Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Thanking damn_registrars for his tolerance & love of diversity 26

Journal by smittyoneeach

conservative commentator Mark Steyn spoke out against the groups he said were behind the hostile reactions to the remarks made by "Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson made to GQ magazine about homosexuality and sin.
"I think in a strange way, this is the biggest story of the day, the week, the month," Steyn told fill-in host Rep. John Campbell (R-CA). "I'm actually quite worried that weâ(TM)re moving into an age of extremely heavy-handed ideological compliance. There was nothing this guy said in GQ that I think that should have rendered him banished from the airwaves. And I think it's interesting that what he said in fact is consistent with his character."
The syndicated columnist likened Robertson's suspension from his A&E television program to something out of post-World War II Eastern Europe under Communist rule.
"This is one of the biggest stories of our time--the strange need by the bureau of gay compliance or whatever the gay lobby group is calling itself these days and similar groups to enforce the most tedious ideological compliance," he said. "It's like something out of Milan Kundera's Eastern European novel about post-war communist Europe, The Joke, where you make one little comment and your life is over. And we're getting to that stage."

I guess the punchline would be to wait for the Priests of Cthulhu to come around for damn_registrars, and suddenly decide that all of his "President Lawnchair" remarks are beyond the pale, and watch him get led up to the altar of Political Correctness, to met the Ultimately Correct One.
Because there is nothing funnier than seeing one who has been a useful tool of the Priests find themselves on the receiving end. When all those days and weeks of trying to turn Phil Robertson's genuine, reasoned disagreement with and lack of understanding of homosexuality into something "homophobic" and a "rant" come home for him. As though by repeatedly characterizing things as hateful in a repeated way, irrespective of the baselessness of the claim, it can become true.
Lord have mercy on you and heal you, damn_registrars, and give you courage to pursue something proper while still here under the sun.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Thanking damn_registrars for his tolerance & love of diversity More

Thanking damn_registrars for his tolerance & love of diversity

Comments Filter:
  • You just quoted someone who said that the guy was

    banished from the airwaves

    When in reality, one cable network said they wouldn't shoot new episodes with him for "an indefinite period of time". He can still go talk to other networks, write letters to newspapers, post blogs, do whatever he wants.

    Really, the fact that you found yet another politician with this profound of a lack of understanding of what freedom of speech means is astonishing. Why these people are tasked with the creation of laws in our country when they don't understand the ones we have is baffling.

    • It's hyperbole, yes. Which is precisely the point I was making by mocking your calling Robertson's remarks a "homophobic rant", when there was neither phobia nor anything beyond reasoned disagreement on display.
      But I've gotten past expecting anything resembling reasoned, lucid argumentation from you.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

        But I've gotten past expecting anything resembling reasoned, lucid argumentation from you.

        Took you long enough.

        In fact, he was banished from the airwaves, literally, where "the airwaves" means "A&E" and the banishment is indefinite ... which is the whole point, innit?

        • In fact, he was banished from the airwaves, literally, where "the airwaves" means "A&E

          ,bR> Except that A&E is a cable network, never broadcast over the airwaves. Hence they represent no portion of the airwaves. Furthermore their action does not in any way inhibit him from voicing his opinion on any other network.

          and the banishment is indefinite

          Which is not permanent. Banishment is supposed to be permanent. Hence he is neither "banished" nor is he banished from "the airwaves". I'm sorry this is so very difficult for you.

      • the point I was making by mocking your calling Robertson's remarks a "homophobic rant", when there was neither phobia nor anything beyond reasoned disagreement on display.

        He stated that in his view homosexuality leads directly to polygamy, bestiality, murder, and other sinful activities. He does not appear to be in favor of those activities, and one can certainly argue from the way he describes him that he fears them. Being as he is afraid that homosexuality will bring them about, he is clearly afraid of homosexuality as well.

        As for it being a "reasoned disagreement on display", first of all it is not reasonable to associate homosexuality with those acts. They occur

        • He does not appear to be in favor of those activities, and one can certainly argue from the way he describes him that he fears them.

          So, go ahead: argue this point with certainty. Stand and deliver. Show me how, in your opinion, you can get from the words used in their context to "he fears them".
          My counter-argument is that you're tampering with what he said, in a manner to discredit him, and then attempting to worm your way out of it.

          • He does not appear to be in favor of those activities, and one can certainly argue from the way he describes him that he fears them.

            So, go ahead: argue this point with certainty. Stand and deliver. Show me how, in your opinion, you can get from the words used in their context to "he fears them".

            Fearing something does not mean you live in constant fear of them, only that you have a fear of them. He specifically said that he feels homosexuality leads to murder (in fact, he's said that more than once). I don't know about you or him specifically, but I do fear murder. I don't think of it daily or even weekly; but there are times when I make decisions of where to go at a specific time of day based on the murder rate of that specific area. I feel it is perfectly reasonable to be afraid of murder.

            • He's more or less quoting 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 [blueletterbible.org]. In 2010. Now, suddenly, everyone is shocked, SHOCKED! that a Christian man sounds like a Christian man. Which is still not an argument that Robertson fears homosexuals, or was ranting in GQ, which is my point of contention: you're full of hooey.
              • I read your link and did not see any place where it says that homosexuality leads to murder. The homophobic rant that you are trying to defend explicitly stated that the former leads to the latter.

                • Murder [wikipedia.org] is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide(such as manslaughter) or murder committed during the commission of another crime (sometimes called felony murder).

                  Robertson described something slippery, with a negative slope. If you want to explain how his remarks [slashdot.org] evaluate to a who/what/where/when/why/how instance of anyone taking the life of another, go ahead. I see where someone not in agreement might accuse Robertson of a combination slippery slope & strawman play. Past that, phrases like "homophobic rant" & "leads to murder" are "statement[s] that [are] ludicrous on [their] face, yet [they reveal] what the speaker truly believes [wikipedia.org]".

                  • Read his direct comments here [nydailynews.com]

                    They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God-haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are truthless. They invent ways of doing evil.

                    His statement speaks for itself. He believes that homosexuality leads to murder.

                    • (a) If Robertson were privy to an Actual. Instance. Of. Murder, and said nothing, that would make him an accessory, would it not? So it doesn't follow that Phil was speaking of any specific instance of a crime, or even a planned crime in the offing.
                      (b) The idiomatic phrase in play here is "full of murder, envy, strife, hatred". What does it mean to be "full of murder"? Does it mean "he believes that homosexuality leads to murder"? I suppose, it you were a bloody-minded fool, you might be so literal as to t
                    • Here you are portraying yourself as the intellectual giant in a field of midgets. As such, you should have no trouble then elaborating on what "full of murder" actually means. Interesting that you did not bother to go in to that; you discarded my interpretation but offered none of your own. Questioning what murder meant in older versions of your book of mythology does you no good at this point, you need to offer a different modern meaning of "full of murder" as those were the exact words used in the mode
                    • As "full" implies content, and murder is an external act, "full of murder" would seem to imply thoughts/feelings, consistent with Christ's teaching on the Sermon on the Mount.
                    • So then are you trying to say that homosexuals are full of the thought of murder(ing other people)? That is a very bold statement to make and one that is near impossible to actually support in any way.
                    • I am attempting to explain why this statement, across two thousand years and translation, run through Phil Robertson, does NOT contain the meaning you're desperate to attach to it. Go ahead and attach it, but own the fact that it's you doing the tweaking. You know: honesty.

                    • I am attempting to explain why this statement, across two thousand years and translation, run through Phil Robertson, does NOT contain the meaning you're desperate to attach to it

                      I clicked on the link you provided. I read the biblical verse that you claim he is paraphrasing. I tried hard to find where it associates anything vaguely resembling murder with homosexuality. If you can find a verse that does it, please provide it here as a direct quote.

                      Robertson directly said that homosexuals are "full of murder". I cannot find a parallel biblical statement, anywhere. This does not mean that none exists, but I have not seen one and you have not provided one. If you are trying t

        • What a horridly heterophobic rant.

  • If I came in to your house and started yelling at you, calling you fat, stupid, ugly, and damned to go to hell, could you honestly say that you wouldn't ask me to leave? And if you asked me to leave, how would that prevent me from going into someone else's house (provided they willingly allowed me to enter) and doing the same again?

    Furthering the analogy Duck Dad hasn't even been thrown out of the neighborhood. He could well find another house where such comments are welcomed. The Fascist / Stalinist Right is falsely claiming that his freedom of speech is being suppressed when it most definitely is not. The only thing that has changed is his interactions with one private company have been placed on hiatus.
    • You've postulated something completely random and unrelated. Good for you. I don't grasp how this relates to one person stating he found something illogical in a GQ interview.

      • You've postulated something completely random and unrelated.

        Really? Need I remind you that you titled this JE

        Thanking damn_registrars for his tolerance & love of diversity

        You are trying to claim that people are being intolerant or showing a disregard for diversity. You appear to be claiming that his homophobia is a case of diversity that needs to be honored by all. He shared his homophobic view in a private interview; so I suggested a scenario where someone else could share a phobia in private and asked you to describe what might happen to them. Why would you not be loving of their diverse view?

Slashdot Top Deals

"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe

Close