It's racist in principle but not in actuality because white people pretty much hold all the cards in this big game of poker we call life.
But we have a black president*. Sorry if I don't agree with you on this one. Political Correctness has shifted the balance of racial power because if you are white anything you do to a person who isn't white is racist.
*Obama is black only because he seems to disregard the fact he is mixed.
I'm as white as can be and I guarantee you that the balance of power is sill firmly in the hands of whitey. I can't believe that you would honestly think otherwise.
It's racist in principle but not in actuality because white people pretty much hold all the cards in this big game of poker we call life.
But we have a black president*. Sorry if I don't agree with you on this one. Political Correctness has shifted the balance of racial power because if you are white anything you do to a person who isn't white is racist.
*Obama is black only because he seems to disregard the fact he is mixed.
I'm as white as can be and I guarantee you that the balance of power is sill firmly in the hands of whitey. I can't believe that you would honestly think otherwise.
whatever....us white men have it so hard...we have to deal with FEMINISTS and OTHER RACES being considered for jobs and school....why can't we just go back to a world where only white men existed!!?!?!?!?!?!?
At that point you've made a choice to be a prejudiced dick
Its this quote that drove home to me that he had paid no attention to politics. This is why he voted Romney.
"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," he said. "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.”
Robertson also shares an interesting rationale for voting for Mitt Romney over President Obama, saying he favored the candidate because he was from Salt Lake City, a safer city than Chicago. "Where would I rather be turned around at 3 o'clock in the morning?" he said. As Magary points out, Romney, though a Mormon, hails from Boston.
It's not just one area Phil has dropped the ball on, its several. He grew up in the South on a farm with black workers during the Jim Crowe era, but he thought everyone was fine since he claims he didn't see them be discriminated against - that's a big self awareness problem. If I'm wrong on Phil I'll be glad to apologize but I don't expect his opinions to chance any time soon.
Okay, this hypothetical Presidential response to a Duck Dynasty question cracked me up:
The United States Government has no right to go sticking its nose into the internal affairs of the Duck Dynasty.
It is up to the Duck people, and only the Duck people, — they alone have the sole legitimate power — to determine succession to the Duck throne, or whether to overthrow their monarchical form of government in the first place. We would of course prefer a Duck Republic, but ultimately it’s not our call.
If the Ducks didn’t have oil, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
"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,"
That's his recollection of his life. You can point out that its biased, or incomplete or privileged or tainted by the nostalgia all old people have, probably all of the above--which is ignorance not racism. But lets assume he actually spent his youth doing day labor with rural blacks on a daily basis in the 60s. Does his experience as described run different from how you experienced it? I mean he is basically comparing rural life prior/during the second great migration(Rural Southern Blacks to North/West/Midwest Urban centers) and the reverse migration(back to southern urban centers), to the life of those same people now as a third party observer.
In your opinion were the rural black farmers in 1960s Monroe LA better or worse off compared to the Black residents of say Chicago or New Orleans right now? Why?
Everyone is attaching 'Everything bad I learned about the South from 1st through 8th grade, every February' to a specific time and place, like he's pining for Friday Night Lynchings and Sunday Fire Bombings to make a come back. Which may be true. Maybe the little town in nowheresville was nothing but a cesspool or racial violence, I don't know the history of Monroe LA in the 60s, but I'd wager neither does anyone else here.
The dude has no self awareness and his ignorance is a sight to behold. It's possible he's not racist, in that case this can be a teachable moment for him. On the other hand I don't like the chances he'll learn diddly squat from this.
Well yeah, that the entire point of the show. Behold the ignorant Rednecks, watch them tramp about through the woods WITH GUNS, watch them skive off work, listen to their odd sayings, they are eating WHAT?, look they have family dinners and pray.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
My last two cents: Racism is stupid. It doesn't matter what your color, background, or position in life is.
/end stupid thread.
Yes, which is why your insistence that the massive 300 year disparity in individual agency between minorities and the white majority in the US is suddenly rendered moot after 20 years of (disappointingly slow) progress so illuminating. Whites have 300 years of racial bias in their favour to build the life upon. Even if they don't notice it.
I guarantee minorities sure do notice the gap.
So all we need is another 280 years of equality for your point to be accurate.
I think it's not censorship, and that censorship is not a net good, and that you are fundamentally wrong as fuck about the net good of censorship. Your heckler's veto can get dunked on, and you probably hate it when it's done for reasons you don't like.
I think this dude was rightly silenced by A&E because they want to protect their brand. I think what he said is both wrong and foolish. I think an uproar over it is great.
I also think the level of snark in this OP will make this my last post on the topic.
Network censors are a thing.
So if somebody on a TV show makes a joke about, for example, how minorities act in a movie theater, and the network censors say that joke isn't gonna fly, write something else, were they not censored?
If a network doesn't want to say something, can you force them to say it? If no, then the answer to your question is "no".
No, this is not censorship. Freedom of speech neither guarantees you protection from the repercussions of your speech, nor does it guarantee you a platform.
We've been seeing a sort of "free speech maximalism" as of late that I think is ultimately corrosive to free speech.
This is still censorship. A private company can censor someone, they just can't violate your First Amendment rights.
No, it's not, because to say that it's censorship is to claim that he somehow had a right to the company's platform.
"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. " https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/what-censorship
I think that definition is wrong. Example: If that definition is right then me expressing my opinion that you are wrong is censorship since i am attempting to impose my personal political value upon you. Such if censorship is wrong, then expressing dissenting opinions is wrong. A definition that makes dissenting opinion into censorship is a poor definition. We tend to think censorship is bad. Any definition which explicitly states that dissenting opinions are bad is crazy pants.
A reasonable definition of censorship is only when its the government imposing prohibitions on speech.
Probably not the popular opinion here, but I find the term "white trash" to be racist and am disappointed by its cavalier usage in this forum at times.
"White Trash" isn't racist. Its classist. Additionally its very hard to be racist towards white people (for a variety of reasons we that aren't worth going into right now). Additionally the only use of it i've seen was the white guy who used the term to describe himself, so its triply hard to get upset at its use.
My last two cents: Racism is stupid. It doesn't matter what your color, background, or position in life is.
/end stupid thread.
Yes, which is why your insistence that the massive 300 year disparity in individual agency between minorities and the white majority in the US is suddenly rendered moot after 20 years of (disappointingly slow) progress so illuminating. Whites have 300 years of racial bias in their favour to build the life upon. Even if they don't notice it.
I guarantee minorities sure do notice the gap.
So all we need is another 280 years of equality for your point to be accurate.
I never insisted that it was over, just that it's shifting towards its starting to be socially accepted for non-white people to be racist back to white people and your post just proves it. I would rather we stop fucking caring about race period instead of letting someone get away with it because they are the minority then bastardize someone because they aren't. I don't want to let someone else be racist because some asshole white people were racist for 300 years. I want everyone to be bastardized for being racist when they do racist shit.
In a fundraising email to supporters, Ian Bayne, who is running in the Republican primary to challenge Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL) in the 11th District, compared Robertson to Rosa Parks. The fundraising email began: "Today, Ian Bayne called Phil Robertson, star of the A&E series "Duck Dynasty," the 'Rosa Parks' of our generation."
Robertson has been in national headlines lately for ranting about the "sin" of homosexuality in an interview with GQ. In that same interview Robertson also discussed the welfare of African Americans during the era of Jim Crow. He said that during that time blacks were carefree and essentially didn't experience any mistreatment.
"In December 1955, Rosa Parks took a stand against an unjust societal persecution of black people, and in December 2013, Robertson took a stand against persecution of Christians," Bayne wrote in the email. "What Parks did was courageous."
Bayne added in the email that "what Robertson did was courageous too."
My last two cents: Racism is stupid. It doesn't matter what your color, background, or position in life is.
/end stupid thread.
Yes, which is why your insistence that the massive 300 year disparity in individual agency between minorities and the white majority in the US is suddenly rendered moot after 20 years of (disappointingly slow) progress so illuminating. Whites have 300 years of racial bias in their favour to build the life upon. Even if they don't notice it.
I guarantee minorities sure do notice the gap.
So all we need is another 280 years of equality for your point to be accurate.
I never insisted that it was over, just that it's shifting towards its starting to be socially accepted for non-white people to be racist back to white people and your post just proves it. I would rather we stop fucking caring about race period instead of letting someone get away with it because they are the minority then bastardize someone because they aren't. I don't want to let someone else be racist because some asshole white people were racist for 300 years. I want everyone to be bastardized for being racist when they do racist shit.
Punching up will always be more socially acceptable than punching down. That's how power dynamics work. Furthermore, people will stop being bothered by race only when race ceases to impact their lives.
In a fundraising email to supporters, Ian Bayne, who is running in the Republican primary to challenge Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL) in the 11th District, compared Robertson to Rosa Parks. The fundraising email began: "Today, Ian Bayne called Phil Robertson, star of the A&E series "Duck Dynasty," the 'Rosa Parks' of our generation."
Robertson has been in national headlines lately for ranting about the "sin" of homosexuality in an interview with GQ. In that same interview Robertson also discussed the welfare of African Americans during the era of Jim Crow. He said that during that time blacks were carefree and essentially didn't experience any mistreatment.
"In December 1955, Rosa Parks took a stand against an unjust societal persecution of black people, and in December 2013, Robertson took a stand against persecution of Christians," Bayne wrote in the email. "What Parks did was courageous."
Bayne added in the email that "what Robertson did was courageous too."
So I'll say that in general terms, the desire to see people you disagree with punished/fired is one of the ugliest things I see from supposed progressives. It's one of those things that always makes me cringe, because it's turning something that should be good (standing up for minorities) into something that's universally awful (punishing people for their unpopular opinions.) I have no interest in living in a world where everyone with an unpopular opinion is punished by being fired, or where employers feel free to fire employees because their opinions don't match the company line.
With that said: even I can see good arguments for doing it in this particular case. Not because of what specifically was said, but because of the type of job in question. Being on a reality TV show isn't like a regular job, and it blurs the line between playing a TV character and real life. For a TV network to fire a reality star based on certain statements makes a certain amount of sense to me, because it actually does affect their job. Everything they say becomes branded as part of their 'character', and part of a reality show is carefully cultivating and presenting these characters. It's not like a normal job where your unpopular opinions don't have to affect your work - it's very much going to be a part of the character's branding, whether they intend it to be or not. A reality TV star is a job where you very much have to control your public image, and if someone can't do that there's a certain justification in firing that person.
I'm hesitant to say it, because the desire to see others fired for their opinions is an urge that I find really ugly - but in this case, with this particular job, I can see some reasoning behind it.
The idea that it's only okay because it's racism is pretty bullshit though. That's just the paradox of censorship: everyone is always okay with it so long as it's not only the opinions they don't like that are being censored. If it's okay in this case, it's because of his job, not because of what he said. If he'd said something else that hurt his public image it would be the same.
+3
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
No, this is not censorship. Freedom of speech neither guarantees you protection from the repercussions of your speech, nor does it guarantee you a platform.
We've been seeing a sort of "free speech maximalism" as of late that I think is ultimately corrosive to free speech.
This is still censorship. A private company can censor someone, they just can't violate your First Amendment rights.
No, it's not, because to say that it's censorship is to claim that he somehow had a right to the company's platform.
"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. " https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/what-censorship
I think that definition is wrong. Example: If that definition is right then me expressing my opinion that you are wrong is censorship since i am attempting to impose my personal political value upon you. Such if censorship is wrong, then expressing dissenting opinions is wrong. A definition that makes dissenting opinion into censorship is a poor definition. We tend to think censorship is bad. Any definition which explicitly states that dissenting opinions are bad is crazy pants.
A reasonable definition of censorship is only when its the government imposing prohibitions on speech.
I think you can also include non-government agencies if those agencies can actually entirely control a market. For example, if one company or organization controls all radiowaves and bans some manner of speech from those radiowaves I think you can fairly say that that is a case of censorship. That probably happens rarely though, but in any case the government needs to not only not prohibit speech but also ensure that anyone has at least the opportunity to engage in free speech. Which is basically ensuring that monopolies on media do not form.
Censorship gets kind of a bad rap. Probably deservedly so, because historically it has been used by governments to silence dissenting information which would have been harmful to their control over the populace. However, I feel like it can be used by those who do not wield ultimate power in ways which have a net good.
Can you actually cite a real example of this happening, historically? A government using censorship - rather than, say, violent force, a pogrom, assassinations, fear of the police, etc - to block dissent / suppress the public / withhold information? Because I'm pretty sure this has never actually happened, and is largely an American myth about the Soviet era in Russia.
Censorship gets kind of a bad rap. Probably deservedly so, because historically it has been used by governments to silence dissenting information which would have been harmful to their control over the populace. However, I feel like it can be used by those who do not wield ultimate power in ways which have a net good.
Can you actually cite a real example of this happening, historically? A government using censorship - rather than, say, violent force, a pogrom, assassinations, fear of the police, etc - to block dissent / suppress the public / withhold information? Because I'm pretty sure this has never actually happened, and is largely an American myth about the Soviet era in Russia.
That's, uh, super easy.
Once they succeeded in ending democracy and turning Germany into a one-party dictatorship, the Nazis orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign to win the loyalty and cooperation of Germans. The Nazi Propaganda Ministry, directed by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, took control of all forms of communication in Germany: newspapers, magazines, books, public meetings, and rallies, art, music, movies, and radio. Viewpoints in any way threatening to Nazi beliefs or to the regime were censored or eliminated from all media.
During the spring of 1933, Nazi student organizations, professors, and librarians made up long lists of books they thought should not be read by Germans. Then, on the night of May 10, 1933, Nazis raided libraries and bookstores across Germany. They marched by torchlight in nighttime parades, sang chants, and threw books into huge bonfires. On that night more than 25,000 books were burned. Some were works of Jewish writers, including Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud. Most of the books were by non-Jewish writers, including such famous Americans as Jack London, Ernest Hemingway, and Sinclair Lewis, whose ideas the Nazis viewed as different from their own and therefore not to be read.
The Nazi censors also burned the books of Helen Keller, who had overcome her deafness and blindness to become a respected writer; told of the book burnings, she responded: "Tyranny cannot defeat the power of ideas." Hundreds of thousands of people in the United States protested the book burnings, a clear violation of freedom of speech, in public rallies in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and St. Louis.
Schools also played an important role in spreading Nazi ideas. While some books were removed from classrooms by censors, other textbooks, newly written, were brought in to teach students blind obedience to the party, love for Hitler, and antisemitism. After-school meetings of the Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls trained children to be faithful to the Nazi party. In school and out, young people celebrated such occasions as Adolf Hitler's birthday and the anniversary of his taking power.
Censorship gets kind of a bad rap. Probably deservedly so, because historically it has been used by governments to silence dissenting information which would have been harmful to their control over the populace. However, I feel like it can be used by those who do not wield ultimate power in ways which have a net good.
Can you actually cite a real example of this happening, historically? A government using censorship - rather than, say, violent force, a pogrom, assassinations, fear of the police, etc - to block dissent / suppress the public / withhold information? Because I'm pretty sure this has never actually happened, and is largely an American myth about the Soviet era in Russia.
West Germany / Europe's strict restrictions on displaying Nazi symbols like the swastika and forbidding Nazi political parties and distribution of pro-Nazi literature is probably the best example I can think of offhand.
I mean, there is an implicit threat that if someone breaks the law, police will enforce the law (with the threat of violence being no more than a few steps down the chain, as McDermott has pointed out in policing threads before) but that's not direct violent force.
You can't not have a monopoly when the service or product is way too complicated, abstract, and patent protected to dream of getting in on the ground floor. All our speech now is meaningless tumblr and twitter that nobody cares about. Where's the motivation to defend that kind of speech?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Censorship gets kind of a bad rap. Probably deservedly so, because historically it has been used by governments to silence dissenting information which would have been harmful to their control over the populace. However, I feel like it can be used by those who do not wield ultimate power in ways which have a net good.
Can you actually cite a real example of this happening, historically? A government using censorship - rather than, say, violent force, a pogrom, assassinations, fear of the police, etc - to block dissent / suppress the public / withhold information? Because I'm pretty sure this has never actually happened, and is largely an American myth about the Soviet era in Russia.
That's, uh, super easy.
Once they succeeded in ending democracy and turning Germany into a one-party dictatorship, the Nazis orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign to win the loyalty and cooperation of Germans. The Nazi Propaganda Ministry, directed by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, took control of all forms of communication in Germany: newspapers, magazines, books, public meetings, and rallies, art, music, movies, and radio. Viewpoints in any way threatening to Nazi beliefs or to the regime were censored or eliminated from all media.
During the spring of 1933, Nazi student organizations, professors, and librarians made up long lists of books they thought should not be read by Germans. Then, on the night of May 10, 1933, Nazis raided libraries and bookstores across Germany. They marched by torchlight in nighttime parades, sang chants, and threw books into huge bonfires. On that night more than 25,000 books were burned. Some were works of Jewish writers, including Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud. Most of the books were by non-Jewish writers, including such famous Americans as Jack London, Ernest Hemingway, and Sinclair Lewis, whose ideas the Nazis viewed as different from their own and therefore not to be read.
The Nazi censors also burned the books of Helen Keller, who had overcome her deafness and blindness to become a respected writer; told of the book burnings, she responded: "Tyranny cannot defeat the power of ideas." Hundreds of thousands of people in the United States protested the book burnings, a clear violation of freedom of speech, in public rallies in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and St. Louis.
Schools also played an important role in spreading Nazi ideas. While some books were removed from classrooms by censors, other textbooks, newly written, were brought in to teach students blind obedience to the party, love for Hitler, and antisemitism. After-school meetings of the Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls trained children to be faithful to the Nazi party. In school and out, young people celebrated such occasions as Adolf Hitler's birthday and the anniversary of his taking power.
Censorship gets kind of a bad rap. Probably deservedly so, because historically it has been used by governments to silence dissenting information which would have been harmful to their control over the populace. However, I feel like it can be used by those who do not wield ultimate power in ways which have a net good.
Can you actually cite a real example of this happening, historically? A government using censorship - rather than, say, violent force, a pogrom, assassinations, fear of the police, etc - to block dissent / suppress the public / withhold information? Because I'm pretty sure this has never actually happened, and is largely an American myth about the Soviet era in Russia.
That's, uh, super easy.
Once they succeeded in ending democracy and turning Germany into a one-party dictatorship, the Nazis orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign to win the loyalty and cooperation of Germans. The Nazi Propaganda Ministry, directed by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, took control of all forms of communication in Germany: newspapers, magazines, books, public meetings, and rallies, art, music, movies, and radio. Viewpoints in any way threatening to Nazi beliefs or to the regime were censored or eliminated from all media.
During the spring of 1933, Nazi student organizations, professors, and librarians made up long lists of books they thought should not be read by Germans. Then, on the night of May 10, 1933, Nazis raided libraries and bookstores across Germany. They marched by torchlight in nighttime parades, sang chants, and threw books into huge bonfires. On that night more than 25,000 books were burned. Some were works of Jewish writers, including Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud. Most of the books were by non-Jewish writers, including such famous Americans as Jack London, Ernest Hemingway, and Sinclair Lewis, whose ideas the Nazis viewed as different from their own and therefore not to be read.
The Nazi censors also burned the books of Helen Keller, who had overcome her deafness and blindness to become a respected writer; told of the book burnings, she responded: "Tyranny cannot defeat the power of ideas." Hundreds of thousands of people in the United States protested the book burnings, a clear violation of freedom of speech, in public rallies in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and St. Louis.
Schools also played an important role in spreading Nazi ideas. While some books were removed from classrooms by censors, other textbooks, newly written, were brought in to teach students blind obedience to the party, love for Hitler, and antisemitism. After-school meetings of the Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls trained children to be faithful to the Nazi party. In school and out, young people celebrated such occasions as Adolf Hitler's birthday and the anniversary of his taking power.
The Nazis used a secret police force to hammer dissent through terror & violence, and used a Goddamn war & pogrom to cement loyalty to the parts of the country that weren't broke & just trying to get by. The book burnings were - at best - theater. People still knew who Helen Keller & Einstein were.
Propagandizing children is also certainly not the same thing as censoring books / speech.
Censorship gets kind of a bad rap. Probably deservedly so, because historically it has been used by governments to silence dissenting information which would have been harmful to their control over the populace. However, I feel like it can be used by those who do not wield ultimate power in ways which have a net good.
Can you actually cite a real example of this happening, historically? A government using censorship - rather than, say, violent force, a pogrom, assassinations, fear of the police, etc - to block dissent / suppress the public / withhold information? Because I'm pretty sure this has never actually happened, and is largely an American myth about the Soviet era in Russia.
West Germany / Europe's strict restrictions on displaying Nazi symbols like the swastika and forbidding Nazi political parties and distribution of pro-Nazi literature is probably the best example I can think of offhand.
I mean, there is an implicit threat that if someone breaks the law, police will enforce the law (with the threat of violence being no more than a few steps down the chain, as McDermott has pointed out in policing threads before) but that's not direct violent force.
So now we're supposed to be crying crocodile tears for the fucking Neo Nazis?
This is what I always get - Oh Woe! The Poor Racists!
But I'm totally not racist just because I support their right to voice their opinions! Why take on that responsibility for myself when I can just smile and nod as they carry on as my proxy?
So I'll say that in general terms, the desire to see people you disagree with punished/fired is one of the ugliest things I see from supposed progressives. It's one of those things that always makes me cringe, because it's turning something that should be good (standing up for minorities) into something that's universally awful (punishing people for their unpopular opinions.) I have no interest in living in a world where everyone with an unpopular opinion is punished by being fired, or where employers feel free to fire employees because their opinions don't match the company line.
You mean something that happens literally every day of the week. I mean seriously, That its dangerous for bigots to get fired for being bigots? Robertson wasn't just saying unpopular things, he equated gay people to beastiality and terrorism before telling us that black people had it better before they had civil rights, fuck sake if he can't be fired for that what the fuck do you think would warrant a firing?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Well, we can quibble all day over the definition of censorship, but it seems pretty clear to me that there is such a thing as non-government suppression of free speech. If someone (for example) succeeds in getting a person fired based on their 'offensive' opinion, then that is absolutely a free speech issue in my mind. It's economic intimidation intended to silence and the person, and to chill others who might share the same view. It's not an effort to converse or educate or rebut, it's applying economic pressure to try to punish people for expressing viewpoints that others disagree with.
Yes, their freedom to express themselves is being restricted. It doesn't take a government to do it. If we get a world where every job does that, where you can't put food on the table unless you hold the 'correct' set of opinions and self-censor every possible offensive comment, then you've reached the exact same world as the one where the government is censoring speech. You get the exact same result. I don't see why we should be against it when it's done by a government, but okay with it when it's done by a corporation or internet mob.
I think it's not censorship, and that censorship is not a net good, and that you are fundamentally wrong as fuck about the net good of censorship. Your heckler's veto can get dunked on, and you probably hate it when it's done for reasons you don't like.
I think this dude was rightly silenced by A&E because they want to protect their brand. I think what he said is both wrong and foolish. I think an uproar over it is great.
I also think the level of snark in this OP will make this my last post on the topic.
Network censors are a thing.
So if somebody on a TV show makes a joke about, for example, how minorities act in a movie theater, and the network censors say that joke isn't gonna fly, write something else, were they not censored?
If a network doesn't want to say something, can you force them to say it? If no, then the answer to your question is "no".
No, this is not censorship. Freedom of speech neither guarantees you protection from the repercussions of your speech, nor does it guarantee you a platform.
We've been seeing a sort of "free speech maximalism" as of late that I think is ultimately corrosive to free speech.
This is still censorship. A private company can censor someone, they just can't violate your First Amendment rights.
No, it's not, because to say that it's censorship is to claim that he somehow had a right to the company's platform.
"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. " https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/what-censorship
I think that definition is wrong. Example: If that definition is right then me expressing my opinion that you are wrong is censorship since i am attempting to impose my personal political value upon you. Such if censorship is wrong, then expressing dissenting opinions is wrong. A definition that makes dissenting opinion into censorship is a poor definition. We tend to think censorship is bad. Any definition which explicitly states that dissenting opinions are bad is crazy pants.
A reasonable definition of censorship is only when its the government imposing prohibitions on speech.
Probably not the popular opinion here, but I find the term "white trash" to be racist and am disappointed by its cavalier usage in this forum at times.
"White Trash" isn't racist. Its classist. Additionally its very hard to be racist towards white people (for a variety of reasons we that aren't worth going into right now). Additionally the only use of it i've seen was the white guy who used the term to describe himself, so its triply hard to get upset at its use.
It can be classst or racist depending on the context (I've pointed this out before but no one seems to care, it also has a negative context toward minorities (I.e. you have to distinguish trashy whites). No one is asking you to get upset about it. That doesn't mean it should be used in civil discourse. Seems like a fairly straightforward thing.
Also please note, that in none of my statements have I argued against the existence of white priveledge, or war on whites, or any such nonsense.
In a fundraising email to supporters, Ian Bayne, who is running in the Republican primary to challenge Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL) in the 11th District, compared Robertson to Rosa Parks. The fundraising email began: "Today, Ian Bayne called Phil Robertson, star of the A&E series "Duck Dynasty," the 'Rosa Parks' of our generation."
Robertson has been in national headlines lately for ranting about the "sin" of homosexuality in an interview with GQ. In that same interview Robertson also discussed the welfare of African Americans during the era of Jim Crow. He said that during that time blacks were carefree and essentially didn't experience any mistreatment.
"In December 1955, Rosa Parks took a stand against an unjust societal persecution of black people, and in December 2013, Robertson took a stand against persecution of Christians," Bayne wrote in the email. "What Parks did was courageous."
Bayne added in the email that "what Robertson did was courageous too."
...
Truly a great hero.
There are no words.
Oh there are plenty words, they just are not very polite ones.
So I'll say that in general terms, the desire to see people you disagree with punished/fired is one of the ugliest things I see from supposed progressives. It's one of those things that always makes me cringe, because it's turning something that should be good (standing up for minorities) into something that's universally awful (punishing people for their unpopular opinions.) I have no interest in living in a world where everyone with an unpopular opinion is punished by being fired, or where employers feel free to fire employees because their opinions don't match the company line.
You mean something that happens literally every day of the week. I mean seriously, That its dangerous for bigots to get fired for being bigots? Robertson wasn't just saying unpopular things, he equated gay people to beastiality and terrorism before telling us that black people had it better before they had civil rights, fuck sake if he can't be fired for that what the fuck do you think would warrant a firing?
As long as they're racists, we can do anything we want with them, right?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So I'll say that in general terms, the desire to see people you disagree with punished/fired is one of the ugliest things I see from supposed progressives. It's one of those things that always makes me cringe, because it's turning something that should be good (standing up for minorities) into something that's universally awful (punishing people for their unpopular opinions.) I have no interest in living in a world where everyone with an unpopular opinion is punished by being fired, or where employers feel free to fire employees because their opinions don't match the company line.
You mean something that happens literally every day of the week. I mean seriously, That its dangerous for bigots to get fired for being bigots? Robertson wasn't just saying unpopular things, he equated gay people to beastiality and terrorism before telling us that black people had it better before they had civil rights, fuck sake if he can't be fired for that what the fuck do you think would warrant a firing?
Yes, it happens a lot, as do many other bad things. That doesn't mean that it's a positive thing, or something we all have to support.
And obviously you're fine with it if you're only imagining opinions offensive to you getting censored (racism, ect.) Again, that's the paradox of censorship - everyone is okay with it so long as the opinions being censored are the ones they're already against.
Censorship gets kind of a bad rap. Probably deservedly so, because historically it has been used by governments to silence dissenting information which would have been harmful to their control over the populace. However, I feel like it can be used by those who do not wield ultimate power in ways which have a net good.
Can you actually cite a real example of this happening, historically? A government using censorship - rather than, say, violent force, a pogrom, assassinations, fear of the police, etc - to block dissent / suppress the public / withhold information? Because I'm pretty sure this has never actually happened, and is largely an American myth about the Soviet era in Russia.
West Germany / Europe's strict restrictions on displaying Nazi symbols like the swastika and forbidding Nazi political parties and distribution of pro-Nazi literature is probably the best example I can think of offhand.
I mean, there is an implicit threat that if someone breaks the law, police will enforce the law (with the threat of violence being no more than a few steps down the chain, as McDermott has pointed out in policing threads before) but that's not direct violent force.
So now we're supposed to be crying crocodile tears for the fucking Neo Nazis?
This is what I always get - Oh Woe! The Poor Racists!
But I'm totally not racist just because I support their right to voice their opinions! Why take on that responsibility for myself when I can just smile and nod as they carry on as my proxy?
You...asked for an example? I gave you...an example?
I mean, I really could give a fuck less if the Nazi's feel their rights are trampled on in Germany. It's perfectly legal to tell them STFU and sit down there, and I don't have a problem with it.
But there is a difference between supporting the right to free speech, and supporting someone's speech. Here in the US, I believe strongly in the former - even if I'll use my OWN freedom of speech to shout them down and ridicule them.
So I'll say that in general terms, the desire to see people you disagree with punished/fired is one of the ugliest things I see from supposed progressives. It's one of those things that always makes me cringe, because it's turning something that should be good (standing up for minorities) into something that's universally awful (punishing people for their unpopular opinions.) I have no interest in living in a world where everyone with an unpopular opinion is punished by being fired, or where employers feel free to fire employees because their opinions don't match the company line.
You mean something that happens literally every day of the week. I mean seriously, That its dangerous for bigots to get fired for being bigots? Robertson wasn't just saying unpopular things, he equated gay people to beastiality and terrorism before telling us that black people had it better before they had civil rights, fuck sake if he can't be fired for that what the fuck do you think would warrant a firing?
Yes, it happens a lot, as do many other bad things. That doesn't mean that it's a positive thing, or something we all have to support.
And obviously you're fine with it if you're only imagining opinions offensive to you getting censored (racism, ect.) Again, that's the paradox of censorship - everyone is okay with it so long as the opinions being censored are the ones they're already against.
I'm sure 99% of america would be fine if bigot'd morons lost their jobs. And I'm perfectly fine with companies firing people for their outspoken opinions that can make a company look bad, same way if someone at mcdonalds told you the food at burger king was better they could be fired. Or if the person at Bob's Blowjob and Burgers told you that Sally's Slit Sucking and Salads offered the better deal.
To enforce a world where someone saying something god damn idiotic (and lets not pretend what Robertson said was not idiotic it was, on several view points) would be the greatest restriction on freedom since the speed limit.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So I'll say that in general terms, the desire to see people you disagree with punished/fired is one of the ugliest things I see from supposed progressives. It's one of those things that always makes me cringe, because it's turning something that should be good (standing up for minorities) into something that's universally awful (punishing people for their unpopular opinions.) I have no interest in living in a world where everyone with an unpopular opinion is punished by being fired, or where employers feel free to fire employees because their opinions don't match the company line.
You mean something that happens literally every day of the week. I mean seriously, That its dangerous for bigots to get fired for being bigots? Robertson wasn't just saying unpopular things, he equated gay people to beastiality and terrorism before telling us that black people had it better before they had civil rights, fuck sake if he can't be fired for that what the fuck do you think would warrant a firing?
As long as they're racists, we can do anything we want with them, right?
Pretty much? I mean if you're a racist in 2013 expect to get fired should you vocalize it?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So I'll say that in general terms, the desire to see people you disagree with punished/fired is one of the ugliest things I see from supposed progressives. It's one of those things that always makes me cringe, because it's turning something that should be good (standing up for minorities) into something that's universally awful (punishing people for their unpopular opinions.) I have no interest in living in a world where everyone with an unpopular opinion is punished by being fired, or where employers feel free to fire employees because their opinions don't match the company line.
You mean something that happens literally every day of the week. I mean seriously, That its dangerous for bigots to get fired for being bigots? Robertson wasn't just saying unpopular things, he equated gay people to beastiality and terrorism before telling us that black people had it better before they had civil rights, fuck sake if he can't be fired for that what the fuck do you think would warrant a firing?
Yes, it happens a lot, as do many other bad things. That doesn't mean that it's a positive thing, or something we all have to support.
And obviously you're fine with it if you're only imagining opinions offensive to you getting censored (racism, ect.) Again, that's the paradox of censorship - everyone is okay with it so long as the opinions being censored are the ones they're already against.
Eh, kinda.
If someone gets on a loudspeaker in front of a crowd of like minded people and says that faggots need to die by being beat to death, I'm okay with his being arrested.
If someone gets on a loudspeaker in front of a crowd of like minded people and says that homosexuality is a sin and is an affront to god, I'm not okay with his being arrested.
But if the person paying for the loudspeaker says no, then maybe the speaker should buy his own loudspeaker.
Has anyone in this thread actually advocated for systematic government censorship and prior restraint over this sort of speech?
I think everyone has pretty consistently said it's their right to be assholes, can't blame A&E for canning their asses. With a bit of cynical 'it's a PR stunt' thrown in. Then thrown ridicule at the ignorance of these racist and homophobic cock-nuggets.
Because - really - it's his right to be a racist prick...and if someone wants to pay him millions of dollars to be one, well...it's not the job of the government to stop him (in this context). It's the job of the public to Paula Deen / Michael Richards his ass.
Posts
I'm as white as can be and I guarantee you that the balance of power is sill firmly in the hands of whitey. I can't believe that you would honestly think otherwise.
Its this quote that drove home to me that he had paid no attention to politics. This is why he voted Romney.
It's not just one area Phil has dropped the ball on, its several. He grew up in the South on a farm with black workers during the Jim Crowe era, but he thought everyone was fine since he claims he didn't see them be discriminated against - that's a big self awareness problem. If I'm wrong on Phil I'll be glad to apologize but I don't expect his opinions to chance any time soon.
/end stupid thread.
I want to use this. Can I use this? Do I have to pay you some kind of fee to use this?
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
Well yeah, that the entire point of the show. Behold the ignorant Rednecks, watch them tramp about through the woods WITH GUNS, watch them skive off work, listen to their odd sayings, they are eating WHAT?, look they have family dinners and pray.
Yes, which is why your insistence that the massive 300 year disparity in individual agency between minorities and the white majority in the US is suddenly rendered moot after 20 years of (disappointingly slow) progress so illuminating. Whites have 300 years of racial bias in their favour to build the life upon. Even if they don't notice it.
I guarantee minorities sure do notice the gap.
So all we need is another 280 years of equality for your point to be accurate.
If a network doesn't want to say something, can you force them to say it? If no, then the answer to your question is "no".
I think that definition is wrong. Example: If that definition is right then me expressing my opinion that you are wrong is censorship since i am attempting to impose my personal political value upon you. Such if censorship is wrong, then expressing dissenting opinions is wrong. A definition that makes dissenting opinion into censorship is a poor definition. We tend to think censorship is bad. Any definition which explicitly states that dissenting opinions are bad is crazy pants.
A reasonable definition of censorship is only when its the government imposing prohibitions on speech.
"White Trash" isn't racist. Its classist. Additionally its very hard to be racist towards white people (for a variety of reasons we that aren't worth going into right now). Additionally the only use of it i've seen was the white guy who used the term to describe himself, so its triply hard to get upset at its use.
Just don't.
My eyes are still bleeding.
I never insisted that it was over, just that it's shifting towards its starting to be socially accepted for non-white people to be racist back to white people and your post just proves it. I would rather we stop fucking caring about race period instead of letting someone get away with it because they are the minority then bastardize someone because they aren't. I don't want to let someone else be racist because some asshole white people were racist for 300 years. I want everyone to be bastardized for being racist when they do racist shit.
Punching up will always be more socially acceptable than punching down. That's how power dynamics work. Furthermore, people will stop being bothered by race only when race ceases to impact their lives.
There are no words.
With that said: even I can see good arguments for doing it in this particular case. Not because of what specifically was said, but because of the type of job in question. Being on a reality TV show isn't like a regular job, and it blurs the line between playing a TV character and real life. For a TV network to fire a reality star based on certain statements makes a certain amount of sense to me, because it actually does affect their job. Everything they say becomes branded as part of their 'character', and part of a reality show is carefully cultivating and presenting these characters. It's not like a normal job where your unpopular opinions don't have to affect your work - it's very much going to be a part of the character's branding, whether they intend it to be or not. A reality TV star is a job where you very much have to control your public image, and if someone can't do that there's a certain justification in firing that person.
I'm hesitant to say it, because the desire to see others fired for their opinions is an urge that I find really ugly - but in this case, with this particular job, I can see some reasoning behind it.
The idea that it's only okay because it's racism is pretty bullshit though. That's just the paradox of censorship: everyone is always okay with it so long as it's not only the opinions they don't like that are being censored. If it's okay in this case, it's because of his job, not because of what he said. If he'd said something else that hurt his public image it would be the same.
Can you actually cite a real example of this happening, historically? A government using censorship - rather than, say, violent force, a pogrom, assassinations, fear of the police, etc - to block dissent / suppress the public / withhold information? Because I'm pretty sure this has never actually happened, and is largely an American myth about the Soviet era in Russia.
That's, uh, super easy.
West Germany / Europe's strict restrictions on displaying Nazi symbols like the swastika and forbidding Nazi political parties and distribution of pro-Nazi literature is probably the best example I can think of offhand.
I mean, there is an implicit threat that if someone breaks the law, police will enforce the law (with the threat of violence being no more than a few steps down the chain, as McDermott has pointed out in policing threads before) but that's not direct violent force.
Is it still Godwinning if it's relevant as a historical example?
You can't not have a monopoly when the service or product is way too complicated, abstract, and patent protected to dream of getting in on the ground floor. All our speech now is meaningless tumblr and twitter that nobody cares about. Where's the motivation to defend that kind of speech?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The Nazis used a secret police force to hammer dissent through terror & violence, and used a Goddamn war & pogrom to cement loyalty to the parts of the country that weren't broke & just trying to get by. The book burnings were - at best - theater. People still knew who Helen Keller & Einstein were.
Propagandizing children is also certainly not the same thing as censoring books / speech.
As a rule, the invoker of a Godwin, doesn't understand what the Godwin rule means.
Then several people have to explain how Godwin doesn't apply in a thread discussing WW2 Germany.
etc. etc. etc.
Also one time we claimed the entire CTU organization stopped something, when it was in fact Jack Bauer aided by fomer alcoholic Tony Almeida.
pleasepaypreacher.net
So now we're supposed to be crying crocodile tears for the fucking Neo Nazis?
This is what I always get - Oh Woe! The Poor Racists!
But I'm totally not racist just because I support their right to voice their opinions! Why take on that responsibility for myself when I can just smile and nod as they carry on as my proxy?
You mean something that happens literally every day of the week. I mean seriously, That its dangerous for bigots to get fired for being bigots? Robertson wasn't just saying unpopular things, he equated gay people to beastiality and terrorism before telling us that black people had it better before they had civil rights, fuck sake if he can't be fired for that what the fuck do you think would warrant a firing?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yes, their freedom to express themselves is being restricted. It doesn't take a government to do it. If we get a world where every job does that, where you can't put food on the table unless you hold the 'correct' set of opinions and self-censor every possible offensive comment, then you've reached the exact same world as the one where the government is censoring speech. You get the exact same result. I don't see why we should be against it when it's done by a government, but okay with it when it's done by a corporation or internet mob.
It can be classst or racist depending on the context (I've pointed this out before but no one seems to care, it also has a negative context toward minorities (I.e. you have to distinguish trashy whites). No one is asking you to get upset about it. That doesn't mean it should be used in civil discourse. Seems like a fairly straightforward thing.
Also please note, that in none of my statements have I argued against the existence of white priveledge, or war on whites, or any such nonsense.
Oh there are plenty words, they just are not very polite ones.
As long as they're racists, we can do anything we want with them, right?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yes, it happens a lot, as do many other bad things. That doesn't mean that it's a positive thing, or something we all have to support.
And obviously you're fine with it if you're only imagining opinions offensive to you getting censored (racism, ect.) Again, that's the paradox of censorship - everyone is okay with it so long as the opinions being censored are the ones they're already against.
You...asked for an example? I gave you...an example?
I mean, I really could give a fuck less if the Nazi's feel their rights are trampled on in Germany. It's perfectly legal to tell them STFU and sit down there, and I don't have a problem with it.
But there is a difference between supporting the right to free speech, and supporting someone's speech. Here in the US, I believe strongly in the former - even if I'll use my OWN freedom of speech to shout them down and ridicule them.
I'm sure 99% of america would be fine if bigot'd morons lost their jobs. And I'm perfectly fine with companies firing people for their outspoken opinions that can make a company look bad, same way if someone at mcdonalds told you the food at burger king was better they could be fired. Or if the person at Bob's Blowjob and Burgers told you that Sally's Slit Sucking and Salads offered the better deal.
To enforce a world where someone saying something god damn idiotic (and lets not pretend what Robertson said was not idiotic it was, on several view points) would be the greatest restriction on freedom since the speed limit.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Pretty much? I mean if you're a racist in 2013 expect to get fired should you vocalize it?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Eh, kinda.
If someone gets on a loudspeaker in front of a crowd of like minded people and says that faggots need to die by being beat to death, I'm okay with his being arrested.
If someone gets on a loudspeaker in front of a crowd of like minded people and says that homosexuality is a sin and is an affront to god, I'm not okay with his being arrested.
But if the person paying for the loudspeaker says no, then maybe the speaker should buy his own loudspeaker.
I think everyone has pretty consistently said it's their right to be assholes, can't blame A&E for canning their asses. With a bit of cynical 'it's a PR stunt' thrown in. Then thrown ridicule at the ignorance of these racist and homophobic cock-nuggets.
Because - really - it's his right to be a racist prick...and if someone wants to pay him millions of dollars to be one, well...it's not the job of the government to stop him (in this context). It's the job of the public to Paula Deen / Michael Richards his ass.