Join 3,436 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


A fowl slander
June 8, 2009 11:16 PM   Subscribe

When Pat Robertson asked in April if hate crimes legislation would protect people who liked to have sex with ducks, he may have anticipated some reaction. But did he think that he would inspire an anthem?
posted by ActingTheGoat (69 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite

 
Previously (but in a comment, not a post).
posted by ryanrs at 11:19 PM on June 8, 2009


I am not familiar with the legislation, but I'll assume it protects people who want to have sex with other fucking consenting people.
posted by Midnight Rambler at 11:22 PM on June 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


Christ, what an asshole.
posted by darkstar at 11:25 PM on June 8, 2009


Why a duck?
posted by koeselitz at 11:35 PM on June 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


I Want A New Duck
posted by koeselitz at 11:42 PM on June 8, 2009


Why a duck?

I guess he really likes duck soup.
posted by Midnight Rambler at 11:42 PM on June 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


Hi Metafilter, I'm making my 1,001th comment on a sex-with ducks thread.

Didn't Robertson know that the idea of duck sex is inherently hilarious and would backfire on him? Where's George Carlin when we need him.
posted by dunkadunc at 11:50 PM on June 8, 2009 [3 favorites]


No argument I can make will ever drive people away from Christianity as effectively as the existence of Pat Robertson.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:53 PM on June 8, 2009 [1 favorite]


The thing is with some fundementalist Christians is that they actually seem to like the fantasy that they're a persecuted minority.
There were a couple of American girls behind me in line at the store the other day wearing shirts with a cross and, in an edgy font, "This shirt is illegal in 51 countries".
I almost asked them whether they gave a shit about other religions being persecuted or if it was just Christians they cared about, but I didn't want to start a fight right there.
posted by dunkadunc at 11:59 PM on June 8, 2009 [3 favorites]


Ze Frank already weighed in on the subject a few years ago.
posted by Grimp0teuthis at 12:00 AM on June 9, 2009


But no, seriously, does the new bill protect those with waterfowl inclinations? Because somebody keeps spraying "Duck F@&%er" on my garage door, and I want those bastards behind bars...
posted by callmejordan at 12:25 AM on June 9, 2009 [4 favorites]


The best thing about this is that we sort of get a glimpse at what's going on inside Pat Robertson's head. We know that at that exact, if only fleeting, moment at least, he was thinking about having sex with ducks. He was thinking about the how and the why if only for a brief flash of time and he made all those watching his show think about it as well. It's like if I were to say, "Don't think of oranges!" It's impossible not to.

The next time I hear him condemning something like homosexuality or gay marriage, I'll wink and nod.

Because I know.
posted by chillmost at 12:29 AM on June 9, 2009 [13 favorites]


The proper answer is: "Hey, is your shirt made out of pot? Cuz, baby, you're smoking hot. So before someone calls a cop, let's be safe and just take out that top."
posted by qvantamon at 12:35 AM on June 9, 2009


Having been a duck myself, thanks to Pat Robertson, I shall never again view duck paraphernalia in quite the same light. Among other things, we had duck "quack" kazoos at the time -- I still have mine. How am I supposed to blow in that knowing what I do now?! Curse you, Pat Robertson! My once-innocent duck experience is forever sullied!
posted by fraula at 1:08 AM on June 9, 2009


Pat Robertson is just a quack.... (*runs and hides...*)
posted by zaelic at 1:50 AM on June 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


I suppose this an inapropriate response, but... that video was adorable.

As for Pat Robertson, that fucker went round the bend quite a few years back. Lots of right wingers think that hate crime legislation can lead to duck sex and that Hugo Chavez ought to be assasinated, but they know better than to express these thoughts in public. Robertson is like your 87 year old grandmother who's gone half senile and can't remember that it's no longer acceptable to refer to the African-American woman behind the counter at McDonald's as a "negro."
posted by Clay201 at 1:52 AM on June 9, 2009 [3 favorites]


Lord love a duck!
posted by Phanx at 1:57 AM on June 9, 2009 [3 favorites]


There were a couple of American girls behind me in line at the store the other day wearing shirts with a cross and, in an edgy font, "This shirt is illegal in 51 countries".
I almost asked them whether they gave a shit about other religions being persecuted or if it was just Christians they cared about, but I didn't want to start a fight right there.


Next time ask them to name even one.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:18 AM on June 9, 2009 [8 favorites]


Motherquacker.
posted by spoobnooble at 3:36 AM on June 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


This made me google "north american man duck love association" but so far, no such entity. I'm sure Pat thinks it will only be a matter of time.
posted by pointystick at 4:01 AM on June 9, 2009 [2 favorites]


Next time ask them to name even one.

I'm certain they'd be happy to tell me about 'Islamofascism' and Satanism.
posted by dunkadunc at 4:13 AM on June 9, 2009


Yet another deviant lifestyle being promoted by Ernie on Sesame Street. They're corrupting our children!
posted by 0xdeadc0de at 4:36 AM on June 9, 2009


Ernie liked pigeons- the little boys of the bird kingdom.
posted by dunkadunc at 4:46 AM on June 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


All I can add is my grandmother's favorite expletive: "Fuck a duck!"
posted by Pollomacho at 4:49 AM on June 9, 2009


What about sex between ducks and box turtles?
posted by Horace Rumpole at 4:54 AM on June 9, 2009


A DUCK IS FINE TOO.
posted by jquinby at 5:12 AM on June 9, 2009


But no, seriously, does the new bill protect those with waterfowl inclinations?

More importantly, does it protect waterfowl?
posted by orange swan at 5:40 AM on June 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


Personaly, I am too busy imagining sex with Garfunkel and Oates in those duck costumes to worry very much about Pat Robertson.
posted by briank at 6:06 AM on June 9, 2009 [2 favorites]


I don't know, this might have been mentioned before.
posted by CountSpatula at 6:12 AM on June 9, 2009


I am a one-armed duck fucker.

/semi-obscure Lynch reference
posted by shakespeherian at 6:49 AM on June 9, 2009


I like to imagine what a field day Bill Hicks would have had with this one.
posted by blucevalo at 6:53 AM on June 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


No argument I can make will ever drive people away from Christianity as effectively as the existence of Pat Robertson.

What? I can't see how Pat Robertson would possibly make people think, "Oh, maybe Jesus isn't my savior after all." I do see how it could make people shy away from the social conservative movement, or from the evangelical movement. That's happening already, from all sides, partially because they tainted their movement when they went to bed with the Republican party.

Furthermore, for people opposed to gay marriage the joke is on the other foot. The reason that the ridiculous example of "sex with ducks" was chosen was because in their eyes, the idea of a man and a man or a woman and a woman being together is equally ridiculous. The fact that proponents of equal rights for homosexuals don't see that means that the position of both sides is actual reinforced rather than weakened by Robertson's remark.
posted by Deathalicious at 6:54 AM on June 9, 2009


Um... no. Bert liked pigeons.
posted by hippybear at 7:06 AM on June 9, 2009


On the other hand, sex with Björk, dressed in the swan costume, now that would be hot!
posted by Multicellular Exothermic at 7:16 AM on June 9, 2009


I'm fine with this as long as we all agree that those who are sexually attracted to Mallards are perverts who should be locked up.
posted by ob at 7:33 AM on June 9, 2009


Maybe Pat had this in mind and got confused....
posted by inthe80s at 7:34 AM on June 9, 2009


Dear Pat Robertson,

We still have societal norms. I know you think that there are no norms outside of your moral/religious stance and that there's your brand of Christianity or the void, but we really do have fairly evenly-distributed norms. While homosexuality, and the recognition of its validity in the eyes of the law are disputed by a minority (and I urge you to dispute it, especially in increasingly stupid ways), duckfucking is really not even commonly disputed. Because it's a norm to think that sort of thing is messed up. Not just among your friends, but with pretty much everybody.

Thanks.
posted by mikeh at 7:53 AM on June 9, 2009 [3 favorites]


CNN video (with 15-second pre-roll advertisement).

I find the "cute indie girl with ukelele" thing unbearable—but, man, the brunette half of Garfunkel & Oates redefines cute. Sorry for the boyzone—I can't help it. Trust me, I'm restraining the hell out of myself here.
posted by ixohoxi at 7:59 AM on June 9, 2009 [2 favorites]


Why do evangelicals have such an obsession with sex, especially other people's sex? Is it that the religious fervor takes all the joy out of it and they suspect someone, somewhere, might be having fun during sex and they need to root that out? Sometimes it really seems that's what's behind some of the anti-queer fervor, a driving need to ensure that everyone who has sex is having it within the confines of heterosexual marriage, without passion or humor, in the dark, with only the minimum clothing removed or pushed aside, in the missionary position, with no accessories, for only as long as it takes Dear Hubby to get his religiously-endorsed rocks off.

I wish Robertson or Roberts or one of the other influential preachers would have a divine revelation that it pleases their god to find joy in sex.
posted by notashroom at 8:14 AM on June 9, 2009


“Robertson is like your 87 year old grandmother who's gone half senile…”
Yeah, there’s a lot of that. I don’t know what it is, whether life for some people has gotten too easy or too far from authenticity or whatever it is – but some folks seem to have completely lost touch not just with reality, but with genuine competency of any kind. Or even the most marginal recognition of competency.
I don’t know whether people have gotten soft and fat enough such that they can engage in wishful thinking to such a degree they can deny reality and their self-delusion doesn’t harm them or what.
Clearly though, being completely delusional has done no harm to some folks.
Examples like Robertson here abound. O’Reily comes to mind. As do his watchers. I can’t even listen to –any- talk radio anymore because it’s nearly all outrage all the time and tearing stuff down. There seems little other than derision on t.v. as well. I mean that lack of substance seems to have led to a lack of expectation of substance anywhere such that no one really seems to perceive anything and has nothing to say –other- than criticism
Anecdotally, I was at the grocery store the other day in my gym clothes picking up some milk and such, not a lot of stuff. I’m not Captain America or anything, but yes, I do have muscles enough to easily bully a gallon of milk around. Guy at the counter asks me if I want help outside. He wasn’t on autopilot. I asked if he has to ask that. Nope. He was looking at me, just wasn’t seeing me.
Same thing here. I’ve got some very solid principles that apply to a number of political and moral topics. But I can see fucking reality. What kind of world is it they intend? Or is there even an intent beyond seeking some kind of insulating comfort in self-delusion?
What kind of straits are we in when people have the kind of time to spend on crap like this?
I’m reminded of Clovis I – here’s a guy who was ruthless and bloody handed, converted to Christianity mostly as a bid to consolidate power over his subjects, tough to say he was ‘evil’ per se, since a lot of rule back then was at the point of a sword, but certainly not a nice guy. But he got things done. Sorted out how slaves were to become free men, outlawed soothsaying, set down treaties, all that - so, ok the guy is full of B.S. as far as Christ is concerned, but he did stuff that affected people’s lives. In many ways for the better, or at least more orderly, however so, it was advancement and not the same perpetuation of old themes with no end in sight.
Take Robertson’s path – ok, outlaw homosexuality. Now what? They stop being born? There’s really no way out from there. Nothing is ever going to be settled – for good or ill or even at the point of a sword. It’s just going to be the same repetitive crap – Orwell’s boot stomping on a human face forever comes to mind there.
It was never the pain and brutality that bothered me about that. Certainly that sucks. But it’s not the really suck part. Nor is the ‘forever’ aspect of the thing. Many things are endless. No, the suck part is it’s (eternally) the same.
Lot of people seem to crave that kind of complete stagnation to the point that they won’t see beyond their internal monologue.
Plenty of reasons Robertson chose ‘duck.’ Obviously the alliterative. And it’s been a standard theme for some time (‘pluck the duck’ as a euphemism in rural areas, ‘fuck a duck’ from wwII, yeah, Groucho, etc etc etc). What’s disturbing is not that it’s merely indicative of Robertson’s unwillingness to examine his life or confront his own psychology, but that this is actually appreciated and welcome among his viewers. The ‘duck’ familiarity being just one example.
Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living. I can only imagine that the wholly ignored life, the life ceded in favor of the constant replay of the already familiar must be akin to living death.
Truly, there are zombies among us. And they’re far more insidious than the physical shambling metaphors we see in the movies.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:15 AM on June 9, 2009 [3 favorites]


Sex with a duck? I sense someone is projecting a little...
posted by mazola at 8:24 AM on June 9, 2009


the brunette half of Garfunkel & Oates

"Scrubs" fans know that woman is Ted's girlfriend, whose name is Stephanie "The" Gooch.
posted by grubi at 8:25 AM on June 9, 2009


Wow - this comment from Horace Rumpole's link bears repeating:

"The comparison of "undesirable" classes of persons to animals is a page right out of Facism 101. The comparison of Jews to dogs was a cornerstone of the propoganda piece of the Nazis in the 1930s. At first, it is passed of as benign, but as it progresses, it is an attempt to dehumanize people. After all, it is hard to gas a human, but less so an animal.

The public must condemn Cornyn and the rest of his neo-Facist crew for the comparison and remind us all of the historical context for such human/animal comparisons."
Posted by: WhoMe? at July 13, 2004 07:46 AM

posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:38 AM on June 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


grubi: " the brunette half of Garfunkel & Oates
"Scrubs" fans know that woman is Ted's girlfriend, whose name is Stephanie "The" Gooch.
"


...and Big Bang Theory fans know the blonde as Ramona Nowitzki, the grad student who worshiped / tortured Sheldon.
Is there a phrase to describe that feling that you get when you look up a wikipedia article, see a name in you-already-looked-this-up Gigas but have to click it again because you can't remember anything about this person ("deja wiki"?)?
posted by PontifexPrimus at 8:51 AM on June 9, 2009


> Lots of right wingers think that hate crime legislation can lead to duck sex

Lots of left-wingers think that they know what lots of right-wingers think.

Also: so...this duck, it vibrates?
posted by ostranenie at 8:54 AM on June 9, 2009


I find the "cute indie girl with ukelele" thing unbearable

I don't know about you, but I know two cute 'indie' girls who play ukeleles and they are very much bearable.
The "anthem" video was kind of weak, though. The music reminds me of what they might play in Rite Aid.
posted by dunkadunc at 8:58 AM on June 9, 2009


"You cannot reason someone out from a belief they did not reason themselves into." —Skorgu

(If you're reading, Skorgu, I've been quoting the hell out of that. Please don't sue.)

Looking for reason in the thinking of Robertson and his ilk—or trying to reason with them—is futile. Their thinking isn't based on reason, and they don't care about reason. If they did, they wouldn't believe the things they do.

People don't believe that homosexuals are agents of Satan bent on destroying civilization, or that blacks and Jews are dangerous degenerates, or that Earth is 10,000 years old because they made an error on some nuanced point in a chain of careful reasoning. Those kinds of beliefs do not follow from subtle logical errors. They can only follow from ignoring huge, elementary, self-evident facts. They are products of faith and emotive thinking, not of reasoned evaluation of empirical evidence. It's the same thing that allows people to believe in astrology and homeopathy.

After years of informal research into this phenomenon, I've concluded that these beliefs are a psychological mechanism of some kind—emotional crutches that allow people to cope with some urgent psychic need. That's about as far as I've gotten.

This does, however, suggest two ways to treat the problem:

1. Identify the traumas that cause people to resort to these crutches, and work to prevent those traumas from happening; and

2. Encourage a greater respect for (and facility with) reason, so it's more difficult for people to set it aside and install a crutch. i.e., make cognitive dissonance more acute and uncomfortable, and therefore a greater deterrent to adopting crazy and/or bigoted beliefs.

Of course, having been traumatized myself by the process of arriving at these conclusions, I'm far too cynical and jaded to do anything about it.
posted by ixohoxi at 9:05 AM on June 9, 2009 [8 favorites]


Trust me, I'm restraining the hell out of myself here.

If you hold yourself [back] like that much more you'll go blind!
posted by Pollomacho at 9:06 AM on June 9, 2009


The other day, my mother said to me on the phone, "You know, before the Flood, mankind didn't eat any meat." As soon as I hear the word "Flood", I go zipping away into "Just tolerate, she isn't long for this world" mode, so I just said, "Oh yeah? How did that work?" This only encouraged her to say, "I don't know, I guess something so fundamental [sic] happened to the Earth, it just changed our diets or something." I felt myself being swept into queasy fantasy land where Jesus will save my mom's corpse from decomposition. So I didn't say, "So you don't believe in Prehistory?" and I didn't say, "So exactly how long ago was this?" because that would have kept her on the phone too long. I used to be the challenging teen. Now I just say, "Oh, OK," and swiftly change the subject to one of her shopping trips.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 9:19 AM on June 9, 2009 [4 favorites]


Lots of left-wingers think that they know what lots of right-wingers think.

Left wingers don't have to imagine they know what right-wingers think, right-wingers just go around saying retarded shit out loud for everyone to hear.
posted by FatherDagon at 9:25 AM on June 9, 2009 [16 favorites]


"Anecdotally, I was at the grocery store the other day in my gym clothes picking up some milk and such, not a lot of stuff. I’m not Captain America or anything, but yes, I do have muscles enough to easily bully a gallon of milk around. Guy at the counter asks me if I want help outside. He wasn’t on autopilot. I asked if he has to ask that. Nope. He was looking at me, just wasn’t seeing me."

Oh, he was seeing you just fine :P
posted by Xoebe at 10:29 AM on June 9, 2009


...what duck?

[/Pratchett]
posted by aihal at 10:47 AM on June 9, 2009


Trust me, I'm restraining the hell out of myself here.

David Carradine's ghost sez: be careful with that.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:51 AM on June 9, 2009 [2 favorites]


This would be really convenient for me. As it is, I can only achieve orgasm if someone is whispering "Quack quack quack, Mr. Ducksworth!" into my ear.
posted by Uppity Pigeon #2 at 11:01 AM on June 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


Is anyone going to answer the man's question or not? The answer could be very important for some people. Some people who aren't me. Just wanted to clarify that. Not that there's anything wrong with that. As long as the duck is consenting I mean.
posted by MikeMc at 11:44 AM on June 9, 2009


It might actually be quite hard to fuck a duck, unless you have a bizarre screw shaped cock.
posted by snoktruix at 12:31 PM on June 9, 2009


It might actually be quite hard to fuck a duck, unless you have a bizarre screw shaped cock.

Well you better. It's in the Metafilter Terms of Service agreement.
posted by Uppity Pigeon #2 at 12:36 PM on June 9, 2009


Man, when are the Dems going to grow a spine?
posted by kldickson at 2:49 PM on June 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


Garfunkel and Oates are wonderful, thank you ActingTheGoat. My new favorite Youtube comedy musical artists.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:57 PM on June 9, 2009


Slightly OT, but I second aeschenkarnos. I highly recommend Pregnant women are smug.
posted by edbles at 5:00 PM on June 9, 2009


Lemon Demon (perhaps best known for "The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny"): Birdfucker.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:06 PM on June 9, 2009


Me: Lots of right wingers think that hate crime legislation can lead to duck sex.

Ostranenie: Lots of left-wingers think that they know what lots of right-wingers think.

Now Me Again:

I know a thing or two about what right wingers think. I live in Alabama. Everyone who lives in my house, besides me, watches Fox News religiously. One of my best friends is a McCain-ish Republican. (He's an atheist and a pervert, so he's not on board with the duck sex thing, but he'd cheerfully put a bullet in Hugo Chavez). Also, I have been known to read, on occasion, articles, columns, poll results, etc. expressing opinions which do not coincide with my own.

And the simple fact that Robertson still has an audience tells us that some folks out there are predisposed to buy what he's selling.
posted by Clay201 at 5:11 PM on June 9, 2009 [4 favorites]


It might actually be quite hard to fuck a duck, unless you have a bizarre screw shaped cock.

And those who would rather be fucked by a duck need to be aware of the dangers of screw shaped cocks.
posted by homunculus at 10:38 PM on June 9, 2009


Your Honor, I must point out neither Donald Duck nor his entire family wear pants, and Daffy Duck routinely appears nude.
posted by mattdidthat at 1:35 AM on June 10, 2009 [1 favorite]


> I know a thing or two about what right wingers think

Are we talking about the extreme right or conservatives as a whole? Am I allowed to assume all left-wingers are aligned with Keith Olbermann, Bill Ayers and the entire comments sections of the Huffington Post and DailyKos? There's zero "retarded shit" there, right? It's all objective, thoughtful commentary, right-right?

As for human/duck sex, I'm for it as long as it's safe and consensual. (That is to say: one quack for 'no' - anything else for 'yes.')
posted by ostranenie at 6:11 AM on June 10, 2009


Am I allowed to assume all left-wingers are aligned with Keith Olbermann, Bill Ayers and the entire comments sections of the Huffington Post and DailyKos?

Oh, I'm pretty sure they're not. However, as a leftist (socialist with syndicalist leanings if it really matters) I wouldn't really consider Olbermann, the Huffington Post, or DailyKos to be 'extreme left', either, most definitely not in the same way pundits like Hannity or Coulter or the people on Little Green Footballs are 'extreme right'.

And if Obama's really a secret Muslim socialist, I really wish he'd get the charade over with. My family can't afford healthcare and organized labor is at a historic low.
posted by dunkadunc at 6:51 AM on June 10, 2009


And in lack of an edit function, I might add that the people saying retarded shit in the Kos and HuffPo comment sections might be best termed as "extreme moderate left"- they get very, very excited about voting for Kerry, or Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, but wouldn't dare be affiliated with someone who actually calls them selves a socialist or Marxist.
posted by dunkadunc at 6:58 AM on June 10, 2009 [2 favorites]


Recently I have been wondering of Pat is one of those highly-frustrated-Larry-Craig-type-"No I'm not a homosexual"- homosexual. He certainly seems to obsess over other people's sexuality a little too much.
posted by edgeways at 9:10 AM on June 10, 2009


Are we talking about the extreme right or conservatives as a whole?

I'd categorize them as pretty far to the right, but not quite all the way to the end. We're talking about the folks who think Sarah Palin ought to be president, that war protesters ought to be jailed for treason, and that bombing Muslim children is God's work. We're not talking about skinheads, Holocaust deniers, or survivalists.

Am I allowed to assume all..

Whoa there. No one's talking about "all". I'm saying there are a signficant number of right wingers who share some of Robertson's more outrageous stated beliefs. And "significant" could be anything north of, say, 15 percent. Now, you were saying?

Am I allowed to assume all left-wingers are aligned with Keith Olbermann, Bill Ayers and the entire comments sections of the Huffington Post and DailyKos?

(First, I should say that I know almost nothing about Bill Ayers except for what little information found its way onto CNN during the "OMG, former Weather Man!" stupidity, so I won't offer an opinion as to whether anyone does or doesn't agree with him.)

Regarding the other listed opinion factories...

It depends on what you mean by "left-wingers." If you mean people who think that opposing war and imperialism means taking troops out of Iraq and sending them to Afghanistan, then the percentage who would tend to agree with Olberman, Huffington, etc. would be sizeable. If you mean the people who think Obama and both Clintons ought to be prosecuted for war crimes, I would expect the percentages to fall significantly.
posted by Clay201 at 2:19 PM on June 10, 2009


« Older If you like looking at vintage pictures of Van Hal...  |  Mike Arrington and Leo Laporte... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments