Turning the tables.
Some time ago, I said that I didn’t quite understand the outrage in Tuscany over an anti-discrimination ad featuring a photo of a newborn baby. I thought the ad was clever, to the point, and extremely effective. I didn’t once stop to think that using the knee-jerk human reaction to anything involving children in such a way constituted some rather underhanded and manipulative tactics, right from our side of the gay vs. anti-gay war. I thought it was all right, because it got the point that I wanted to make across. I didn’t realize that I was setting a double standard.
I realized when I read an article about New Jersey anti-gay campaigners who’ve launched a series of radio ads using the voices of children to denounce gay marriage.
The ads begin with an announcer saying “If we change the definition of marriage..” but is interrupted by a child.
“Grandma, my teacher said if grandpa was a girl that’s ok, you can still be married,’” the voice says.
The announcer then returns to say: “Our kids will be taught a new way of thinking: ‘God creating Adam and Eve is so old-fashioned.’”
“Thinking the unthinkable: ‘If my dad married a man, who would be my mom?’”
I started frothing. “This is wrong,” I snarled to myself. “It’s dirty, it’s underhanded, it would take a bunch of sleazy rats to use children to prey on people’s reactions just to spread their propaganda–”
And that’s when it hit me.
I was being a damned hypocrite.
I was being just like every other narrow-minded, hot-headed political mudslinger who flings words like “liberal” and “conservative” around as insults, points fingers, and accuses the other side of every atrocity known to man. I was condemning them for tactics that people on my side of the argument used, and following the very same mindset: it’s reprehensibly wrong if they do it, but it’s permissible if we do it because we’re right, damn it. It doesn’t matter which side you define as “us” or “them”. In the end they aren’t so different.
In the end, I became what I loathe most. I lost my rationality, my objectivity, my sense of fairness. I succumbed to bias.
It’s been a long time since I’ve been that disgusted with myself.
No, it isn’t all right to use manipulative tactics like that to spread your propaganda - and no matter what side you stand on, to someone your beliefs will be considered propaganda. It’s not right for us, it’s not right for them, it’s not right for you, and it’s not right for me. If I’m going to condemn conservatives for using such methods, then I have to condemn anyone else who does as well, even if I agree with their message.
You can’t call it “fighting the good fight” when you fight dirty. Some may say that you do what you must to win; I can’t say that I agree. Just because one side fights dirty doesn’t mean that you must sink to those levels to win. Don’t set a bad example, and don’t follow one, either; rise above, and set the standard for your opposition to adhere to. Both sides would benefit if we fought fair, fought cleanly, and met each other face to hard, ugly face. That includes facing our own hypocrisies, and recognizing our own double standards. It means understanding that we often loathe things in others that reflect what we hate most about ourselves. It means respecting the opposition…and making ourselves worthy of their respect, in return.
Only then will these battles of human rights come to the table of negotiation, and be settled fairly with no further blood shed.
new jersey, gay marriage, radio ads, national organization for marriage
November 30th, 2007 at 1:29 am
But having agreed with such tactics in the past doesn’t mean you still can’t be pissed at the complete inappropriateness of their ad.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:48 am
Still, there`s a difference between showing the image of a newborn who`s been labelled just because of his sexual orientation - anewborn babies can`t speak, can`t defend themselves, they`re frail creatures trying to survive in order to grow stronger, bla bla bla-, and using the voices of children - as if that were their opinion- to spread an idea. The impact is totally different. One can be called a metaphor, the other is just manipulation.
Also, we`re all hypocrites. We`re human. Admitting it only makes us *seem* nicer.
There’s no such thing as “being fair”.
(which isn’t really nice but… )
November 30th, 2007 at 6:49 am
Maybe not, but there’s certainly trying to be fair.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:05 am
True, Hikaru. I guess I’m a little too tired to throw a ranty tirade on top of all the rest of that, which is why I also won’t be arguing with Lux up there even though I don’t really agree with her/him. Going to have to be an “agree to disagree” situation. …at least until I’ve had more sleep.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Honestly, I don’t agree with you in responding with disgust. Sure, it’s a dirty tactic, but they’re entitled to it. We’ve been fighting dirty all along, after all, using horror stories of discrimination as the driving reason for our cause.
It’s a dirty fight, it always has been. Just like the civil rights movement. Just like the abortion debate. We don’t have the liberty of stopping the fight just to cry out, “you cheated!”
November 30th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Sleep and come refreshed, then.
Myself… I also believe there is a difference between the two ads, but it is in the message and not in the delivery.
The message of the first is “it is wrong to label others.” It does not offer an argument, but illustrates a clear, parallel situation.
The message in the second is “if we allow marriage for gays, kids will forget about the Bible, and they’ll think the Bible is stupid!” The ad presents a false dichotemy claiming that we can’t accept gay marriage without undermining the basis of Christian faith. And that’s just wrong. People who make ads like this don’t understand that we need to make our own decisions about our faith. Even children will need to make these decisions someday.
So in the end, both ads are an appeal to our “base” natures, and steer us to the designer’s way of thinking. But one is meant to stimulate discussion (starting with the question: “Well, labeling is wrong. So what?”), by presenting an analogy and allowing the viewer to reach her own conclusions, and one suppresses discussion by doom prophesy.
Granted, it’s a moot point if you believe that any appeal to our baser natures is wrong. I can see that, but I also believe that appealing to pure logic is both a losing strategy, and carries with it its own deception. Because ultimately, in a world of uncertainty, we have to trust our gut.
We also have to trust people to examine their emotions and come to their own conclusions, which is even harder to do, I think.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
“We also have to trust people to examine their emotions and come to their own conclusions, which is even harder to do, I think.”
The problem with that is that most people won’t, Indikaze, and that’s why it makes it dirty to use these tactics. Most people won’t stop to think about it logically; they’ll go with their gut reaction triggered by the sight of the image and how it correlates to their feelings about homosexuality in relation to children - and the people who design these ads know that. (Or maybe that’s just my general cynicism and misanthropy trusting the general populace to be less than discerning.) Otherwise, yes, the pro-gay side of it isn’t nearly as reprehensible. I think you and Tone both make good, valid points as to why one might be more acceptable than the other, but in my view I think that both just lead to both sides using even more dirty tactics in the future, and that doesn’t help anything.
Kind of makes it seem like a losing battle either way and makes you want to say “to hell with it” and throw integrity and fairness to the wind, doesn’t it?
November 30th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Still beats having to walk around downtown in the summertime and see young kids holding up posters depicting graphic photos of supposedly aborted babies.
I detest people using children for anything political.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
– Feel free to add as many “in my opinion” and “I think” as you see fit. I always forget them since people normally won’t let me finish my sentences when I speak (I talk too much). =P Also, please don’t mind my pessimism. –
I understand that the problem is that masses can be considered instinctive rather than rational, and it messes up the whole “think about it” point. =/
That’s why I say that there’s no such thing as “being fair”. It’s not really possible to be fair when even your most honourable intentions can be regarded as the complete opposite just because “people didn’t understand”. Sure there’s trying. But that’s not simple. It’s not just trying. It might not even be seen as an attempt at doing it differently.
As I see it, sometimes, if you care to change what the masses think you have to shock them. To spare them of such dirty trick would come in handy in order to express the respect you both give and expect of them. Sure. But then, what’s the point of avoiding arguably dirty tricks - since you don’t expect your idea to get to them through those- when they just won’t stop to analyse whatever other mean you chose, and thus won’t even notice your respect for them?
How do you instinctively ask people to seriously think about it without exposing the truth so that they’d feel it even when the other side is trying to brainwash* them?
If you shock them - whether intentionally or not- you’re dirty. If you don’t they won’t even give you the time of the day.
* - I’m lacking words here. Sorry =~~ 23pm
November 30th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
~laughs~ For someone lacking words, you’re very verbose.
But no, I think you’re right. And in that light, I still can’t personally condone doing it myself, but it’s a good rationale for the actions of others. You have the mind of a military tactician in this case, honestly. I don’t. I don’t have the mind of a pacifist, either, but that’s neither here nor there. The point is if we’re going to look at this as a war of ideologies, then you’re very right in your analysis of strategy.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:20 am
[...] wrote an interesting post today on Turning the tables.Here’s a quick [...]
December 1st, 2007 at 11:13 am
A fair fight? A noble ideal, indeed…
Too bad I consider it impossible. Sometimes I despise my cynicism. Sadly, until I see it happen I will remain agnostic in this instance.
I don’t think children should be used like this, no matter if it is for a “good” cause or not. They should be able to make informed choices about what they endorse, as any adult would be entitled to. The causes they speak for should not be chosen for them, which I assume they were, especially in the case of the baby.
I do, however, consider it acceptable to use underhand tactics if the other side does it first. I have been told I have an underdeveloped sense of morality.