What the guy said was yelling his own opinion. It wasn't opening a dialogue for anything. He was being disgusting in the way he voiced his opinion. He's entitled to do that. He has the right to do that, and I support his right. At the same time after the old guy was an ass, It's anybody's right to yell him into oblivion for being an ass. It may be more productive to open a dialogue with him, but offended people also have the right to voice their disagreement in a way that also chastises him for being an ass.
Cherry picking the one that agrees with you out of millions that otherwise don't is rhetorically self-serving and dumb.
So it's Stalinist for a company to decide who they do or don't want to employ? What does she suggest? That the company be forced to employ people against their will? That's freedom?
She happens to be one of my favorite journalists, I read her frequently. We are both 60's style liberals with very similar ideas about liberty, civil rights, and personal freedoms. I also love her writing style.
You're opposed to people trying to shouting down others instead of trying to have a constructive dialogue, but OK with people yelling "stalinist!" and "fascist!" at opinions they don't agree with?
The company is just about profit. Profits drop when an intolerant public shames differing opinions. She suggests allowing people to express their thoughts, PC or not, without the public shaming.
Public shaming IS people expressing their thoughts. Why shouldn't those people be allowed to share their thoughts on the guy?
I think A&E is perfectly within their rights to suspend the guy, but I think it is an overreaction. They should arrange a meeting with some gay advocates maybe even on the show and demonstrate that people who disagree can still get along. I would watch, for the first time. As far as Camile's opinion, I respect her right to have it. I am even O.K. with her using the word "Stalinist" as hyperbole. Everyone needs to chill.
Not really. Today it is more about CYA. Public shaming is a mob mentality. I think you should try to express your opinions without the use of rhetorical questions.
And it's your right to think that people should do that. Just like it's their right to do it their way. I cannot even begin to fathom how some of you can't understand this.
Public shaming is a lot of people expressing a similar thought. That's basically the definition of it. No one in the public had the power to make A&E do anything - all they did is express their views. You seem to only think certain people should be allowed to express thoughts in certain ways you approve of - how is that any different than the people you complain about?
Do you think her article is an example of talking in a civil war? If you want to have a constructive discussion with someone, do you start by calling them stalinists? It seems her article is everything you were complaining about just a few posts ago - the only difference being the opinion expressed agrees with you.
Then make sure you don't own stock in their parent company, or make sure you do and vote out the current leadership. Or don't ever watch A&E again. You have the right to affect their business in some way, just like they have the right to run their business. Just because very few of the angry people seem to understand this, even though it's been stated quite a few ways: a dude not enjoying "freedom of speech" is a dude who says something and ends up in jail. The concept does not ever mean you say what you want and there are no consequences. That only exists in What's Up, Unsorted?
Mob mentality You incorrectly portray me as stating freedoms should be restricted or I am complaining about others actions. I was explaining to you the argument of an author that you completely missed. Her point is in an intelligent society, this shouting down of people with differing opinions is foolish. Much like your continuous, and useless, rhetorical questions.
Jail isn't the only method to suppress speech. Losing your job, being forcibly moved or publicly humiliation are much more effective.
I doubt these guys come back as fast as Paula Deen It is the profit motive that is driving A&E make no mistake about it . . . .. No Morality/No Social responsibility etc Rocket River
Totally agree that AE doesn't GAF about anything except money. If these beardos stick together they have all the power in any negotiations. AE will never cancel their most profitable show, so unless it goes on without that guy, all they can do is hope the public uproar does down.
The problem is the implication that homosexuals are inherently "wicked." It doesn't matter if the person speaking to them puts on a good face (as I'm sure this man would with any proper publicist training), he still believes they are inherently beneath him as a born-again, evangelical Christian. To quote one of the most conservative men to ever run for president: "On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both." I know that "love the sinner, hate the sin" will get thrown around in retort. However, it's seeking to extend that philosophy into the public square, regarding homosexuals, that it's wrong. There are too many different people of different creeds, faiths and backgrounds in this country to say that "This holy book says it is wrong for everybody, so that is the law!" Honestly, there are too many young Christians like myself who are perfectly fine with gay marriage. Robertson's declaration of faith doesn't jive with my own, but that doesn't mean he can't declare it publicly. That also doesn't preclude him from any consequences from his speech.
That one is far too grey, in reality there is no freedom of speech when it comes to your employer and the workplace. They are entitled to do whatever is best for their business.
Bull****. As has been observed, this incident had nothing, exactly ZERO to do with "the left." As far as which ideology demonstrates less tolerance for the differences in American society, it is abundantly clear and exactly the opposite of what you claim.
