Thursday’s MetroNews Talkline raised a simple but important question: Why isn’t it enough to just turn Jimmy Kimmel – or anyone else for that matter – off if his comments are offensive, unfunny, or unappealing?
On its face, the answer should be common sense. Don’t like what someone says? Change the channel, close the app, move on. That should end it. But it rarely does. Why? Perhaps too many people and institutions profit when it doesn’t.
If a viewer disliked Kimmel’s recent remarks and decided never to watch again, that would be a straightforward choice. One less viewer means one less impression, one less ad dollar – an economic vote against both Kimmel and ABC. But if it ends there, the outrage machine never fires up. And without outrage, a lot of business models suffer.
Social media companies leverage controversy to drive clicks, shares, and engagement. Many political organizations fundraise off ire, turning every spat into ammunition against opponents. Certain politicians capitalize on the hot issue. Some media outlets push the narrative further, knowing conflict can captivate. Outrage is a commodity, and fear is a powerful motivator. Narrative architects understand its value all too well.
That is why audiences are constantly nudged, persuaded, and provoked to more. Making an informed decision isn’t satisfactory, advocating a stance, pushing others to see it your way, is critical for the status quo. Disengagement is dangerous to the system. A person who turns off the TV content to leave it there contributes nothing to the cycle of outrage. The more who play, the better the game.
Some may dismiss this reasoning as cynical. That’s fair. But the evidence is everywhere. Spend just a few minutes on any platform and it becomes obvious: the demand is not for discussion, but for declaration. Everyone must pick a side, loudly and fully. Balance is framed as weakness. Moderation is mocked as cowardice. Politics and culture are reduced to an endless contest where the middle ground is erased.
That is a dangerous distortion. Refusing to participate in the outrage apparatus is not apathy – it is a conscious act of de-escalation. Choosing not to amplify every slight, not to demand others fall in line, is a way of prioritizing freedom over manipulation. It means letting neighbors alone with their own beliefs in a live-and-let-live society, rather than feeding a cycle that benefits only those who profit from perpetual conflict.
For too long, many have been hoodwinked into believing that silence is weakness, objectivity is surrender, and disengagement is indifference. Not so. In reality, it may be the most powerful rejection of all – a refusal to be commodified and a means to kill the virus.
Maybe it’s time to ask who really gains when we keep fighting — and whether we’re better off simply turning it off and refusing to go any further.