I'm a member of one group that emphasizes design in architecture and furniture from the 1950s and 60s, and was intended by the creators to be educational. Emphasis is on architects like Richard Neutra and Pierre Koenig and furniture designers like Vladimir Kagan and Charles and Ray Eames.
But human nature being what it is, sometimes a post strays into "Is this MCM?" followed by a lamp, a vase, a piece of furniture. Or "How do I fix this?" followed by a closeup of an ink stain on teak... And there can be an occasional side-splitting post with equally hilarious comments; for example, photo of an old 19th Century woman sitting at a spinning wheel with the comment, "MCM?" (Maybe you'd have to be there to appreciate it.)
I also belonged to MCM Kitsch and that group included discussions of everything from chalkware fish for bathroom walls to paint-by-numbers pink flamingos. Danish modern furniture, atomic textiles, sputnik lamps, all welcomed. But some of the folks on this group didn't like the other group -- said they were snobbish and snooty and "jumped" on people who asked about the wrong thing...
Well, I pointed out that not everyone at the "snooty" group did that, only a small handful of people in a group of 20,000+ members.
Some folks didn't like me defending the snooty group, I guess.
I also -- along with some other group members -- pointed out how the decorum in the kitsch group had recently deteriorated, with f-bombs in nearly every post, and even a change in the group's description to protect members' "free speech" right to express their vulgarity.
But that wasn't the only thing that wore out my welcome there. A day or so later, someone posted, "Um, do pastel Tupperware tumblers have something to do with Duck Dynasty?" and things went downhill from there.
There was a short explanation of Uncle Si's Tupperware tumbler, and then somebody posted, "Duck Dynasty -- the new Mad Men." Someone else posted, "More like the new KKK." Well, I couldn't let that go unchallenged.
The thread turned into a knockdown-drag-out. Somebody called the Robertson men "ignorant and backward," so of course I had to mention that Phil had a masters degree in education. Somebody else called Phil a pedophile, or at least guilty of statutory rape because he and Kay surely had sex before marriage, and they married when she was fourteen....
I informed them that Phil openly admits that he did a lot of bad things -- including drunkenness and adultery -- before he became a Christian.
One fellow harped on Phil advising men to marry a fifteen year old, as if it were awful. This was discussed at XRoads several months back and if memory serves, in the comment thread that followed, Liberty Lamp(rey), aka Crowley Heacate on Facebook, claimed that I had defended a rapist, which, of course, I have never done.
But back to the kitsch group, I had to ask, "... what's worse? A teenaged girl marrying someone who loves her and will be good to her, or a teenaged girl who sleeps around, gets pregnant, has abortions, gets STDs, drops out of school and "marries" the federal government for the rest of her flippin' life?"
The thread continued, some sticking up for Phil, some not, and then I posted: "This country, this culture, has become so sex-saturated, it's everywhere, and it's accepted -- read the Guttmacher Institute's data on teen sex -- and people are huffing and puffing about what Phil Robertson did 50 years ago? Why? Because he's a Christian, and Christians are facing greater and greater hostility in this country. And that is the ONLY reason."
But when I tried to post it, the thread was suddenly gone... In fact, the whole group was gone -- I had been kicked out without warning though I had violated no group rules.
Ah, just as well. When there was more emphasis on f-bombs than starburst clocks, there wasn't much point, anyway.
Interestingly enough, not long after that, Simpson posted "A Note on Duck Dynasty" at XRoads.
Remember those folks who stood tall and proud for “Duck Dynasty” … even in the face of this report … at least until they found out that the central character didn’t care for the Confederate flag?
A certain quacker quacked: “We need to keep the ability to differentiate between a Phil Robertson and a Brooks Simpson.”
This has just become more difficult in light of this revelation. More like Duck Head than Duck Dynasty (and I owned my share of Duck Head khakis in the 1980s when I lived in South Carolina … I see they’ve become more expensive).
The Xroads blog entry is just a rehash with links to old posts about Duck Dynasty ... Except for a link to this (the revelation):
How A Filthy-Rich, Clean-Cut ‘Duck Dynasty’ Tricked The World
Apparently this is for me. I guess I'm supposed to be shocked and feel betrayed by the Duckster clan. In the March 5, 2014 article at that link, Author Jackson Marciana claims, that A&E's "reality" show is fake. All of it. It's scripted, he sez.
Well, that's just silly. It's not a reality show. It's a flippin COMEDY. And while it is staged, it's not scripted. Much of what pops out of these guys' mouths is from them, not a scriptwriter.
Nevertheless, the outraged Mr. Marciana sez, "But contrary to the claims of fans, this is not “all in good fun.” The Duck Dynasty cast are wealthy “1%ers” who know precisely what they are doing and why. Their actions are part of a systematic “dumbing down” of society, and a romanticizing of ignorance."
Look, funny is funny. Nobody accused the Three Stooges or Laurel and Hardy of dumbing down society and romanticizing ignorance. And Duck Dynasty IS funny. (Willie and Jase hitting golfballs that Phil and Si skeet shoot is one of my favorite scenarios!)
Yes, the Robertsons are wealthy. Who doesn't know that? Willie refers to himself on camera as "...a wealthy redneck..."
Nevertheless Mr. Marciana tries to prove, using some photos, that the show is fake. "The first thing you’ll notice," he sez about the photos, "is the conspicuous lack of camouflage, face paint, headbands, and beards." He claims the "before and after" photos are "before and after A&E makeovers" designed to fool fans and, presumably, to promote ignorance.
Does that shock me? Uh, no. I've known most of what's in that juvenile, ludicrous website going on two years now.
My husband was a fan about one season ahead of me. When I discovered the show in season two, I did a lot of reading about the Robertsons at The Christian Chronicle. I also found online an ABC video, Swamp Millionaires, that aired March 21, 2012 and includes pretty much everything this dolt Marciana thought was such a revelation in March 2014.
The "clean cut" photos of the Robertson boys are years and years old. They weren't made just before A&E started the series, as Marciana implies. Look at the photo of Willie, Korie and their two kids -- those little pre-schoolers are John Luke and Sadie, who were in high school when the series started.
In fact, the very same picture of Willie's family is featured in the ABC video.
(My favorite part, btw, -- skeet shooting golf balls -- comes at about 2:17.)
Nope, these guys didn't climb into camo and grow beards for A&E. Phil started making and selling hunting videos back in the 1980s. Later, the Robertsons had a show on The Outdoor Channel -- again, about hunting, not the slap-stick comedy of Duck Dynasty.
So the beards go back a ways; and the clean-shaven faces go back even further.
It's amazing what a presumably smart man with all kindsa book edumacation thinks will stick it to somebody he doesn't like.... In this case, he really, really guessed wrong.