Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2013 12:22:14 GMT -5
I feel you...but who takes their moral cues from the freaking guy from Duck Dynasty? You can take him off the air, but he's still going to feel the way he does. Brushing him under the rug changes absolutely nothing. It doesn't change the way he feels, no. However, taking the show off the air also sends a message that saying horrible crap like he said won't be tolerated. A&E is basically excusing what he did because he and his family make the channel a lot of money. Which, they're a business, I can kinda/sorta understand that. But the thing is, this show is just a fad. A year (or maybe less from now) everyone will move on to something else. Sure the people who bow at this moron's ignorant feet will be upset, but they'll get over it once 'Billy Bob's Deep Creek Crawfish Wranglers" or whatever similar dumbass show comes along to pacify them. See, now we're going back to what I initially meant. Duck Dynasty makes A&E money, thus, it will persist. That is your one truth. All the rest of it is bullshit posturing. We'd rather dash away people that say things we don't like and pretend that they don't exist than address the actual problems.
|
|
StuntGranny®
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Not Actually a Granny
Posts: 16,099
|
Post by StuntGranny® on Dec 29, 2013 12:31:24 GMT -5
It doesn't change the way he feels, no. However, taking the show off the air also sends a message that saying horrible crap like he said won't be tolerated. A&E is basically excusing what he did because he and his family make the channel a lot of money. Which, they're a business, I can kinda/sorta understand that. But the thing is, this show is just a fad. A year (or maybe less from now) everyone will move on to something else. Sure the people who bow at this moron's ignorant feet will be upset, but they'll get over it once 'Billy Bob's Deep Creek Crawfish Wranglers" or whatever similar dumbass show comes along to pacify them. See, now we're going back to what I initially meant. Duck Dynasty makes A&E money, thus, it will persist. That is your one truth. All the rest of it is bullshit posturing. We'd rather dash away people that say things we don't like and pretend that they don't exist than address the actual problems. People that say the things he said should be 'dashed away'. Again, he has a right to say what ever racist, homophobic garbage he likes. But it's a shame that he gets to have a show and a voice to do that. To me, A&E welcoming back someone like him reveals 'actual problems' in our society. We don't have to 'pretend' he doesn't exist. Sadly, he does. The best thing to do to him, and I know I'm repeating myself, is to fire him from the show. It wouldn't mean A&E would have to end the show, but they would prove that they're not going to stand for bigotry. Instead, equally racist and homophobic knuckle-draggers bitched on Facebook and Twitter and now they bring him back to appease an equally ignorant crowd. They're basically saying, "f*** equality! We love money!" And hey, I know money rules the world. But it doesn't make situations like this less sad and depressing. It's not much and won't affect them in the least, but I know I won't be watching their channel any longer. I will also take solace in the fact that history will show that the Phil Roberston's of the world were disgusting, ignorant people.
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Dec 29, 2013 12:41:30 GMT -5
What he said was dumb, but so is the backlash. No. He compared homosexuality to bestiality and basically said the Jim Crow laws were a-okay. I'd say the backlash against him was warranted. An ignorant asshole like him and his horrible family shouldn't have a show, period. You shouldn't be rewarded for spewing hate speech. It wasn't hate speech, it was his religious belief that homosexuality is a sin--just like lying, bestiality, drunkenness, idolatry, and several other things. I will not sidetrack this into a religious discussion, because it's against the rules. Suffice to say, It's accepted Christian doctrine that all sins are equal and that you can hate the sin and still love the sinner. I'll leave it at that. He also did absolutely not say Jim Crow laws were OK. He spoke about his personal experiences with black people as a young man. He said they were happy and got along well with white people. This is an experience of his and a lot of other people that lived in that time--it doesn't change the fact that blacks were, by and large, treated terribly. It's just a statement of experience. That's not saying that they didn't have problems or that the laws were unfair against them--that's just saying they were able to find happiness and friendship in spite of the situation. In no way did he say that Jim Crow laws were better for black people. I think the language he used in the interview was ugly and offensive, particularly the vagina/anus analogy, but the core content of his message should not have surprised anybody. He apologized for the vulgarity and not for the core content--and that's all he should have done. I do agree with you that the discussion was warranted--it's a shame that the backlash on both sides got pretty ugly.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 29, 2013 12:47:48 GMT -5
No. He compared homosexuality to bestiality and basically said the Jim Crow laws were a-okay. I'd say the backlash against him was warranted. An ignorant asshole like him and his horrible family shouldn't have a show, period. You shouldn't be rewarded for spewing hate speech. It wasn't hate speech, it was his religious belief that homosexuality is a sin--just like lying, bestiality, drunkenness, idolatry, and several other things. I will not sidetrack this into a religious discussion, because it's against the rules. Suffice to say, It's accepted Christian doctrine that all sins are equal and that you can hate the sin and still love the sinner. I'll leave it at that. Except what he said was not even remotely at all related to any doctrine ever practice other than sheer bigotry and hatred. His opinion is his opinion, but it's totally not justified under that. At all.
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Dec 29, 2013 12:50:44 GMT -5
It wasn't hate speech, it was his religious belief that homosexuality is a sin--just like lying, bestiality, drunkenness, idolatry, and several other things. I will not sidetrack this into a religious discussion, because it's against the rules. Suffice to say, It's accepted Christian doctrine that all sins are equal and that you can hate the sin and still love the sinner. I'll leave it at that. Except what he said was not even remotely at all related to any doctrine ever practice other than sheer bigotry and hatred. His opinion is his opinion, but it's totally not justified under that. At all. We'll agree to disagree, then. It would delve into break forum rules to discuss it any further.
|
|
StuntGranny®
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Not Actually a Granny
Posts: 16,099
|
Post by StuntGranny® on Dec 29, 2013 12:51:44 GMT -5
No. He compared homosexuality to bestiality and basically said the Jim Crow laws were a-okay. I'd say the backlash against him was warranted. An ignorant asshole like him and his horrible family shouldn't have a show, period. You shouldn't be rewarded for spewing hate speech. It wasn't hate speech, it was his religious belief that homosexuality is a sin--just like lying, bestiality, drunkenness, idolatry, and several other things. I will not sidetrack this into a religious discussion, because it's against the rules. Suffice to say, It's accepted Christian doctrine that all sins are equal and that you can hate the sin and still love the sinner. I'll leave it at that. He also did absolutely not say Jim Crow laws were OK. He spoke about his personal experiences with black people as a young man. He said they were happy and got along well with white people. This is an experience of his and a lot of other people that lived in that time--it doesn't change the fact that blacks were, by and large, treated terribly. It's just a statement of experience. That's not saying that they didn't have problems or that the laws were unfair against them--that's just saying they were able to find happiness and friendship in spite of the situation. In no way did he say that Jim Crow laws were better for black people. I think the language he used in the interview was ugly and offensive, particularly the vagina/anus analogy, but the core content of his message should not have surprised anybody. He apologized for the vulgarity and not for the core content--and that's all he should have done. I do agree with you that the discussion was warranted--it's a shame that the backlash on both sides got pretty ugly. The religious aspect of the argument I obviously can't get into here, so I'm going to move right along... "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues." That quote alone makes me want to shake my head for days. It's a disgusting, stupid quote. If you're in the public eye like he is, why even say that? Is he that f***ing stupid? The fact that he's getting to use his religion as an excuse for his ignorance/bigotry should be offensive to all Christians.
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Dec 29, 2013 13:10:01 GMT -5
It wasn't hate speech, it was his religious belief that homosexuality is a sin--just like lying, bestiality, drunkenness, idolatry, and several other things. I will not sidetrack this into a religious discussion, because it's against the rules. Suffice to say, It's accepted Christian doctrine that all sins are equal and that you can hate the sin and still love the sinner. I'll leave it at that. He also did absolutely not say Jim Crow laws were OK. He spoke about his personal experiences with black people as a young man. He said they were happy and got along well with white people. This is an experience of his and a lot of other people that lived in that time--it doesn't change the fact that blacks were, by and large, treated terribly. It's just a statement of experience. That's not saying that they didn't have problems or that the laws were unfair against them--that's just saying they were able to find happiness and friendship in spite of the situation. In no way did he say that Jim Crow laws were better for black people. The opposite is also true. We really can't confirm or deny his experience. We can disagree with his conclusions, though. Still, it wasn't a racist statement. I think the language he used in the interview was ugly and offensive, particularly the vagina/anus analogy, but the core content of his message should not have surprised anybody. He apologized for the vulgarity and not for the core content--and that's all he should have done. I do agree with you that the discussion was warranted--it's a shame that the backlash on both sides got pretty ugly. The religious aspect of the argument I obviously can't get into here, so I'm going to move right along... "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues." That quote alone makes me want to shake my head for days. It's a disgusting, stupid quote. If you're in the public eye like he is, why even say that? Is he that f***ing stupid? The fact that he's getting to use his religion as an excuse for his ignorance/bigotry should be offensive to all Christians. That quote had nothing to do with his religious belief, though. That was the product of his personal and (clearly)political beliefs. The usefulness of welfare and entitlements is always a hot topic of political debate. He's saying that, in his experience, people managed to have happy, religiously-fulfilling lives before the advent of entitlements and welfare. That's not an inherently racist or untrue statement. There were undoubtedly happy, religious poor people of both races during the Jim Crow era South. If he thinks it was that way EVERYWHERE, then it's a completely wrong statement. It was unquestionably a stupid statement for him to say in an interview. I'm not saying the guy should change his beliefs at all, because he shouldn't. He should take note of this and choose his words and phrases carefully, though. I don't watch the show. I don't really know the guy's personality. I get the impression that he is basically a nice person who doesn't realize that there is a better way to express his beliefs--in a way that will be constructive and not perceived by most as offensive. He could learn from his religious cousin, Pope Francis, in that regard.
|
|
Glitch
King Koopa
Not Going To Die; Childs, we're goin' out to give Blair the test. If he tries to make it back here and we're not with him... burn him.
Watching you.
Posts: 12,716
|
Post by Glitch on Dec 29, 2013 14:05:34 GMT -5
Probably the best publicity stunt in this day. The most evident of this was the fact that duck dynasty was marathoned on A&E.Of course making marks out of rednecks is nothing new.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 29, 2013 14:12:15 GMT -5
I see it sometimes on my Facebook, and it's almost like, people have no concept of what free speech is, and people feel they can say whatever they want without consequence, and any concept past this is foreign, like say, someone else using that same free speech to call other people out on their bullshit, including people at A&E. But yeah, this got him over huge as well, similar to the whole Chick Fil-A thing. Oh well, for me, now I know this guy is an ignorant dickhead and just to avoid anything associated with him.
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 27,966
|
Post by chazraps on Dec 29, 2013 14:41:32 GMT -5
It doesn't change the way he feels, no. However, taking the show off the air also sends a message that saying horrible crap like he said won't be tolerated. A&E is basically excusing what he did because he and his family make the channel a lot of money. Which, they're a business, I can kinda/sorta understand that. But the thing is, this show is just a fad. A year (or maybe less from now) everyone will move on to something else. Sure the people who bow at this moron's ignorant feet will be upset, but they'll get over it once 'Billy Bob's Deep Creek Crawfish Wranglers" or whatever similar dumbass show comes along to pacify them. See, now we're going back to what I initially meant. Duck Dynasty makes A&E money, thus, it will persist. That is your one truth. All the rest of it is bullshit posturing. We'd rather dash away people that say things we don't like and pretend that they don't exist than address the actual problems. No, the backlash isn't "bullshit posturing." While the show may still be on the air, the backlash toward Phil's hideous remarks shows that, at the very least, there's a substantial fraction of the population that thinks dehumanizing a group of people for how they were born or whitewashing a terrible time in black history would go completely unchecked. That's the thing I think a lot of people miss about the kerfuffles that stem from media outrage, it's not just about the judgment and punishment of the person making the statement. It's about the people it affects. 10 years ago you had major public political figures (who I won't specifically name in observance of the politics rule) similarly comparing homosexuals to animal rapists during their campaign speeches and few outside of the niche audiences directly affected and their sympathizers batted an eyelash. If you've never been part of a minority, there's really no way to understand the pain caused by a seemingly widespread acceptance of dehumanizing you. Truth be told, the fact that people are taking such issues with Phil's comments shows that we're entering 2014 a more tolerant society. There's plenty of people who think homosexuality is a "sin" or "un-natural" or don't support gay marriage and they make comments every day as that's their right to an opinion and it's tolerated. Phil's choice of words in both his original statement and apology show such a haphazard disregard for his fellow human beings that anything less than the outrage over these comments from the star of one of cable's top rated shows in a widely-circulated publication would have sent a pretty horrible message about the state of our empathy. One man's opinion isn't making life any better or worse for anyone, but the way his echoes could and would have reverberated potentially might have said a lot more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2013 15:09:16 GMT -5
See, now we're going back to what I initially meant. Duck Dynasty makes A&E money, thus, it will persist. That is your one truth. All the rest of it is bullshit posturing. We'd rather dash away people that say things we don't like and pretend that they don't exist than address the actual problems. No, the backlash isn't "bullshit posturing." While the show may still be on the air, the backlash toward Phil's hideous remarks shows that, at the very least, there's a substantial fraction of the population that thinks dehumanizing a group of people for how they were born or whitewashing a terrible time in black history would go completely unchecked. That's the thing I think a lot of people miss about the kerfuffles that stem from media outrage, it's not just about the judgment and punishment of the person making the statement. It's about the people it affects. 10 years ago you had major public political figures (who I won't specifically name in observance of the politics rule) similarly comparing homosexuals to animal rapists during their campaign speeches and few outside of the niche audiences directly affected and their sympathizers batted an eyelash. If you've never been part of a minority, there's really no way to understand the pain caused by a seemingly widespread acceptance of dehumanizing you. Truth be told, the fact that people are taking such issues with Phil's comments shows that we're entering 2014 a more tolerant society. There's plenty of people who think homosexuality is a "sin" or "un-natural" or don't support gay marriage and they make comments every day as that's their right to an opinion and it's tolerated. Phil's choice of words in both his original statement and apology show such a haphazard disregard for his fellow human beings that anything less than the outrage over these comments from the star of one of cable's top rated shows in a widely-circulated publication would have sent a pretty horrible message about the state of our empathy. One man's opinion isn't making life any better or worse for anyone, but the way his echoes could and would have reverberated potentially might have said a lot more. I appreciate the spirit of what you're saying. I'll give you everything except us becoming more tolerant as a society. We're the same shitty people we've always been, only now everyone is made to play nicey nice where the public eye is concerned. That's why musicians and actors and people that should totally not matter get run out of town for having controversial views on things. We don't seek to educate or grow together. We wall ourselves off because everything is scary now all of sudden for some reason. Should some dude talking nonsense, spreading lunacy and creating negative press be stripped of his stupid tv job maybe get shitcanned? Sure. Is Uncle Ronnie from Goose Dominion anything but a distraction? No.
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 27,966
|
Post by chazraps on Dec 29, 2013 15:28:07 GMT -5
No, the backlash isn't "bullshit posturing." While the show may still be on the air, the backlash toward Phil's hideous remarks shows that, at the very least, there's a substantial fraction of the population that thinks dehumanizing a group of people for how they were born or whitewashing a terrible time in black history would go completely unchecked. That's the thing I think a lot of people miss about the kerfuffles that stem from media outrage, it's not just about the judgment and punishment of the person making the statement. It's about the people it affects. 10 years ago you had major public political figures (who I won't specifically name in observance of the politics rule) similarly comparing homosexuals to animal rapists during their campaign speeches and few outside of the niche audiences directly affected and their sympathizers batted an eyelash. If you've never been part of a minority, there's really no way to understand the pain caused by a seemingly widespread acceptance of dehumanizing you. Truth be told, the fact that people are taking such issues with Phil's comments shows that we're entering 2014 a more tolerant society. There's plenty of people who think homosexuality is a "sin" or "un-natural" or don't support gay marriage and they make comments every day as that's their right to an opinion and it's tolerated. Phil's choice of words in both his original statement and apology show such a haphazard disregard for his fellow human beings that anything less than the outrage over these comments from the star of one of cable's top rated shows in a widely-circulated publication would have sent a pretty horrible message about the state of our empathy. One man's opinion isn't making life any better or worse for anyone, but the way his echoes could and would have reverberated potentially might have said a lot more. I appreciate the spirit of what you're saying. I'll give you everything except us becoming more tolerant as a society. We're the same shitty people we've always been, only now everyone is made to play nicey nice where the public eye is concerned. That's why musicians and actors and people that should totally not matter get run out of town for having controversial views on things. We don't seek to educate or grow together. We wall ourselves off because everything is scary now all of sudden for some reason. Should some dude talking nonsense, spreading lunacy and creating negative press be stripped of his stupid tv job maybe get shitcanned? Sure. Is Uncle Ronnie from Goose Dominion anything but a distraction? No. 1/3 of the population in America can now legally be gay married. Yes, I think we're becoming a more tolerant society and are educating and growing together. If we weren't, I don't see how the above statement would have become a reality when it seemed decades away even five years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 29, 2013 15:35:54 GMT -5
If he thinks it was that way EVERYWHERE, then it's a completely wrong statement. It was unquestionably a stupid statement for him to say in an interview. I'm not saying the guy should change his beliefs at all, because he shouldn't. He should take note of this and choose his words and phrases carefully, though. The thing about this is, no matter how dressed up or nice you want it to look, it's still the same hate speech. People don't have to be tolerant then, they just have to use "the right words" to be as hateful as they are, and that's pretty damn stupid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2013 15:53:05 GMT -5
I appreciate the spirit of what you're saying. I'll give you everything except us becoming more tolerant as a society. We're the same shitty people we've always been, only now everyone is made to play nicey nice where the public eye is concerned. That's why musicians and actors and people that should totally not matter get run out of town for having controversial views on things. We don't seek to educate or grow together. We wall ourselves off because everything is scary now all of sudden for some reason. Should some dude talking nonsense, spreading lunacy and creating negative press be stripped of his stupid tv job maybe get shitcanned? Sure. Is Uncle Ronnie from Goose Dominion anything but a distraction? No. 1/3 of the population in America can now legally be gay married. Yes, I think we're becoming a more tolerant society and are educating and growing together. If we weren't, I don't see how the above statement would have become a reality when it seemed decades away even five years ago. You are right on that point. I meant to state that in the other post but it got away from me. Joe America is pretty hip to the fact gay folks are just folks, it's the put on element of tolerance that the media invites that I despise. If it were being honest, that would be stellar, but we're not.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 29, 2013 16:28:41 GMT -5
No, the backlash isn't "bullshit posturing." While the show may still be on the air, the backlash toward Phil's hideous remarks shows that, at the very least, there's a substantial fraction of the population that thinks dehumanizing a group of people for how they were born or whitewashing a terrible time in black history would go completely unchecked. That's the thing I think a lot of people miss about the kerfuffles that stem from media outrage, it's not just about the judgment and punishment of the person making the statement. It's about the people it affects. 10 years ago you had major public political figures (who I won't specifically name in observance of the politics rule) similarly comparing homosexuals to animal rapists during their campaign speeches and few outside of the niche audiences directly affected and their sympathizers batted an eyelash. If you've never been part of a minority, there's really no way to understand the pain caused by a seemingly widespread acceptance of dehumanizing you. Truth be told, the fact that people are taking such issues with Phil's comments shows that we're entering 2014 a more tolerant society. There's plenty of people who think homosexuality is a "sin" or "un-natural" or don't support gay marriage and they make comments every day as that's their right to an opinion and it's tolerated. Phil's choice of words in both his original statement and apology show such a haphazard disregard for his fellow human beings that anything less than the outrage over these comments from the star of one of cable's top rated shows in a widely-circulated publication would have sent a pretty horrible message about the state of our empathy. One man's opinion isn't making life any better or worse for anyone, but the way his echoes could and would have reverberated potentially might have said a lot more. I appreciate the spirit of what you're saying. I'll give you everything except us becoming more tolerant as a society. We're the same shitty people we've always been, only now everyone is made to play nicey nice where the public eye is concerned. That's why musicians and actors and people that should totally not matter get run out of town for having controversial views on things. We don't seek to educate or grow together. We wall ourselves off because everything is scary now all of sudden for some reason. Should some dude talking nonsense, spreading lunacy and creating negative press be stripped of his stupid tv job maybe get shitcanned? Sure. Is Uncle Ronnie from Goose Dominion anything but a distraction? No. We definitely are getting better. This is kinda morbid, but the biggest reason society is getting better is simply, people are dying off. The brilliant die off and leave behind great ideas and things to strive for, where as the ignorant bigots die off, and their ideas thankfully die off with them. That's why gay marriage is more accepted now. There are still deep seeded issues in society that are pretty tough, but thanks in part to the brave folks who came out of the closest, some people still liked them because they were friends/relatives/whatever, and the bigots continued to be as such. But, it does seem that more bigots are dying off, and less bigots are being created, which is going to be a huge positive for society in the long run.
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 27,966
|
Post by chazraps on Dec 29, 2013 16:31:13 GMT -5
1/3 of the population in America can now legally be gay married. Yes, I think we're becoming a more tolerant society and are educating and growing together. If we weren't, I don't see how the above statement would have become a reality when it seemed decades away even five years ago. You are right on that point. I meant to state that in the other post but it got away from me. Joe America is pretty hip to the fact gay folks are just folks, it's the put on element of tolerance that the media invites that I despise. If it were being honest, that would be stellar, but we're not. I'm confused as to what you're suggesting should be done instead?
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Dec 29, 2013 16:36:09 GMT -5
If he thinks it was that way EVERYWHERE, then it's a completely wrong statement. It was unquestionably a stupid statement for him to say in an interview. I'm not saying the guy should change his beliefs at all, because he shouldn't. He should take note of this and choose his words and phrases carefully, though. The thing about this is, no matter how dressed up or nice you want it to look, it's still the same hate speech. People don't have to be tolerant then, they just have to use "the right words" to be as hateful as they are, and that's pretty damn stupid. Except that it wasn't even hate speech. It was, in no way, attacking a specific group of people. It wasn't even attacking anybody. It was not trying to promote any kind of violence or discrimination. It did not even express hate against a specific group of people in any form. You can disagree with somebody and not hate them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2013 16:42:53 GMT -5
You are right on that point. I meant to state that in the other post but it got away from me. Joe America is pretty hip to the fact gay folks are just folks, it's the put on element of tolerance that the media invites that I despise. If it were being honest, that would be stellar, but we're not. I'm confused as to what you're suggesting should be done instead? Well that's just it. I don't know. I think we can do better, is all. I think our approach to things is often insincere and does more harm than good in the end. We're going to need a one in a million person to dent the thing at this point, I think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2013 16:44:41 GMT -5
The thing about this is, no matter how dressed up or nice you want it to look, it's still the same hate speech. People don't have to be tolerant then, they just have to use "the right words" to be as hateful as they are, and that's pretty damn stupid. Except that it wasn't even hate speech. It was, in no way, attacking a specific group of people. It wasn't even attacking anybody. It was not trying to promote any kind of violence or discrimination. It did not even express hate against a specific group of people in any form. You can disagree with somebody and not hate them. Not in Amur-ica, cowboy. You could drink milk wrong on your lunchbreak and have people picketing by your car when you get off.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 29, 2013 16:52:28 GMT -5
The thing about this is, no matter how dressed up or nice you want it to look, it's still the same hate speech. People don't have to be tolerant then, they just have to use "the right words" to be as hateful as they are, and that's pretty damn stupid. Except that it wasn't even hate speech. It was, in no way, attacking a specific group of people. It wasn't even attacking anybody. It was not trying to promote any kind of violence or discrimination. It did not even express hate against a specific group of people in any form. You can disagree with somebody and not hate them. No, the quote about gay people WAS hateful. I can chalk up the whole "blacks liking Jim crow" as straight up opinion/stupidity, but not that. That's not a difference of opinion. That's hate. Period. How is it not attacking an entire group of people by what he said?
|
|