Random Thoughts Thread

[GazongaJoe]

The show isn't going to be the same without him. It's all down hill from here for that show.

[Ack]

The free speech debate on the Internet* really is something.

paula deen says "niggers". She gets dropped from tv and from her major sponsors. The Internet praises The Food Network and Macy's.

Some duck dynasty guy says that he's a redneck bible thumper and that "homosexuality is a sin". He gets suspended by A&E (which at this point should called Reality Entertainment). The Internet bashes A&E for the suspension.

Now of course there are plenty of variables such as fan base, public exposure (duck dynasty is to Wal Mart as what paula deen was to Macy's) but both people degraded a certain sect, were both punished, and get complete different reactions from the peanut gallery.


*people on the Internet, of course.

You realize that saying "niggers" isn't the same as saying "homosexuality is a sin." One is a derogatory term, the other is a personal belief. Regardless of our personal feelings, this is not the same thing. Or would you rather anyone who expresses a belief in opposition to yours(or to "mainstream" culture) be removed? Should people who feel the universe is ever expanding be cut from television, or should people who feel it will eventually stop expanding and instead collapse be cut?

Look, you might not agree with his views. A great many people don't agree with his views. I don't agree with his views. But I still think he has every right to say them on public television. If he faces criticism and backlash, and his viewership drops off, so be it. But banning someone automatically over a religious or perceived religious conviction certainly isn't the answer. I find type 2 atheists close minded in their inherent unwillingness to even entertain the possibility that there could be some sort of divine entity or purpose to the universe's construction. Does that mean they ought to be thrown off television or this website? I find violent and forceful religious extremism utterly terrifying, but I also feel those adherents have a right to think whatever they want, no matter how wrong I find it or how much I disagree.

[AppleQueso]

Ack who on earth are you talking to?

[Ack]

It was in response to Luke, whose post I perceived as criticizing the folks on the Internet for supporting the Duck Dynasty guy.

[dsheinem]

The censoring/tempban has nothing to do with anything except A&E's bottom line. It's not about protecting "free speech," it's about protecting profitable speech.

[Jmustang1968]

The censoring/tempban has nothing to do with anything except A&E's bottom line. It's not about protecting "free speech," it's about protecting profitable speech.

Not so sure. His comments mostly cater to the viewer base. They just dont want the picket signs.

[noiseredux]

The censoring/tempban has nothing to do with anything except A&E's bottom line. It's not about protecting "free speech," it's about protecting profitable speech.

Not so sure.

I'm pretty sure every decision by every corporation is based on bottom-line.

[Ack]

The censoring/tempban has nothing to do with anything except A&E's bottom line. It's not about protecting "free speech," it's about protecting profitable speech.

Not necessarily. They may very well be able to get a couple more less profitable seasons out of it. Duck Dynasty is THE show for them. Even if they lose half their viewers overnight, they're still getting eyeballss and able to sell commercial space for advertising.

[dsheinem]

The censoring/tempban has nothing to do with anything except A&E's bottom line. It's not about protecting "free speech," it's about protecting profitable speech.

Not so sure. His comments mostly cater to the viewer base. They just dont want the picket signs.

That's sorta my point. A&E makes money on a show with people that they know will engender controversy, they had a plan in place to minimize public blowback damage from that controversy when it erupts, and in the end it yields more profits. People spent money to support the duck guy's right to speak, the guy comes back after his time out, and profit-making continues at the same or higher levels as before.

[Ack]

The censoring/tempban has nothing to do with anything except A&E's bottom line. It's not about protecting "free speech," it's about protecting profitable speech.

Not so sure. His comments mostly cater to the viewer base. They just dont want the picket signs.

That's sorta my point. A&E makes money on a show with people that they know will engender controversy, they had a plan in place to minimize public blowback damage from that controversy when it erupts, and in the end it yields more profits. People spent money to support the duck guy's right to speak, the guy comes back after his time out, and profit-making continues at the same or higher levels as before.

While I don't know how well organized A&E is, working in television, this is a terrible plan to improve profits. Yes, companies have courted controversy in the past to earn better profits. Companies like Rockstar are particularly notorious, and even Atlus has tried it. But there's also a high chance of failure with such a plan. I highly doubt A&E is willing to make such a risky gamble with their biggest cash cow.