Posted on 12/28/2013 9:17:41 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
A few years ago, I couldn’t imagine a network disregarding GLAAD’s recommendations.
Phil v. The Gays. With which will we side? Or rather, against which will we side? This is the question that society demands we answer. Are we anti-Phil or anti-gay or anti-GLAAD or anti-A&E or anti- … ?
Perhaps no other word sums up the Duck Dynasty fiasco as aptly as the word “anti.”
Whenever I hear that someone is anti-this or that, I immediately think of the old quip about MADD – are there any mothers for drunk driving? – and ask myself if anyone is really in favor of the particular thing being protested. Since GLAAD has recently taken a hard-line stance against Phil Robertson’s “anti-gay” comments, I’ve been asking myself a similar question about defamation: Who among us is for it? Most of us are decidedly against defamation, although we choose not to publicly participate in institutional demonstrations to prove how against it we are. But, of course, GLAAD is an institution, and therefore their criticism reverberates at systemic levels.
Founded in 1985 in the wake of the AIDS crisis, GLAAD was formed to protest skewed coverage of LGBT issues and “to put pressure on media organizations to end homophobic reporting.” The original name was an acronym for “Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation,” and although the organization has recently rebranded itself by deciding that the letters G-L-A-A-D aren’t actually going to stand for anything any more, their reputation for protesting defamatory speech is well known both within and without the LGBT community....
(Excerpt) Read more at ideas.time.com ...
There is still an ever-glimmering effervescing light of hope that we will soon begin to take this country back. However, it will be a grueling fight, as we have enemies in both outside and inside our camp that need to be eradicated.
A homo questions a homo group’s usefulness much sooner than certain other people question NAACP’s usefulness? My, my.
Baltimore, huh? I’m so proud.
In the final analysis the A&E executives are a bunch of Christian bashing decadent lowlifes. They just might choke eating the crow they are downing to preserve their golden duck. Would be nice if they ended up losing the series.
The homos have gotten in America’s face once to often. Normal Americans are fed up with the homos’ goofy antics. They’re freaks and no matter how many of America’s great institutions they infiltrate, they’ll always be angry, bitter freaks.
“Historically they’ve been a symbol of inclusion and tolerance, and they’ve worked tirelessly to infuse these values into our controlling media discourses. Frankly, though, I don’t think their hasty reaction to Phil Robertson displayed our LGBT community’s best values.”
” Historically, …tolerance”—no, say forced acceptance instead. “Values,” what values, please be specific. “Controlling media discourses,” exactly, not freedom of speech, but control of the opposition’s right to free speech. “Hasty reaction…best values,” what values, please be specific. This is not a question of “homophobia” as they would have us believe, it is a question of control of the dialogue. Truth is not in the discourse. “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” John 8:32.
Time magazine is still around???????
Who would have guessed !
Ducks 1
Homos 0
Actually it is who makes money 1 homo’s in the wings.
GLAAD is only good for wrapping garbage.
The heterophobes lost this one.
Arch Angel Gabriel is not pleased... he awaits the day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.