My Two Cents on the Duck Nonsense

I’ve tried to ignore this whole Duck Dynasty kerfuffle. I really have. But my Facebook friends keep blowing up my news feed with links and comments and articles about it, and I can’t keep my mouth shut any longer.

Three things:

1. I find it highly ironic that the Christians who are so agitated about A&E’s suspension of Phil Robertson are, in all likelihood, the same Christians who have been appalled at the recent court cases involving Christians who are fighting for their rights not to do certain types of business with gay or lesbian couples. The photographer in New Mexico, the florist in Washington, the baker in Colorado—all have argued that they should not be compelled to provide services for a same-sex wedding. They believe they should have the freedom not to work with people whose beliefs and lifestyle are in conflict with theirs.

Um. Does A&E not have the right to the same freedom? This is not a First Amendment issue. Phil Robertson is not going to jail or being killed for saying what he believes. This is a private company saying, “Hey, we don’t want our name and brand associated with your beliefs.” Which is pretty much the same exact thing the photographer and the florist and the baker are saying. We can’t have it both ways, folks.

2. Regardless of where you stand on the issue of homosexuality, please do not claim that Phil Robertson “simply said what Scripture says” or “was only stating biblical values.” As a Christian, I found his remarks offensive. He displayed a lack of compassion for gay, lesbian and bisexual people, a disturbingly demeaning view of women and marriage, and a staggering ignorance about race. That last one was what startled me most when I read Robertson's quotes, and Kristen at Rage Against the Minivan summed it up well:

 I don’t even know where to start with this one. Comparing black people to white trash is cringey, but suggesting that black people were happier during segregation? That because Phil never heard a black person publicly complain BACK IN THE ERA OF LYNCHING means that they must have been satisfied with the state of things? This is so racially tone-deaf that it reminds me of the time Paula Deen romanticized the slaves as being “like family”. Not to mention, the subtext of his remarks is that black people nowadays are entitled, unGodly, discontented welfare recipients. So when I see people as “standing with Phil” based on their Christian values, I really have to ask . . . how does an apologist for our country’s ugly Jim Crow legacy represent Christian values? 

3. Really, church? This is what we’re going to get ourselves all worked up about? How about we save our energy and outrage for things that are truly, unarguably outrageous. Like, I don't know, human trafficking. Also, can we just stop crying “persecution” all the time? THIS is persecution. A millionaire being suspended from a cable TV show for making crass and ignorant statements not even about the gospel (please, for the love of all that is good and holy, PLEASE do not confuse “the gospel” with “morality”), is not persecution.

I know a lot of ink has been spilled over this already, but I couldn't scroll through the slew of "I support Phil Robertson, the righteous martyr" posts on my Facebook feed any longer without throwing in my two cents. Thanks for indulging me.


Further worthwhile reading:
The Duck Thing: Is There Another Way?
Duck Dynasty, First Amendment Rights, and Christian Values
This is Not Worth Quacking About
Dear Kids: Never Forget the Power of Words

Old House Tip #47

Generally, if you can pierce your cast-iron drain pipe with the edge of a putty knife, that's a bad thing.











However, on the bright side, it does give you blog material.

The Moral of the Story: Don't Mess With Bloggers

So remember my friend Katherine, whom I mentioned yesterday? Shortly after my post about her, she found herself at the center of some drama that, in only a few hours, exploded nationally online. Ah, the power of the Interweb...

Basically, the story goes like this: Katherine's hubby lost his job a while back, and they were approached by this headhunter firm, JL Kirk Associates, offering help. It was a bad experience, one that screamed "scam" in Katherine's opinion, so she did what any normal blogger would do: She came home and wrote about it. Her post got up on the front page of the Google rankings and the purpose was served: provide a first-person account to others who might be considering using this company.

Fast forward a few months and everyone pretty much forgets about it, until a Kirk employee posts a long comment in protest on Kat's blog, complete with some inflammatory/untrue statements about Kat and her husband. So Kat brings the comment to its own new post and responds point for point. Everyone who reads it concludes that this lady was out of line...and promptly forgets about it.

Fast forward a couple of days and then...a certified cease and desist letter, sent to Katherine from JL Kirk's legal eagles. She has three days to take down her blog posts about them or they'll sue.

Cue blogosphere explosion. Cue widespread astonishment at the irony: After a customer complains that a company used bullying tactics, the company responds by...bullying her. Cue complete destruction of JL Kirk Associates' reputation as a company, in less than 24 hours, as bloggers nationwide pick up the story.

Brilliant move, guys. Kat's initial post was probably read by hundreds--at most. But you chose the wrong blogger to pick on: she's very popular, and she's part of the Nashville blog community, one that can be incredibly cohesive, especially in a situation like this. The subsequent fallout has probably already been read by hundreds of thousands--at least. Instapundit picked it up, so it's no longer just a local issue. And do you not understand how the Internet works? Even if Katherine takes the posts down, thanks to Google Cache, they'll never die. Not only that, but your bullying has caused a minor, mostly insignificant story to mushroom all over the Internet, so that people who never would have heard of your company are now reading all this bad press about it--first, her negative experience, and then, how you respond to customer dissatisfaction. Brilliant PR.

What's my point? Ivy's roundup at Home Ec 101 explains what it's all about: "Freedom of speech. The ability to post a bad review of a company without getting bullied by a company and their attorneys." As Katherine herself elaborates in the comments, bringing it home to the Home Ec 101 audience:

I’m a housewife. I’m not a lawyer or a celebrity or anything special. I’m just a housewife. I found a product I didn’t care for and I wrote to tell other people about MY EXPERIENCE of the product. Let’s say it’s a bottle of Wid-Gett Window Cleaner. Would anyone think it was bad of me to post a blog saying “Wid-Gett Window Cleaner didn’t clean my windows well and smells bad to boot”? No. There are blog entries like that all the time. If my blog entry hurt someone’s feelings and they decide to sue me for it, no blog entry containing a negative review of a product is safe.

Blogging is about being able to say what you think. And bloggers don't like bullies. Today I am amazed at the power of the Internet and the way people rally around each other when they sense that something's "just not right." Kinda cool.

RELATED:
Brittney at NIT provides a play-by-play of yesterday's drama
Bill Hobbs with an articulate breakdown of the legal situation and implications
Bob Krumm artfully demonstrates the power of a Google bomb and leaves me laughing out loud
Another of the "big dogs" in the blogosphere explains further why JL Kirk and lawyers have shot themselves in the foot
The QandO blog explains "how to ruin your own business in one easy step"
Newscoma has a comprehensive roundup of all the posts on this to date