Louis Theroux: The most hated family in America

EKRIUQ · 02-04-2007 07:36PM

county wrote:

i knew there was something i was meant to watch last night:mad:

will it be repeated anytime soon?

Wednesday night BBC1 N.I. at 23:20

02-04-2007 08:11PM

Bunch of nutjob wackos. Never saw the Louis documentary but i've heard of them all before......especially the mother.

Here's a couple of links to her being interviewed on Fox....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3PyoUPcobA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Yaoe5273s

The 2nd one is especially funked up.

Dudess · 02-04-2007 08:16PM

It pisses me off the way some people say "oh I think the Phelps are evil but everyone's entitled to free speech". Free speech should not violate others.

griffdaddy · 02-04-2007 10:26PM

i hope/can't wait 'til southpark does this family, it has the potential to be one of the funniest episodes ever!

pickarooney · 02-04-2007 11:03PM

griffdaddy wrote:

i hope/can't wait 'til southpark does this family, it has the potential to be one of the funniest episodes ever!

But how could you satirise them? They're so flawless fncked up.

Pity Louis didn't ask them if they rejoiced when, by God's will, two men found true love.

Dave! · 02-04-2007 11:14PM

What's their deal with the Swedish?

RoyalMarine · 02-04-2007 11:41PM

DaveMcG wrote:

What's their deal with the Swedish?

its nothing personal... but look...

http://www.abc.net.au/southwestvic/stories/Max_Castor_m1051463.jpg

Marksie · 03-04-2007 08:11AM

Dudess wrote:

Thing is, I doubt the Phelps are the "most hated family in America" because of their mind-bogglingly vicious homophobia, it's because they picket the funerals of dead soldiers. Of course that disgusting, deplorable conduct is, in itself, justification enough for them to be as reviled as they are, but if they didn't choose this method of spreading their warped message, would there be such outcry over them? I doubt it. And I bet the Westboro Baptist Church would have more members too.
I don't blame any of the pastor's children or grandchildren. They're victims of his hatred and have had their minds warped and twisted. I disagree that they're hillbillies or rednecks or inbred, though. They're quite the opposite - intelligent, articulate, pleasant, mannerly, seemingly normal. And that's what so bloody scary about them.

Dudess, that is an extremely good observation. The fundamentalist christian right, while not as obvious is much more dangerous as they are much closer to the seats of power.

In this instance the phelps family may very well be considered a blind to draw attention away.

I didnt see the programme, but i have seen interviews with the members of the family and their implacable conviction is very frightening indeed

skywalker · 03-04-2007 09:01AM

robinph wrote:

I didn't see it as that at all. He was trying to show how daft it was that a 21 year old had to ask permission before leaving her own house to go out for a cup of coffee though and she didn't quite get it.

I thought that he could have discovered some of the family that had left the "church" though and found out something about how they managed to develop their own views though. The "documentary" chap who ended up joining the cult though was clearly not completely comfortable with being quizzed by Louis though at the end as he just started walking away though.

Thats one area I wouldve liked to explored more. How much the people who had left the "church" had distanced themselves, had they changed their names etc.

Im not sure what Louis was going for exactly, but it was slightly uneasy watching the scenes of him in their bedrooms.

county · 03-04-2007 10:01AM

BingoBongo wrote:

Wednesday night BBC1 N.I. at 23:20

watched it on youtube,but thanks

daveirl · 03-04-2007 10:22AM

This post has been deleted.

Marksie · 03-04-2007 10:47AM

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Turning up at the funeral of the Amish girls and effectively saying they burn in hell is a violation of others.

Dudess is absolutely correct that where free speech crosses the line to incitement to hatred.

I am sure you would feel differently if i turned up at the funeral of someone who you loved saying another catholic burns in hell..... Think about what you are posting in context of the thread before you get all PC.

daveirl · 03-04-2007 10:54AM

This post has been deleted.

Marksie · 03-04-2007 11:02AM

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I think this effectively summarises why you dont know what you are talking about, you don't know you assume.

and that extreme example you were talking about is what the Phelps family both planned and prepared to do until someone traded air time.

To turn up and attend peoples private funerals, protesting aganist gays is not free speech. That is the subject of the thread, not the KKK marches, but a family abusing what you claim to hold dear.

Dudess · 03-04-2007 11:22AM

Daveirl,
Being a supporter of the right to free speech doesn't mean also being a supporter of the abuse of it.

dame · 03-04-2007 12:20PM

Maybe he was abused as a little fella or battled with the thought he might be gay when he was young, back when being gay wasn't so acceptable in society. He certainly seems to be holding a lot of rage and there must surely be a reason behind it.

I feel really sorry for those kids. The grand-daughter who spoke about only knowing hate from others her whole life hit the nail on the head. How can they contemplate leaving when they know of no-one who will treat them in a friendly way. Not even being able to go for a coffee with someone in college is surely a way to ensure they never make friends outside the family. They're more likely to stay then because the only place they feel any sort of acceptance is within the family/church. The family members who have left the church seem to have been disowned so it's really no wonder those poor girls feel they need to stay in the church or loose their entire social network as well as their family. They're attractive intelligent girls but they're effectively not going to have a life. No chance to meet anyone or start a family of their own. They're expected to go to college, hold down a good job, give 10% of their earnings to the church and attend at least 5 pickets a week.

Dudess · 03-04-2007 12:23PM

The fact that the 21-year-old has vowed never to have sex just made it clear that the poor girl is terrified of the sexual act and has been programmed to view it as filthy and sinful.

So sad. That girl is damaged.

Marksie · 03-04-2007 12:35PM

Dudess wrote:

The fact that the 21-year-old has vowed never to have sex just made it clear that the poor girl is terrified of the sexual act and has been programmed to view it as filthy and sinful.

So sad. That girl is damaged.

To choose celibacy fully cognisant of your own sexuality is a free and fine choice.

To have it thrust upon you and any sense of self repressed completely is evil

dr.bollocko · 03-04-2007 12:39PM

Dudess wrote:

It pisses me off the way some people say "oh I think the Phelps are evil but everyone's entitled to free speech". Free speech should not violate others.

As you and Mark said, the issue of free speech is at the fore. But just because an extreme example is cited that suddenly tests the boundaries for you doesnt mean that the message itself is an abuse of free speech.
The concept of freedom of speech has been debated again and again in courts by greater minds than ours citing extreme examples, or what could be considered extreme without a context in which to frame them. Just because you suddenly feel outraged by one particularly sick example does not mean that the people suddenly have less right to say it. If we dont have the flowing freedom of speech, upsetting, riling, uprising, informing, then even one ban, even for a most extreme example can be cited for evermore. This will erode away at the very concept of free speech, till eventually we have a homogenised version of the truth slicked down so as to ensure nobody is upset. Either you allow all of it, everything, even the stuff that makes you sick to your stomach, or you allow none.
Think about the issue with those ridiculous Muslim cartoons and the extreme reaction about that which seemed so OTT to us. Think about Playboy, Hustler, Penthouse. Think about every satirical magazine and newspaper article. Think of every TV show that expresses satire, or sails too close to the wind with humour / political references that are upsetting to others.

If we ban one example of free speech that we think is extreme or hurtful, or abusive to others, then you ban every form of freedom, because it is all a matter of public perception of a message. If outrage is not caused in one demogrpahic, it may well happen in another. We cannot judge which demographic areas to hear and which to censor, no matter how much we want to.

0ubliette · 03-04-2007 01:10PM

Very good programme. Did anyone else burst out laughing when pastor phelps blurted out 'YA GONNA EAT YA BABIES!' during the sermon?

dame · 03-04-2007 01:33PM

0ubliette wrote:

Very good programme. Did anyone else burst out laughing when pastor phelps blurted out 'YA GONNA EAT YA BABIES!' during the sermon?

His daughter holding the baby did look a bit uncomfortable at that!

Marksie · 03-04-2007 02:35PM

dr.bollocko wrote:

As you and Mark said, the issue of free speech is at the fore. But just because an extreme example is cited that suddenly tests the boundaries for you doesnt mean that the message itself is an abuse of free speech.
The concept of freedom of speech has been debated again and again in courts by greater minds than ours citing extreme examples, or what could be considered extreme without a context in which to frame them. Just because you suddenly feel outraged by one particularly sick example does not mean that the people suddenly have less right to say it. If we dont have the flowing freedom of speech, upsetting, riling, uprising, informing, then even one ban, even for a most extreme example can be cited for evermore. This will erode away at the very concept of free speech, till eventually we have a homogenised version of the truth slicked down so as to ensure nobody is upset. Either you allow all of it, everything, even the stuff that makes you sick to your stomach, or you allow none.
Think about the issue with those ridiculous Muslim cartoons and the extreme reaction about that which seemed so OTT to us. Think about Playboy, Hustler, Penthouse. Think about every satirical magazine and newspaper article. Think of every TV show that expresses satire, or sails too close to the wind with humour / political references that are upsetting to others.

If we ban one example of free speech that we think is extreme or hurtful, or abusive to others, then you ban every form of freedom, because it is all a matter of public perception of a message. If outrage is not caused in one demogrpahic, it may well happen in another. We cannot judge which demographic areas to hear and which to censor, no matter how much we want to.

That is a good post highlighting the dilemma faced. But it is walking a thin line: Yes its is true that the Phelps clan may have every right to say what they say under umbrella of freedom of speech. But where they say it goes beyond the boundaries both of common decency and basic humanity.... hence the canadians passing the Phelps/Chick law.

We could argue that free speech is of itself an illusion (the laws in the UK governing religious hatred would have effectively stopped production of the life of Brian.. i know its a minor example, but i am extemporising her

) and it is a moot point whether PC is the new McCarthyism designed as a means of control rather than equality.

Fundamentalism, on whatever sides, when it comes to dominate will effectively stop any notion of free speech or for that matter PC. If you look at the bbc websites and the readers comments you can see an increasing frustration with this, i am looking for the word here and think of chamberlain... policy of appeasement came to mind ( damn i am probably explaining it badly)

So here we have concerns on both sides of the lines: To a) curtail the actions of people like the Phelps and risk losing freedoms we take for granted, or b) to allow everyone the right to say what they want, when they want and run the risk of a backlash which may have the same affect as over applying a. (or perhaps i have watched V for vendetta once to often lol).

But yeah dr. bollocko i CAN see where you are coming from at whihc point do you draw the line. My views on sex and sexuality have been critiscised in other fora and i am sure someone somewhere would like me to stop... (perhaps everyone tbh.) If we were to take this out of this setting it would be so easy to use action against the Phelps to take punitive action against others.

I still cannot shake the uneasy feeling that if left unchecked we will lose those freedoms anyways

dr.bollocko · 03-04-2007 03:07PM

Thats why I almost find myself defending these sick people, though it does make me ill to think of it like that.
Well. I hate their message, but I defend their right to say it.
Though at the same time, the world would be a better place if their little commune was burned down with everyone of them in it.

Ha! And they cant stop me saying that either!
Bunch of fags.

Dudess · 03-04-2007 03:43PM

Dr.bollocko, I too appreciate your really good points. But what about other concerns, such as those who preach hate indoctrinating vulnerable people? Surely that is enough of a danger to curtail hateful speech?

dermo88 · 03-04-2007 04:18PM

Fred Phelps would have his use at the Frog Ward funeral and the Padraig Nally trial.

That could be interesting

dr.bollocko · 03-04-2007 04:20PM

Well again, you are looking at it from the point of view of this one sick family and their extermist views. The indoctrination to which you refer is shocking, but again, you cant begin to draw a line as to where it should stop.
If you are talking about the rape of young minds and the misteaching of sectarian views then I am afraid that this happens to a lesser degree in most households or schools worldwide. How can you stop a young mind being influenced to do wrong? By giving them all the information and hoping they can see the truth? Or by hiding that which you think indecent from them and censoring all interpretations that aren't your own? When is teaching ignorance, or leaving out the bits that you dont agree with ever the best way to move forward as a society?
If we are talking about stopping freedom of speech to prevent the spread of sectarian points of view, even that has no defined start or end point.
First of all, sectarianism is a matter of interpretation as well. was the 1916 rising a sectarian attack?
Also, you could expand to a huge degree listing those who preach hate as a method of indoctrination in todays society.
Is it all down to outlawing this little religious family, stopping their words getting out and taking their poor kids into care? Or on to Cults and other religious movements? How about fundamentalist christians all over the US expressing further intolerance to other religions and sexual orientations or abortions, blocking scientific truth like the creationists etc.? You could even argue against teaching of religion in our state run schools. How about Fox news' biased coverage of world events? The US Governments policies on the Iraq war? Patriot laws? Guantanamo? The Catholic Churches own views on homosexuality? Evolution? Iranian anti-American propaganda? Muslims incited onto the streets to burn effigys by lies and manipulation?
We already live in a world where the truth is a relative term. We may never know the real truth behind certain major events, but at least we have the right to question them.
And statement worth making will have many people raise up against it and for it. Think about creationism vs. Darwinism. Or abortion. Any form of important speech or opinion or interpretation will have its enemies and friends.
There is nothing that you can do to stop someone from backing the wrong team, nor is there anything you can do to stop those fighting against what they find abhorrent. All you can do is make sure that at least we have another side to the story. At least we have a right to reply. At least there is a rebuttal option available.

From reading all of these different views, even the sick and extreme ones, we can learn something. If we were living in a world where one man's interpretation was law, or one man's interpretation was entirely censored, we automatically lose as a species.

Funkstard · 03-04-2007 05:27PM

Anywhere I can get this online?

TheAlmightyArse · 03-04-2007 05:47PM

The Louis Theroux documentary? Youtube has it in its entirity.

dr.bollocko · 03-04-2007 05:52PM

Ahem ahem ahem cough cough splutter. What you meant to say was were one interested in finding out which company is most likely to be behind the illegal, uncopyrighted version of this file which we do not endorse or condone in anyway whatsoever, and you wanted to know where other illegal files are often available temporarily, for say some sort of court case against them or maybe a school essay, that youtube may well have some answers for you.

TheAlmightyArse · 03-04-2007 06:01PM

Oh, but obviously I wasn't suggesting for a moment that anyone should watch it on Youtube, nor was I even condoning said den of inequity's trespass on common, decent copyright, merely acknowledging the existence of such. So that, um, others can write to their TDs and demand a stop to this outrage.

Louis Theroux: The most hated family in America

Comments