OUTRAGE!

“You’re on social media, 6000. Aren’t you outraged?”

I am getting a lot of people asking if I am upset over the DA TV advert which in which they – and I hope you’re sitting down for this – depicted the SA flag being burned.

Well, they actually depicted a poorly-done CGI SA flag being burned.
But same same, right?

Here’s the ad. I hope you’re ready.

Well, no. I’m not outraged, and I’m not outraged for many reasons.

First off, I don’t tend to get outraged about things anymore. You get to a stage in life when you realise that the energy you spend on being outraged is completely wasted. And the earlier you reach that stage in your life, the happier you will be. Sure, get irritated, annoyed, maybe even tinker with being briefly furious. But then drop it. Because expending more effort than that – especially publicly – on something you can’t change, makes you look like a buffoon.
So much bluster, so little outcome.

Of course, it’s really easy to be outraged on social media, where we can all hide behind our profile pictures and pseudonyms and tell people how what they must think. But that’s even more pointless. Honestly, who is really going to listen to some nasty words formed from pixels?

And right there is the second reason. This isn’t a burning flag. It’s just some pixels. And if you’re willing to say that those pixels are the same thing as burning a real flag, then you should really be able to understand that the “burning flag” (pixels) here is merely a metaphor for the state of the country should the ANC go into a coalition with the EFF and the MK after the election.
Is it an accurate metaphor? I don’t know, but that’s actually immaterial. The DA feel that it’s an accurate way to describe the consequences of that alliance, and this is their advert. And whether or not the advert is accurate or crap is also immaterial. The outrage here isn’t over the words or the sentiment. It’s all about the “burning flag”.

What it has done is fanned the flames (no pun intended) of the electoral fire (no pun intended).
Has it influenced anyone either way? Probably very few. But probably also both ways.
If it was meant to get people to watch it, it’s worked.
If it was meant to rile the ANC, it’s also worked.

That statement by Zizi Kodwa, Minster for Sports, Arts and Culture, there.
You may recognise him from such news stories as:

and:

But oh no… someone did a nasty thing to the flag. Well, some pixels that looked like the flag.

How convenient.

Thirdly(?), It’s interesting to note that while there are several laws pertaining to the illegality of corruption in public office, there doesn’t appear to be anything saying whether you can or can’t burn the flag (which the DA didn’t do, anyway).
Here’s Government Notice No. 510 of 8th June 2001 (Gazette no 22356) (catchy title, catchy contents):

Nothing about burning there, but if you’re all about following the guidelines regarding our national symbols, then don’t forget that national rugby favourite Bryan Habana was heavily and publicly involved with breaking 15(d) so let’s not get carried away here.

The fourth thing is that outrage on social media is hugely selective. Polarised along racial, political, national, sports team or whatever other lines. Any opportunity to bash the other side is gleefully taken. People readily jump onto the bandwagon: there is comfort in numbers and camaraderie. There is admiration to be earned in being one of the people that was outraged at this or that thing that happened. But outrage is often also hypocritical. I’ve seen 100x more posts and tweets from people upset with the “burning flag” ad than I have over the actual footage of a government minister driving past shacks in his Mercedes G-Wagon, throwing ANC t-shirts onto the floor for poor people to pick up.

But do a bit of editing with a video of a flame and a CGI flag in Microsoft Moviemaker and… ah Jesus…

Of course, above all else, we should always remember that social media is not real life.
Much as Jessica’s life isn’t one constant beach holiday, no matter what her Facebook feed might suggest, nor is anyone going to grab their torches and pitchforks and head to the DA HQ over this.

Well, I say that. They might, but if they do, much like the letter above, it will all be as a cunning stunt by one of the other allegedly outraged parties to try and score some points.

I guess what I am saying here is not to rush to be outraged by anything – especially in this election season. They’re absolutely out to get your emotions and people are falling for it every single time.
You have nothing tangible to gain, and so much energy and effort to lose.
Rather focus on the bigger picture and don’t be distracted.
Look at the facts, examine the manifestos, check out the track records and consider the alternatives.

But don’t lose sleep over some pixels in an advert. Really.

A local supermarket chain is currently running a promotion whereby, for each R150 spent in their store, you get an item from their (and here I quote) “#CheckersLittleShop big brand mini groceries”. These are miniature versions of some of their more popular (some might say iconic) local brands. There’s also an educational arm to it – “Become an entrepreneur – Encouraging tomorrow’s tycoons” .
Nice. Cute.

Not everyone thinks so though. Some people on Facebook are outraged.
Now there’s a surprise.

Blimey. Who knew?

Where to begin? Let’s go through this spectacular rant piece by piece, shall we?

The starvation and the unemployment figures, the drought. All of these things are sadly true. As is the fact that Checkers paid an ad agency or promo agency to come up with this c**p, as the erstwhile commenter comments, erstwhiley.

But then it all goes a bit off the rails. The fact that Checkers paid an ad agency or promo agency to come up with this c**p has very little to do with the elevated levels of our grocery bills. There are bigger things at play there. Inflation, the somewhat disappointing exchange rate, the price of manufacturing goods and transporting them, because of the higher price of oil and therefore petrol; the cost of fertiliser. Starvation and unemployment have little or no effect of the size of your grocery bill. The drought does make things more expensive though. So, only 1 out of 4 guesses on the causes of higher grocery bills. You’re playing catch-up now, furious Facebook commenter.

We move on to the second paragraph, and it actually starts rather well, with another solid fact, describing the mini plastic & polystyrene mock ups of products that Checkers sell in their stores as “Mini plastic & polystyrene mock ups of products you sell in your stores.”
As a description of the mini plastic & polystyrene mock ups of products Checkers sell in their stores, it’s near perfection.

And what happens when the promotion is over? Where does she think these things end up?

In our oceans. In a trash heap where most of it might never biodegrade.

Well, yeah. Or it might get recycled after a couple of years being played with in a kid’s doll house. To be honest, we all know that plastic isn’t great for the oceans or renowned for its biodegradability, but then, we all continue to use it, don’t we? And while I appreciate the need to cut down, these are awfully small things. “Mini”, some might say.
One fewer 2l fabric conditioner bottle will offset a full collection and more.
And, if that “most of it might never biodegrade” line above is the case, then all toys made of plastic (and everything else besides) should be banned. Immediately.

Bye bye, Barbie. Barbie, bye bye.
[Link]

Meh. I’m unconvinced. If only there was one final line to persuade me that the inconsolably annoyed and ranty Facebook woman has a point.

Maybe, a child might actually mistake it for food and try eat it and accidentally choke and die?
Shame on you.

Yeah. “Maybe” that “might” happen. Equally, that might happen with a piece of wood or a rock though.
Yes, these are mock-ups of groceries, but they are also in their mock-up packaging. If a child mistakes a genuine bottle of All Gold Tomato Sauce for food and ingests it, it will also die, because it’s a glass bottle.

Additionally, some of them are mock-up detergents, moisturisers, deodorants and nappies. Your child deserves to die if it eats that and chokes. Darwin’s Law, that’s called. Shame on it, more like.

But then, there is a plus side to all of these pitiful arguments. Because if they’re true…
[But they’re not – Ed.]

Shut up.
Because… if they’re true, and Checkers’ promotion is actually responsible for all of these things: unemployment, malnutrition, the drought (lol… as if the drought is Checkers’ fault, ffs!), the inability of plastic to biodegrade within any reasonable timeframe, oh, and and infant asphyxiation, then surely if or when Checkers choose to end the promotion, surely all these nasties will become a thing of the past.

Could Checkers (possibly inadvertently, but still) could they have come up with a plan to literally end world suffering, simply by causing it all in the first place?

Or should Ms Ranty Facebook lady go and find something more beneficial to do with her time than blaming everything ever on a 6-week promo in a second-rate local supermarket?

Your call.

(Hint: It’s the second one.)

(Number 2)

Tag: OUTRAGE!

Checkers Outrage