After anti-gay and Racist remarks, should Duck Dynasty be cancelled?

Forums - Movies Discussion - After anti-gay and Racist remarks, should Duck Dynasty be cancelled?

scat398 said:
RG3Hunna said:
scat398 said:
Well the title of this article is completely misleading, His comments were not racist or anti-gay.

Talking about his experience working with young black men, I assume in the early 1950's and describing what he say as a fellow employee is not racist. Would you have preferred he lie and say he didn't see black people singing and enjoying their work? Would you have preferred he describe their mood as angry and spiteful to their employer?

As far as the anti-gay comments I think a bit of perspective is needed. Every major religion views the act of homo-sexuality as a sin, I personally don't know why, but for whatever reason they lump it in with the other major no-no's of adultery, cheating, stealing, (things that we all agree are morally wrong), which raises a larger question of if our ancestors for thousand of years were able to determine the above mentioned sins are morally wrong, why do we make the assumption they are wrong about homo-sexuality? Bigger question for a larger debate but anyways, is it anti-gay to say you believe homo-sexuality is a sin? or is it merely offensive? there is a difference.

Blacks were not happy during the pre Civil Rights era he is clueless. He was working with young black men back when young black men were to give up their seat in the front of the bus for white passengers? Yea right sureeeeeeee!!!! The guy is talking out of his behind. Blacks were not happy during jim crow and for a white man who isn't black to say that is amazingly ignorant. 

It would be like me saying gays were happier prior to all the "PC gay rights" you see now. I'm not gay, who do I think I am proclaiming how gays feel? That guy is a moron, he's entitled to his own opinion and I accept that and i'm entitled to mine and my opinion is that he's an ignorant moron. 

But he is not ignorant on the matter at hand, if anything you and I are.  He was describing his experiene as a poor whte kid working wth poor black kids.  Just because his  experience doesn't ft the mold of the greater picture doesn't make him racist, which is what some very ignorant people called him.

Again, would you rather have had him lie, or are you calling him a liar?

I'm black and I have parents and grand parents who were in that era, they hated it. You could be hung if a white woman said you looked at her. You were to pick up your food in the back where the dogs were tied up. You were to get up out of your seat if the bus was packed and a whte passenger came in. You were also to get out of your seat if a white passenger wanted your seat even if it wasn't packed. If you did EVERYTHING right in school and wanted to go to a great southern university like LSU, Ole Miss, Alabama etc etc you were not allowed to go because they don't allow your kind. Black athletes had to attend HBCU's they were not allowed to attend regular colleges. The KKK was prevelant especially in the south and they would hang you for entertainment if they dare saw you out at night. Can you imagine how that would make you feel where you're terrified at night that you could be hung or your house burned down just because of the color of your skin?

I'm not ignorant to the subject I just ask my relatives who lived during the time in the racist south. How is a white man going to tell me blacks were happy during the jim crow era? Blacks weren't happy why do you think they marched for rights? If they were happy the civil rights movement wouldn't have happened. 

Yes i'm calling him a LIAR. Blacks were not happy during the jim crow era, there was prevelant mob violence and lynching why the heck would blacks be happy about that?


Around the Network

Liberals are most tolerant people on earth, unless you disagree with them.

el_gallo said:
mornelithe said:
Scisca said:
Can't see anything that he said being even close to being offesive. I actually find it very politically correct and see this whole thing only as another episode of the gay terror that is hauting the West and spreading like wildfire. Some month ago there was this case in Poland. Parents of 3 kids decided they don't want their children to participate in an "equality program" in their kindergarten in which they were "educating" boys that they can wear dresses, etc. In return the children got expelled from the public kindergarten!!

That's just fucked up. Tolerance meaning treating everyone equal - cool. Stuff like this? No way!

I don't want to live in a world in which you get fired for saying anything that's not praising homosexualism and homosexuals, especially if it's something like what he said. Yeah, for the Church homosexualism is a sin. Everyone who's religious will tell you that. According to this religion, if you don't truely repent for the sin of homosexualism, you're gonna fry in hell alongside other sinners. #dealwithit. Firing someone for reminding you this or doing things like the kindergarten thing in Poland is pure terror and brainwashing that I will never approve of.

I guess you're missing the whole difference between praising homosexuality and not insinuating that homosexuality will eventually lead to bestiality.  There's a huge area in between those two points, to explore which doesn't have to include insulting or praising lifestyles.  And, if you object to being fired for not towing the company line, I would suggest starting your own business and setting your own rules.  Until then, it's their money and they can do what they want with it.

As far as the Poland issue, I can find no article on it so I can't comment without reading further on the subject.

That isn't what he said. He said it was a sin and listed several other sins along with it.

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

It's his right to say it. It's the companies right to keep him on the show or not keep him on the show.
I will say this though, it is sort of hypocritical for the company to hire someone for a reality television show because of who they are and then feign ignorance or complain when they continue to act like the person they hired.
They hired this guy because he was a hunting, Southern Jesus freak. What did they really think was going to come out of his mouth regarding sin and homosexuality?
If I hire Paris Hilton for a show, I can't turn around and complain that I didn't know she was going to come off sounding like a stupid, entitled, drunken whore in an interview.

The real issue is A&E doesn't want to cancel Duck Dynasty because it makes them tons of cash and since the "show" is just the family, the family could easily go to some competition and take the ratings and cash with them. A&E seems to want to have their cake and eat it too. They want "enlightened" rednecks who pray to Jesus and hunt ducks all day.
Also while everyone is harping on the earlier statements, no one seems to want to read this part of the interview.
As far as Phil is concerned, he was literally born again. Old Phil—the guy with the booze and the pills—died a long time ago, and New Phil sees no need to apologize for him: “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

You can paint it however you like, as is typically the case with the religious (but these are not rules, exclusive to them.  These apply to everyone) who assume they can say anything without repercussion.  The fact is, he discussed his views on homosexuality as a lead-in to discussing bestiality.  This is a very common trend amongst the religious, first we allow gays to have equal rights, and the ability to marry, and next thing you know we'll be wanting rights to bestiality and pedophilia (also known as the slippery slope argument), without mentioning that marriage/sexual relationships require informed consent, which is not possible from an animal or a child (informed consent has age limits, which is why statutory rape laws exist).  It's a tired, old, and sad tactic used by religious conservatives who lack any real argument against something they simply don't agree with, that's not being forced upon them, and that has no effect on their lives whatsoever, unless they choose to allow it.

He has every right to his opinion/beliefs and to voice them through whatever entity approves such dialogue, however, when you're performing/acting as a representative of a larger company, what you say and do is no longer just about you.  It's about the company you represent, in that vein, no, it is not within his right to say anything he wants without repercussion from his employer.  Much like the PR Exec who, prior to her trip to Africa, made a quip about hoping she wouldn't get AIDs while she was there, and 'just kidding, I'm white', she was fired before her plane even touched down.  Or, how about Hank Williams Jr and getting fired from his NFL affiliation, for stating that the Golf game between Boehner and Obama was like if Hitler and Netanyahu played a round.  Actors, Actress, employees etc... are not entitled to say and do whatever they want, when they're representing their company.  That's simply not reality, and never has been.

He called it a sin, which is hardly letting God sort it out, by that statement alone, he's making a judgement call.  Had he just said what you highlighted, there wouldn't be a problem.  However, we know that is not the case.

By the way, why do you think many job interviews will require or have attempted to gain access to your social networking accounts?  Do you think they want to know your interests and tastes?  Or maybe because they don't want to hire a publicity nightmare?

d2wi said:
Liberals are most tolerant people on earth, unless you disagree with them.

Has nothing to do with Liberalism you could go on your facebook right now and say "Being gay is a sin and they will have to one day answer to god" and if the higher ups at your job see that they will fire you within 24 hours.

They have customers they can not allow you to destroy their brand just so you can spew whatever you like. When you sign a contract with a job they explain to you that you are now property of the job anything you do to put the company in a bad light you will be terminated immediately.

Conservatives claim to be the party of "responsibility and self reliance" yet anytime something bad happens to them they blame it on liberals. Stop blaming people for the dumb choices you make, I also have opinions about people but I keep it to myself because I don't want to lose my freaking job, he should have done the same. 

Who's duck dynasty?

Nintendo Network ID: Cheebee   3DS Code: 2320 - 6113 - 9046


Around the Network

Its ratings are excellent. Its usually in the top 10 every week and one of the highest rated cable shows these days, so it will never be cancelled any time soon.


NNID: FrequentFlyer54

loy310 said:
DD_Bwest said:
The man is entitled to his opinions and beliefs, just as A&E should be entitled to fire him.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

All A&E had to do was release a statement saying the views and beliefs expressed by him are not that of the station. They totally botched the PR on this one.

A&E and most media corporations just want to be neutral and not get their brands mixed up in controversy. And out of all things to publicly rant about this idiot decides to rant about the Gay and Lesbian community while employed for a massive media/entertainmet company that strongly supports the gay community...... lol....how dumb can you be? I guess they were not paying him enough..... lol

A&E is not attacking his freedom of speech they just don't want to associate their brand with his extreme opinions, his opinions supports hatred sanctioned by religion towards a community, this is very dangerous communications for A&E they have very little choice here.

Putting him on hiatus is the proper communication from A&E, they did the right thing for their brand, reputation and their business not to mention, to a lesser extent, they did the right thing for all the gay celebs that they employ present and future.



He didnt just get up on a soap box, he was asked during an interview.  He has a right to respond with his own beliefs.   BUT A&E can also respond any way they like. They have every right to deal with it any way they want, but The reason i say they botched it is because now everyone in north america knows about the damn interview(striesand effect), and they have created a mountain out of a mole hill. They put themselves into the middle of everything, instead of taking a step back and distancing themselves.

The remark wasnt done during the show so its very easy for A&E to just say they dont agree and its not what they believe, Hell they could have instructed Phil to make a statement that its his beliefs and not that of A&E.  It distances themselves while not making a big deal about it and at the same time not pissing off the millions of viewers who watch the show.

I am Torgo, I take care of the place while the master is away.

"Hes the clown that makes the dark side fun.. Torgo!"

Ha.. i won my bet, but i wasnt around to gloat because im on a better forum!  See ya guys on Viz

So, the guys from the show made around southern hicks that are essentially the real life Beverly Hillbillies are anti gay?

Who'd of guessed it!

Should duck dynasty be canceled.

No. AMC knew these guys were anti-gay in the first place. They had to know, and they decided to get into business with them in the first place. Everyone who tangentially have heard of the show before should of known they were anti gay.

It's hypocritical to pretend they didn't know and are just reacting now.  

It's like leaving a piece of meat unatended on your floor and getting mad at your cat or dog for eating it. 

I mean... no shit right?

Aielyn said:
Fusioncode said:
Duck Dynasty is far and away their most popular show. It isn't a simple choice for them to just cancel it considering how much revenue it brings in. A&E will have no problems getting advertisers for a show that pulls ten million viewers per episode. 

Does it represent more than 50% of their revenue?

Like I said, it's not a question of popularity of that show. If keeping that show destroys the rest of their business, then they're screwed. And it might be harder to get advertisers if large swathes of people choose to boycott any company that advertises on the show, irrespective of the size of the audience.

Tell me - do you honestly believe that the management of the network haven't weighed up the pros and cons of cancelling the show vs keeping it going? Do you really think they'll completely cancel a show, complete with all of the side-effects of doing so, without first considering whether the show is a net liability in the circumstances first? Do you really think that they're that incompetent?

Except boycotts never actually work.

Actually, generally when boycotts are announced... buisness actually goes up because their name is in the news.

Plus title is not misleading. Read any newspaper in the states.

    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter