Just get over it. Their image is now tarnished, they misinterpreted scriptures to promote ignorance and benighted condescension (hardly the first time in history that's been done), and turned themselves from a nice, whimsical bunch of slapstick comedians into just another bunch of ignorant hicks. Being ignorant is nothing new and any entertainment appeal it could have is pretty limited.
It doesn't matter who "started" it, the market will finish it. Their appeal was not partisan, but alienating at least the half of their audience with a thinking conscience has an impact.
Of course, you won't grow up and get over it. But the rest of the world will.
In the meantime, Lem's got Civil War analogies and other military slogans to throw about.
they misinterpreted scriptures to promote ignorance and benighted condescension
Uhhhmmmm, exactly what did they misinterpret, Oh most Holy & Wise R&B?
No, what the guy said is basically orthodox Christian doctrine as it's been understood for the past 2000 years. You can not like it & think it's benighted, but it's as mainline & uncontroversial of moral doctrine within Christianity as can be.
And thank you for pretending that "mainline" (or "elite") interpretation is proper interpretation. Let's disagree there, too.
Again, history shows that these interpretations you defend are opportunistic and ad hoc. The religion is used to fit the underlying, popular prejudice - not the other way around. Until the popular prejudice becomes too unpopular for the religion to be used to sustain it.
Religions that remain relevant address this. APparently, whichever version of Christianity Phil "practices" is one that doesn't and one that you conflate as being properly applied to all of them.
So, actually Phil didn't misinterpret Christianity. You just don't like Christianity in its historical manifestation. Which is, by the way, the only one we have.....
Your problem R&B is that you just get on & start spewing, secure in the knowledge that your ramblings make sense. But they don't.
I asked you how Phil misinterpreted Christianity, and you give me this spiel about how historical Christianity is flawed. So, Phil & the rest of us are wrong, but the Gospel according to R&B is the way to go? And somehow. we as readers are supposed to know this a priori?
Your problem, Ritmo, is that you think you're a rational man. You're not.
Your problem is that you think defending either elite opinion or popular prejudice makes you rational when it shows you wholly incapable of it - on two fronts.
Yes, history is all we have of history. What of history - other than your turning the other cheek to allowing yet another assault by one man's Christianity on something that it is completely irrational to assault? (Homosexual orientation and commitment is no more wrong than being a native American, or a woman, or a child entrusted to a priest, etc., etc., etc.)
Do nothing a priori. First think. Think about why being "mainline" or elite is proper. Think about why a religious stream that proposes defending its own relevancy would decide that love and commitment in a way that can't be changed and is non-coercive is to be taught as akin to swindling, etc.
You do not think and your purchase on rationalism in this discussion is fast unraveling.
GLAAD thinks they have a monopoly on clinger-wrap. They think they can surround mainstream opinion and contain it, molding it in their likeness. Their fundamental mistake is that they are not inside that which they seek to contain. They are a thin, transparent veneer.
On a serious note, though, I do think their sentiments reflect mine and I was a fan of a show. Maybe most of their audience is of a type that YoungHegelian relates to and will sustain them (or more importantly, their behavior and refusal to acknowledge the impact of their statements), regardless.
But I speak for myself and don't see a reason for assuming that a popular A & E show wouldn't have a number of other decent, non-conservatives who are similarly turned off.
We don't defend elitism, populism or literalism for their own sakes, especially when used to further ignorance, condescension and an invalidation of an individual's consented sense of love and commitment. When cute, witty and well-intentioned becomes standard ignorance (no matter how bolstered by theological elitism and theological populism - as much as it's waning) we get turned off.
An Iraq veteran amputee had it just about right when he said...
J.R. Salzman @jrsalzman 19 Dec Only when we stop accepting outrage as a mechanism for change will this country finally learn the true meaning of tolerance.
Yeah, Lem. Well, tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.
I don't know who said that. Or what the exact quote is. Or even if a precise and agreed phrasing has been found. All I know is that the basic idea is clear.
You guys bitch all the time about how stupid it is to tolerate Muslim intolerance. About the importance of challenging people. Well, when you promote accepting Christian intolerance, you're doing the same thing.
I think atheism is a radical reaction to that, (mainly because as a scientist I think proving negatives is a not very useful endeavor - I'm more so an agnostic, apatheist, or ignostic/theological noncognitivist), but a fight to make your own religion irrelevant is not much of a defense of it. In that sense, guys like Hitchens are pretty important.
Stop being tribal and start thinking about what it is you're actually defending.
Putting aside sides for the moment, how effective is it to place a phone call to a TV executive complaining about an interview in another medium? How is this even possible in this day and age without raising questions about too much power and influence?
Is GLADD a forgiving bunch? Half of them gladly turn the other cheek (so to speak) but what sort of goodwill and understanding did their dick movement buy them? Are they a vindictive bunch? I'm GLADD curious...how powerful are they?
It doesn't matter Chickie (and please stop with the anal obsession, yes the pun was well-placed [more inadvertent innuendo on my part?] but still unfair).
The point is that in a society that is becoming rational enough to increasingly refuse to castigate people who can't help whom they, consentingly, love and commit to, and increasingly seeks to defend them, Phil and Phil's "allies" (calling them "defenders" assumes something too respectful of their motivations and capacities) are making increasingly stupid, and fatuous decisions.
It's because of these sorts of a counter-reactions on the part of the Ducksters, that America is becoming both increasingly secular and increasingly atheist.
I'm so curious about finding a way to incorporate Titus into this mess and overly serious mutual sermonizing that I might very well end up finding a way to do so.
But out of respect for Trooper, I won't. I never found poop very interesting. And it only brings us closer to Phil's interest in, you know, that canal!
Can we talk about Venice instead?
I'm going to be in Amsterdam in less than a week. There are canals there, too.
We keep hearing about gay caballeros molesting their adopted kids, or trying to change one gender into another and he talks about consent?He talks about tolerance but can't respect a man's First Amendment rights to practice his religion?
It is to laugh.
More to the point, this is clearly blowing up in the Gaystapo's collective face, as the Robertsons are calling A&E's bluff and support of their position is growing exponentially.
It's not fair for ed to chime in on this because you can't really understand what he says without running it through the redneck dialectizer first, anyway.
The best part was, when I dialectized (is that a word?) that first, insane sentence of his, the only thing that changed was the spelling of "again" to "agin".
ed - if they ever make a Rosetta Stone program for learning redneck, they'll definitely want to survey your posts to make sure they're doing it accurately.
It will be at the airport in boxes that cost a fraction of the price of those for learning French, Spanish, Arabic, etc.
What's the proper play here Ritmo? A guy voices his opinion in a magazine. Really hardly anything hateful about it. A group that thinks he said something reprehensible because he mentioned the protected class they belong to didn't like it and called the network he worked for. That network clearly sided with GLAAD and not a guy who has given them their highest ever rated show and they let him go. The rest of the cast put out a statement saying if he goes, we all go.
If A&E does a reversal and I think they will because they do not want these people going elsewhere and making another network money and getting better ratings, then what and who's image then gets tarnished? GLAAD's? A&E's for caving to a super tiny yet vocal minority? It doesn't matter whether he paraphrased scripture. It isn't even a 1st amendment issue. What it really is about is that does ones opinion in this regard worthy of this kind of characterization as being hateful and should this tiny minority be overly represented and be able to sway an entire network in this fashion?
There really is no "proper play" that I can think of. I don't even see a point to looking at it that way. He voiced an opinion, they didn't want to be seen as being anywhere close to sponsoring it. Life happens. I don't have an answer. But for me, the magic's gone. Phil seems to have squashed out an important part of what I liked about him. But then, he had done terrible things in his past before - much more terrible than this. So I guess the lesson is that being "away" from Jesus can lead you to terrible things, just as being "close" to Jesus can lead you to terrible things, also. But I already knew that, though. There's therefore nothing left for me to get out of the show. Part of its overarching lesson as a show was that "life happens" and now, well, life's happening.
God be with them. They already have plenty and will probably find a way to have more. But like Phil wanted to do to Jep, we'll have to part ways. Who knows what the future holds? But I can't endorse in good conscience using bible-speak to root out homos as the cause of modern evil. That's all I know.
I don't think there is a proper play here either, but what it does illustrate to me is that opinions are like assholes, everyone has them and a lot of times they smell like them too. GLAAD I believe overreached and are going to pay for it. These guys will make money no matter what. Their stars will fade, but they will do well and have done well. I said it earlier, A&E should have just kept their mouths shut. They tripped over their own dicks.
Rhythm and Balls said... I'm so curious about finding a way to incorporate Titus into this mess and overly serious mutual sermonizing that I might very well end up finding a way to do so.
Titus should probably retire or else come out of the character closet he built for himself. He's a bit like crack. He's made some bad choices and knows it. Redemption is possible, but only if he choses so.
This or something similar was on O'Reilly last night (first few minutes):
Thanks, deborah. Much more offensive than Phil Robertson's recent comments, and very typical of that sort of rural Christian. I grew up hearing those sorts of sermons (second-hand, we weren't religious).
It always seems that they miss the purpose of Christ's word when they blabber on about the specifics of sin. But it's titillating. Controversy, condemnation, the details of immorality— that's what sells sermons and television programs. It's also what drives people away from the love of God, which is an even greater sin.
What about the sinfulness of conspicuous consumption, or greed, or pride? Did Phil or his progeny ever preach about that?
Not that I think any of those things are, a priori, wrong, but if you're going to condemn other men of license and sin (because of their sexual practices), you might want to turn your judgmental eye toward yourself and your money-loving family.
Yeah, they did say that fame was fleeting and that if it all went away they'd be happy with just as little as they started out with when they were dirt-poor. So they did condemn the more legitimately important sin of loving Mammon. I liked that about them.
But I think pride was more of a problem. Willie and Jase both said that you could talk a redneck into any challenge. And followed that up with the deduction that that's probably why, in their estimations, rednecks tend to die in such unusual ways.
The A&E exec who made this decision fucked up big time. Best-case scenario is that the network has to eat crow and apologize to the Robertsons -- infuriating the GLAAD crowd. Worst-case scenario is the Robertsons jump to a competing network and take their enormous audience (and advertising base) with them.
Either way, at least one A&E exec is going to be "spending time with his family" in the near future.
Not that I think any of those things are, a priori, wrong, but if you're going to condemn other men of license and sin (because of their sexual practices), you might want to turn your judgmental eye toward yourself and your money-loving family.
I haven't watched the show, so I'd be curious to hear what is so "money-loving" about the Robertson family. Is that just code for "they're well-off"?
Revenent is having one of the Revenenge Fantasies that seem all too common here lately.
Not a revenge fantasy, just a realistic expectation. The Robertsons make a lot of money for the network. Several of their big advertisers have already said that if the Robertsons jump networks, they're going with 'em.
Hands up if you think A&E cares more about gay peoples' feelings than it cares about making money. :)
I'm loving your powers of prediction tonight, Revenard. Do you use a crystal ball or recite incantations while burning incense and mouthing "Abracadabra"?
If the show does, as reported, generate several hundred million dollars for the network don't the network executives have a duty to their shareholders to keep the revenue stream flowing. Why kill the golden goose to rid the world of goose shit.........I'm not a follower of the show. I read the comments. They were crudely phrased, but they were not incitements to hatred. No one who read them would be inspired to go out and beat up a gay man. The stereotyping and vitriol directed against rednecks is much worse........I'm not gay and I'm not a redneck. I would advise all rednecks not to buy bootleg hooch from a stranger. The risk of wood alcohol poisoning is just too great. I would advise all gays not to have anal sex with a stranger. The risk of AIDS is just too high. My first statement is sagacious. My second statement is bigoted......You really have to stay alert to function in this society.
I haven't watched the show, so I'd be curious to hear what is so "money-loving" about the Robertson family. Is that just code for "they're well-off"?
The show which, despite the "reality television" veneer, is fictionalized, makes frequent use of the Robertson's status as multi-millionaires. Phil and Si Robertson are depicted as still living in very humble housing, but their sons are shown to be living the high life, in palatial (Mc)Mansions with all the trappings of contemporary wealth. As this portrayal is at least partially fictionalized, it's difficult to make any definitive judgements, but the general sensibility is of semi-conspicuous richness.
Perhaps it's my own personal issues, growing up poor (partially in trailers and public housing), but I find conspicuous wealth to be distasteful. It's one reason I hate contemporary Democrats and Republicans— my distrust of the well-off.
Phil and Si Robertson are depicted as still living in very humble housing, but their sons are shown to be living the high life, in palatial (Mc)Mansions with all the trappings of contemporary wealth
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that "they used their money to buy nice houses" *isn't* a completely retarded standard for calling someone "money-loving".
What you're asking, basically, is "why isn't Phil Robertson publicly condemning his own children". Um... well, I don't know the guy, but I'm going to go with "because he isn't a horrible father".
One other thing, Palladian: I'm curious what your basis is for claiming that "conspicuous consumption" is sinful.
There's certainly Biblical justification for claiming that it is sinful to hoard wealth, but I see no basis for claiming it is sinful to spend money. Jesus told parables of rich landowners employing people, and "the rich guy was a bastard for doing it" was never the point of any of 'em.
Um... well, I don't know the guy, but I'm going to go with "because he isn't a horrible father".
DING DING DING DING DING DING!!! And we have Revenenenenenenent's ultimate declaration that he knows nothing about the show. "The guy" threw his wife and three kids out of the house when they were less than ten years old as their being there "crimped" his sex, drugs and rock and roll lifestyle. Look it up.
Revenenenent also proves he knows nothing about owning a business. People don't hire to be generous and spend but because they've narrowed it down to the only option for keeping up with a growing business. Geez, open a business for Chrissakes. Capitalism won't kill you either - they save the libertarians from that. Technically.
"The guy" threw his wife and three kids out of the house when they were less than ten years old as their being there "crimped" his sex, drugs and rock and roll lifestyle. Look it up.
I knew that already, Rit. I also knew -- as did you -- that he's very vocal and remorseful about his own "sinful" past. A hypocrite he ain't.
What remains a mystery to me, though, is how "he was a shitty dad 40 years ago, so he should be one today too" made sense to you as an argument. :)
So basically you're just lashing out because the guy hurt your widdle feewings? Tsk.
Oh honey, I know you love to play the contrarian. Perhaps you skipped my comments about this "controversy" on other threads. In any case, you're one of my favorite commenters, so don't disappoint me with your false assumptions.
"The guy" threw his wife and three kids out of the house when they were less than ten years old as their being there "crimped" his sex, drugs and rock and roll lifestyle. Look it up.
Christ loved sinners, and specifically called to them, walked with them, and ministered to them. You could fault Phil Robertson for this or that, but his sinful past is essential to understanding his faith. Whether you're a Christian or not, acknowledgement and transcendence of past sins is an essential component of enlightenment.
In any case, you're one of my favorite commenters, so don't disappoint me with your false assumptions.
You just seem awfully desperate to invent sins to pin on the Robertsons, that's all.
"Conspicuous consumption" isn't a sin, buying a nice house with your own money isn't "greedy". I can't comment on "pride", except to say Phil Robertson doesn't appear to exhibit it.
I'm not talking about him being a perfect Christian. I'm talking about him being a person who might not be as transcendent as a theologian would view him. I'm saying that perhaps he might have a present that isn't sinless either. You're basically making my point.
That's the gist of it, yes. You can arrive there in other ways; it just so happens that Phil Robertson found that path through Christ's guidance. And I doubt you'll find any claims of perfection from Mr Robertson.
Revenant, the atheist, even understands this, R&B!
Revenenenent, if you challenged/called him on it (I bet) would probably not be able to define greedy to anyone's satisfaction of what they know about the common concept.
Greed, as I should have said earlier, is basically the root of all legitimate evil. You feel you're entitled to something you're not, and violate someone to take it. Murder is someone greedily thinking they have a right to violate someone's right to sustain themselves. And so on. Any violation of another you could basically track to greed of some sort.
Phil should learn to think about these things more clearly. As should Revelant.
You just seem awfully desperate to invent sins to pin on the Robertsons, that's all.
"Conspicuous consumption" isn't a sin, buying a nice house with your own money isn't "greedy". I can't comment on "pride", except to say Phil Robertson doesn't appear to exhibit it.
I was just demonstrating that sin, as understood by Christians of the Robertson's ilk, has many manifestations, whether sexual (the source of this controversy) or otherwise. I'm merely giving the standard thoughtful Christian's response to the condemnation of sin: an acknowledgement that the condemner is a sinner, too.
Why are we talking about theology now? Mr. Robertson, insofar as we understand the concept might well be very loved by Jesus. And yet, everyone else can still legitimately think he's an asshole. Or not.
What's wrong with that? Why this intermingling of religious concepts and common everyday ideas regarding decent behavior?
I'm just happy I don't live with ritmo's level of hate. When it is so bad, you ramble on like he does across multiple comments, health problems are sure to follow.
On this Jonah has it right; why care? Seriously Ritmo; if Phil means so little to you, then why do you let his words hurt you so much? Why does his words generate so much hatred in you? Do you have any sense of scale? What Phil Robertson does or does not do should have zero impact on your life. That it does means Phil is far more powerful in your life than you want him to be. And the person giving him that power is you.
"might not be as transcendent as a theologian would view him"
I'm not sure theologians are the best source for validating transcendence, but as I view him he seems to have transcended his particular past sins in the way Palladian emphasizes.
What's interesting about this whole kerfuffle is there really is a class issue at hand. Phil Robertson isn't an elite who talks down to people, like liberal and conservative elites do.
He's a guy who talks as one of the people, who spent time in the muck and the mire, and has found a path out of that, both financially and spiritually. It's not, "I judge you," as much as "I've been there, brother, and there's a better way."
Agree or disagree with him, he's not Pat Robertson's brand of Christian Right. His moralism is more like a sober alcoholic who warns people about the dangers of drink.
The left have become a surveillance mechanism. They are one giant collective destruction machine. It all started with Hillary Clinton's "Media Matters". Now it's everywhere. The left are lurking, reading, taping, filming, listening to every word. They are cowardly raking and bugging the place in search of every PC mistake.
@April Apple: It's a truism that when you leave something or are apart from it and then come back, you are more apt to notice changes which others have just taken in stride (see boiling frog metaphor). When I came back to the US in 1993, living abroad for three years, I returned to my alma mater and noticed a heightened PC sensitivity among university students. WTH happened in the US between 1990 and 1993 to cause this?
I am not hurt by Mr. Robertson's words. I am disappointed by them, and by him. As I said elsewhere, and as he said when confronting his son Jep, this is a separation, not a casting out. May the Lord offer him whatever continued guidance and good luck as he goes about his way - I just won't be a part of it. There is no anger or hate in that.
As far as what Paddy's saying, he gets to exactly what I did like about Robertson. Folksy wisdom, non-judgmental, living as a part of the world rather out of its reach (duck hunting and all the other life lessons he carries), and being gentle in imparting the lessons of personally overcoming something.
He wasn't a Pat Robertson Christian right-winger type. I could relate to him. But these latest words of his were more like that.
And then, interestingly, Paddy mentions alcoholism. And I'm glad he does. My mother's cousin is a born-again recovered alcoholic. We all loved (they still do love) him. He's a fun guy, with many life adventures to tell, more learned than he seems, and basically gentle - despite being as tall and ruddy as a guy like Phil. He became this way about ten or fifteen years ago and I didn't mind him sharing with me the power of his conversion in his life. Others would become annoyed when his bible-thumping became more proselytizing, and would tell him so. But I'd give him a wide tether to go on about that stuff when hanging out with him on my own - because I knew how important it is to him and how important it could be generally. And he told it in a good way.
But one night I remember the conversation on morals and what we find important today creating a wider diversion between us. Not because we disagreed on things that weren't right, but because the extreme depth of his despair over failing to properly "save" his other relatives - all decent people by anyone's account - started to worry me.
Eventually, what I realized is that this turn on his part was telling me something. What I had been listening to previously as a powerful and heartfelt testimony of the power of Jesus in this man was now deviating into something less noble. I was listening to a drunk at a bar who was merely messed up on a different kind of drink. The sadness, the judgment and every other emotion a drunk might be reeling with were all there. I realized that I was simply listening to holes in a man's mind, initially worn there by alcohol, and now stuffed with Jesus. And that, I decided, was not how the story or experience was supposed to go.
It was not a godly experience and it taught me that too much of a good thing can apply to anything. Using Jesus to paste away the cracks in one's mind worn into it by alcohol, still leaves you hearing the holes in the alcoholic's mind, and listening to the use of Jesus as simple brain mortar is not the sort of Jesus I find inspiring to listen to on a personal level.
@Ritmo: I don't think we're supposed to focus on the holes in the brain now filled with Jesus insofar as they're the same for everyone like holes in Swiss cheese differ only in size. What a friend we have in cheeses! We're supposed to relate to the remaining bricks, cheese, and grey matter which are unique.
Robertson's story is interesting because we can tell how big his holes and cracks are (fodder for your fervent imagination?).
Robertson didn't do much incoherent muttering and nattering and rambling in a way that a senseless alcoholic would. He just decided to make an offhanded comment or two in an irresponsible way - and then needlessly defend the irresponsible way in which he spoke. His other, personal story/stories -- I've already heard them, before. You seem to forget that I was a fan. Had been for the nearly two years that they'd done this.
Yes, I still like your alliteration and puns. ;-) Even though I know it would be too much to ask you to accept that I've stopped finding the anal allusions (more alliteration) entertaining in this episode.
The Real Housewives are pretty funny until they turn tedious. Usually around season five.
Ice Road Truckers was pretty entertaining for a while but it gets boring after a while.
"Pawn Stars" and "Storage Wars" are also amusing.
Listen these shows are much better than the endless CSI and Law and Order shows where we are fed liberal pap and have to see gruesome crimes with bodies skinned alive or burned beyond recognition.
The only two superior dramas on regular TV right now are "Person of Interest" and "Chicago Fire."
Otherwise you will have a lot more fun watching Ice-Road Housewives Pickers. Just sayn'
Reality shows have a very limited shelf life. You enjoy it for a while and then they keep repeating themselves and you move on.
"Jersey Shore" was pretty good the first season but after than it got repetitious and boring.
The real interesting TV in scripted shows can be found in original Cable productions.
"Sons of Anarchy" "Justified" "American Horror Story" "The Americans" "Breaking Bad" "The Killing" "The Bridge" "Breaking Bad" and "Mad Men" are all great dramas that are worth viewing.
You know there is a sense in which GLAAD et. al. functions like the radical Islamists in our culture.
Everyone tippy toes around and is afraid. Deathly deathly afraid of a group who intimidate with the goal of stripping the First Amendment from anyone who disagrees with them.
If a business thinks some gays are riled up OMG! Quick! Submit! Submit!
Stupid stupid people.
Do they not see that their methods are what hangs gays in Iran?
Thanks but no thanks in your arrogant dismissal of the use of Scripture.
I read what Phil Robertson said (unlike many of the lefties out there who seem to have an amazing and horrific lack of reading comprehension).
He was stating what Scripture says.
He wasn't wanting to sh*t in anyone's mouth.
And note that whatever he said goes for those out there (on this list, in the world, at CNN or GQ or as seen on your local Wal-Mart check out line magazine rack, and in your neighborhood gym) screwing someone else's spouse puts you on the same page. Sin comes in many flavors.
Maybe THAT's what everyone has their panties in a wad about.
R&B quotes The Duck Dynasty guy who likened homosexuality to bestiality...
See?
Sub grade level reading comprehension.
Besides... if he did (he didn't, it was in the same list of sins the source of which is clear) what's the big deal for the left? Why is beastiality wrong?
Palladian: "It always seems that they miss the purpose of Christ's word when they blabber on about the specifics of sin. But it's titillating. Controversy, condemnation, the details of immorality— that's what sells sermons and television programs. It's also what drives people away from the love of God, which is an even greater sin."
You don't have to clarify your motives here. I think you're a largely trustworthy guy from what I can tell, even if I appreciate your willingness to clarify.
Anyway, as far as I can tell, it was Phil's presence and personality in itself that did it. I saw the 3 - 5 minute intro clip on the inter tubes, and it basically consisted of Phil giving the advice he gave his grandson on butchering frogs and women. "Clean and honorable. Frog killing."
So he was out in the woods, eating the frogs he caught, no pretense of any modern amenity that he didn't feel a need to live by, and imparting kind instruction in all that and in other deeper truths on how to live to his grandson. It was perfect. The way people shouldn't be afraid to live. Nothing fake. Kind. And confident about it.
"Don't marry some yuppie woman". "I give them a little river rat counseling, free of charge. Find a meek, gentle, kind-spirited country girl. If she knows how to cook and she carries her bible and lives by it, and she LOVES to eat bullfrogs, and now there's a woman. See what I'm saying?"
See the first prerequisite for marrying a woman, in my opinion: Can… she… cook.
You gonna be there for 50 years and you don't even know whether she can cook or not. What kind of thinking is that?
"Well, we'll just live off love." Not really. You'll starve to death.
It's hard to get a pretty one to cook and carry a bible any more.
89 comments:
Whew boy. You're still banging on about this?
Just get over it. Their image is now tarnished, they misinterpreted scriptures to promote ignorance and benighted condescension (hardly the first time in history that's been done), and turned themselves from a nice, whimsical bunch of slapstick comedians into just another bunch of ignorant hicks. Being ignorant is nothing new and any entertainment appeal it could have is pretty limited.
It doesn't matter who "started" it, the market will finish it. Their appeal was not partisan, but alienating at least the half of their audience with a thinking conscience has an impact.
Of course, you won't grow up and get over it. But the rest of the world will.
In the meantime, Lem's got Civil War analogies and other military slogans to throw about.
Yawn.
@R&B,
they misinterpreted scriptures to promote ignorance and benighted condescension
Uhhhmmmm, exactly what did they misinterpret, Oh most Holy & Wise R&B?
No, what the guy said is basically orthodox Christian doctrine as it's been understood for the past 2000 years. You can not like it & think it's benighted, but it's as mainline & uncontroversial of moral doctrine within Christianity as can be.
And thank you for pretending that "mainline" (or "elite") interpretation is proper interpretation. Let's disagree there, too.
Again, history shows that these interpretations you defend are opportunistic and ad hoc. The religion is used to fit the underlying, popular prejudice - not the other way around. Until the popular prejudice becomes too unpopular for the religion to be used to sustain it.
Religions that remain relevant address this. APparently, whichever version of Christianity Phil "practices" is one that doesn't and one that you conflate as being properly applied to all of them.
R&B,
So, actually Phil didn't misinterpret Christianity. You just don't like Christianity in its historical manifestation. Which is, by the way, the only one we have.....
Your problem R&B is that you just get on & start spewing, secure in the knowledge that your ramblings make sense. But they don't.
I asked you how Phil misinterpreted Christianity, and you give me this spiel about how historical Christianity is flawed. So, Phil & the rest of us are wrong, but the Gospel according to R&B is the way to go? And somehow. we as readers are supposed to know this a priori?
Your problem, Ritmo, is that you think you're a rational man. You're not.
Your problem is that you think defending either elite opinion or popular prejudice makes you rational when it shows you wholly incapable of it - on two fronts.
Yes, history is all we have of history. What of history - other than your turning the other cheek to allowing yet another assault by one man's Christianity on something that it is completely irrational to assault? (Homosexual orientation and commitment is no more wrong than being a native American, or a woman, or a child entrusted to a priest, etc., etc., etc.)
Do nothing a priori. First think. Think about why being "mainline" or elite is proper. Think about why a religious stream that proposes defending its own relevancy would decide that love and commitment in a way that can't be changed and is non-coercive is to be taught as akin to swindling, etc.
You do not think and your purchase on rationalism in this discussion is fast unraveling.
GLAAD thinks they have a monopoly on clinger-wrap. They think they can surround mainstream opinion and contain it, molding it in their likeness. Their fundamental mistake is that they are not inside that which they seek to contain. They are a thin, transparent veneer.
You do like your wordplay, El Pollo Raylan.
On a serious note, though, I do think their sentiments reflect mine and I was a fan of a show. Maybe most of their audience is of a type that YoungHegelian relates to and will sustain them (or more importantly, their behavior and refusal to acknowledge the impact of their statements), regardless.
But I speak for myself and don't see a reason for assuming that a popular A & E show wouldn't have a number of other decent, non-conservatives who are similarly turned off.
We don't defend elitism, populism or literalism for their own sakes, especially when used to further ignorance, condescension and an invalidation of an individual's consented sense of love and commitment. When cute, witty and well-intentioned becomes standard ignorance (no matter how bolstered by theological elitism and theological populism - as much as it's waning) we get turned off.
I doubt I'm alone, but we'll see.
An Iraq veteran amputee had it just about right when he said...
J.R. Salzman @jrsalzman 19 Dec
Only when we stop accepting outrage as a mechanism for change will this country finally learn the true meaning of tolerance.
Yeah, Lem. Well, tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.
I don't know who said that. Or what the exact quote is. Or even if a precise and agreed phrasing has been found. All I know is that the basic idea is clear.
You guys bitch all the time about how stupid it is to tolerate Muslim intolerance. About the importance of challenging people. Well, when you promote accepting Christian intolerance, you're doing the same thing.
I think atheism is a radical reaction to that, (mainly because as a scientist I think proving negatives is a not very useful endeavor - I'm more so an agnostic, apatheist, or ignostic/theological noncognitivist), but a fight to make your own religion irrelevant is not much of a defense of it. In that sense, guys like Hitchens are pretty important.
Stop being tribal and start thinking about what it is you're actually defending.
Putting aside sides for the moment, how effective is it to place a phone call to a TV executive complaining about an interview in another medium? How is this even possible in this day and age without raising questions about too much power and influence?
Is GLADD a forgiving bunch? Half of them gladly turn the other cheek (so to speak) but what sort of goodwill and understanding did their dick movement buy them? Are they a vindictive bunch? I'm GLADD curious...how powerful are they?
This or something similar was on O'Reilly last night (first few minutes):
Phil preaching on homosexuality
It doesn't matter Chickie (and please stop with the anal obsession, yes the pun was well-placed [more inadvertent innuendo on my part?] but still unfair).
The point is that in a society that is becoming rational enough to increasingly refuse to castigate people who can't help whom they, consentingly, love and commit to, and increasingly seeks to defend them, Phil and Phil's "allies" (calling them "defenders" assumes something too respectful of their motivations and capacities) are making increasingly stupid, and fatuous decisions.
It's because of these sorts of a counter-reactions on the part of the Ducksters, that America is becoming both increasingly secular and increasingly atheist.
Embarrassing typo fixed in the five word post.
Man, is Titus pissed at me on Althouse.
Hi Titus!
I'm so curious about finding a way to incorporate Titus into this mess and overly serious mutual sermonizing that I might very well end up finding a way to do so.
But out of respect for Trooper, I won't. I never found poop very interesting. And it only brings us closer to Phil's interest in, you know, that canal!
Can we talk about Venice instead?
I'm going to be in Amsterdam in less than a week. There are canals there, too.
I actually posted that response because Chickie's ability to be super nice to people who get under his skin is inspiring to me at times.
Ritmo's got flop sweat again.
We keep hearing about gay caballeros molesting their adopted kids, or trying to change one gender into another and he talks about consent?He talks about tolerance but can't respect a man's First Amendment rights to practice his religion?
It is to laugh.
More to the point, this is clearly blowing up in the Gaystapo's collective face, as the Robertsons are calling A&E's bluff and support of their position is growing exponentially.
Call it Chick-Fil-A II.
And, in case you haven't noticed, we're winning.
I'm stumped on one last clue for the Google doodle crossword puzzle.
Four letters for "one way to store data". The two letters at the end are C and D.
Sorry, I'm trolling your post pollo. I've been at it for hours.
It's not fair for ed to chime in on this because you can't really understand what he says without running it through the redneck dialectizer first, anyway.
The best part was, when I dialectized (is that a word?) that first, insane sentence of his, the only thing that changed was the spelling of "again" to "agin".
Perhaps he's almost native.
ed - if they ever make a Rosetta Stone program for learning redneck, they'll definitely want to survey your posts to make sure they're doing it accurately.
It will be at the airport in boxes that cost a fraction of the price of those for learning French, Spanish, Arabic, etc.
And they'll be sold on The Home Shopping Network.
There are canals there, too.
NL is laced with grachten. The word is uniquely Dutch. A canal in a city is a gracht but a canal outside a city is a kanaal.
I hear Duck Dynasty merchandise is selling out all over the country.
As I say, Chick-Fil-A II.
And poor little Ritmo tries to come up with something witty to salvage his side and ends up with the rhetorical version of Pajama Boy.
Lem, a four letter way to store data is ACTG, but that doesn't fit your bill so I'm stumped too.
That's an interesting guess, Pollo.
"Man, is Titus pissed at me on Althouse. "
What's the problem, you constipated?
Sooner or later what he said will be interpreted as having to do with golden showers.
I didn't want to look it up, but I wouldn't have gotten it otherwise.
the answer was ONCD.
thanks.
What's the proper play here Ritmo? A guy voices his opinion in a magazine. Really hardly anything hateful about it. A group that thinks he said something reprehensible because he mentioned the protected class they belong to didn't like it and called the network he worked for. That network clearly sided with GLAAD and not a guy who has given them their highest ever rated show and they let him go. The rest of the cast put out a statement saying if he goes, we all go.
If A&E does a reversal and I think they will because they do not want these people going elsewhere and making another network money and getting better ratings, then what and who's image then gets tarnished? GLAAD's? A&E's for caving to a super tiny yet vocal minority? It doesn't matter whether he paraphrased scripture. It isn't even a 1st amendment issue. What it really is about is that does ones opinion in this regard worthy of this kind of characterization as being hateful and should this tiny minority be overly represented and be able to sway an entire network in this fashion?
There really is no "proper play" that I can think of. I don't even see a point to looking at it that way. He voiced an opinion, they didn't want to be seen as being anywhere close to sponsoring it. Life happens. I don't have an answer. But for me, the magic's gone. Phil seems to have squashed out an important part of what I liked about him. But then, he had done terrible things in his past before - much more terrible than this. So I guess the lesson is that being "away" from Jesus can lead you to terrible things, just as being "close" to Jesus can lead you to terrible things, also. But I already knew that, though. There's therefore nothing left for me to get out of the show. Part of its overarching lesson as a show was that "life happens" and now, well, life's happening.
God be with them. They already have plenty and will probably find a way to have more. But like Phil wanted to do to Jep, we'll have to part ways. Who knows what the future holds? But I can't endorse in good conscience using bible-speak to root out homos as the cause of modern evil. That's all I know.
God be with them.
I don't think there is a proper play here either, but what it does illustrate to me is that opinions are like assholes, everyone has them and a lot of times they smell like them too. GLAAD I believe overreached and are going to pay for it. These guys will make money no matter what. Their stars will fade, but they will do well and have done well. I said it earlier, A&E should have just kept their mouths shut. They tripped over their own dicks.
Ok, but there is one last thing to say about this:
The Duck Dynasty guy who likened homosexuality to bestiality makes a living helping people trick ducks into thinking they want to fuck them.
Rhythm and Balls said...
I'm so curious about finding a way to incorporate Titus into this mess and overly serious mutual sermonizing that I might very well end up finding a way to do so.
Titus should probably retire or else come out of the character closet he built for himself. He's a bit like crack. He's made some bad choices and knows it. Redemption is possible, but only if he choses so.
In the future, every POTUS candidate will need GLAAD handlers to make sure they get their politics correct.
Would GLAAD handlers handle you in a way or place that makes you GLAAD?
Please tell me you did that intentionally.
This or something similar was on O'Reilly last night (first few minutes):
Thanks, deborah. Much more offensive than Phil Robertson's recent comments, and very typical of that sort of rural Christian. I grew up hearing those sorts of sermons (second-hand, we weren't religious).
It always seems that they miss the purpose of Christ's word when they blabber on about the specifics of sin. But it's titillating. Controversy, condemnation, the details of immorality— that's what sells sermons and television programs. It's also what drives people away from the love of God, which is an even greater sin.
What about the sinfulness of conspicuous consumption, or greed, or pride? Did Phil or his progeny ever preach about that?
Not that I think any of those things are, a priori, wrong, but if you're going to condemn other men of license and sin (because of their sexual practices), you might want to turn your judgmental eye toward yourself and your money-loving family.
Yeah, they did say that fame was fleeting and that if it all went away they'd be happy with just as little as they started out with when they were dirt-poor. So they did condemn the more legitimately important sin of loving Mammon. I liked that about them.
But I think pride was more of a problem. Willie and Jase both said that you could talk a redneck into any challenge. And followed that up with the deduction that that's probably why, in their estimations, rednecks tend to die in such unusual ways.
Cool. I just noticed the tag.
As I say, Chick-Fil-A II.
Yep, pretty much.
The A&E exec who made this decision fucked up big time. Best-case scenario is that the network has to eat crow and apologize to the Robertsons -- infuriating the GLAAD crowd. Worst-case scenario is the Robertsons jump to a competing network and take their enormous audience (and advertising base) with them.
Either way, at least one A&E exec is going to be "spending time with his family" in the near future.
Revenent is having one of the Revenenge Fantasies that seem all too common here lately.
Revenent is having one of the Revenenge Fantasies that seem all too common here lately.
I'm more into homosexual rape fantasies myself.
Not that I think any of those things are, a priori, wrong, but if you're going to condemn other men of license and sin (because of their sexual practices), you might want to turn your judgmental eye toward yourself and your money-loving family.
I haven't watched the show, so I'd be curious to hear what is so "money-loving" about the Robertson family. Is that just code for "they're well-off"?
Do you get turned on when a guy messes up and yells out "FUCK ME!" Or should it be someone you're upset with?
No. Money enjoyers and money lovers are different sorts of people.
Revenent is having one of the Revenenge Fantasies that seem all too common here lately.
Not a revenge fantasy, just a realistic expectation. The Robertsons make a lot of money for the network. Several of their big advertisers have already said that if the Robertsons jump networks, they're going with 'em.
Hands up if you think A&E cares more about gay peoples' feelings than it cares about making money. :)
I'm loving your powers of prediction tonight, Revenard. Do you use a crystal ball or recite incantations while burning incense and mouthing "Abracadabra"?
If the show does, as reported, generate several hundred million dollars for the network don't the network executives have a duty to their shareholders to keep the revenue stream flowing. Why kill the golden goose to rid the world of goose shit.........I'm not a follower of the show. I read the comments. They were crudely phrased, but they were not incitements to hatred. No one who read them would be inspired to go out and beat up a gay man. The stereotyping and vitriol directed against rednecks is much worse........I'm not gay and I'm not a redneck. I would advise all rednecks not to buy bootleg hooch from a stranger. The risk of wood alcohol poisoning is just too great. I would advise all gays not to have anal sex with a stranger. The risk of AIDS is just too high. My first statement is sagacious. My second statement is bigoted......You really have to stay alert to function in this society.
I haven't watched the show, so I'd be curious to hear what is so "money-loving" about the Robertson family. Is that just code for "they're well-off"?
The show which, despite the "reality television" veneer, is fictionalized, makes frequent use of the Robertson's status as multi-millionaires. Phil and Si Robertson are depicted as still living in very humble housing, but their sons are shown to be living the high life, in palatial (Mc)Mansions with all the trappings of contemporary wealth. As this portrayal is at least partially fictionalized, it's difficult to make any definitive judgements, but the general sensibility is of semi-conspicuous richness.
Perhaps it's my own personal issues, growing up poor (partially in trailers and public housing), but I find conspicuous wealth to be distasteful. It's one reason I hate contemporary Democrats and Republicans— my distrust of the well-off.
Do you get turned on when a guy messes up and yells out "FUCK ME!" Or should it be someone you're upset with?
Hate-fuck, love-fuck, it's all good, provided the dude has a nice round ass and a nice big cock.
Phil and Si Robertson are depicted as still living in very humble housing, but their sons are shown to be living the high life, in palatial (Mc)Mansions with all the trappings of contemporary wealth
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that "they used their money to buy nice houses" *isn't* a completely retarded standard for calling someone "money-loving".
What you're asking, basically, is "why isn't Phil Robertson publicly condemning his own children". Um... well, I don't know the guy, but I'm going to go with "because he isn't a horrible father".
One other thing, Palladian: I'm curious what your basis is for claiming that "conspicuous consumption" is sinful.
There's certainly Biblical justification for claiming that it is sinful to hoard wealth, but I see no basis for claiming it is sinful to spend money. Jesus told parables of rich landowners employing people, and "the rich guy was a bastard for doing it" was never the point of any of 'em.
Um... well, I don't know the guy, but I'm going to go with "because he isn't a horrible father".
DING DING DING DING DING DING!!! And we have Revenenenenenenent's ultimate declaration that he knows nothing about the show. "The guy" threw his wife and three kids out of the house when they were less than ten years old as their being there "crimped" his sex, drugs and rock and roll lifestyle. Look it up.
Researching the things you say won't kill you.
Revenenenent also proves he knows nothing about owning a business. People don't hire to be generous and spend but because they've narrowed it down to the only option for keeping up with a growing business. Geez, open a business for Chrissakes. Capitalism won't kill you either - they save the libertarians from that. Technically.
I'm a Working Class Hero, Rev. I never had Ayn Rand on speed dial. Sosumi.
"The guy" threw his wife and three kids out of the house when they were less than ten years old as their being there "crimped" his sex, drugs and rock and roll lifestyle. Look it up.
I knew that already, Rit. I also knew -- as did you -- that he's very vocal and remorseful about his own "sinful" past. A hypocrite he ain't.
What remains a mystery to me, though, is how "he was a shitty dad 40 years ago, so he should be one today too" made sense to you as an argument. :)
I'm a Working Class Hero, Rev. I never had Ayn Rand on speed dial. Sosumi.
So basically you're just lashing out because the guy hurt your widdle feewings? Tsk.
So basically you're just lashing out because the guy hurt your widdle feewings? Tsk.
Oh honey, I know you love to play the contrarian. Perhaps you skipped my comments about this "controversy" on other threads. In any case, you're one of my favorite commenters, so don't disappoint me with your false assumptions.
That's why I never would have made such a stupid "argument". I just take it as evidence that he might still be able to make a bad decision today.
You, OTOH, seem to be open to the argument that someone who did something like that then is doing everything perfectly now. Because Jesus.
Revenenenent also proves he knows nothing about owning a business.
Tell us again how 67% growth over 50 years works out to 3% a year. :)
"The guy" threw his wife and three kids out of the house when they were less than ten years old as their being there "crimped" his sex, drugs and rock and roll lifestyle. Look it up.
Christ loved sinners, and specifically called to them, walked with them, and ministered to them. You could fault Phil Robertson for this or that, but his sinful past is essential to understanding his faith. Whether you're a Christian or not, acknowledgement and transcendence of past sins is an essential component of enlightenment.
In any case, you're one of my favorite commenters, so don't disappoint me with your false assumptions.
You just seem awfully desperate to invent sins to pin on the Robertsons, that's all.
"Conspicuous consumption" isn't a sin, buying a nice house with your own money isn't "greedy". I can't comment on "pride", except to say Phil Robertson doesn't appear to exhibit it.
I'm not talking about him being a perfect Christian. I'm talking about him being a person who might not be as transcendent as a theologian would view him. I'm saying that perhaps he might have a present that isn't sinless either. You're basically making my point.
Because Jesus.
That's the gist of it, yes. You can arrive there in other ways; it just so happens that Phil Robertson found that path through Christ's guidance. And I doubt you'll find any claims of perfection from Mr Robertson.
Revenant, the atheist, even understands this, R&B!
Revenenenent, if you challenged/called him on it (I bet) would probably not be able to define greedy to anyone's satisfaction of what they know about the common concept.
Greed, as I should have said earlier, is basically the root of all legitimate evil. You feel you're entitled to something you're not, and violate someone to take it. Murder is someone greedily thinking they have a right to violate someone's right to sustain themselves. And so on. Any violation of another you could basically track to greed of some sort.
Phil should learn to think about these things more clearly. As should Revelant.
You just seem awfully desperate to invent sins to pin on the Robertsons, that's all.
"Conspicuous consumption" isn't a sin, buying a nice house with your own money isn't "greedy". I can't comment on "pride", except to say Phil Robertson doesn't appear to exhibit it.
I was just demonstrating that sin, as understood by Christians of the Robertson's ilk, has many manifestations, whether sexual (the source of this controversy) or otherwise. I'm merely giving the standard thoughtful Christian's response to the condemnation of sin: an acknowledgement that the condemner is a sinner, too.
Why are we talking about theology now? Mr. Robertson, insofar as we understand the concept might well be very loved by Jesus. And yet, everyone else can still legitimately think he's an asshole. Or not.
What's wrong with that? Why this intermingling of religious concepts and common everyday ideas regarding decent behavior?
I'm merely giving the standard thoughtful Christian's response to the condemnation of sin: an acknowledgement that the condemner is a sinner, too.
Didn't he kind of beat you to that?
I'm just happy I don't live with ritmo's level of hate. When it is so bad, you ramble on like he does across multiple comments, health problems are sure to follow.
On this Jonah has it right; why care? Seriously Ritmo; if Phil means so little to you, then why do you let his words hurt you so much? Why does his words generate so much hatred in you? Do you have any sense of scale? What Phil Robertson does or does not do should have zero impact on your life. That it does means Phil is far more powerful in your life than you want him to be. And the person giving him that power is you.
"might not be as transcendent as a theologian would view him"
I'm not sure theologians are the best source for validating transcendence, but as I view him he seems to have transcended his particular past sins in the way Palladian emphasizes.
What's interesting about this whole kerfuffle is there really is a class issue at hand. Phil Robertson isn't an elite who talks down to people, like liberal and conservative elites do.
He's a guy who talks as one of the people, who spent time in the muck and the mire, and has found a path out of that, both financially and spiritually. It's not, "I judge you," as much as "I've been there, brother, and there's a better way."
Agree or disagree with him, he's not Pat Robertson's brand of Christian Right. His moralism is more like a sober alcoholic who warns people about the dangers of drink.
PaddyO, You are a wise man.
The left have become a surveillance mechanism.
They are one giant collective destruction machine.
It all started with Hillary Clinton's "Media Matters". Now it's everywhere. The left are lurking, reading, taping, filming, listening to every word. They are cowardly raking and bugging the place in search of every PC mistake.
@April Apple: It's a truism that when you leave something or are apart from it and then come back, you are more apt to notice changes which others have just taken in stride (see boiling frog metaphor). When I came back to the US in 1993, living abroad for three years, I returned to my alma mater and noticed a heightened PC sensitivity among university students. WTH happened in the US between 1990 and 1993 to cause this?
April Apple said...
The left have become a surveillance mechanism.
They are one giant collective destruction machine.
It's all they have left and is a measure of how bankrupt they are.
Since they have nothing to offer, they're really in pretty much the same position as the Russian Communist Party in the 80s and 90s.
I am not hurt by Mr. Robertson's words. I am disappointed by them, and by him. As I said elsewhere, and as he said when confronting his son Jep, this is a separation, not a casting out. May the Lord offer him whatever continued guidance and good luck as he goes about his way - I just won't be a part of it. There is no anger or hate in that.
As far as what Paddy's saying, he gets to exactly what I did like about Robertson. Folksy wisdom, non-judgmental, living as a part of the world rather out of its reach (duck hunting and all the other life lessons he carries), and being gentle in imparting the lessons of personally overcoming something.
He wasn't a Pat Robertson Christian right-winger type. I could relate to him. But these latest words of his were more like that.
And then, interestingly, Paddy mentions alcoholism. And I'm glad he does. My mother's cousin is a born-again recovered alcoholic. We all loved (they still do love) him. He's a fun guy, with many life adventures to tell, more learned than he seems, and basically gentle - despite being as tall and ruddy as a guy like Phil. He became this way about ten or fifteen years ago and I didn't mind him sharing with me the power of his conversion in his life. Others would become annoyed when his bible-thumping became more proselytizing, and would tell him so. But I'd give him a wide tether to go on about that stuff when hanging out with him on my own - because I knew how important it is to him and how important it could be generally. And he told it in a good way.
But one night I remember the conversation on morals and what we find important today creating a wider diversion between us. Not because we disagreed on things that weren't right, but because the extreme depth of his despair over failing to properly "save" his other relatives - all decent people by anyone's account - started to worry me.
Eventually, what I realized is that this turn on his part was telling me something. What I had been listening to previously as a powerful and heartfelt testimony of the power of Jesus in this man was now deviating into something less noble. I was listening to a drunk at a bar who was merely messed up on a different kind of drink. The sadness, the judgment and every other emotion a drunk might be reeling with were all there. I realized that I was simply listening to holes in a man's mind, initially worn there by alcohol, and now stuffed with Jesus. And that, I decided, was not how the story or experience was supposed to go.
It was not a godly experience and it taught me that too much of a good thing can apply to anything. Using Jesus to paste away the cracks in one's mind worn into it by alcohol, still leaves you hearing the holes in the alcoholic's mind, and listening to the use of Jesus as simple brain mortar is not the sort of Jesus I find inspiring to listen to on a personal level.
@Ritmo: I don't think we're supposed to focus on the holes in the brain now filled with Jesus insofar as they're the same for everyone like holes in Swiss cheese differ only in size. What a friend we have in cheeses! We're supposed to relate to the remaining bricks, cheese, and grey matter which are unique.
Robertson's story is interesting because we can tell how big his holes and cracks are (fodder for your fervent imagination?).
Robertson didn't do much incoherent muttering and nattering and rambling in a way that a senseless alcoholic would. He just decided to make an offhanded comment or two in an irresponsible way - and then needlessly defend the irresponsible way in which he spoke. His other, personal story/stories -- I've already heard them, before. You seem to forget that I was a fan. Had been for the nearly two years that they'd done this.
Yes, I still like your alliteration and puns. ;-) Even though I know it would be too much to ask you to accept that I've stopped finding the anal allusions (more alliteration) entertaining in this episode.
Chat soon!
R & B said ...
You seem to forget that I was a fan. Had been for the nearly two years that they'd done this.
Yes, you told us that. I am fascinated on what attracts anyone to a "reality" charade so much that they stay hooked for 2+ years?
Did you find their back woodsy shtick entertaining or something? What was it?
This is NOT snark. I really am curious, and if you note, I've mostly stayed out of this discussion.
I find reality shows endlessly entertaining.
The Real Housewives are pretty funny until they turn tedious. Usually around season five.
Ice Road Truckers was pretty entertaining for a while but it gets boring after a while.
"Pawn Stars" and "Storage Wars" are also amusing.
Listen these shows are much better than the endless CSI and Law and Order shows where we are fed liberal pap and have to see gruesome crimes with bodies skinned alive or burned beyond recognition.
The only two superior dramas on regular TV right now are "Person of Interest" and "Chicago Fire."
Otherwise you will have a lot more fun watching Ice-Road Housewives Pickers. Just sayn'
Reality shows have a very limited shelf life. You enjoy it for a while and then they keep repeating themselves and you move on.
"Jersey Shore" was pretty good the first season but after than it got repetitious and boring.
The real interesting TV in scripted shows can be found in original Cable productions.
"Sons of Anarchy" "Justified" "American Horror Story" "The Americans" "Breaking Bad" "The Killing" "The Bridge" "Breaking Bad" and "Mad Men" are all great dramas that are worth viewing.
You know there is a sense in which GLAAD et. al. functions like the radical Islamists in our culture.
Everyone tippy toes around and is afraid. Deathly deathly afraid of a group who intimidate with the goal of stripping the First Amendment from anyone who disagrees with them.
If a business thinks some gays are riled up OMG! Quick! Submit! Submit!
Stupid stupid people.
Do they not see that their methods are what hangs gays in Iran?
As for R&B (why does anyone here bother?)
Thanks but no thanks in your arrogant dismissal of the use of Scripture.
I read what Phil Robertson said (unlike many of the lefties out there who seem to have an amazing and horrific lack of reading comprehension).
He was stating what Scripture says.
He wasn't wanting to sh*t in anyone's mouth.
And note that whatever he said goes for those out there (on this list, in the world, at CNN or GQ or as seen on your local Wal-Mart check out line magazine rack, and in your neighborhood gym) screwing someone else's spouse puts you on the same page. Sin comes in many flavors.
Maybe THAT's what everyone has their panties in a wad about.
As they say, c'est la Scripture.
R&B quotes The Duck Dynasty guy who likened homosexuality to bestiality...
See?
Sub grade level reading comprehension.
Besides... if he did (he didn't, it was in the same list of sins the source of which is clear) what's the big deal for the left? Why is beastiality wrong?
No one gets consent from the beast?
Reality shows have a very limited shelf life.
That makes the WWE all that more interesting. Not really reality, not really sports, not really scripted, but top-10 shows nearly 20 years running?
Palladian:
"It always seems that they miss the purpose of Christ's word when they blabber on about the specifics of sin. But it's titillating. Controversy, condemnation, the details of immorality— that's what sells sermons and television programs. It's also what drives people away from the love of God, which is an even greater sin."
Well said.
Hi Ari -
You don't have to clarify your motives here. I think you're a largely trustworthy guy from what I can tell, even if I appreciate your willingness to clarify.
Anyway, as far as I can tell, it was Phil's presence and personality in itself that did it. I saw the 3 - 5 minute intro clip on the inter tubes, and it basically consisted of Phil giving the advice he gave his grandson on butchering frogs and women. "Clean and honorable. Frog killing."
So he was out in the woods, eating the frogs he caught, no pretense of any modern amenity that he didn't feel a need to live by, and imparting kind instruction in all that and in other deeper truths on how to live to his grandson. It was perfect. The way people shouldn't be afraid to live. Nothing fake. Kind. And confident about it.
"Don't marry some yuppie woman". "I give them a little river rat counseling, free of charge. Find a meek, gentle, kind-spirited country girl. If she knows how to cook and she carries her bible and lives by it, and she LOVES to eat bullfrogs, and now there's a woman. See what I'm saying?"
See the first prerequisite for marrying a woman, in my opinion: Can… she… cook.
You gonna be there for 50 years and you don't even know whether she can cook or not. What kind of thinking is that?
"Well, we'll just live off love." Not really. You'll starve to death.
It's hard to get a pretty one to cook and carry a bible any more.
Words to live by. Basically summarized here.
And then you'd watch the kids, and their antics, and Si. All that fun thrown in on top of it. It was a great show.
And then the leader of it got ignorant and judgmental. And I can find ignorance and judgment everywhere I look. I don't need some tv show for that.
Me neither.
When I want ignorant and judgmental I just look in the mirror.
I guess that is why I was not a big fan of the show.
Sorry. I should have referred to the advice he gave on "women… and butchering frogs." In that order. ;-)
Robertson also condemned greed in that interview. Perhaps that's what has the entertainment executives so upset.
"This guy thinks getting drunk and bedding scads of babes on piles of money is bad? This dude cannot be abided."
Post a Comment