Skip to main content

My stance on the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty flap was that A&E should have made the Robertsons agree to a disclaimer before every episode of Duck Dynasty--a fairly reasonable request in my view--before suspending Phil Robertson.  But after learning about a 2009 speech to a Georgia sportsmen's ministry in which Robertson suggested grown men ought to pursue 15- and 16-year-old girls as possible wives, that idea is, to put it mildly, no longer an operative idea.  Ismay diaried on this yesterday, but I think that the full video (as opposed to the clip that's gone viral) deserves a look just so no one can say he was taken out of context.  Watch here--the relevant material starts at the 48-second mark.

It turns out this wasn't a hit piece--it was put together as a promotional video by a company that makes lifelike decoys designed to work with Robertson's products.  Only 38 dislikes so far, though--head over there and pile them on.

While one can quibble about whether A&E should have allowed Robertson back after those anti-gay comments, there are certain issues on which there is no other side.  And this is one of them.  It cannot be said enough--what Robertson is suggesting is ILLEGAL.  And to those who say he was only joking, there are certain things you just don't joke about.

The ball's in your court, A&E.  Get the Duck Commander off the air, now--and this time, don't let him come back.  Head on over to A&E's Facebook and tell them that this is the last straw--after this, Robertson has got to go.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (213+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sylv, dougymi, stratocasterman, CA Nana, snazzzybird, wintergreen8694, TomP, Hey338Too, emal, Sun Tzu, amateurpsychologist, Dave in Northridge, Tinfoil Hat, BadKitties, ask, zerelda, Gowrie Gal, wishingwell, Kingsmeg, prettygirlxoxoxo, mconvente, MKinTN, AnnieR, mph2005, Silvia Nightshade, dotsright, mbh1023, lunachickie, LynChi, NormAl1792, rb608, NCJan, Steve In DC, Mimikatz, KayCeSF, CPT Doom, blue in NC, tuesdayschilde, samoashark, Dirtandiron, wader, grollen, Arahahex, greengemini, Teiresias70, Railfan, Nulwee, Empower Ink, sap, sawgrass727, GeorgeXVIII, The Sheeping of America, unfangus, DRo, Ohkwai, ewmorr, democracy inaction, snoopydawg, GAS, Crabby Abbey, tonyahky, susans, StateofEuphoria, gizmo59, maryabein, imicon, entrelac, pdkesq, BeerNotWar, joanbrooker, anodnhajo, DSC on the Plateau, Sassy, Siri, Buckeye54, OrganizedCrime, citisven, jayden, WisVoter, oofer, earicicle, JDWolverton, Constantly Amazed, Bluesee, Most Awesome Nana, tgypsy, misshelly, rmonroe, Little Flower, leonard145b, dewtx, pixxer, Dodgerdog1, tegrat, AJ in Camden, reginahny, allenjo, Philly526, lineatus, stlsophos, Brooke In Seattle, librarisingnsf, coloradorob, puckmtl, enemy of the people, Joy of Fishes, geordie, TDDVandy, peachcreek, Marihilda, Bule Betawi, JaxDem, cotterperson, Tunk, doroma, defluxion10, emeraldmaiden, elwior, grrr, commonmass, Shockwave, phrogge prince, BlueFranco, BarackStarObama, camlbacker, citizen dan, ceebee7, glitterlust, miracle11, pat bunny, Wreck Smurfy, viral, kathny, irishwitch, tytalus, JVolvo, ColoTim, Tchrldy, AdamR510, MI Sooner, royce, alasmoses, travelerxxx, OleHippieChick, Nowhere Man, expatjourno, NJpeach, nirbama, Ekaterin, oceanview, Blue Bell Bookworm, trumpeter, raptavio, pitbullgirl65, bakeneko, shesaid, 1BQ, historys mysteries, Jeff Y, eru, Tortmaster, La Gitane, RonV, BlueDragon, gfv6800, Larsstephens, m00finsan, yellow cosmic seed, eagleray, Smoh, kayak58, Munchkn, EdSF, PinHole, psnyder, KenBee, WC, MRA NY, bgblcklab1, PeteZerria, crose, Jollie Ollie Orange, IndieGuy, xynz, annominous, BlueJessamine, Calfacon, Involuntary Exile, blueoasis, tofumagoo, Debby, ProvokingMeaning, Miggles, Aaa T Tudeattack, Black Max, linkage, fumie, 88kathy, FlyingToaster, CenPhx, ichibon, twigg, Mathazar, bloomer 101, catullus, charliehall2, MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel, Kristina40, cassandracarolina, ArthurPoet, Oh Mary Oh, Rashaverak, Librarianmom
  •  This assumes A&E has moral concerns (116+ / 0-)

    As a corporation, its only moral value is profit.  The way to get them to dump these assclowns is to organize a boycott of the show's sponsors, and perhaps the channel as well.

    We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

    by Dallasdoc on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 06:42:06 AM PST

  •  It's not illegal (17+ / 0-)

    I get the outrage but in a lot of state's you can certainly marry if you are under 18 - even if you are under 15. It generally requires parental consent or a permission from the court but it's not defacto illegal.

    Is it kind of gross that he's recommending men marry 15 and 16 year olds? Yeah, in this country that's definitely against the social norms and will probably weird a lot of people out.

    Look, I tried to be reasonable...

    by campionrules on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 06:43:37 AM PST

  •  Do we really need to be the side (30+ / 0-)

    that freaks the fuck out over every off-hand comment?

    I prefer to let halfwits like him talk themselves right off the end of the dock.

    -------------------------------------------------------
    Take your protein pills and put your helmet on

    by SFOrange on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 06:47:02 AM PST

    •  I prefer British style censorship, (21+ / 0-)

      but since we don't have that kind of thing here my philosophy is to just let people say whatever they want. Including things that are patently offensive. If you don't like it, change the channel.

      I had no idea who this guy was until I started seeing diaries here. I dont watch redneck programs.

      •  What? British style censorship? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis

        The BBC has banned at one time or other songs by Bing Crosby, Ella Fitzgerald, Edie Gorme, Chuck Berry, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, The Cure, The Police and The Sex Pistols (surprise!), not to mention 67 songs during the 1st Gulf War that might be taken as anti-war songs. No thanks, I'll take my pop music straight.

        I never liked you and I always will.

        by Ray Blake on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 07:26:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  But what about the CHILDREN? (12+ / 0-)

      Good Lord, this man is being allowed to say things I don't like one bit! And he is being allowed to express ideas, ideas that, again, I do not like. How can this be? What kind of country would be tolerant of people expressing objectionable views?

      My only solace is that I know that diarists here will stay on this, will sift through everything Mr. Duck says, and let us know whenever we should be outraged.

      •  This would be cute, (17+ / 0-)

        if there weren't actually children involved.  He is speaking to a group of grown men, advocating that they marry children.  This is not okay.  And just because it's not important to you as XYZ other issue, doesn't mean we should let it slide.

        "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

        by Silvia Nightshade on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:07:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So prosecute them. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TexasTom, VClib

          If these grown men are doing anything illegal, throw the book at them! Trouble is, they're not advocating anything illegal. It's morally disgraceful and repugnant but it's not illegal. He's just stating what he believes and he absolutely has the backing of the bible in this.

          If I were King, I'd outlaw any marriages before 18yo, regardless of parental consent. I believe if you are outraged you should petition the government to change the laws or petition the church these men attend to preach about how marrying children is outrageous.

          But this is simply someone saying something that you don't like and you're brandishing the "think of the children!!!11111!!" card like it's some sort of sword.

          [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

          by rabel on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 10:38:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't care (6+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pirogue, blue in NC, grrr, nosleep4u, Smoh, Miggles

            if the dude has the "backing of the bible" in whatever he's saying if I find to be awful.  As to me just not liking what he's saying--you're right.  I don't like it.  But it goes farther than that.  People who say terrible things like this repeatedly (I would guess this isn't the first or only time he's ever expressed this sentiment) are dangerous.  They help breed an environment where doing the things they are talking about become okay.  Then people begin doing the terrible things that were once just talked about.  It's not just one dumb guy saying one dumb thing.  This dumb guy, in particular, has a lot of money and influence, and many people are listening to his garbage.

            Obviously if the law isn't being broken we can't prosecute someone for breaking the law.  But we can say "Mm, you know what, no, this is not okay" and push back against BS like this.  And frankly I don't care if someone on DKos wants to mock me for it.  I am a multi-faceted human being and I can manage to be outraged about multiple issues at one time, from those that are more serious and pressing to those that seem inane to others.

            Also, could you please provide the guidelines I need to follow on DKos as far as (1) how serious an issue should be before I or someone else write a diary on it, and (2) what level of activism I must be engaged in offline in order to have credibility when commenting on an issue.  I thought I had read all of the site rules and guidelines but you make it sound like I missed something somewhere, since I need to be out petitioning for laws to be changed and such.

            "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

            by Silvia Nightshade on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 11:08:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The point is.. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              murrayewv, dallasdunlap, Samulayo

              I believe you're correct to be outraged.

              However, the idea that 15yo or younger girls make good wives has been around for centuries and is currently practiced in some modern Mormon cultures in this country. It's not unheard of in strictly religious areas all over the world. This idea is not new and the practice of marrying girls as young as 14 is legal in many parts of this country.

              My only comment is that it appears you're acting outraged about a legal practice that's been going on forever only because some asshole said it out loud and that asshole happens to also be a television personality.

              Makes me wonder if you've been paying attention to this and the many other repugnant religious practices that are going on every day in this very country and around the world?

              I'm not saying you're not correct to be outraged, I'm just wondering why it's this man saying this thing that has got you worked up when there are many, many other examples of outrageous behavior going on every day in the name of religion all over the world.

              [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

              by rabel on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 12:21:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Because we're supposed to be exceptional, (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blueoasis, rabel

                which we in no way demonstrate.
                And, seeing this asshole's "qualities" compared to bin Laden's, the story sickens. Somehow we just don't expect it here, but here it is.

                "He went to Harvard, not Hogwarts." ~Wanda Sykes
                Teh Twitterz, I'z awn dem.
                Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly.

                by OleHippieChick on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 02:48:00 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Um, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rabel

                you're making a lot of assumptions about me and what I know and what I think.  What makes you think I don't know that this is on ongoing practice around the world?  Just because it is and has been around for centuries doesn't make it any less repugnant.  Why do you think this is the only thing I've ever been outraged by?  Because I'm not writing diaries or commenting much lately?  I'm really not understanding your logical progression about how me commenting on A therefore means B, C, and D about me personally.

                "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

                by Silvia Nightshade on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 04:52:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  outrage (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dave925, AlexDrew
        and let us know whenever we should be outraged
        Heh!  Same goes for Palin, Santorum and that Kelly person on Fox.

        We know they're idiots.  Can't we ignore them for a while unless there is some action we can take?  Nothing we can do about Palin and I don't want to hear another word about her. All we're doing is providing her with a bigger platform.

    •  Oh, come on! (15+ / 0-)

      It's a little more than "off-hand". This is some sick shit.

      This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

      by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 08:00:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They are going to claim historical... (6+ / 0-)

        American values..and they would be right.  Only in the last two generations has it become pretty much accepted that 15 is too young to marry.  And that is just societal norms--many state laws still support marriage at that age.

        Einstein’s Theory of Relative Stupidity: Anyone who attempts to make George Bush look like a frigging genius, will end up looking like George Bush.

        by quiet in NC on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:57:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Let them. (0+ / 0-)

          To begin with, this is not the same thing as Biblical values. And in the here and now, in 2013, advocating something like this is pretty disgusting, in today's society.

          Doesn't matter how many generations this goes back. Many state laws don't support it at all.
           

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 10:06:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Many do. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            quiet in NC, VClib

            Many state laws DO support marriage at 15yo with parental consent. And I'm sorry, but the bible absolutely, positively supports this view as well.

            [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

            by rabel on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 10:39:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The original poster (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JVolvo

              stated "American values", not Biblical ones.

              And "with parental consent" is key. Would you let YOUR daughter lie down with that old man? I doubt it.

              This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

              by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 10:41:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Here is the problem... (0+ / 0-)

                when does a parent lose control over who their daughter lies down with?  I suspect this is a subject where liberals and conservatives join up for a bit and cross over each other.  What about how much say the state (or you) should have over other people's daughters?

                Einstein’s Theory of Relative Stupidity: Anyone who attempts to make George Bush look like a frigging genius, will end up looking like George Bush.

                by quiet in NC on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 11:36:45 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's not ABOUT that control (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  nosleep4u, JVolvo, Smoh, blueoasis

                  It is about THIS:

                  “Look, you wait ‘til they get to be twenty years-old and the only picking that’s going to take place is your pocket. You got to marry these girls when they’re about fifteen or sixteen and they’ll pick your ducks.”
                  I sure as hell HOPE that people on the left and right agree on the depravity of this old skeeze. He's gross.

                  This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                  by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 11:57:47 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Gross?...yes. Illegal?...no. nt (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    VClib

                    Einstein’s Theory of Relative Stupidity: Anyone who attempts to make George Bush look like a frigging genius, will end up looking like George Bush.

                    by quiet in NC on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 12:03:17 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That wasn't the question, though. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JVolvo

                      The question was:
                       

                      Would you let YOUR daughter lie down with that old man?

                      This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                      by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 12:35:58 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  How about 20-year-old women? (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      blueoasis, wa ma, Kristina40

                      Is it accepted Biblical and American traditional values that women over 19 are over the hill and good for nothing but "picking your pocket"?

                      The question is not simply the age of marriage but the value and humanity of women.

                      Fox's Brian Kilmeade on Starbucks' decision to ban guns in stores: "Real simple - if you have a gun, go to Dunkin Donuts."

                      by NCJan on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 12:36:30 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Are we now going to regulate comedy too? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        dallasdunlap

                        Yeah, i did not laugh either but the comment was clearly meant in jest.  It's not his fault Republicans suck at comedy--they are born born that way.

                        Einstein’s Theory of Relative Stupidity: Anyone who attempts to make George Bush look like a frigging genius, will end up looking like George Bush.

                        by quiet in NC on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 12:41:54 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Oh, okay (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          lunachickie

                          So now you are going to defend these remarks based on the fact that they are merely bad jokes?

                          Fox's Brian Kilmeade on Starbucks' decision to ban guns in stores: "Real simple - if you have a gun, go to Dunkin Donuts."

                          by NCJan on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 12:53:54 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not defending nothin'.. (0+ / 0-)

                            but people here are calling for censorship and this sums up my feelings on the matter completely

                            Einstein’s Theory of Relative Stupidity: Anyone who attempts to make George Bush look like a frigging genius, will end up looking like George Bush.

                            by quiet in NC on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 01:12:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  They are not calling for censorship (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JVolvo, lunachickie, blueoasis, Kristina40

                            Censorship is when you can't speak your mind without going to jail.

                            It is when the government arrests you for stating your opinions.

                            They are exercising their 1st amendment rights by saying that he shouldn't be paid and given a microphone for stating odious beliefs.

                            I guess according to what you're saying, I'm being censored because I don't have a show on A&E.

                            Sigh.

                            Fox's Brian Kilmeade on Starbucks' decision to ban guns in stores: "Real simple - if you have a gun, go to Dunkin Donuts."

                            by NCJan on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 01:24:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's not the definition of censorship. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VClib

                            Censorship can happen on private levels as well.

                            Exercising my First Amendment rights to proclaim that someone else's use of their First Amendment rights are bad and they should be ruined doesn't seem like the best use of my time when we have bigger, harder problems to tackle.

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 02:39:28 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This is the kind of thing (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            NCJan

                            that opens the door for more acceptance of it.

                            we have bigger, harder problems to tackle
                            This is a HUGE problem and we can do more than one thing at a time.

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 04:01:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We certainly can... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VClib, Mr Horrible

                            ...but I sure don't see how making a mountain out of this particular molehill lets us actually conquer the mountain of problems that women's rights and cultural standing actually presents.

                            There's been a week of this dude in the news.  Crucifying some asshat in cable television's reality TV backwater isn't going to change people's views on women.  Give it another week, and we'll all have forgotten about this until the new season of the show hits and puts up its highest ratings ever.  You can take that to the bank.

                            I haven't seen a convincing argument yet on how fighting this fight actually advances our cause or the cause of women in this country and the world, or how fighting this fight will improve things for our LGBTQ brothers and sisters, or how fighting this fight will improve things for our African-American brothers and sisters.

                            Someone will always be wrong on the internet.  An old dude with "fuck you" money isn't a good target for this sort of action.  His words can be written off by people as "Well, he's old and from a different time."

                            Had his son (and the current CEO of the Duck Commander enterprise) made the comments, it might be worth it.  Younger demographic that should be more enlightened, actually has power in the company and isn't just Dad, etc.  If one of the teens in the show had made the remarks?  Definitely worth having a public tussle over.

                            I'm all for fighting the good fight.  But I'm not for throwing down just anywhere, and just over any little thing.  There are too many other ways to advance the cause in question that don't involve starting a fight that will do nothing more than make Mr. Robertson and his clan more money and do nothing to A&E but bring in record ratings for the new Duck Dynasty season premiere.

                            Just because I can do something, doesn't mean that I should.  Give me a reason why this is a particularly good piece of ground to hold or attack when considering the multiple ways that this issue can be spoken about, educated on, etc., and I'll be happy to spam my friend's MyTwitterBooks with reasons why they're bad and should feel bad for being of the same species as this dude.

                            But frankly, I see us getting a lot more mileage out of showing how the threads of LGBTQ/African-American/women's lives and relationships enrich the tapestry of our American fabric.   We know they have value.  Show other people that rather than telling them how wrong they are and shouting about how they should be punished.

                            It's more effective than you think.

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 04:19:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're just not looking real hard (0+ / 0-)
                            making a mountain out of this particular molehill lets us actually conquer the mountain of problems that women's rights and cultural standing actually presents
                            As if "television" doesn't contribute to it at all. Whatever, sir/madam. Whatever.
                             

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 06:12:35 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Duck Dynasty isn't all of "television". (0+ / 0-)

                            I agree with your statement that television, as a form of mass media, drives cultural conversations, although I'd say that culture pushes media much more than vice-versa.

                            But at the end of the day, not you or anyone else as been able to explain how burying this dude does anything but make us feel better in a fit of vengeance rather than actually taking the opportunity that his comments presented to address how deep the infection of racism, sexism, homophobia, and other bigotry still is in our society.  Instead, he's able to claim the martyr platform and is actually going to profit from it, which definitely is an incentive for people to say stupid shit.

                            It just doesn't seem effective to me.  I'd be ecstatic to be proven wrong, because it'd make healing society a hell of a lot easier, and I don't comment on controversial topics where my mind is made up.

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 07:13:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  No, this is not about regulating comedy (0+ / 0-)

                          or regulating speech. It's about pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who is SOO upset by Teh Gay, but it's perfectly fine to refer to women as basically chattel to be bargained.

                           There is NO defense for this crap.

                          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                          by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 01:14:26 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I think women have larger issues to confront... (0+ / 0-)

                            Why bother with an old man that's paid to be provocative?

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 02:40:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Because way, WAY too many people (0+ / 0-)

                            are bamboozled into thinking there's nothing wrong with this POV. Calling it "provocative" is being seriously charitable...

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 03:59:31 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then it would seem to me... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VClib

                            ...that the proper course of action would be to highlight what's wrong with the point of view, rather than treating Mr. Robertson as an effigy of those views and burning him, so to speak.

                            What he's saying is provocative.  Hell, the entire reason this show is on TV is that it's a provocative family (or they can play one on TV, at least) that's made millions off of a niche business.

                            Trust me, I agree with you 100% that Mr. Robertson's remarks are terrible.  I agree with you that the core issues his remarks have touched on are valuable and worth fighting for.  What I disagree with is the strategy.

                            I just don't see tarring and feathering this particular man, A&E, or whatever as a particularly good or effective way to advance those causes.  In fact, given that the first episode of next season is likely to draw record ratings for the series, if not for the network as a whole, the outpouring of support from the side of bigotry by turning this guy into martyr, etc., I'd say that we're encouraging more people to spout off like this because if there's one thing true about our human nature, is that there is always someone willing to say stupid shit for a whole lot of money.

                            Look, you and I know that comparing this guy to a civil rights figure like some on the right have done is ridiculous, and that their persecution complex is just that -- a complex held by those who currently drive conservative American culture.  But that's what this particular battle has turned into, and fighting this particular battle is simply going to make us feel superior, make conservatives feel even more persecuted and therefore more resistant (in the short term, for sure) to views changing, and make A&E and the Robertson family many piles of money.  

                            I'm sorry, I just don't see any victory here by continuing to point out how idiotic a single idiot is.

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 04:29:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  When he's on tv and worshiped by (0+ / 0-)

                            a metric fuckton of brain-dead morons? I'm not looking for "victory". You, on the other hand, sure are falling all over yourself with word-salad galore to minimize this misogynist garbage.

                            I'm sorry, but that says a lot about you, and it's not terribly flattering.

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 06:14:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What are you looking for, if not to actually... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...make things better for the communities this jackass harmed with his statements?  How am I minimizing this guy's comments?  They're terrible, and I was pretty sure I made it perfectly clear that I felt that way.

                            But you're certainly not going to reach out to the show's viewers by calling them brain-dead morons, even if that does appear to be the target audience.  They're not going to want to hear a word you have to say, and they'll support this dude no matter what shit he spews because now it's not just about him, it's about them.

                            And to be fair, at the end of the day, it is about them.  We don't want them to feel like what Mr. Robertson said was an acceptable thing to say.  Please let me know when, at any point in history, making martyrs ever did anything but inflame the cause the martyr died or was punished for once a movement reached a certain size.

                            So why should we reward him and the A&E network by drumming up more press for them to increase ratings from?  Because while it might look like that we're hammering this guy and the A&E network, I guarantee that the season premiere will have record ratings because of the controversy, both this guy and A&E will make a shitload of money, and it will spur on other people to say something more outrageous for money.  I don't see anything in history to discourage me of that fact.  I wish I was wrong and that this would work.

                            If going after this guy was going to do anything besides trigger a backlash on LGBTQ rights and make all parties involved a ton of cash, I'd be right alongside you.  But you're trying to punish this guy and A&E by making them money.  That doesn't work.

                            Sorry if I'm wordy.  I have Asperger's, and because of that, I probably type way too much in an effort to make myself as clear as possible, because my grasp of context is crap.  I don't do this whole social thing well to begin with.  I probably also wasn't very clear if you thought I was actually defending his bullshit -- I'm not.

                            This is also why I want you tell me how I'm wrong.  Because while I don't see how I'm wrong now, if I am, it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong, and the only way to correct my thinking is to have it explained to me because I don't put myself in other people's shoes very well.  I'm not wired to do that -- I compensate by asking questions so I can try to understand it.

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 07:04:30 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And you're a woman, right? n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 06:15:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm either right or wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                            I think I'm right.  If you don't, convince me otherwise, or at least give me the courtesy of explaining why you think I'm wrong, because frankly, I find it hard to understand how I'm supposed to understand your point of view, and the only way I'm going to get exposed to new ideas or alternate views on current ideas is to actually hear them.

                            And if this wasn't a response to me, I'm sorry -- I'm not trying to threadstalk you.  Parent link took me to one of my comments, but the indentations all busted this deep in the thread.  =/

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 07:39:30 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  BUT (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib, OrganicChemist

                i really think you're misconstruing a little.  and i know i'm potentially in dangerous territory here for some, but i think eh is advising young men to do like he did and marry young with a younger girl.  i don't think he's suggesting that old men marry young girls.  if i'm not mistaken, he was 18 and his wife was 16 and i think that's what he's saying.  

    •  We feed the nutjobs by reacting (6+ / 0-)

      It's what they live for - goading us to see how silly they can make us look.

      West. No further west. All sea. --Robert Grenier

      by Nicolas Fouquet on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 08:39:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not silly to point out depravity (8+ / 0-)

        hell, the nutjobs do it every day, whether whatever it is they point out is reality-based or not.

        This is gross. It's just gross.

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:15:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There's not enough time in the day... (0+ / 0-)

          ...to do that, and you're not exactly doing anything else besides preaching to the choir.  I doubt you'll find anyone reading this that doesn't believe that the dude is wrong, is likely creepy, a backwards redneck, etc.  It's also far less of a threat to the rights of women than what others who believe like him are very successfully doing, which is turning them into second-class citizens anytime conservative lawmakers think of the "children".  We've got a dead woman in Texas having her corpse kept functioning by the state so that she can deliver a fetus that can reasonably expected to have serious developmental issues at best, against her stated wishes, and you're paying this asshole more thought than "what an asshole"?

          Getting rid of a few advertisers isn't going to change anything.  Shit, look at the list FlushRush has racked up, and Rush is still on the air, still making millions, and still talked about on nearly a daily basis.  Did it cost him and his radio empire a bit of cash?  Sure.  Now he can only afford 8 hookers to snort his blow off of rather than 10.

          Now imagine if we'd applied that time and effort to changing something that mattered beyond continuing to lend credence to the words of a drug-addled idiot by acting like something he says is actually important.

          Save the outrage for when it actually matters.

          Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Clarke's Third Law

          by The Technomancer on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 02:47:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The nutjobs have a short shelf life of fame (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sawgrass727, mmacdDE, AlexDrew

        Anyone remember Morton Downey, Jr.?

        Didn't think so.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/....

        Fox's Brian Kilmeade on Starbucks' decision to ban guns in stores: "Real simple - if you have a gun, go to Dunkin Donuts."

        by NCJan on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:26:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  We're not the ones who look silly here n/t (0+ / 0-)

        Fox's Brian Kilmeade on Starbucks' decision to ban guns in stores: "Real simple - if you have a gun, go to Dunkin Donuts."

        by NCJan on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 12:37:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Offhand comments are (15+ / 0-)

      ...the ones to actually freak out about.

      These are the comments that show the real essence of a value system. They are not filtered or considered. Like the comments about rape, abortion, contraception, race, and "second amendment remedies" that expose the true underlying ideologies of the movement conservatives, Duck Man's rants show the essential racist and misogynistic values of this reactionary element of our society.

      It's not the comment we're freaking out about as much as what the comment exposes. The only tool we have for cultural evolution is shifting the social norms to a new level and we do that by showing disapproval of the old norms.

      So, yes, we do want to be that side.

    •  "off-hand"? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      unfangus, JVolvo, Miggles

      I don't get your understanding of "off-hand."  His statement is deeply offensive on two issues:  His sexism about women in general, and his "joke" that young teenagers make better wives.  Overheard in a conversation is "off-hand", but those statements were made in a prepared script to an audience.

      He's getting the same type of scrutiny that Palin got just after her nomination.  Good.  The intense scrutiny will die away once the public gets to know who he really is.

      Granted that Palin as VP was a different level than a reality show star, but they both are considered to be leaders of a certain type of culture.

      Sunshine is often the best disinfectant to their types of attitudes.   It relegates them to at-large public pariahs.

    •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pi Li, AlexDrew

      This is just stupid. These people are a dime a dozen in some parts of the country, spouting outrageous nonsense to the simple minded people who believe in their particular flavor of Christianity and quoting cherry-picked bible verses to back themselves up. These attitudes, and the support of the rednecks of the world, is as old as religion itself.

      Why we decide to get outraged in this one case is dumbfounding. You know you can hear this same shit pretty much any day of the week on "Christian" radio or any given Sunday in the South.  Seriously, Sarah Palin had a freaking African Witchdoctor bless her for crying out loud and she was this close to becoming 2nd in command of this country.

      [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

      by rabel on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 10:43:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I prefer to be the side that wins. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      defluxion10

      Often, Republicans win the battle of public relations because they "freak the fuck out" and make mountains out of molehills.

      Personally, I think recommending American men marry underaged girls because they are too naive to be after you for your money (unlike a less vulnerable 20-year-old woman) is a more worthwhile mole hill than whether the Obama Christmas card was "Christmasy" enough, but what do I know?

      What we really should do is use this comment by a famous Evangelical as a jumping off point for exposing the serious problem of sexual abuse in the Evangelical community that is swept under the rug:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...

      **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

      by CatM on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 11:28:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  doubt there is much chance for A&E (18+ / 0-)

    to reverse itself again. this duck garbage is neither arts nor entertainment. it is sick

    but really- how creepy to do you have to be to stay fired these days?

  •  It might be easier to just dump.. (15+ / 0-)

    A&E since they are the most vulnerable to the commercial world.  

  •  Also, (7+ / 0-)

    In may this year, you wrote a diary in support an adult(18 year old)who was sleeping with a 14 year old. The original outrage was that she was punished for being in a same-sex relationship but the point stands that there were plenty of people on this site willing to defend someone fucking a 14 year old because there was only a 4 year age difference.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Relevant information from the diary via Adam B

    * [new]  According to the FB page (0+ / 0-)

        At the beginning of the school year, Kaitlyn made friends with a 14-year-old freshmen girl in Sebastian River High's IB program who played varsity sports and took classes with upper classmen. The girls were peers in the same social circle, and as happens every day high schools across America, their friendship eventually developed into more. In September, shortly after Kaitlyn's 18th birthday, the girls began dating, and they eventually expressed their affection for one another in intimate ways.

        When the girls' basketball coach found out that two of her players were dating, she kicked Kaitlyn off the team and informed her girlfriend's parents that their daughter was in a same-sex relationship. The parents then conspired with police to entrap Kaitlyn and press charges.

        The police recorded a phone conversation between the two girls, now 18 and 15, in which they discussed their relationship. Kaitlyn was arrested and charged with two counts of felony lewd and lascivious battery on a child 12-16. Kaitlyn's girlfriend denies that Kaitlyn ever pressured her and is adamant that their relationship is entirely consensual, but her parents are out to destroy Kaitlyn's life.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Look, I tried to be reasonable...

    by campionrules on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 06:51:07 AM PST

    •  Difference was that the relationship started (4+ / 0-)

      when the older girl was still 17--and unless there was evidence they were planning to run away, there was no reason why the younger girl's parents couldn't have told the older girl's parents, "This relationship ends and ends now--and if it doesn't, we're going to the police with no further warning."

      It's all about the age difference.

    •  Two girls, just different IMHO. nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BadKitties

      "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

      by merrywidow on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 07:21:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'll defend her too. (6+ / 0-)

      The whole reason we get upset about adults and children having sex is that children's brains haven't developed enough to the point where they can truly understand enough to give real consent.  But an 18 year old's brain still hasn't reached that point either.  It takes till around 21 or so.  But our laws generally set '18' as adult, unfortunately.

      So really, an 18 and a 14 isn't that much different from a 16 and a 14, and shouldn't be treated anywhere near the same as, say, a 30 year old and a 15 year old.  It's basically two people who shouldn't be screwing around, but neither of them has a fully developed brain at that point.

    •  And? (9+ / 0-)

      Is that supposed to discredit this diary and allow that disgusting old man the ability to advocate for the pursuit of underage girls? Because if they get out from under Daddy's patriarchy, they're just gold-diggers anyway?

      God, the lengths people go to around here. Pathetic.

      This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

      by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 08:02:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just pointing out the difference (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MPociask

        between someone who talks about teen marriage(legal but still creepy) and, as legally defined, an actual pedophile. The diarist seems to be a bit confused is worse. (Hint: it's the person actually fucking 14 year olds.)

        Look, I tried to be reasonable...

        by campionrules on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 08:59:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uh, no (8+ / 0-)

          sorry. If you think this gross old man doesn't seek the end result of actually "fucking 14 year olds", you're being purposely obtuse, at best. Why bother saying it at all if that wasn't the ultimate outcome?

          Gross. And perverted. What a great role model.

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:13:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Your whole point to me (9+ / 0-)

          comes across as an attempt to discredit the diarist.  Even so, if everything you assert is true, what does discrediting the diarist do?  Are you trying to defend the duck guy's remarks?  I'm not sure what your objective is.  What outcome were you hoping for when bringing this up?

          "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

          by Silvia Nightshade on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:15:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know. (9+ / 0-)

          Legality aside, I find the argument that guys should marry women when they're young so they're easier to control pretty damn creepy. It's not just the suggested age, it's the rationale: If she's over 20, she'll pick your pocket, if she's younger you can get her to pick your ducks.

          In general I think getting married that young is a bad idea. You both have more growing up to do and may well change to be incompatible. Your judgement probably isn't very good yet. You're probably not financially secure. It's likely to distract from education. All sorts of reasons that it's risky.
          That doesn't make getting married young morally wrong. It does make telling people they should get married young problematic. Couple that with the issues about controlling her that he expresses and I'm seriously creeped out.

          As for the other relationship, again legality aside: I find that particular relationship borderline due to the age, but it's a single relatively long-term relationship among peers (or near peers anyway). The younger girl continued to defend the older. That makes me want to cut her some slack. I'd be much less likely to if it had just been a one-night stand or especially if the older girl showed a pattern of hooking up with younger girls.

          Again, I'd argue that, just like marriages a few years older, relationships at that age with that age difference are a risky idea and are easily open to abuse, but that doesn't mean there aren't exceptions that work.

          That's why Phil's argument is creepier to me: He's saying that it's a good thing that everyone should aim for.

          The Empire never ended.

          by thejeff on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:23:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agreed, but the thing (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tuesdayschilde, Osiris, Val

            we really need to stay focused on is this:

            He's saying that it's a good thing that everyone should aim for.
            And not get bogged down in an argument of "what's a good age to marry" nowadays. That's beside the point.

            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

            by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:34:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Ain't gonna happen (7+ / 0-)

    A&E isn't the least interested in doing the right thing. For all we know, their corporate headquarters and programmers agree wholeheartedly with every word that comes out of Robertson's mouth.

    It's all about the $$$ for them.

    I just won't watch them anymore, that's all.

  •  The more we scream (9+ / 0-)

    the more popular he becomes . . .

    If you are against sane gun regulations then by definition you support 30,000 deaths a year by firearms.

    by jsfox on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 07:13:32 AM PST

  •  What is the legal age of consent where this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, wishingwell, KayCeSF

    a-hole lives? He began "dating" his wife when she was 14, disgusting pig

    "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

    by merrywidow on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 07:20:06 AM PST

  •  Thanks for posting this... (13+ / 0-)

    I read the other diary yesterday and was hoping to find the full clip this morning, now I don't have to.

    Yep, marry 'em young Phil, that way you can train and control 'em and don't have to worry about annoying things such as thinking for themselves. Get 'em young! Keep 'em barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, don't let them get an education because, heaven forbid they want to leave your misogynistic, controlling and (probably abusive) ass later on in life- if ya keep 'em pregnant and  and without any choices, they are stuck with ya.

    What a disgusting, piece of shit this waste of flesh is.

    The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy. -Charles de Montesquieu

    by dawgflyer13 on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 07:34:13 AM PST

  •  Oh no! (7+ / 0-)

    Now he says 15 year old girls should get married. This must be stopped. What can we do? We thought the world had problems before, but now there is a redneck on one of my 200 cable channels saying bad things. I am hyperventilating, I think I need to go breathe in a bag.

    Nooooooo!

    •  No, that's not the only problem (13+ / 0-)

      To me the video is disgusting because he said that if you find women that young you can mold them and force them to do what you want--including work no one else wants to do.

      Whereas by the time they are twenty, they are past their prime, and will cost you money instead of being of any use to you.

      Are you really going to defend that?

      Fox's Brian Kilmeade on Starbucks' decision to ban guns in stores: "Real simple - if you have a gun, go to Dunkin Donuts."

      by NCJan on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:33:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sorry, but I'm not even (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pi Li, AlexDrew

        willing to watch that video. Why do you watch it, and then get all bent out of shape about it? Who cares what he is saying? Why in the world do you care if somebody out there is a bad person and says bad, mean things?

        •  Maybe you should watch something (0+ / 0-)

          before you comment on it.

          Fox's Brian Kilmeade on Starbucks' decision to ban guns in stores: "Real simple - if you have a gun, go to Dunkin Donuts."

          by NCJan on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 11:14:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Because he's not some bad person on channel 498... (0+ / 0-)

          He's now a celebrity with a platform and a huge following based on legitimate business and until now, a fairly innocuous, self-deprecating, humorous and sometimes entertaining program.  

          But now he's gone way beyond that and there are a lot of people who disagree very strongly with what he is saying.  I am one of them and I'm saying it very loudly.  You don't like it, too bad.  

          As the father of two daughters who has literally stood there in disbelief, disgust, and yes, outrage, as other men, some them friends (now former) right in front of me size up my 18 year old and 11 year old like pieces of meat, I have no tolerance for this shit.  

          I recently ended a successful, six year business partnership because my former partner, after repeated request still said sexist shit like calling strong, confident, and successful women clients "good little girls" because he's so insecure all the while refusing to acknowledge it's inappropriate at best and demeaning, sexist bullshit in truth, and that it has lost us business as well.

          I have been in end of year salary, merit, and bonus discussions in my former days in corporate America where stupid assholes of all ages still say things like "well he's got a family to feed and bills to pay" as reasons to give the men more money over the women.  

          Companies and entire states are lobbying and suing to avoid having to pay for yucky women stuff yet their penis pills are not up for discussion.  

          Hell, even kids meals at various fast food restaurants still ask if the toy that comes with the meal should be for a girl or a boy.  I even had a dumbass refuse to give me a boy's toy because it was for my daughter.

          Fucking pathetic and so are the Duck Fucks.

          Nothing changes if we stay silent.  Silence in this case is acceptance of the status quo which is no longer acceptable.  This "bad guy" has influence and provides justification and cover for the assholes in the world who think this is OK or worse—how it's supposed to be.

          Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't give you freedom from consequences.  We've made a dent in hateful, lying, negativity-spewing pieces of shit like Rush, Beck, and more by NOT staying silent.   I'm doing what I can to see that the Duck Fucks are added to that list.

          The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

          by Back In Blue on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 02:05:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  forest and trees? (7+ / 0-)

      I was offended before he even mentioned 15 year olds.  The part about women aged 20 picking your pockets was sufficient enough to understand his level of sexism.  

      Hah hah, what a joke. Let's substitute another group subject to discrimination into the joke and see if we (the royal "we") find it as acceptable.

      And then he thumps his Bible as though it sanctifies his remarks.

      If he was a private citizen, yeah, who cares?  If he was only a minor reality show character, yeah, still small potatoes bit still worth exposing because he's in the public. But when you have the governor of his state and other GOP conservatives defending him, well, then a public discussion of what we deem to be acceptable social attitudes is needed.

      •  They defended his right to say it (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AlexDrew, Neo Control

        without a bunch of PC people going berserk. They are right.

        •  Would you have said (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Osiris, drking818

          The same thing about Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. and Elizabeth Cady Stanton?

          Do you think they too were a "bunch of PC people who went berserk" because they called people out and stood up for what they believed was right?

          Frankly, if people didn't get upset about these things nothing would ever change.

          Fox's Brian Kilmeade on Starbucks' decision to ban guns in stores: "Real simple - if you have a gun, go to Dunkin Donuts."

          by NCJan on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 11:17:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Actually (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AlexDrew, doc2, Neo Control
      We thought the world had problems before, but now there is a redneck on one of my 200 cable channels saying bad things.
      He's not even saying it on one of your 200 (you ONLY have 200?) cable channels.  We only know he said it because someone dug it up in a Youtube video so now we can all be outraged by it.

      Ah, if only we could go back to the happier, simpler times in this country...like last week before we ever knew this redneck said this crazy stuff.

      Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

      by Pi Li on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 11:39:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'd dispute your comment that he went over the (8+ / 0-)

    line only with the pedophile comment. His anti-gay comment and slaves-were-just-fine-with-their-bondage comment were both over the line, and egregiously so.  

    Yes, even many fundamentalists now, patriarchs though they are, will have to pull their support for this idiot following this "revelation," but that doesn't mean "the line" hadn't been crossed already; it just means that there's a different line for right wing fundies than there is for civilized folks.

    "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi, 6/30/07 // "Succeed?" At what?

    by nailbender on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 07:54:00 AM PST

  •  Question: (7+ / 0-)

    what the hell is a "Georgia sportsmen's ministry"?

    Clearly, I don't get out much!

    Failure to Publicize Acts of Hatred Only Allows Them to Fester and Metastasize.

    by BoxerDave on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 07:58:42 AM PST

  •  He represents the values of the Tea Party/GOP (6+ / 0-)

    Which includes an odd view of history that Christians have committed no violence in their 2000 year history.

    Also, under the Scaia/Thomas legal theory, such marriages were prevalent in the 18th century and therefore are protected by the original intent paradigm.

    If the Founding Fathers had wanted to end such marriages, they would have so written in the Constitution.

    A&E obviously endorses these views.

    •  Unlikely an "endorsement" by A&E (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mmacdDE

      It's just entertainment.  When enough folks watch, who gives a shit why?  That's the philosophy they endorse.

      West. No further west. All sea. --Robert Grenier

      by Nicolas Fouquet on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 08:47:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, really? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dirtandiron

        They sure made a point of carefully wording their "suspension" of this asshole initially, and even more so when they "brought him back".

        And if this is what you call "entertainment", I would beg of you to try and get out more.

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:23:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why did they bring him back (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis

          if they didn't find a way to separate themselves from his views?  A&E very likely views "Ducks" as a window into an (existing) alternative world and will reject any accusation that their show is an endorsement.  This is how companies selling "entertainment" rationalize putting this stuff out there.

          I personally am not entertained by this show.

          West. No further west. All sea. --Robert Grenier

          by Nicolas Fouquet on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:43:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because the whole thing (0+ / 0-)

            was a stunt to move product and garner ratings.  But I'd submit to you it's gonna backfire if enough folks make noise about this crap.

            Lots of folks think it's fine to "gay bash"--which it isn't, but the point is, yes, it's a sizable portion of "an (existing) alternative world". That's bad enough. But  "advocating old man/young girl sex" is something else entirely, particularly for the reasons given.  There's not much love for that except from a seriously small fringe. And a lot of 'em have probably already been arrested for it at one time or another.

            Let A&E reject this argument all they want. If enough folks find this to be disgusting--which there is no doubt of that--they'll either reverse course or start watching their ratings tank.  

            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

            by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:51:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  A&E new reality show: Pedophilia Dynasty (5+ / 0-)

    A compelling series that explores the pedophilia lifestyle of...

    A&E catering to racist, homophobic, and child predators.

  •  Well, I added my 2-cents there. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lunachickie, blue in NC, jayden, blueoasis

    A discussion ensues, and I'm not responding.  I said my piece.  I'm done.  this Duck Dumpster show is beyond contemptible.  A&E is, as well.

    I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

    by KayCeSF on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 08:51:02 AM PST

  •  The Expected Defense (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Silvia Nightshade

    "What's the big deal?  He's not talking about sisters or daughters?"

    Is he?

  •  Sadly, there's too many of these... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden

    ...brain-dead bigots out there. The most glaring thing about this is that these people seem more emboldened in their prejudices. They have no shame.

    Only the weak & defeated are called to account for their crimes.

    by rreabold on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:09:43 AM PST

  •  I thought the whole "suspension" was (7+ / 0-)

    staged for the hype. As we continue to see in the media controversy boosts ratings and sells product.

    All viewers and boycotters were suckered by A&E.

    •  Yeah, well, this one is a tad too far (3+ / 0-)

      for most decent people, I don't care how "popular" they are on the teevee. Anywhere else, this guy would be excoriated in public and possibly even arrested.

      So while I do agree we're all being suckered, at some point, this is going to turn on A&E. Having an old man advocating the coveting of the virginity of underage girls on your payroll might get to be a bit of a liability...

      This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

      by lunachickie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:30:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  hmm (0+ / 0-)

        "Having an old man advocating the coveting of the virginity of underage girls on your payroll might get to be a bit of a liability..."

        that's the correct line of attack here....not that he's telling old men to go for 15 year old girls. like I said below, he could have been giving advice to 15-20 year old boys "with her parents support of course"... no indication he was speaking to older men that I could tell... but it does seem uber creepy for him to be talking about 15 year old girls.

        that should be the attack here, not that he was espousing pedophilia... but again, he's very creepy, approaching the line.

      •  Can't be arrested for it. (0+ / 0-)

        You're allowed to advocate illegal things (so long as we haven't defined them as “terrorism” yet).

        Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
        Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
        Code Monkey like you!

        Formerly known as Jyrinx.

        by Code Monkey on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 02:25:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Actually ratings in some demos collapsed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jayden

      Can't find the link again but posted in a comment a couple of days ago that the show lost 18% of the most coveted age demo and 22% of a larger group.  

      I wonder if we'll know about the effect on product sales.  My guess is that we hear nothing, the news is bad for them.   I also wonder who the competitors are and how they're doing.

      •  Um (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Code Monkey
        Can't find the link again but posted in a comment a couple of days ago that the show lost 18% of the most coveted age demo and 22% of a larger group.  
        It's the holidays and I'm pretty sure the show is in reruns.

        Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

        by Pi Li on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 11:09:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  My late father and my late mother (5+ / 0-)

    My late father was an unreconstructed sexist.

    If he'd heard this video, he would have giggled and said "Damn right."  

    My late mother would, on the other hand, have two words for it, spit out of her mouth in disgust as she watched the TV set:  

    "You pig!"

    So there's the gender thing Phil's going to have to contend with.

    And then there's this:  In spite of my father's giggling approval, if someone like Phil (even when he was 18 or 19) had come after me at the age of 15, they probably wouldn't be alive to tell the story.

    Fox's Brian Kilmeade on Starbucks' decision to ban guns in stores: "Real simple - if you have a gun, go to Dunkin Donuts."

    by NCJan on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:21:50 AM PST

  •  He's a misogynist and a theocrat (5+ / 0-)

    And that's the best impression one can get from his numerous taped appearances.

    A government that denies gay men the right to bridal registry is a fascist state - Margaret Cho

    by CPT Doom on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:36:21 AM PST

  •  Of course, the rightwing phony "Christian" (2+ / 0-)

    pieces of shit who embrace and drool with admiration all over their fellow piece of shit Robertson will say "awwww, it was only a joke!"

    As I posted in the other related diary, can you imagine the outrage from the same phony, bigoted, lying, racist, hate-filled, misogynistic, homophobic "Christian" conservatives that simply love "Phil" if somebody, like, say, Jon Stewart stood before an audience and made jokes about fucking fifteen-year-old girls and making them "pick your ducks"? Why, they'd be calling for his execution!

    If it weren't for lying and hypocrisy, there wouldn't be any conservative "Christians" and rightwing Republicans.

    "Bernie Madoff's mistake was stealing from the rich. If he'd stolen from the poor he'd have a cabinet position." -OPOL

    by blue in NC on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:39:15 AM PST

  •  If a man said this in Iran (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    martydd, Silvia Nightshade, drking818

    that grown men have to get the girls young, the GOP would be ready to beat the drums of War.

  •  Ugh. This is over. Move on to the next boycott. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coffeetalk

    Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

    by Pi Li on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 10:32:54 AM PST

    •  Is there a boycott (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TeaBaggersAreRacists

      that you would support?

      Fox's Brian Kilmeade on Starbucks' decision to ban guns in stores: "Real simple - if you have a gun, go to Dunkin Donuts."

      by NCJan on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 12:46:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sure (0+ / 0-)

        Just not any of these secondary boycotts whose primary purpose is to silence people we don't like.

        Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

        by Pi Li on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 12:49:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What boycotts would you support? n/t (0+ / 0-)

          Fox's Brian Kilmeade on Starbucks' decision to ban guns in stores: "Real simple - if you have a gun, go to Dunkin Donuts."

          by NCJan on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 12:54:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, give me an example (0+ / 0-)

            But in general, I won't support a boycott that whose ultimate goal is censorship of people simply because they expressed an opinion we don't like.

            You want to publicly call them out, and tell the world why they are wrong, more power to you. In the case of Robertson, I'll even join you. But I won't join any movement that attempts to censor him. I'm not down with using my free speech to attack others free speech. Sorry.

            Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

            by Pi Li on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 01:21:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Censorship? (0+ / 0-)

              As an attorney, you should know that censorship involves arrest by government or the legal curtailment of speech.

              Censorship is not about the right to have a television show and get paid for it.

              If that's the case, you should be writing to A&E complaining about the fact that they are censoring everybody on this site.

              (P.S.  You still haven't answered my question.)

              Fox's Brian Kilmeade on Starbucks' decision to ban guns in stores: "Real simple - if you have a gun, go to Dunkin Donuts."

              by NCJan on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 01:27:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  LOL (5+ / 0-)
                As an attorney, you should know that censorship involves arrest by government or the legal curtailment of speech.
                This silly little piece of misinformation is thrown out there by people who don't know any better anytime they wish to justify trying to censor someone whom they don't like. Censorship is "arrest by the government". Again, LOL.

                You're, um, talking about the First Amendment here. Not "censorship". And not free speech. OF COURSE censorship can be done by someone other than the government. Ever hear of TV network censors, who censor what content occurs on their networks? What about radio? If a private library removes every copy of the Biography of Malcolm X, isn't that censorship? Guess what, if you wrote a diary critical of Daily Kos, and Markos deleted it, that would be censorship.

                Listen, free speech, believe it or not, pre-dates the US Constitution. It's a basic human right, that the First Amendment springs from. The Constitution affirms our right, as human beings, to freely express ourselves...it did not create that right.  Just because Robertson cant be arrested for his comments (at least not yet) doesn't mean his free speech can't be attacked. No, he doesn't have a "right" to a TV show. But nonetheless, in a free society we should respect the rights of others to express themselves in ways we might no agree with, because we respect the notion of freedom of expression. With your boycotts, you choose to use your own speech to essentially shout down others whose speech you disagree with. When we do that, all that happens is the side that can shout the loudest (or in this case, intimidate advertisers the most), wins.  Is that the society you want to live in?

                Trying to narrow the concept of "free speech" into some kind of legal formality that only exists in the narrow confines of what the government can and can't do is not befitting anyone who would call themselves a liberal.

                You want to know what my point is? My point is that I'm clearly more committed to freedom of expression than you are. And while I wholly disagree with Robertson's comments (all of them), I respect his right to say them, and I won't use my speech to try to silence him.

                Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                by Pi Li on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 01:50:38 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You haven't said anything I didn't know (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tonedevil

                  Please.  You are not lecturing a middle school class.

                  You seem to be arguing that privately owned companies and individuals DO NOT have a right to "censor" speech occurring in their sphere of influence?

                  Because if that's your case, good luck with it.

                  Fox's Brian Kilmeade on Starbucks' decision to ban guns in stores: "Real simple - if you have a gun, go to Dunkin Donuts."

                  by NCJan on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 01:56:27 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Of course... (0+ / 0-)
                    You seem to be arguing that privately owned companies and individuals DO NOT have a right to "censor" speech occurring in their sphere of influence?
                    ...I never said this, in fact I said just the opposite. A&E has a perfect right to do whatever they wish with Robertson.  AS I SAID, he certainly has no "right" to a show on A&E or any other network.

                    But he does have a show, and I merely expressed my personal disdain for the tactic of using boycotts to silence speech we don't like.  Some redneck makes some stupid comments, so we have to try to make sure that his show is taken away from him, so no one else can watch it because WE don't like what he said.  Sorry, that's not me.

                    Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                    by Pi Li on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 02:25:17 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    The Technomancer

                    As far as an individual goes, you absolutely have the rights to censor speech occurring in your sphere of influence.  Don't watch. Don't listen.

                    That way, you don't have to be exposed to the speech you find offensive, and others who want to be exposed to it can be. And most importantly, you're not using your speech to try to silence someone else's..and taking away the ability of others who want to hear the speech to do so.  

                    Now what's so hard about that?  What's the problem with having a little respect for others, and acknowledging that your own set of beliefs aren't the only ones people are entitled to be exposed to.

                    Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                    by Pi Li on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 02:41:59 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It doesn't even have to be as high-minded as that. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Pi Li, OrganicChemist

                      We used to ignore the village idiots.  Now we make our "outrage" public and expose far more people to the idiot's idiocy.

                      Dude's an idiot.  It's really as simple as that.  I don't know about you, but I have better things to do and bigger things to worry about than the ramblings of old, rich idiots.  I'm pretty sure most of the posters here do, too.

                      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Clarke's Third Law

                      by The Technomancer on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 02:50:42 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yeah (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        andalusi

                        To quote one of my favourite Americans...

                        "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".
                        -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

                        Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                        by Pi Li on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 02:55:31 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Fiind another straw man (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm outta here.

                      Fox's Brian Kilmeade on Starbucks' decision to ban guns in stores: "Real simple - if you have a gun, go to Dunkin Donuts."

                      by NCJan on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 03:16:26 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  great comment Pi Li ................... (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  The Technomancer, Pi Li, BeninSC, dougymi

                  you summed up my opinion wonderfully!  I get a little sick of the boycott thing.  There is a lot of TV & radio that I do not like so I don't watch or listen but I would not think of
                  forcing my views on others by demanding they don't watch or listen.  

                  Kinda reminds me of the book burnings of old.

                  “The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of the tyrant” Albert Camus

                  by MsLillian on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 02:46:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  the only thing I'd like to add (0+ / 0-)

                    sometimes the person/institution is wielding a very large hammer to do as much destruction to the body politic as possible (like say rush/FOX)
                    it makes me very very sad that we allowed the fairness doctrine to be done away with.
                    the real fairness is to allow both sides a voice.
                    if the other side wants a reality show spokesman to hold up their side of the argument (or maybe Sarah) then I'm all for it...

            •  Boycotts of Rush Limbaugh? (0+ / 0-)

              Or more accurately of those advertising on his show? Is there any level at which associating yourself with sexism, racism, homophobia or any other bigotry should should prove bad for business?

              The Empire never ended.

              by thejeff on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 01:38:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I wouldn't support that either. (0+ / 0-)

                Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                by Pi Li on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 01:51:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  How's that working out for us? (0+ / 0-)

                Were you listening to Limbaugh in the first place?

                No?

                Your boycott does crap.

                FlushRush has gone after how many advertisers and won...and he's still out there, spewing his filth and making millions from it.  It's not like we're making it bad for business anyway -- the bills are still getting paid even if the products being advertised aren't as in the mainstream as previous ones.

                Save your powder, ladies and gents.  There's bigger battles to fight than the ramblings of an old dude that has what's called "fuck you" money where he doesn't have to change a damn thing about his life and can live the rest of his life (and many more) off the bills in his bank.

                Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Clarke's Third Law

                by The Technomancer on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 03:28:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's more than not listening (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  NCJan

                  It's not buying things advertised on Rush's show. That moves the pressure up. The boycott does work. It is working.

                  Sure, Rush is still getting paid, largely because he's still on an old contract, IIRC. ClearChannel is losing a ton of money. The big advertisers pull out and they have to lower rates to get the smaller ones in.

                  It's working. It's just not over yet.

                  The Empire never ended.

                  by thejeff on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 05:14:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It only works... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...when there isn't money to be made by advertising there anymore.  Yeah, the new advertisers are slimier when compared to the previous one, but people are tuning into his show to get hear people get slimed in the first place.

                    ClearChannel's been losing money since their consolidation plans for terrestrial radio got challenged by satellite, then pushed on the road to it's death by the Internet.  When Stern left New York radio for satellite, stories were going on then about Clear Channel hemorrhaging cash.  In 2009, when Rush signed that fat contract, the run up to it had articles detailing how Clear Channel's creditors were rumbling about restructuring CC's debt and calling some of it in...nothing happened.

                    Clean Channel's losing money because terrestrial radio, like print media, is a dying business.  The only sectors that are still making reliable profits?  Sports, talk, and Top 40.  Rush falls in one of those sectors, and even if he gets shut up, it's not like they're gonna fill his time slot with Air America 2:  Electric Boogaloo.  They're gonna get someone cheaper and expendable to say the same shit and worse on air for money, and now it's even harder to get rid of because the issue has been made to be about a person than about an idea.  Clear Channel and their ilk did it with local radio -- this is why JACK FM and it's progeny is everywhere, same format as before, just no expensive DJs!.  They'll do it with national radio as well.

                    You need to confront the idea, and you don't do that by targeting the people that speak to the idea.  You target the people who listen to the idea.  Otherwise, you just set up a Streisand Effect by calling attention to one person and allowing them to take up the mantle of martyrdom.

                    You change the people who are open to change, and you make the ones that are not and will never be open to change irrelevant.  You don't make someone irrelevant by shining a spotlight on them.

                    There will always be someone wrong somewhere.  The point is to convince people that they're wrong so that being wrong isn't a path to success...not by trying to make an example out of anyone who gets a few lines of press.

                    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Clarke's Third Law

                    by The Technomancer on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 05:52:24 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's not that they're slimier (0+ / 0-)

                      It's that they're cheaper. There's less demand for advertising and thus they have to pay less. Who they are isn't as important as that.

                      There's still money to be made, but it's less money and there might be better ways to make more.

                      The Empire never ended.

                      by thejeff on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 06:12:07 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Who they are... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        OrganicChemist

                        ...isn't that important at all.  It's what they say that is.  Rush Limbaugh wasn't born famous.

                        Take a look at this world.  There are tons of ways to make a profit, some better than others, but they're all being tried.  The only ones that don't work are the ones where the market for that product has been eliminated.  Getting one gasbag off the air doesn't do a damn bit a good when there's 40 more to replace him and the same number of hours of hate radio is on the air, just with younger, cheaper people.

                        Making something taboo draws the curious.  Hiding things draws the curious, hence the Streisand Effect.  Getting Rush off the air isn't even really a victory for our side -- woo, split his timeslot between more Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity, Happy McSlapnuts, and the latest spokesanchor to say something particularly stupid on live TV or radio!

                        Same shit's getting spewed, there's just one less asshole doing it.

                        Convince people that there's nothing worth listening to on those type of shows, and then there's not even a market for the next blowhard on deck even if Rush doesn't sign a new contract when this one expires -- which, by the way, will be presented as his retirement in public rather than as an effect from any pressure that the left put on.

                        There are times when boycotts can be effective.  A Walmart boycott would be super-effective, and may come one of these days as it becomes less about Walmart being a big company liberals hate and more about Walmart being an entity that leeches off of society and leaves destroyed local economies in its wake.

                        So when StopRush goes after Diageo over New Years to get Captain Morgan ads off Rush's show, they'll probably be successful.  Except that ad campaign already ran, CC already got their money, and there will be some peddler to hawk something to conservatives that'll pay the same rates because Rush still draws millions of ears.  Diageo won't buy another, they'll likely turn around and resell that purchased space, and the bar down the street is still gonna pour Cuba Libres with the Cap'n.  

                        Shit, it's a value multiplier for Diageo.  Buy small ad campaign on controversial media.  Have customers beg you to stop, even threaten a boycott.  Get ad run on news sites/shows reporting about it.  Have your name get lit up on Twitter and other social media outlets.  Then give in to the demands, sell the rest of your allocated time if any exists at the same rate or more than what you bought it at, and experience increased sales from both the short-term campaign and all of those people so happy they "forced" you to do something that they go out and buy the product to support you.  You just ran two or three large ad buys worth of sales conversions for the cost of a small national (or half-ish of a larger national) ad buy.

                        This is why this shit doesn't work -- you're playing a completely different game than they are.  And either way, they win,

                        Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Clarke's Third Law

                        by The Technomancer on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 06:44:42 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

  •  If you just ignored this shit... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pi Li, NCJan, Norm in Chicago

    nobody would even hear about it.

    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

    by HairyTrueMan on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 10:37:18 AM PST

  •  I posted over on A & E, and now I am at war (0+ / 0-)

    with a couple of sick fucks who are defending that pervert. Link

    •  eh (0+ / 0-)

      it really isn't clear he was speaking to old men. he's a creep to be talking about 15 year olds though for sure....

      but his almost after-thought "with the parents consent of course" statement seems to indicate his intentions were not for old men perverts to go after 15 year olds. at least I hope that's the case and the above statement lends toward that side of the argument....

      we need to stick to the facts and the facts are that he's a money-grubber with a bunch of kids who dress up as southerners and who grew beards to look the part for their stupid reality show... he's either a bigot or is playing the part of a bigot to appeal to his target audience... ditto for his racist dog-whistling comments.

  •  Every time I read about another outrageous (0+ / 0-)

    comment by some hillbilly celebrity, I can't help thinking of the fable of the scorpion and the frog.

    The national viewing audience makes pets of these knuckle-draggers (Paula Dean, Duck Dynasty, Honey Boo Boo -- who I'm not aware has made any egregious comments -- yet), then acts surprised when they act true to form.

    It's their nature.

    Light is seen through a small hole.

    by houyhnhnm on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 10:50:07 AM PST

  •  Who cares? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JWR

    I mean really, who cares?  It's a craptastic show on a podunk channel in a dying medium (cable TV).  It's not on the public airwaves, it's not being financed with public money.

    If the right wingers want their attitudes displayed for all to see by supporting this guy - go for it.  Happy to see it happen.

    We have many many bigger fish to fry.

    "Don't be defeatist, dear. It's very middle class." - Violet Crawley

    by nightsweat on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 10:54:40 AM PST

    •  true true true (0+ / 0-)

      and it can't hurt to help along the "display" by saying "hey lookey there at those knuckle-dragging bigoted, racist Neanderthals who are the source of all evil in the world while they thump their Bible and judge everyone else"....

      to your point though, this accusation doesn't pass the smell or who-cares test... the Dick Dynasty guy could be referring to young men, even ones around 15 or 16....having their 15/16 y/o women git their ducks and whatnot... ye bo!

      now if someone can show me that he was saying this to non-minors or specifically to older men.... well that's another matter. that's American Taliban on full display.

      •  I don't really care. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NCJan

        Even if he was talking to older men, he was using an anecdote about a younger one, so it could be taken as advice to give their unmarried boys.

        It's not the pedophilia implications that make this problematic. It's seriously misogynistic anyway. Marry her at 15-16 so you can control her properly. By the time she's 20 she'll just be picking your pocket.
        And make sure you've made sure she's a good cook, too.

        It's still the American Taliban. Sexism here. And we've already seen the racism and homophobia.  And all religiously justified.

        The Empire never ended.

        by thejeff on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 12:48:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  true again (0+ / 0-)

          the misogynist label definitely fits to this guy's list of deplorable attributes... but wingnuts are proud of their subjugation of women and anti-gay bigotry so no biggy for them there (in their American Taliban point of view)....and indeed it is all religiously justified because mainstream historicans and society in general are too cowardly, at least so far, to point out that their source of bigotry, hate, anti-science and anti-education points of view, i.e. the Bible, were fairy tales, per peer-reviewed academics... that book only touches on the Old Testament, others show the same of the New Testament, of Jesus being completely made up fairy tale. I am still searching for the truth on that myself....

  •  I would suggest boycotting A&E (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KayCeSF, ceebee7, annominous

    except that they have nothing on that I would watch anyway. It's all crime and the glorification of the Country/Western culture: guns, motorcycles, rodeos…

    Didn't they once have arts programming? Yes, biographies and documentaries, too. All gone. Well, no matter.

    Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

    by Mokurai on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 10:55:41 AM PST

  •  The meaning of the comment is getting lost (8+ / 0-)

    It seems to me that the brouhaha over Robertson's recommendation that men marry 15-year-olds is stopping short of the real problem with his comment, which goes beyond age. Robertson is recommending men marry 15-year-olds because they are naive enough to be beguiled by an older man simply because he is an older man instead of his status or money, unlike the 20-year-old "looking for gold" as Robertson puts it.

    Robertson is flat-out explaining that these younger girls are easier to take advantage of, which makes them good targets for predatory men. They are malleable and trusting and just want your love.  It's a classic reason for why adults prey on children.

    Disgusting.

    **Electing Republicans to the government is like hiring pyromaniacs as firemen. They all just want to see everything burn to the ground.**

    by CatM on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 11:35:43 AM PST

  •  Calling for the glitter fairy wouldn't hurt too (0+ / 0-)

    think of how many decades the glitter will live in that beard! Phil will be My Little Sparkle Ducky!

    21st Century Freedom in the USA: "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%" - Joseph Stiglitz

    by coloradorob on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 11:39:55 AM PST

  •  Boycott the sponsors, yes.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ceebee7

    ..but trading barbs with wingnuts on Facebook isn't going to do anything but rile the crazies into tightening their already white-knuckledragging grip on some Traditional Values™ fantasy. (And why are so-called traditional values superior to those that are new and improved, anyway?)

    •  yea but saying something on FB (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NCJan

      tells the knuckle-draggers and the silent enablers that activists on the left aren't accepting their violent language without a fight.

    •  There was no pushback (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drking818

      There was very little pushback against this stuff from the 1980s until a few years ago, with the rise of the left-wing on the web.

      Unfortunately, we found that if a progressive holds his or her tongue because something is too stupid to even argue with, eventually people think that no one disagrees with their idiotic statements.

      And you see the result in the MSM--right wing frothing begins to be mistaken for conventional wisdom.

      Unfortunately, this crazy back and forth is necessary.

      Fox's Brian Kilmeade on Starbucks' decision to ban guns in stores: "Real simple - if you have a gun, go to Dunkin Donuts."

      by NCJan on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 12:51:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  In a world where (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NCJan

    child sexual abuse and rape--sex without consent, in other words--are rife, where their effects are so widespread and devastating, Robinson's "light" remarks about child marriage chill and sicken me.

    Thanks for the diary.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 12:06:12 PM PST

  •  grown men? (0+ / 0-)

    I didn't see him specify age... and he also said "you'll want to ask their parents about that of course"...

    I have been very harsh about this guy's clearly bigoted  anti-gay and very questionable and likely racist comments comparing black people to white trash...."I'm with the blacks because I'm white trash" or whatever... he is certainly regurgitating rightwing talking points about entitlements, while ignoring the biggest recipients of entitlements: multinational corporations who force people onto govt assistance.

    but this one might be a reach... we should stick to facts and in this case, I don't at all hear him calling for pedophilia.. I could be wrong so tell me if so....

  •  The original Duck Commander: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LeighAnn

    Groucho Marx.

    Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

    by commonmass on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 12:24:30 PM PST

  •  Are you kidding, let this boy sing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Norm in Chicago

    the more vile and crap that comes frothing forward from this pie hole the better it is to show what a bunch of dick heads this new republican party really is.  Man, you cannot get better exposure to claptrap than A and E.  Let them be the sounding board for perversion and we will laugh our collective asses off at them trying to cover this crap up.  The sponsors too, let them wallow in the filth, good for them.

  •  Can't buy this kind of publicity (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    exlrrp, concernedamerican

    You think A&E is going to dump this guy?  The louder the left complains, the more the rednecks will rally. Advertisers drive themselves crazy trying to get vital advertising like this.
    Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if this site turned up in ads.
    "Hey rednecks, watch Duck Dynasty, it really pisses those DailyKos live off!"

    You don't change minds through censorship, it doesn't work that way.

  •  Why are we pursuing this? (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, the dude's Christian-crazy.  Yes, he said some terrible crap.

    We've got bigger fish to fry than hounding an old kook.  There's a small issue with government spying out there that only gets talked about the context of the man who blew the whistle on it.  There are serious issues with inequalities of all types -- wealth, gender, sex, etc. -- that could have time and energy put behind it to stop for real rather than organizing a boycott on the interwebs against a guy who is preaching to the choir or getting him fired from his TV show.  We have an entire political party devoted to looting what remains of the wealth of this nation.  And people are getting in pie fights over this dumbass?

    This is why we can't have nice things in this country.

    At the end of the day, however, it's far more effective to work to make sure he no longer has a choir to preach to by changing attitudes rather than trying to change the ways and beliefs of rich old men.  Old men and their antiquated beliefs die off.  But all this situation has done is invoke the Streisand Effect on this guy, and all press is good press when you have something to sell.

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Clarke's Third Law

    by The Technomancer on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 02:36:57 PM PST

  •  This is not an issue (0+ / 0-)

    where we can "agree to disagree".  Homophobia, like racism and sexism, is a great moral failing and in my view should be considered a criminal act.    

    I'm sure that the civil libertarians won't like this, but I don't think that hate speech like the stuff that Robertson said (disgusting homophobic remarks and insinuating that blacks were better off during Jim Crow) is or should be covered by the First Amendment.

    "The Republican Party is at a crossroads. It must decide whether it wants to be the party of Lincoln or the party of apartheid." -Ted Kennedy The teabaggers have chosen to be the party of racism and apartheid.

    by TeaBaggersAreRacists on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 03:41:43 PM PST

  •  It is not going to happen. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annominous, cassandracarolina

    This is about MONEY.  Duck Dynasty is the top cable show on A&E, period.  The ratings are off the chain.  Their XMAS cd sold over 800K and will easily grow past the 1M mark by end of January.

    This is about money.

    There are a lot of piss ass shows on cable now.  Many of these reality shows are the lowest of lows, but these shows bring in RATINGS, MONEY.

    If you don't like Duck Dynasty, don't watch A&E.

    A&E knew when they signed up this backward ass, ignorant, bigoted family down in the lowland of Louisiana what they were ABOUT.  A&E feigning that they are SHOCKED is bullshit.  They knew what they signed for there network and took a chance.

    The Ducks prevailed.  It is about money.

  •  This is sick (0+ / 0-)

    He's advocating for pederasty and sexual predation. Does A&E condone such behavior? If not, why is this show still on the air? The network can't have it both ways.

    Sad. A&E, Discovery, et al., used to have entertaining and educational programming.

    "I must create a system or be enslaved by another man's." - William Blake

    by Tod Westlake on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 03:55:25 PM PST

  •  it's not that he was encouraging (0+ / 0-)

    Marriage to 15-year-olds. It's why. He basically said because they were too young to dream of a life being anything but a housewife and mother

  •  Is A&E even watchable anymore? (0+ / 0-)

    They've pretty much given up the pretense that they're even an educational channel. So why would anyone on the left still be watching it? Once upon a time when you had a network that had the word "arts" in it's title, you half expected it to have something artistic in it. Now, we have the so-called "Learning Channel" giving Sarah Palin her own show.

    I haven't watched A&E in years because, let's face it, it hasn't been watchable in years. And I'm not some "I don't own a TV" snob either. A&E, History, TLC, Discovery. All of these channels have become jokes. Ever since they came under "new management" in 2007.

    The only thing about this Phil Robertson flak that surprises me is that it didn't happen sooner.  

  •  Everybody knows it's important.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drking818

    ...to make life long decisions when as young as possible.

    Jesus Pete! How can they defend this man? He's using the bible to push his theory of seducing young girls into marriage before they become old enough, smart enough, to make a different choice?

    What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. SAM HARRIS

    by Cpqemp on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:34:34 PM PST

  •  hey Duck Dynasty has reached UK tv............. (0+ / 0-)

    can't imagine why, and the ratings can't be good.  It is on a channel (ITV4) who aim at men, petrol heads and the like (Top Gear?) and it does not tend to catch my eye.

    I think I will leave it alone!

Thumb, Mimikatz, Shockwave, LynChi, CleverNickName, cotterperson, xynz, catullus, jancw, expatjourno, JLFinch, CatM, susans, ask, mole333, boadicea, gayntom, PeteZerria, oceanview, wader, psnyder, defluxion10, whyvee, samoashark, imicon, FlyingToaster, KayCeSF, tomjones, Josiah Bartlett, Sassy, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, Ohkwai, CPT Doom, Los Diablo, bloomer 101, historys mysteries, Bluesee, ichibon, democracy inaction, sap, one of 8, dewtx, viral, Brooke In Seattle, YucatanMan, Sun Tzu, spitemissile, rb608, Tunk, Savvy813, mph2005, snoopydawg, coloradorob, Ekaterin, Alan Arizona, kathny, snazzzybird, The Sheeping of America, irishwitch, Mr Bojangles, emeraldmaiden, Kimball Cross, tonyahky, raptavio, KenBee, slampros, blueoasis, twigg, NCJan, JVolvo, blue in NC, CA Nana, bstotts, Nulwee, BeerNotWar, Aaa T Tudeattack, tegrat, ammasdarling, tgypsy, camlbacker, EdSF, noofsh, Dave in Northridge, WC, mbh1023, MI Sooner, jayden, stratocasterman, crose, Librarianmom, Wreck Smurfy, leonard145b, TDDVandy, TomP, Empower Ink, gizmo59, rmonroe, JDWolverton, mconvente, JaxDem, GAS, OleHippieChick, Sixty Something, Tchrldy, Involuntary Exile, tofumagoo, royce, icebergslim, Jeff Y, statsone, MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel, prettygirlxoxoxo, Bule Betawi, ceebee7, greengemini, ewmorr, maryabein, earicicle, glitterlust, Munchkn, ArthurPoet, Tortmaster, Larsstephens, Railfan, commonmass, NJpeach, Crabby Abbey, 2questions, pixxer, DiegoUK, nirbama, BlueFranco, 13Friday, Oh Mary Oh, misshelly, yellow cosmic seed, allenjo, annominous, StateofEuphoria, La Gitane, mikejay611, Teiresias70, MysteriousEast, Jasonhouse, BarackStarObama, MRA NY, wintergreen8694, bluedust, Joe Jackson, Marihilda, Miggles, stlsophos, joanbrooker, Cpqemp, Rashaverak, Mathazar, Sister Inspired Revolver of Freedom, anodnhajo, Siri, charliehall2, IndieGuy, pitbullgirl65, AnnieR, ProvokingMeaning, reginahny, radical simplicity, Arahahex, MartyM, doroma, Buckeye54, lunachickie, tytalus, Most Awesome Nana, Sue B, Silvia Nightshade, Blue Bell Bookworm, jusjtim35, Joy of Fishes, entrelac, Jollie Ollie Orange, Constantly Amazed, Smoh, BadKitties, DressageDonkey, Dodgerdog1, eagleray, ginimck, SoCalSocialist

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site