In case you have been living under a rock for the last 24 hours, some guy that hunts ducks doesn't think anal sex is awesome. This is apparently the most important thing that has ever happened, so I'll give you a few moments to rage.
Feel better? No? What if I told you he got fired for it? Now do you feel better?
You shouldn't. Yes, yes, the guy is a dick. His views are bigoted, and not appreciated by a large segment of society. But there's a larger issue at play here, and we'd be foolish to ignore it. The man was "suspended" from his own TV show, because his personal views do not line up with those of A&E, who claim to support LGBT rights. That may seem reasonable at first glance - afterall, most of us would be likewise fired if we made racist or homophobic statements aloud at work. Here's the thing, though: Duck Dynasty, from what I have read (I'm not exactly up on the latest in "reality TV"), is about openly conservative Christian hunters from Louisiana. Now, I hate to stereotype people, but just from that description, I can assume, probably safely, that they do not drape themselves in rainbow flags at the end of the day. I can also assume that A&E was well aware of the fact that they would have the occasional controversial view. In fact, the more I read about this show, the clearer it becomes to me that A&E was banking on it. Let's be honest - you don't create a show about conservatives from the deep south to appeal to an ultra-liberal audience, unless you're counting on the trainwreck syndrome to work in your favour. Whatever the truth of the matter is, A&E had to know this would happen at some point, and is likely to get more ratings out of the deal, one way or another. Bluntly put, they fired one of their employees for doing exactly what they knew and hoped he would do. Not cool.
But it goes even deeper than that. I vehemently disagree with everything he said. I think it was bigoted and crude, and sorely uneducated. And I completely support his right to say it. This whole "free speech comes with responsibility" and "public figures shouldn't voice their personal views" argument is utter bullshit. No one - not you, not me, not homosexuals, nor Christians, have the right to not be offended. Sorry, but we just fucking don't. Everyone should be very disturbed by the precedents set by stories like these. I'm not generally one to employ a slippery-slope argument, but I can't deny seeing the potential for one here, for two reasons:
Feel better? No? What if I told you he got fired for it? Now do you feel better?
You shouldn't. Yes, yes, the guy is a dick. His views are bigoted, and not appreciated by a large segment of society. But there's a larger issue at play here, and we'd be foolish to ignore it. The man was "suspended" from his own TV show, because his personal views do not line up with those of A&E, who claim to support LGBT rights. That may seem reasonable at first glance - afterall, most of us would be likewise fired if we made racist or homophobic statements aloud at work. Here's the thing, though: Duck Dynasty, from what I have read (I'm not exactly up on the latest in "reality TV"), is about openly conservative Christian hunters from Louisiana. Now, I hate to stereotype people, but just from that description, I can assume, probably safely, that they do not drape themselves in rainbow flags at the end of the day. I can also assume that A&E was well aware of the fact that they would have the occasional controversial view. In fact, the more I read about this show, the clearer it becomes to me that A&E was banking on it. Let's be honest - you don't create a show about conservatives from the deep south to appeal to an ultra-liberal audience, unless you're counting on the trainwreck syndrome to work in your favour. Whatever the truth of the matter is, A&E had to know this would happen at some point, and is likely to get more ratings out of the deal, one way or another. Bluntly put, they fired one of their employees for doing exactly what they knew and hoped he would do. Not cool.
But it goes even deeper than that. I vehemently disagree with everything he said. I think it was bigoted and crude, and sorely uneducated. And I completely support his right to say it. This whole "free speech comes with responsibility" and "public figures shouldn't voice their personal views" argument is utter bullshit. No one - not you, not me, not homosexuals, nor Christians, have the right to not be offended. Sorry, but we just fucking don't. Everyone should be very disturbed by the precedents set by stories like these. I'm not generally one to employ a slippery-slope argument, but I can't deny seeing the potential for one here, for two reasons:
- We are allowing the exact same bias to simply swing in the other direction. At one time, it was acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals - it was completely okay to fire them for being openly gay. We have fought long and hard against that. We've fought long and hard to be allowed to just be who we are, without fear of retribution. So why are we now okay with doing the exact same thing to others? To deny them their right to be who they are, feel what they feel, and think what they think? Why is it okay to fire someone for saying something we find offensive? If the roles were reversed - if he had been fired for saying he loves anal sex and that being gay was natural and fantastic, we would be losing our fucking minds over the unfairness, the bigotry, and the affront to civil rights. So why, when the reverse opinion is espoused, is it suddenly a fair and righteous move to demonize and fire him? Are you truly okay with the precedent firing someone over their opinion sets?
- As a writer, my job - my actual, pay-my-bills job - relies on my freedom to say what I want. I quite literally live on our freedom of speech. Now, I am certainly a far cry from "public figure", but it is, whether admitted aloud or not, the goal of every writer. We want people to read what we write. We want our words to be heard. That's pretty well the definition of any aspiring public figure. So I can't help but feel a bit threatened when the battle cry of the PC crowd is that public figures have no business voicing their personal opinions. That we should all expect to be faced with a termination of pay if we voice an opinion that may offend somebody, somewhere. Honestly, that's fucking terrifying. Even more terrifying is that this idea is being applied to a fucking duck hunter, simply because someone decided to make money off of filming him doing so. Who the fuck is he, in reality? Does he write government policy? Is he shooting homosexuals for sport? No? Then why the hell does anyone care what he has to say about anal sex? While I disagree with everything he said, I am a bit concerned with the outrageous support to penalize him for saying it.