Of course. But that mentality's probably going to hurt them in the long run. Intolerance for certain opinions seems to exclude in its effort to include--or at least create an ironic juxtaposition in their attempt to project an image of "inclusiveness."
How do you think this will hurt A&E? What do you think the negative result will be?
They're not even leaving room for argument. They're censoring.
Honestly, I want to understand the side that thinks what you just wrote, so please explain to me a.) What you think A&E should have done (beyond keeping the show going), and b.) Who you think should be arguing the opposing side.
Last I checked, the phrase "open discussion" carried more positive connotations than the term "censorship."
Not really. Generally, people would rather eschew open discussion for confirmation bias.
A&E really has to dig deep into GLAAD's bag of victocratic knee-jerks and tolerance lectures to compensate for the move.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
I don't think anyone here said they did wrong;
So, to be clear, you don't consider A&E's "intolerance for certain opinions" or "censoring" to be wrong?
I don't mean that in some backhanded way. It's just that this thread seems filled with posters who feel A&E did wrong. Heck, the title is "A&E shocked when redneck says something...rednecky." It feels like most people here feel like A&E made the wrong decision.
Your parallels have cannibalized each other. Honey Boo Boo is, in and of itself, an offensive show that glorifies superficial and self-destructive lifestyles. By your logic, they would have taken that down a long time ago since it risks alienation.
Alienation of whom? Self-destructive behavior = ratings gold is a formula that had proven itself successful in shows long before Honey Boo Boo.
Or are you saying that self-destructive behavior was guaranteed to alienate a certain number of people (which is true), and that, by my logic, A&E would have taken the show down a long time ago, regardless of that what that number was, or how it related to the number of people it would have attracted?
GLAAD certainly houses people fanatical enough to campaign against any show containing a character--who isn't labeled as evil--that dissents with their morality.
You realize that there are a number of politicians and regular folks who, as a result of this, are campaigning against a network that they feel dissent with their moral position.
But there are two things to keep in mind:
Roger that.
a) people, when afforded the chance, tend to allow others to keep their own opinions (despite what social liberals would have you believe)
Two things:
What do you mean by "keep their own opinions"? Do you mean "speak their own opinions"?
Also, really? Do people here still do the whole "stick-and-jab with a broad brush" thing? No wonder I don't see any new liberals.
b) it is not, by any means, logical to assume that their propaganda could reach--much less affect--the audience of Duck Dynasty--which is exactly why they'd go through the network itself for a hit job (no different than how they use the judiciary to override democratic measures against their preferred social policies).
Who is the they in "their propaganda"? Are you talking about A&E, painting social liberals with a broad brush again, the LGBT community, or discussing someone else entirely? I think you're talking about the LGBT community, but I don't want to respond with a bunch of paragraphs to something you're not saying.
Edit: I know I didn't actually argue anything, but I figured I needed a clearer picture of what you were saying before I wasted paragraphs in reply.
