You don’t get to be angry at the Duck Dynasty guy for saying something someone on Duck Dynasty would say. You don’t. Unless you’re the kind of person who gets mad when comedians make puns and athletes wear socks, you don’t get to be mad at someone who says something that lines up with their already clearly established beliefs.
It can’t possibly be a secret that the reason for the astounding ratings for a reality show about a family of duck hunters is because it has been embraced by a specific community. Can you guess that community? It’s not that hard: each episode ends with a prayer, they have Duck Dynasty-based Bible studies and devotionals, and the show’s family has spoken numerous times against abortion and in support of family values. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, guess what it is? It’s a duck. And they’re Christians. Not just any Christians, though; they’re the kind who have beards, babies, and backwoods vernacular.
You cannot rationally say, after all of this evidence, that the family’s old, southern patriarch’s views on homosexuality is so shockingly unexpected that you’re fainting on the couch. If you couldn’t have guessed that at least one person in this family held those views, the person you should be outraged at is you.
Be outraged that you weren’t able to use the most basic of inference skills to take a less-than-far-out-there guess that someone of this lifestyle might have this belief. To be mad at that is like being mad at cold in the winter or noise at a children’s party.
You don’t get to be outraged at things that, when applied with logic, could have been accurately inferred from the very beginning.
Similarly, the media shouldn’t (and yet clearly does) get to manipulate your feelings. Who learned about Mr. Robertson’s opinion from GQ and who learned about it from… anywhere else? That’s because anywhere else couldn’t wait to make you mad.
Understand that the media loves outrage. They feed on it in the most gluttonous, electrifying, schadenfreudian of ways. Outrage means less actual journalistic reporting and more viewers engaging in hashtag wars.
That’s why when they say, “Guess what the Duck Dynasty guy said?” viewers need to say either a.) “I don’t watch that show, so, unless he plans on hurting someone, I don’t care” or b.) “I love that show! I bet he said something he would say.”
By the way, what was Gentleman’s Quarterly doing interviewing this guy anyway? Can GQ honestly say that their editors had a meeting and said, “Yeah, this is a guy with whom we’d like to have genuine conversation.”? The magazine whose motto is “Look Sharp, Live Smart”? Who describes themselves as “The definitive men’s magazine, with style advice and tips, sexy women, entertainment and culture news, interviews, and more”? They truly, deeply, honestly, wanted to feature this man to represent them?
It will now be noted that the writer of this article has never seen even a clip of the show and has no intention of ever doing so. Is it unreasonable to suspect that most of the people outraged have the same history and intentions? Of the fervent hate-tweets, how many are from people who had apathy or even disdain for the show in the first place?
Possible people who do get to be angry: politically conservative, pro-hunting, pro-life, homosexual diehard fans of the show.
Jordan Lints
Latest posts by Jordan Lints (see all)
- Papers Telling Ukrainian Jews to Register a Huge Misunderstanding? - May 16, 2014
- To Vax Or Not To Vax - April 12, 2014
- Hooked On ‘Fatherhood’ - March 26, 2014
[…] let’s reboot and take a look at this issue under the microscope in the wake of advocacy groups criminalizing Phil Robertson for remarks that gay people were, at base-value, promiscuous. How is this ad any different? […]