…but it helps?
1 Like
What the hell: he is a paid ACTOR reading scripts and performing scripted behaviors, and he just put himself out there as a rep of A&E with a polarizing opinion. He’s under contract, hence backlash. What don’t you understand?
1 Like
Reasonable people can reasonably believe that firing individuals for their behavior out of work is a very bad precedent.
I don’t recall anyone claiming religion has a monopoly on evil deeds. The contrary was stated. I wasn’t even going to solely blame the holocaust or crusades on religion (but thanks for pointing those out!)
That there are other causes for evil deeds does not negate the fact that religion causes good people to do wicked things. Here’s an analogy. There are other ways to die than smoking . That doesn’t mean smoking won’t kill you.
This article is an exercise in the same level of bigotry you are accusing Phil Robertson of, as well as anyone who support his right to free speech. It is an inflammatory piece that is the equivalent of making a Nazis or Hitler comparison. He was asked for his opinion, he gave it. He did not seek out this interview as a platform to push his ideas on the world, and he has stated elsewhere that despite his feelings on these issues, He loves and supports others no matter what.
You condemn him and anyone who supports him as bigots, by doing so you yourself have shown your own bigotry.
1 Like
Even if we didn’t watch him on TV?
1 Like
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. – In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
-Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (emphasis added)
6 Likes
It mentions the abomination of shrimp more times than homosexuality. Wonder why I never see Fred Phelps outside of Bubba Gump?
5 Likes
I’m pretty sure the bible IS against infidelity (BY WOMEN).
3 Likes
You actually both make good points. I think their point is that ‘evil’ when referring to a person is a misnomer. People are all assholes, just varying levels of.
Evil is also rather ironically a religious concept. And in many ways trivialises unpleasant acts as some form of ingrained badness, rather than a set of decisions and the result of a set cultural and social influences. ‘Evil’ is also dehumanising/distancing language that implies that re education or rehabilation isn’t possible, when often it is.
That said, I loved that quote and will likely use it often 
Ah, the old you’re intolerant about intolerance argument, with a splash of constitution misunderstanding for good measure.
Nice.
4 Likes
On the subject of tolerance about intolerance, I’ll leave this here (via @KenatPopehat)
What if he’d said something equally offensive about black people?
Would it still be an unfair and “inflammatory” article if someone asked him what he thought about interracial relationships and he responded that they were an abomination on par with bestiality?
Totally agree, I think this was the much more offensive comment, but it’s not getting the same play.
He did. See this comment.
3 Likes
Love that you failed to notice in your own quote that he lumps “homosexuals” (gay people) in with “drunks” and “terrorists”… Yep, just a sweet old dude…
*as a drunk this hits home with me too… 
2 Likes
“Reality” shows are not about reality. They’re all somewhat scripted and fully manipulated by the producers. This particular bigot strayed too far from the script and put the corporation into financial jeopardy. For that, he’s toast. He can now take his money and return to the swamp and his god. The other bigots will cry foul, and they’ll huff and puff, but the corporation builds with brick.
3 Likes
Yeah that comment’s awful and classic old Southern bullshit. “Our blacks are well treated and happy as can be!”
There’s pretty amazing, and disgusting footage of a plantation owner saying the same things about his sharecroppers in this film:
You are wrong. Almost everyone who appears as a regular on a tv show signs appearance and behavior agreements that limit their public behavior, because of how it reflects on the program. Do most likely he violated his agreement.
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S®4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Dr_Awkward info@discourse.org
Date: 12/19/2013 11:52 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: creesto@gmail.com
Subject: [Boing Boing BBS] new reply to your post in ‘Bigot Fired’
Dr_Awkward
December 19
creesto said:
What the hell: he is a paid ACTOR reading scripts and performing scripted behaviors, and he just put himself out there as a rep of A&E with a polarizing opinion. He’s under contract, hence backlash. What don’t you understand?
Reasonable people can reasonably believe that firing individuals for their behavior out of work is a very bad precedent.
To respond, reply to this email or visit Bigot Fired in your browser.
Well, there you go.
