Robertson, Of Duck Dynasty Fired For His Personal Opinions - Regarding Sexuality...


Selene

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hey, let's play a game a chess. You go first.

Kacy,

You literally don't get it, do you?

I'm not competing.

I don't post to compete.

Think of me as a Martian or something, not as a human who lives mainly to compete against others.

Constant competitors have their souls defined by their enemies, and I'm way too crazy for that.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paglia certainly gets what I am talking about.

Paglia: Duck Dynasty uproar ‘utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist’
by Caroline May
12/19/2013
The Daily Caller

From the article:

The suspension of Phil Robertson from A&E’s Duck Dynasty is outrageous in a nation that values freedom, according to social critic and openly gay, dissident feminist Camille Paglia.

“I speak with authority here, because I was openly gay before the ‘Stonewall rebellion,’ when it cost you something to be so. And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech,” Paglia, a professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, said on Laura Ingraham’s radio show Thursday.

“In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as well as they have the right to support homosexuality — as I one hundred percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right of religious freedom there,” she added.

“To express yourself in a magazine in an interview — this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic Party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades,” Paglia said. “This is the whole legacy of free speech 1960’s that have been lost by my own party.”

. . .

“I think that this intolerance by gay activists toward the full spectrum of human beliefs is a sign of immaturity, juvenility,” Paglia said. “This is not the mark of a true intellectual life. This is why there is no cultural life now in the U.S. Why nothing is of interest coming from the major media in terms of cultural criticism. Why the graduates of the Ivy League with their A, A, A+ grades are complete cultural illiterates, etc. is because they are not being educated in any way to give respect to opposing view points.”

“There is a dialogue going on human civilization, for heaven sakes. It’s not just this monologue coming from fanatics...


Since Paglia's quotes are from a live radio show, some of her phrases are not grammatically correct. Just use your imagination as the meaning is clear.

Notice that Paglia does not support one side over the other in a "we are good, they are evil" tone. She rejects the entire spat in the name of freedom and tells the people she should side with to grow up and get in line with liberty.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, and this is the point of my thread, have we now reached a pivotal point wherein "suppression" of opinion is the norm.

The totalitarian word Nazis are in power now. It's the tyranny of the perpetually emotionally offended victim.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The totalitarian word Nazis are in power now. It's the tyranny of the perpetually emotionally offended victim.

Greg,

In another thread, you stated that you would not conduct business or associate with anyone who didn't share your values. How is this any different from what the A&E network is doing by firing this person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to avoid tribalism unless it's an issue of security.

lol. when isn't it?

Interesting question. I don't know if it was asked seriously, but it does draw attention to something I'd been thinking about.

When I speak of the type of tribalism that takes place in, say internet forums, I'm speaking of the tendency to overlook glaring issues that come from "regulars" while pinpointing (or witchhunting) anything that remotely sounds like it deviates from the party line when it comes from "outsiders".

It's particularly bad in one of the left-leaning forums I frequent, and I've been banned from several blogs there as being a sexist/misogynistic/victim-blamer/troll. It's not *so* bad here, but I do see it happening.

As far as security - Trust is something that must be earned, and to earn it takes time. From a primitive, tribal perspective, I see no problem with being suspicious of outsiders for security reasons, at least until those outsiders have had an opportunity to earn trust. Of course, I'm not suggesting that outsiders should be guilty until proven innocent (I agree with Rand's 'benefit of the doubt' approach on this), but where security is concerned, outsiders simply have not had the opportunity to earn he type of trust that (hopefully) exists within a tribe/household/community.

So anyway, the short answer is... OL is an example of where it isn't about security.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I speak of the type of tribalism that takes place in, say internet forums, I'm speaking of the tendency to overlook glaring issues that come from "regulars" while pinpointing (or witchhunting) anything that remotely sounds like it deviates from the party line when it comes from "outsiders".

It's particularly bad in one of the left-leaning forums I frequent, and I've been banned from several blogs there as being a sexist/misogynistic/victim-blamer/troll. It's not *so* bad here, but I do see it happening.

Kacy,

This is a manner of reasoning that goes straight into self-fulfilling prophecies by eliminating all reality that doesn't fit a prejudice and acting only on that which will fulfill the prophecy.

I'll give you that some forums and blogs are like you say. But there is so much more.

For example, if you go to a forum where people discuss philosophy and constantly goad them as if they were fanatical Republican supporters or right wing nuts, you miss a lot of reality. It's not a matter of right or left. It's that your presumptions about the people you address are not accurate. They're not players in your mental game. They're not even close, not even archetypes. The reality is there's a crapload more to the people here on OL than just your heroic crusade to expose their left-right hypocrisy wherever it may be found.

It's this element of accuracy you miss. You judge, then act on that judgment, without correctly identifying first.

I was discussing something similar with Kat this morning. My mother used to make this mistake with me. For example, when I visited her near the end of her life, after not seeing her for decades, she kept saying to others while she was around me, "He's just STARVING for American food."

It so happens that I love Brazilian food. I also love American food. So I let it go. But after hearing the same thing about 20 times in a short period of time, I had to correct her. It's not that her comment offended me. It's that it was not accurate and she kept repeating it. And that gets irritating after a while.

You do something similar here on OL. And I suspect you did it on your "left-leaning blogs" (or forums, etc.) where you were banned (at least some of them).

In today's mainstream, this kind of behavior is the rule, though. People are not interested in accuracy--in knowing who they are talking to and talking about--so much as playing to win against enemies in the imaginary story that unfolds in their minds. It doesn't matter that the manner they characterize and treat people has nothing to do with the reality right in front of their eyes. They have to win their friggin' imaginary game and that's that.

(I can't figure out what they win, but that's another issue. :smile: )

And I'm just mentioning one element of what's missing when you treat people with your oversimplified judgments that contain massive blank-outs.

There is one benefit I can see. At least, when you play this game, you get the play the role of the martyr and prophesy to yourself and others your impending crucifixion. And, being a loaded game of self-fulfilling prophecy, you get to be right a lot of the time. I suppose there's a mental payoff in this, but I don't resonate with anything in reality purges that allows me to detect it.

I would love a little more accuracy and a little less mind games. Then add the polemics on top of that.

And I'm not talking about banter (which I happen to like a lot).

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In today's mainstream, this kind of behavior is the rule, though. People are not interested in accuracy--in knowing who they are talking to and talking about--so much as playing to win against enemies in the imaginary story that unfolds in their minds. It doesn't matter that the manner they characterize and treat people has nothing to do with the reality right in front of their eyes. They have to win their friggin' imaginary game and that's that.

MSK,

It's interesting that you bring this up as a critique of my behavior. Interesting, because it is, I think, a perfect example of the tribalism of which I'm speaking.

Remember this thread? In it, Jerry Biggers made a pronouncement about a "Devastating Billboard" that angered and upset the MSM and "others"... that the MSM was screaming about it.

Now, remember that the narrative here was not about the billboard itself (which Jerry accurately pointed out was not a major issue) but about the MSM's alleged outrage. THAT was the point of Jerry post.

And then remember that I made exactly one comment demonstrating that there was no measure by which the MSM could reasonably be said to be any more "angry" about that story than about any of the other pointless, mundane stories it was pushing out that week.

Then remember that I had to spend a dozen or so other comments attempting to convince everyone that just because a story shows up on many different news sites, that doesn't mean the MSM is outraged by it. In fact, I had to spend a lot of time and effort just to keep people focused on my original point which was that there was no measure by which the MSM could be said to be outraged

Or, as Jerry put it:

When I said "SCREAMING," perhaps I should have added the following to describe the reaction of the MSM:

HYSTERICAL, BOILING MAD, OUTRAGED, PISSED-OFF, DEMANDING THAT IT BE TAKEN DOWN. and a few other terms.

Ready for the punch line? After going through all that trouble to demonstrate what should have been a relatively easy, slam-dunk point - I got accused of nitpicking.

If this is the sort of nitpicking that you enjoy doing, then you are going to have a lot to get really worked-up about.- on this site and well probably most forums, Left or Right, that discuss political issues.

I even explained very carefully to you why the very crux of Jerry's post was factually inaccurate. But I don't recall you being very concerned about it

So when I see you saying this like this:

People are not interested in accuracy--in knowing who they are talking to and talking about--so much as playing to win against enemies in the imaginary story that unfolds in their minds. It doesn't matter that the manner they characterize and treat people has nothing to do with the reality right in front of their eyes. They have to win their friggin' imaginary game and that's that.

... to me, but not saying it to guys like Jerry....

let's just say it pretty much cements my assessment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw - What do you think when you think of a Progressive?

What image comes to mind?

What kind of person?

For me, I think Obama's marketing department nailed it:

pajama-boy.jpg

:smile:

Michael

When i first got on OL, you defined "Progressive" as a person who advocates for the progressive encroachment of government into our lives.

I didn't dispute the definition, because I thought maybe I was just ill-informed. I am often guilty of taking other people's words for things when I really should be more confident in my own understanding.

Bing dictionary defines Progressive as follows:

Definition of progressive (adj)
Bing Dictionary
  • pro·gres·sive
  • [ prə gréssiv ]
  1. favoring reform: advocating social, economic, or political reform
  2. progressing gradually: developing gradually over a period of time
  3. becoming more severe: describes a disease that becomes more widespread or severe over time

By this definition, just about everyone on the firum is a Progressive.

The wikipedia entry on the Progressive movement describes it as such:

Progressivism is a general political philosophy based on the Idea of Progress that asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization, can improve the human condition. Progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from barbaric conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.

Reading the article, it does appear that the term is often used to describe folks who do support progressive taxation, etc... but I don't see anything that ties the idea of progress to the idea of increased taxation.

I'm no longer convinced that your definition of "progressive" or your concept of it represents a necessary reality. It may represent the way progressivism plays out in most cases, but no necessarily to all of them.

I'm a guy who wishes that the drug war would end, that there was a flat tax that was the same for everyone, that the government would shed the fat, that government assistance should be available for those who give back something in return (that can be another thread), that all people were treated equally under the law, that vice laws were abolished, that businesses were free to conduct business as they see fit (as long as they do not endanger anyone else along the way), that religion was kept firmly and forever out of government, that the criminal justice system was fully reformed in order to take away all incentive to prosecute (other than guilt!!), that government was truly transparent, that fraud was aggressively prosecuted, that all law enforcement officials wear cameras and recording devices, and that people should not be allowed to bear children they cannot support.

Does that make me a progressive? I don't know. What I do know is that the label means nothing to me. As I've told RB - drop it on me if you like. Or not. Don't care.

With all that said... the answer to your question is that I have no mental image tied to progressivism or progressives. None at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do notice that most forums seem to share a common boogeyman, be it atheists, bigots, fundamentalists, meat-eaters...

It is clear to me that the boogeymen on this forum are progressives, liberals, and the mainstream media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This link from their website is edifying [sp?]...it is a "Progressive Timeline"

http://www.progressiveliving.org/history/timeline/progressive_era/progressive_era_timeline.htm

"I believe in a larger use of the governmental power to help remedy industrial wrongs . . . ."

Theodore Roosevelt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is their Field Guide To Progressive Living and Education:

Progressive educational theory is often traced to the "novel-as-treatise" Émile, written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and published in 1762. Rousseau took exception to the rationalism of the Enlightenment, believing that human nature is fundamentally good at the outset, but that it is typically made perverse by social corruptions which are the outcome of desires for power and wealth. Rousseau believed that these desires provided the impetus to the arts and sciences, which themselves then became corrupting. (Though he was anything but a critic of the arts and sciences, an otherwise quite similar perspective arose independently in China in the thought of Mencius.)

These ideas were to prove influential, and resulted, by the late 18th and early 19th centuries, in experimental schools in Germany and Switzerland. From the beginning of the 20th century, in part through the influence of Dewey, the European and American movements fused, resulting in such schools as A. S. Neill's Summerhill, Dewey's own Laboratory Schools at the University of Chicago, and Maria Montessori's schools in Italy. These schools, however, didn't share Rousseau's hostility to rationalism.

This individual, John Dewey was pure evil in my mind:

In the US, following the death of Dewey (in 1952), the onset of the Cold War, and the launching of the Sputnik satellite by the Soviet Union there arose a wave of "back to the basics" hysteria, and the movement lost direction to some degree. The torch was picked up again by American philosopher Mortimer Adler in the early 1980s and given impetus by his manifesto 'The Paideia Proposal'. Adler's key thrust was reminiscent of that of earlier Progressives, who resisted the division of educational opportunities into vocational education for most, and a higher quality of education for a very few.

http://www.progressiveliving.org/education/progressive_education_frameset.htm

Something makes me think of Children of the Corn...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From that site:

Concerning the "Progress" in Progressivism

All things both Liberal (in the American sense of that term) and Progressive have their ultimate origins in Rationalism. This is, roughly, the belief that only reason and evidence can properly serve as the foundation of our convictions. If we try to subsititute something else for reason and evidence, the question immediately arises how we are to justify that something else — and the moment we try to do that, we begin to employ reason and evidence.

So far so good...

While many Christians had viewed the presence of humanity on Earth as deservedly miserable and fleeting (and as something soon to end in a final Judgment), the philosophers of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment opened the door to a novel and entirely different perspective: that of a better quality of life here and now.

Once that possibility began to be further examined another idea surfaced: there was no obvious reason why the quality of life could not be improved indefinitely. Here, of course, was the essence of the idea of progress.

Still tracking...

Moreover, those who didn't have such experience first hand, soon learned of it at second hand in the magazines of the day. Pretty clearly, young children losing fingers and toes in factories didn't amount to progress.

Further shocking revelations concerned political corruption, and living conditions of poor families in cities like New York and Chicago. The business activities of men like John Rockefeller included dynamiting competitors — and having striking employees shot dead. Much of what was so clearly wrong had, in one way or another, a great deal to do with the large corporations that the industrial revolution was giving birth to.

And then there were so many other troubling matters. American women had no right to vote. African Americans were being lynched in the South. Foods and "medicines" were often contaminated or poisonous.

I'm behind it so far...

If nothing else, it was apparent that regulation of businesses and business practices was badly needed. The hands-off approach, known as "laissez faire", and extolled by businessmen, was recognized by most to be a thoroughgoing catastrophe. So while populism and Progressivism began from a strong sense of shrinking economic opportunities, they soon broadened into a more general recognition of the need for social justice; and the key obstacle to both was the large corporation or "trust".

So if the progressive movement identified unfettered capitalism as the biggest obstacle to progress, and drew a line from that to straight-up socialism... that would be an error of calculation, not of fundamental progressive theory (identified in earlier quotes).

I do believe that reason and evidence should serve as the foundation for our convictions. I do believe that, insofar as we move away from faith and force, we create a better world for ourselves. I do believe in taking steps toward a just society for all (equality under the law). I suppose that, if the ideology identified as the core fundamentals of progressivism (commitment to reason, etc) by this website are to be believed, I am a progressive by definition.

But that also means that MSK's characterization (provided to me earlier this year) of progressivism is sorely lacking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kacy,

I skimmed through your posts above and all I got out of them is more discussion of forum behavior and an insinuation of how certain people are hypocrites.

(yawn...)

It's like this is the subtext of your writing, even when you write a comma or say "if" or "and." It's ironic you do this even when you discuss this issue.

("You say xxxxx is bad. But look at yyyyyyy. You won't say anything about that, will you? Hypocrites!")

:smile:

btw - On the one point of substance (that you danced around, but I'll give you Brownie points for effort), when I say Progressive, I mean specifically what I said. Big government growth and technocratic takeover of individual freedoms by baby-steps and stealth.

Since this is a term that has morphed over time into several meanings, it's OK to play the meaning game if you want to. But you will not muddy the waters of those who have studied this a bit and have thought this through on a conceptual level. That's why I defined it.

All you've got is a bunch of word games that shift the meaning all over the place. I've got a clear concept and we can slap any word on it we wish. It will still mean the same thing. I happen to use the term Progressive.

You might be interested to know that some of the more historical benign-sounding meanings you alluded to were smack dab in the middle of the development of eugenics. Weeding out human undesirables from the gene pool. Human breeding progress by science. Progressive. (The Nazis ended up loving that science.)

And you might also be interested to know that the Progressives eschewed the name "Progressive" and adopted "liberal" because the public couldn't stand them anymore. The public clamored for freedom, so the Progressives took a word that used to mean freedom and adopted it. They became liberals. Currently, the world over, liberal means libertarian and only in America does it mean socialist or socialism-friendly.

(Ironically, this is morphing once again as many of the younger liberals merely want people in bad straits to be OK and are turned off by the power games of the Progressives. So the Progressives, starting with a statement by Hillary, hauled out the term "Progressive" once again to rebrand themselves. At least on the left side. The right still uses words like "neocon" and so on to mean Progressive.)

When the meanings of words are purposely shifted around like that, it is important to keep the concepts clear. You can like my meaning or not like my meaning, agree with it or disagree with it, but you can't say you don't understand it. (At least, I don't think you can since you are intelligent and I have been reasonably clear.)

Regardless. In any meaning, the "progress" the Progressives refer to always include a technocratic ruling class on top to ram their "progress" down the throats of the rest of the humanity under their control.

I say they can take their "progress" and ram it somewhere else. :smile:

That's why I say Progressive liberals and Progressive conservatives are the same. They both play the same game. It's all about power and control of the masses in the end. They just wear different uniforms.

My thing is individual freedom and a government that protects that freedom, not one that tries to supply it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The totalitarian word Nazis are in power now. It's the tyranny of the perpetually emotionally offended victim.

Greg,

In another thread, you stated that you would not conduct business or associate with anyone who didn't share your values. How is this any different from what the A&E network is doing by firing this person?

It's very different. I won't even begin a business relationship with people who don't share my values... regardless of the money. I have a price, but it's not money... it's values. :smile:

A & E knew right up front that they were dealing with Christians, and they made the deal because there was good money in it for them. I'm all for that. I'll bet that company got lots of pressure from the leftist homosexual activists, so they had to cave in to the pressure from the totalitarian politically correct "word Nazis" by doing something even if it meant shooting themselves in the financial foot. If the Duck people walk out of A & E, they'll simply go to Fox and make money for them.

Phil stated his own honest personal opinion in a colorfully graphic manner, and while I might have chosen different words, I agree with the substance of what he said. And I don't even watch the program. In fact I don't watch any television at all.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very different. I won't even begin a business relationship with people who don't share my values... regardless of the money. I have a price, but it's not money... it's values. :smile:

A & E knew right up front that they were dealing with Christians, and they made the deal because there was good money in it for them. I'm all for that. I'll bet that company got lots of pressure from the leftist homosexual activists, so they had to cave in to the pressure from the totalitarian politically correct "word Nazis" by doing something even if it meant shooting themselves in the financial foot. If the Duck people walk out of A & E, they'll simply go to Fox and make money for them.

Phil stated his own honest personal opinion in a colorfully graphic manner, and while I might have chosen different words, I agree with the substance of what he said. And I don't even watch the program. In fact I don't watch any television at all.

Greg

So it's immoral to begin a business relationship with somebody who doesn't share 100% of your values, and Greg categorically will not do so. BUT... if A&E is already in a business relationship and discovers an entertainer doesn't share their core values, or alternatively, if A&E compromised their integrity with the hire but then later reconsidered that decision, then it's immoral for them to terminate the business relationship at any time?

Anybody following the logic here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moralist,

You wouldn't sell to customers who attend a church you don't approve? You wouldn't hire employees who don't like the same movies? You wouldn't buy from suppliers whose fashion sense isn't yours? What business are you in anyway? Perhaps I should ask: what are your values anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody following the logic here?

Yup.

I am.

The logic isn't about an actual idea--it's to try to catch a person from the enemy tribe with gotcha.

Michael

MSK: I beg to differ. Greg is not from an enemy tribe. He is merely annoying, and would be far less so if he didn't spout predictable truisms on each and every topic like we are a bunch of confused teenagers. I am afraid you are giving him far too much credit and RB too little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moralist,

You wouldn't sell to customers who attend a church you don't approve? You wouldn't hire employees who don't like the same movies? You wouldn't buy from suppliers whose fashion sense isn't yours? What business are you in anyway? Perhaps I should ask: what are your values anyway?

If I weren't so fundamentally kind I would answer this for Greg and save him the trouble.

You see, Reidy, Greg can read minds. At a glance, no less. That skill helps greatly when it comes to judging others.

He really should have been a poker player. Or a jury consultant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

If the criticism were from you, I would be more in line with your characterization.

But not from this RB guy. His thing is tribes and competition, not ideas (which are only valuable to this kind of person if they can be weapons).

In other words, surface agreement on this issue or that does not mean the same values.

(btw - I agree that Greg's manner of expressing truisms all the time is simplistic for a philosophy forum.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now