improving my message.
But I'm not guaranteeing anything. I might like some of my earthier expressions, just because of their antiquity. And if the pleas move on to things like "Please don't quote the Bible because it reminds me of the Crusaders" then the answer is going to be no. And the problem comes when the pleaders just won't take "No" for an answer and escalate up to "Oh, yeah? Well, how would you like to end up living in a cardboard box under a bridge?" At that point we are no longer having a conversation, we are engaged in warfare.
Posted by: Dr. Mabuse at December 23, 2013 05:43 PM (FkH4y)
280
Fire someone who supports gay rights and may be gay and see how much they support that right of a company to fire anyone.
Posted by: Reality Man at December 23, 2013 05:49 PM (Cs9Ps)
281
Fire someone who supports gay rights and may be gay and see how much they support that right of a company to fire anyone.
Posted by: Reality Man at December 23, 2013 09:49 PM (Cs9Ps)
1000 fucking times this.
Posted by: Berserker- Dragonheads Division at December 23, 2013 05:52 PM (FMbng)
282
>>I presume she was only fired because people who can't read thought it sounded like anti-black racism.
---------
She made light of a disease that is killing millions of Africans in a very public forum while identifying herself and her employer. The racial component of her joke was secondary, imho.
I did not join in in the calls to have her fired, but I am not shedding a tear for her, nor am I at all surprised they fired her. She was in a public role for a major company that, iirc, had international clients. I'm only surprised they didn't pull the plug on her sooner.
The fact that the chick was South African just adds an extra creepy cherry on top of the incident. I think her dad's reaction to this was very enlightening.
She wasn't some kid fresh out of college whose Facebook tomfoolery from her student days suddenly went public. She is a grown woman in an important role who showed very poor judgment and insensitivity.
As I said, I've been in jobs where my public behavior was subject to scrutiny and my husband has, too. So I guess to me this particular case just doesn't strike me as being about Thought Police as much as it has to do with being a Grown Up.
Posted by: Y-not at December 23, 2013 05:53 PM (zDsvJ)
283
I should clarify. The Thought Police undoubtedly threw a temper tantrum. No doubt. And that's annoying. But I think if her tweet(s) had crossed the desk of an important client, irrespective of the Thought Police, the outcome would likely have been the same.
Posted by: Y-not at December 23, 2013 05:55 PM (zDsvJ)
284
I doubt that would qualify as practicing his religion.
Christianity holds as a commandment to witness for Christ. Christianity does not allow for taqiya. If a question is posed to a Christian, s/he will answer it in the most Christian way possible.
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at December 23, 2013 05:55 PM (J9qpF)
285
"I disagree vehemently with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
"I disagree vehemently with what you say, so I will everything in my power to silence you." -- Bob Wright (speaking for progressives everywhere)
"I disagree vehemently with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
"I disagree vehemently with what you say, so I will everything in my power to silence you." -- Bob Wright (speaking for progressives everywhere)
Posted by: Brown Line at December 23, 2013 05:56 PM (a5bF3)
286
I did not join in in the calls to have her fired, but I am not shedding a tear for her, nor am I at all surprised they fired her
I'm not exactly on the NAACP's gift card list myself, and even I had to agree with this.
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at December 23, 2013 05:56 PM (J9qpF)
287
Althouse is the first person I turn to for a principled defense of free speech and open discourse -- after she burned down her own comments section, replacing it with a carefully cultivated pen of docile pets. Jesus, one of the points of contention between her and her original commenters was this very issue of militant homosexuality.
"It's a general principle, not something you save for your friends." Indeed, Althouse.
Posted by: Pastafarian at December 23, 2013 05:58 PM (pCf+a)
288
"I should clarify. The Thought Police undoubtedly threw a temper tantrum.
No doubt. And that's annoying. But I think if her tweet(s) had crossed
the desk of an important client, irrespective of the Thought Police, the
outcome would likely have been the same."
She had ~200 people on her list. I wonder which one ratted her out to the PC stasi.
She had ~200 people on her list. I wonder which one ratted her out to the PC stasi.
Posted by: Brown Line at December 23, 2013 06:00 PM (a5bF3)
289
The illegitimacy rate in 1950 among blacks was below 30 percent and its north of 70 percent today.
There are a number of intersecting issues here under the "were blacks better off under Jim Crow / apartheid / colonialism" umbrella.
Personal happiness is one.
Metrics of prosperity is another.
Racial pride is the third. And this IS important, lest you scoff - it's demonstrably important to blacks anyway. Blacks were very proud that their candidate won the mayoral race in Detroit (Coleman Young); they were very proud when Obama won.
The fourth question is whether anyone but blacks should even care if blacks are happy / prosperous / proud. They're not related to me after all, and I have a very limited number of people I care about in the tangible as opposed to abstract.
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at December 23, 2013 06:01 PM (J9qpF)
290
The easily offended climate in which we find ourselves today is the result in the decline of rhetoric. People are no longer able to debate and engage in the realm of ideas without resorting to accusing those who hold opposing viewpoints as being evil. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't necessarily make the other person evil, even if they are wrong. We use rhetoric to persuade people, or we used to anyway. Those who can not use words to persuade will persuade with violence, and this is where the left is today. They are no longer liberal, and they are no longer interested in the exchange of ideas. They are only interested in shutting up those that disagree with them, and they are only interested in control. Being convinced of their own rightness, they feel they have the moral imperative to use any means to achieve their ends.
Posted by: Mistress Overdone at December 23, 2013 06:04 PM (2/oBD)
291
I'm not defending Jim Crow (in fact, I have specifically attacked it here in the past), but I agree with earlier commenters that the condition of blacks was not uniformly horrible in those days.
They had intact families, strong religious institutions, and were not raised to believe that the world owed them a living. While life was often unfair to them, they took lemons and made lemonade when they could. As with any other race, the best of them knew that hard work and self-discipline would lead to advancement.
While they may have been excluded from mainstream white culture, they built a strong culture of their own. There's no better example than music. Black musical styles, from jazz to gospel to blues to rock & roll, were among the greatest of American music, which reverberated around the world. It even became a symbol of resistance behind the Iron Curtain for Russians and Eastern Europeans who never met a black person.
But after nearly 50 years of Great Society policies, virtually all of the progress has been rolled back. Families have been destroyed and replaced by dependency on the government. Affirmative action ensures that unqualified minorities are hired and promoted solely based on skin color. This does not inculcate a strong work ethic.
And even black music has degenerated into violent, filthy garbage. Which, alas, is still hugely influential.
Jim Crow was wrong, because government is supposed to represent and protect the rights of all of the people, not just a subset.
But it's really hard to say that what has replaced Jim Crow has been an improvement.
Posted by: rickl at December 23, 2013 06:06 PM (sdi6R)
292
"whatever. I'm sure you're right, blacks were A-OK with being
semi-officially and even officially treated as second-class citizens."
Did anyone, before they started casting the first stone, actually ask the guy what he'd meant? Or what he'd seen? Or what his experiences had been? Did any of these highly paid "investigative journalists" actually go to Louisiana and try to find some of these neighbors of whom he'd spoken?
I didn't think so.
Did anyone, before they started casting the first stone, actually ask the guy what he'd meant? Or what he'd seen? Or what his experiences had been? Did any of these highly paid "investigative journalists" actually go to Louisiana and try to find some of these neighbors of whom he'd spoken?
I didn't think so.
Posted by: Brown Line at December 23, 2013 06:06 PM (a5bF3)
293
Libertarian is not far left. Libertarian isn't liberal. Libertarian is far right. There is nothing right of libertarian. Libertarian hate leftest ideology. You can't be a liberal and a libertarian, that is impossible.
Camille Paglia needs to figure out politically which ideology she belong too.
Camille Paglia needs to figure out politically which ideology she belong too.
Posted by: jdun1911@gmail.com at December 23, 2013 06:07 PM (Hao09)
294
Why does the Left feel they *own* Blacks?
And women? Homos? Immigrants? Rape?
---
Simply because the non-Left is not militant and will not stand up for itself. The Left is just filling the vacuum created by the inaction of the non-Left. There is never a hill worth dying on.
Posted by: whoever at December 23, 2013 06:17 PM (zu9Ee)
295
263
#262 whoever........
I am by no means a liberal but does that not happen on both sides of the political mud wrestling pit?
-----
I do not see it happening now. ("It" being the non-Left shouting down and excluding Leftist speech.) If it had happened in the past, then the non-Left would not have ceded the entire culture to the Left. Therefore I conclude that the Left behaves in this way while their opponents do not. So no, I don't see it as both sides behaving the same way.
Posted by: whoever at December 23, 2013 06:27 PM (zu9Ee)
296
Can someone just explain to me what "Duck Dynasty" has to to with "Arts and Entertainment"?
Posted by: HTL at December 23, 2013 06:38 PM (QV8Gr)
297
Mine is the right
To be wrong
Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs
Jack Rabbit mister
Spawn a new breed
Of love-hungry children
No bodies to feed
Show me a good man and I'll
Show you the door
The last hymn is sung
And the devil cries,"More"
To be wrong
Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs
Jack Rabbit mister
Spawn a new breed
Of love-hungry children
No bodies to feed
Show me a good man and I'll
Show you the door
The last hymn is sung
And the devil cries,"More"
Posted by: Corona at December 23, 2013 06:42 PM (fh2Y7)
298
"Let's see, back then blacks had:
1. An intact family structure.
2. An intact religious community.
3. An intact small business structure.
Which of those do they still have in This Great Society the Democrats have wrought? And how is it wrong to assume blacks are less happy today because of it?"
Thank you. If Phil had been asked, "should blacks have been deprived of civil rights?", I'm sure he would have answered that no, it was a bad thing. But Phil's answer to the actual question was to say Politics Ain't Everything, It's Not Even The Most Important Thing. "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul?", as Our Lord once put it.
That line of thought is heresy to the Left, of course.
1. An intact family structure.
2. An intact religious community.
3. An intact small business structure.
Which of those do they still have in This Great Society the Democrats have wrought? And how is it wrong to assume blacks are less happy today because of it?"
Thank you. If Phil had been asked, "should blacks have been deprived of civil rights?", I'm sure he would have answered that no, it was a bad thing. But Phil's answer to the actual question was to say Politics Ain't Everything, It's Not Even The Most Important Thing. "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul?", as Our Lord once put it.
That line of thought is heresy to the Left, of course.
Posted by: craig at December 23, 2013 06:44 PM (U264b)
299
I may not agree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it.
THAT is the foundation of the first amendment.
THAT by every generation of authoritarian thug is buried once they get power and want to hold power forever.
So it is with everything that some dead white people wrote 200 years ago, or 2000 years ago, the socratic method as it was.
THAT is the foundation of the first amendment.
THAT by every generation of authoritarian thug is buried once they get power and want to hold power forever.
So it is with everything that some dead white people wrote 200 years ago, or 2000 years ago, the socratic method as it was.
Posted by: Burnt Toast at December 23, 2013 06:56 PM (80R0X)
300
@279 "... She made light of a disease that is killing millions of Africans in a very public forum while identifying herself and her employer. The racial component of her joke was secondary, imho."
I've heard that argument, and I don't buy it. There's such a thing a "black humor" - people cracking jokes about horrific things, as part of a way to deal with it psychologically. No doubt, people made jokes about the Plauge, back when it was going on.
The Left loves to grab onto that argument because AIDS is associated with two of their favorite victimhood groups, blacks (at least in Africa) and gays.
Posted by: Optimizer at December 23, 2013 06:58 PM (saDM3)
301
After reading this post and the comments I hope I don't look back at this in a couple years and say, "Those were the days". This is wonderful to read but I fear that all of this will soon disappear. The new Bolsheviks are here.
I hope some of this clear thinking displayed here is the product of younger minds than mine. I think my fear is based on my experience with the up and coming. They seem steeped in PC culture and reflexively self-censor.
Posted by: pawn at December 23, 2013 07:01 PM (xxdkI)
302
Where it was once infected with socialism, socialism
is now the party, period. There are few liberals left in the
Democratic party.
Posted by: ace
As the socialist world-wide like to call it, "Democratic".
Posted by: ace
As the socialist world-wide like to call it, "Democratic".
Posted by: Burnt Toast at December 23, 2013 07:01 PM (80R0X)
304
Too fair, ace. Libs resent anyone who disagrees with them. They are "enemies" who need to be "punished".
Conservatives don't mind dummies expressing stupid beliefs as long as we have the right to express how stupid they are.
Posted by: The Mega Independent at December 23, 2013 07:08 PM (4/o9U)
305
Ace, on a side note, I am a Latin-American (by which I mean an American who regularly uses Latin), and I would very much appreciate it if you would start using the phrase "non sequitur" instead of "non sequitor [sic]," or at least use the misspelling less often.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
I hasten to point out that I am in no way questioning your *right* to misspell non sequitur, merely pointing out that the misspelling causes me some degree of discomfort and interferes with the transmission of your intended thoughts; and so as a matter of decency and respect I beg you to use the correct spelling.
Thanks!
Posted by: Sean Gleeson at December 23, 2013 07:08 PM (cBJcr)
306
300
"I may not agree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it.
Prove it.
Posted by: Corona
Honestly? Fuck No!
I decided almost twenty years ago that I will not support the free-speech of authoritarian thugs.
Prove it.
Posted by: Corona
Honestly? Fuck No!
I decided almost twenty years ago that I will not support the free-speech of authoritarian thugs.
Posted by: Burnt Toast at December 23, 2013 07:57 PM (80R0X)
307
>>>I hasten to point out that I am in no way questioning your *right* to misspell non sequitur, merely pointing out that the misspelling causes me some degree of discomfort and interferes with the transmission of your intended thoughts; and so as a matter of decency and respect I beg you to use the correct spelling.
thanks... the spell check kept underlining it as an error and I didn't believe it. I will get it right going forward.
Posted by: ace at December 23, 2013 08:02 PM (/FnUH)
308
BTW, I just saw my first few episodes of "Duck Dynasty."IT is obvious that the suits at A&E have never watched a single episode of the show. Almost every show ends with a prayer. And the PR person who arranged for the GQ interview should be fired and so should the PR person who let the reporter and the interviewee go off alone.
Posted by: vivi at December 23, 2013 08:08 PM (+/8mE)
309
To disagree with Phil is fine, but to state "he is wrong" is as hypocritical as the leftist filth.
Phil stated he prefers a vagina over another guys ass, where is he wrong.
He states homosexuality is a sin, where is he wrong? In the bible according to Ace?
>90 % of US would disagree with you, Ace.
100% of believers in the natural law disagree with you.
You should qualify your statements as "in my belief he was wrong" Phils statements were subjective opinion, ergo there is no wrong.
Phil stated he prefers a vagina over another guys ass, where is he wrong.
He states homosexuality is a sin, where is he wrong? In the bible according to Ace?
>90 % of US would disagree with you, Ace.
100% of believers in the natural law disagree with you.
You should qualify your statements as "in my belief he was wrong" Phils statements were subjective opinion, ergo there is no wrong.
Posted by: spiker at December 23, 2013 08:16 PM (Sm+2p)
310
"Phil stated he prefers a vagina over another guys ass..."
But everyone needs a hobby - base jumping or needle point, say.
If Phil says he doesn't do base jumping or needle point, he is wrong.
If he says that base jumping or needle point is a sin, he is wrong.
If he says man wasn't born to base jump or do needle point, he is wrong.
If he says anything is just a choice he is wrong.
Nobody, right or wrong, is allowed choices.
But everyone needs a hobby - base jumping or needle point, say.
If Phil says he doesn't do base jumping or needle point, he is wrong.
If he says that base jumping or needle point is a sin, he is wrong.
If he says man wasn't born to base jump or do needle point, he is wrong.
If he says anything is just a choice he is wrong.
Nobody, right or wrong, is allowed choices.
Posted by: Burnt Toast at December 23, 2013 08:51 PM (80R0X)
311
Nobody is allowed to chose vagina over ass.
Posted by: Burnt Toast at December 23, 2013 08:53 PM (80R0X)
312
Ace goes for the Jim Crow to pile on the gay shit.
Sad.
Posted by: nip at December 23, 2013 09:28 PM (jI23+)
313
Ace,
I disagree. I understand your point, but again, disagree.
If A&E wants to fire someone for saying something - they can.
You want to play non-sequitor type arguments? Here's one:
What if Robertson had said "all n**gers should be put back into slavery"?
Does A&E have the right in that instance to suspend or fire him for saying that?
If yes, why? I'll tell you why - because in that case you would agree that the speech was "beyond the pale". It comes down to you subjectively judging what is and is not beyond the pale. You may disagree with where the line is drawn, but it is not your decision as to that line - each individual/company gets to draw their own line. A&E - and any company or person, should be allowed to decide who they want to hire, fire, associate with, etc. And people's statements are fair game for making those decisions. We, as conservatives, should be arguing for more freedom in that regard, not less (i.e., clubs, organizations, etc. should be able to exclude/not-hire people they want to exclude - freedom of association and speech should allow for that). In contrast - the left is going the way you are arguing for - making more and more "protected" categories that can't be fired, have to be allowed in any club or organization, etc.
Now, we as conservatives don't like that we are losing the culture war such that A&E is suspending him for what is essentially a non-controversial statement of religious dogma. It seems absurd.
But, should Hobby Lobby be forced to continue the employment of someone who goes around bashing Christ and Christians and saying abortion is wonderful?
It is fine to argue that A&E should not fire/suspend Robertson. But to argue that the first amendment should protect people's speech with regard to private decisions is absurd. As a conservative you should know this. You are implicitly arguing for more gov't control over speech - i.e., some kind of cause of action for a right to say whatever you want and keep your job.
that is not conservative at all. Conservatives for years have argued that speech may be free - but it also has consequences. That is true even if we agree with the speech and disagree with the consequences.
Lawyers have a saying "bad facts make bad law" - this is for cases where the plaintiff is sympathetic but the current legal standard does not provide for recovery. In such cases, courts will often develop some new (and stupid) theory of law to allow the sympathetic plaintiff to recover. that is exactly what you are doing here. You are trying to create a broad-line legal/moral argument to support the end you want.
Do I disagree with A&E suspending Robertson for saying what is essentially what the vast majority of Christian churches teach? Yes. I think it is absurd. Do I think we should create some expanded definition of first amendment freedom which allows people to say things with no consequences from their private employers? No, absolutely not.
Posted by: monkeytoe at December 24, 2013 04:25 AM (sOx93)
314
>>>Althouse is the first person I turn to for a principled defense of free speech and open discourse -- after she burned down her own comments section, replacing it with a carefully cultivated pen of docile pets.
Posted by: Pastafarian
althouse isn't very self-aware.
Posted by: X at December 24, 2013 05:10 AM (KHo8t)
315
Ace, late to the party on this one and as you often do you knocked it out of the park. These long essays are where you really shine. I mean, other than the Thai trannys and banning yourself from your own blog.
Never not funny.
Never not funny.
Posted by: J. Random Dude at December 24, 2013 05:47 AM (8OfdL)
316
This is akin to being a landlord at this time of the year. Yes, I have the right to evict a tenant based on non-payment.
Now tell me which of these special snowflakes who argue that A&E has a right to suspend Robertson will also defend me when I boot a family out of their apartment on Christmas Eve?
Wait...the head ewok was caught with Thai trannies and got the ban hammer from his cob-loggers? JPEGs or it didn't happen...
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at December 24, 2013 06:33 AM (BDH94)
317
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at December 24, 2013 10:33 AM (BDH94)
See comment 310.
I am astounded that so-called conservatives are now arguing that freedom of speech somehow protects people from the consequences of their speech by private individuals/entities.
think about what you are arguing. You want to force christian organizations to have to continue to employ anti-christian propagandists, for instance.
this is definitely a situation where emotion is clouding judgment.
There is an enormous gulf of difference between arguing that we should boycott A&E for suspending the guy and arguing that somehow A&E does not have the right to do what it did because "freedom of speech".
The fact that Ace and others don't understand this is incredibly troubling.
Posted by: monkeytoe at December 24, 2013 06:57 AM (sOx93)
318
"Had Robertson just said "I believe homosexuality is a moral sin" it would have gone nowhere."
Hahahahahaha!!!! Great joke! I mean really well constructed. Perfect execution.
...
That WAS a joke, right....?
Hahahahahaha!!!! Great joke! I mean really well constructed. Perfect execution.
...
That WAS a joke, right....?
Posted by: Head Football Coach Howard Schnellenberger at December 24, 2013 07:36 AM (T+Zre)
319
No, Ace. The problem here is not one of "chilling" speech. (And it certainly isn't one of the First Amendment.) The problem is not whether A&E had any right to suspend Phil, nor whether any group of individuals should have the right to persuade (or even coerce) a company into disciplining an employee or contractor. Every side of this is using free speech to further its ends: the company is using its rights to say "we don't want to hear that", and the gaystapo is using their rights to try and gen up the controversy to get him tossed, and a vast number of other people have been exercising their rights to criticize those two. This is what truly free speech is.
No, where the problem lies is in the power that people have given over to certain special groups to declare something "beyond the pale". Someone somewhere sometime is going to declare something "beyond the pale". It happens all the time. The problem is the power we have given within our society for that to have any meaningful weight. Yes, some things should be "beyond the pale". But the self-guilt of progressives has perverted that concept into something nearly unrecognizable. Simple things like telling a bad (in the sense of socially acceptable) joke have become the equivalent of admitting you have buried a few bodies in your backyard. They have turned the trivial into the momentous and trivialized the truly monstrous.
THAT is the true issue here. It isn't one of free speech. That's operating just fine on all sides. The issue is the gaystapo and their allies on the left turning things that *should* be tolerated (like disagreeable opinions) into "that which must never be accepted". Keep the focus.
No, where the problem lies is in the power that people have given over to certain special groups to declare something "beyond the pale". Someone somewhere sometime is going to declare something "beyond the pale". It happens all the time. The problem is the power we have given within our society for that to have any meaningful weight. Yes, some things should be "beyond the pale". But the self-guilt of progressives has perverted that concept into something nearly unrecognizable. Simple things like telling a bad (in the sense of socially acceptable) joke have become the equivalent of admitting you have buried a few bodies in your backyard. They have turned the trivial into the momentous and trivialized the truly monstrous.
THAT is the true issue here. It isn't one of free speech. That's operating just fine on all sides. The issue is the gaystapo and their allies on the left turning things that *should* be tolerated (like disagreeable opinions) into "that which must never be accepted". Keep the focus.
Posted by: GWB at December 24, 2013 07:41 AM (4zdFI)
320
310 "...It comes down to you
subjectively judging what is and is not beyond the pale. You may
disagree with where the line is drawn, but it is not your decision as to
that line - each individual/company gets to draw their own line.
A&E - and any company or person, should be allowed to decide who
they want to hire, fire, associate with, etc."
The problem is that some people, Ace apparently included, have placed their faith in a libertarian-ish "COEXIST" sticker fantasy in which Tolerance rules, everybody speaks freely, and there is no 'beyond the pale' where real-world consequences accrue. But tolerance only ever needs to be extended to the bad, never the good. Society must have a definition of the good before it can tolerate anything, and it must calibrate which trespasses against that good will be politely ignored for the sake of civility and social order. There will always be a 'pale'.
The Left has been steadily moving the fences for fifty-odd years and now sees itself powerful enough to move the fence such that Christianity is outside. GLAAD fully intended by this to put orthodox Christian doctrine, even quotation of Scripture itself, beyond the pale and render it un-utterable in public. That is why A&E and GLAAD need to be punched back, twice as hard. The Left has proven that quarter will not be given in the culture war, so none should be offered them in return.
The problem is that some people, Ace apparently included, have placed their faith in a libertarian-ish "COEXIST" sticker fantasy in which Tolerance rules, everybody speaks freely, and there is no 'beyond the pale' where real-world consequences accrue. But tolerance only ever needs to be extended to the bad, never the good. Society must have a definition of the good before it can tolerate anything, and it must calibrate which trespasses against that good will be politely ignored for the sake of civility and social order. There will always be a 'pale'.
The Left has been steadily moving the fences for fifty-odd years and now sees itself powerful enough to move the fence such that Christianity is outside. GLAAD fully intended by this to put orthodox Christian doctrine, even quotation of Scripture itself, beyond the pale and render it un-utterable in public. That is why A&E and GLAAD need to be punched back, twice as hard. The Left has proven that quarter will not be given in the culture war, so none should be offered them in return.
Posted by: craig at December 24, 2013 07:44 AM (Q5asM)
321
The left though was making the same argument 30 years ago when they were under pressure by anti-communists. Remember every couple of years they trot out the Hollywood 10 or rage against the rating system in movies. The H10 were "persecuted" by the private sector and the rating system is 100% private sector.
Posted by: Federale (@Federale86) at December 24, 2013 07:49 AM (f4+3j)
323
What happened with Althouse? That's what I want to know.
Posted by: Ymarsakar at December 24, 2013 07:50 AM (xFjpq)
324
This is merely a demonstration of one of left's tools, floating the trial balloon. The left floats these balloons as a means of checking whether it is safe to take over the next level of society. IF GLAAD is successful in cowing people, they move on to the next step - criminalization of thought.
They have successfully pulled this with race and gender so the precedence has already been set. You can't say the N word and not be charged with a (hate) crime, we are on the threshold of criminalizing the C word with women and now they are working on the behavioral PC expressions. We confuse the right of free speech with crude language in inappropriate places. The left has seized on that confusion to advance their agenda. The agenda, control of thought and criminalizing any expression of that thought that doesn't conform to their thought de jour.
Posted by: dscott at December 24, 2013 12:22 PM (PQhpg)
325
The left's progressivism is not about freedom, it is about control, total control and that's why Althouse is surprised. Althouse presumes a benign unpurposed behavior from the left just being the left, no it's not, it's about control and taking over society. This is about evil scheming to seize control over large populations of people and making them into serfs. There is nothing benign about the left, so stop being surprised.
Posted by: dscott at December 24, 2013 12:29 PM (PQhpg)
326
Kudos, Ace. This article is a masterpiece of understanding regarding the principle of free speech.
Posted by: FreedomFan at December 24, 2013 11:35 PM (nUVDn)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
310kb generated in CPU 0.1048, elapsed 0.2973 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2511 seconds, 454 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
64 queries taking 0.2511 seconds, 454 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: oc joe at December 23, 2013 02:18 PM (hqVUe)