Snickers: Why is it for me or against me?

[Goblinmonger]

I know I am probably opening up more of a can of worms than I am ready for, but please hear me out. I will keep this brief.

I want to be clear going into this that I am one who thinks the Snickers ad, in and of itself, was satire that ridicules homophobes. I have had many arguments in the past two days to this regard and not looking for one here.

My question is, given that I have a different literary interpretation, why is it on DU (not just with this topic but many others) that such a "you're either for me or against me" attitude pops up. We are all progressives here but we also know that is a big tent. I thought the ad was satire others didn't. Why, when I post my thoughts, is the general reaction that I am homophobic and don't care about gay rights? If we were in a bar and this discussion came up with true homophobes, I hope those that are gay know that I would have your back. I wouldn't even discuss the satire angle but would defend against the bigotry. But that isn't where we are. Why can't we discuss it here? I hated the "for us or against us" mentality when Bush did it and I don't like it here.

Go ahead, I'm ready.

[mainegreen]

1. Oh no you didn't!

:popcorn:

(ps You don't even have to take any stand at all and people will be all over you. That's GD!)

[ScreamingMeemie]

2. I don't see a "for me or against me" as my as I see a sell out.

Another instance of get over it. Another quit whining and looking for reasons to be offended. By disagreeing with me you are not "against me" for many would say I have no dog in the race other than wishing to see all treated equally in this country. Hoping that someday (really really soon) people will equate this kind of "joke" for what it is...laughing at the expense of that which we are not. Whether it be racist, homophobic, or misogynistic.

[KenHodson]

9. I'm offended by you lumping me,

of the "looking for reasons to be offended" crowd, with the garden variety "whining" whiners. Have you no decency?

[Goblinmonger]

21. I'll try and do this right

because from what I read from you I think you are a reasonable person. If you are offended by what follows, please give me one more chance to make myself clear.

This post is indicative of what I am talking about. I am not telling people to "get over it" or saying they are whining. I am saying that they have misinterpreted some satire. An easy thing to do, really. My wife is by far the smartest person I know and she is often satire impaired (and when she does get it she still doesn't like it). I am not laughing at the expense of what I am not because I think the ad makes us laugh at the homophobic.

That being said, I find it hard to deal with posts in response to me that tell me that is what I am doing and that I need to just take the word of the gay community (which seems divided to some extent from what I read on here) and this blog and that blog that it is offensive and get on board. But my point is completely different. Why can't we talk about it being satire without me being lumped in with bigoted homophobes or the insensistive (of which I think I am neither).

I'm not trying to attack you on this. I hope I have explained myself clearly enough.

[LostinVA]

34. Why do you have a right to tell us we "misinterpreted" it?

It wasn't satire to us. Actually, it wasn't satire at all.

And, the gay community is not divided on here. Shes-sh.

[Goblinmonger]

42. I cover a lot of this below

But are you seriously saying that all gays are 100% in agreement on this? Really? You may want to look downthread a bit. Or some of the responses on other treads by gays that agree with the satire interpretation. Additionally, I find it rather silly to say "gays think X" as an absolute. As a matter of fact, I think it is very narrow-minded when whites say things like "Blacks think it is OK to call each other nigger but we can't use it" and "Native Americans all think gambling is great" and similar 100% claims. It assumes that there is some governing body that controls them all. It ignores the fact that each member of that class is a free thinking individual that can have opinions different from other members of the class. Isn't it equally wrong when you make a similar claim?

I do have the "right" to tell you that you misinterpreted it just as you have the "right" to tell me that you didn't. That only seems to make sense on a progressive web site. I teach high school English, have taken classes on satire, and probably spend a total of 3-4 weeks teaching satire to my juniors in American Lit. I like the genre and spend a great deal of time explaining it. If a student came to me and said that Swift was evil for advocating the eating of the poor Irish children, or that Jello Biafra should not tell people to kill the poor in his song, or that Twain was a horrible racist for references to blacks as non-human in Huck Finn, or that Irving placed too much emphasis on monetary accumulation in Devil and Tom Walker, or that Burroughs made capital punishment look too good in Naked Lunch, I would have to tell them that they misinterpreted the literature and that it was actually satire. I think a similar thing has occurred here. I could delineate the reasons I think it is indeed satire, but that is not the point here.

The point of my OP is why can't I have an opinion that this is satire on a progressive web site and not be treated like I am an anti-gay homophobe?

[LostinVA]

33. Exactly

[Midlodemocrat]

3. *deep breath* Okay. Here ya go.

It's because the GLBT community has been tossed under the bus. When NJ ruled in favor of civil unions, people here were screaming that it 'cost us the election'. Didn't happen.

The GLBT has been told for too long to sit down, shut up, it's not your time, it's too divisive, it'll cost us the election, maybe next time, not now.

They are sick of it. So am I. Why should people who pay the same taxes on the same houses that I pay not have the same rights?

I know you're not looking for a fight and I'm just trying to explain it as I see it. There was a great episode not that long ago on one of the doctor shows, ER maybe? that had the guy who played Frasier's dad as the long time lover of a dying man. He was shuttled aside completely and totally as the man lay dying by the man's family. He had no say in his care, even though the man had expressly indicated that he wanted his lover to be in charge.

So what? It's just a television show. Well, yes, it is. But, this summer, my husband had to have life saving surgery. No one asked me if I had 'any kind of papers to indicate his wishes', or if there were any other family members who would need to be consulted. They asked me "Are you his wife?" and when I replied yes, his entire medical history was opened to me. *I* would have been the one to make the decision if he couldn't come off the bypass machine because we are MARRIED. Something my GLBT friends don't have.

So, when a member of the GLBT community tells me that something is homophobic, I defer to them. Even if I didn't see it. (and for the record, I didn't see the ad Sunday night)

*I* don't get to decide if it is homophobic. I'm not gay. I don't get to tell a black person that a particular joke or comment isn't racist. I'm not black.

I hope I haven't bored you to tears with this.

[Hobarticus]

10. Bravo...

That's the best reasoning I've heard yet.

[Midlodemocrat]

11. Thank you. Very kind of you to say that.

:hi:

[Hobarticus]

13. Praise goes where deserved.

I've been watching these threads all day, just trying to get a grip on my own feelings. And you nailed it.

[Goblinmonger]

23. I understand what you say.

As an atheist, I know completely the feeling of being tossed under the bus. A U of Minn study showed that people would more likely vote for a homosexual candidate than a gay candidate. I understand the frustration and I understand being sick of it.

I LOVED that episode of ER. He is a fantastic and underrated actor.

If I'm out in the "real world" and a member of th GLBT community tells me something or someone is homophobic, I've got their back. No questions asked. But why can't I on DU question whether the ad was satire or not? Just the act of questioning that and making my claims as to why it is satire have gotten some "for us or against us" comments.

[Midlodemocrat]

26. I don't think anyone would question whether or not you personally

found it to be satirical. What happened today is that a great many posters were telling the members of the GLBT to 'get over it', 'grow a thicker skin', 'lighten up'.

If you found the ad to be satire, I can't think of a single member of the DU GLBT community who would flame you for that. People are upset at being told that if they thought it was homophobic, that they're wrong, or thin skinned.

And being an atheist is probably very difficult at times in this country. (Frankly, being a practicing Catholic is tough on DU sometimes)

I just wish we could hear each other and empathize with the pain that the GLBT is expressing.

I hope I'm making sense. I feel like I have been typing all day.

[Obamarama]

4. High dudgeon seems to be in fashion at DU these days....

I happen to think the ads were sick. I know there are those who just found them funny and politically neutral.

I wouldn't attack you for your views, but I would probably ask you several times to try to UNDERSTAND how they might offend me.

There used to be less black and white here on DU, but the gray area in terms of tolerance for a wide range of discussion seems to have eveporated.

[DaveJ]

5. The homophobic element doesn't bother me

What bothers me is that this ads makes people out to be stupid lunatics. I guess corporations want the public to be stupid lunatics because their minds are more malleable.

[KenHodson]

6. Remember what Authur Fonzerelli used to say

If you aren't part of the solution, sit on it!

[redqueen]

7. I think it's because we are stressed.

I see what you are saying re: satire, and it is a valid point.

However, there is a growing feeling that we are nearing or at a breaking point... and perhaps we are.

All I can say is keep trying to understand, and make yourself understood, with as much compassion and kindness as you can.

Good luck.

I have lashed out and shown that divisiveness that you describe as the 'with us or against us' mentality... and I think I have done it because of the stress.

Just my two cents.

[ProfessorGAC]

8. A Good & Understanding Post

The thing that bothers me is that those who don't see the direct offense, right here at DU, at seen as the enemy, just like the real homophobes.

That seems counterproductive. There aren't many here at DU who are actually homophobic, and thinking some stupid commercial is funny doesn't make them so.

It may mean there are less sensitive to the feelings of GLBT's than are others, but it doesn't make them the enemy. I think that gets lost sometimes in these anger generating subjects.
GAC

[redqueen]

15. Yes...

pardon my armchair analysis but... based on self-reflection, I think it comes from fear. When I'm worried I tend to be more likely to see someone as an enemy or treat them as such when there is no need to. When I've done this in situations like this, it's usually because I'm afraid we're losing whatever battle it is that's being addressed... or that those who don't see it as I do will actively work against my interests, even when that's not the case.

I think the anger is counterproductive, and doesn't help to enlighten those who are less sensitive to the concerns of those who are sensitive to such things...

[noamnety]

12. The people who are oppressed

get to decide if something is offensive to them.

Biden doesn't get to decide blacks shouldn't be offended if he thinks it's unique that one of them is articulate.
White men don't get to decide if a Black man should be offended that they have their own drinking fountain - even if it's just as good as the white one.
Christians don't get to decide if it's offensive to atheists that they aren't legally allowed to hold office in some states.
Men don't get to decide women shouldn't be offended if you call them a derogatory gender slur.


If someone in an oppressed group tells you they are offended, they are offended. That's not something to argue about.

The closest you could get to winning that argument is an acknowledgement that not everyone in that group was offended - and "not everyone was offended" isn't the standard most of us want to adhere to when it comes to civil rights and bigotry.

Either you care that something is offensive to an oppressed group of people, or you don't. To argue the position - as if you know better than them what they should be offended by - is offensive in and of itself. That's why it's not up for discussion, as far as I am concerned.

I haven't read most of the threads on this. But it seems to me if there were a commercial where a white guy accidentally kissed a black girl - let's say because it was dark - and then the lights came on, and his reaction in the commercial to realizing he'd kissed a black woman was to jam her head into a vehicle and slam the trunk on it, I would think we could all understand why that might possibly be offensive.

[hfojvt]

27. I am feeling a little oppressed here

that I never get to be the victim. Even though I have two college degrees and have been working crap jobs since I quit DOD, everyone knows that white male Christians have an easy life. Nobody ever picks on them.

According to you, then, it is okay for atheists to say that Christians are insane. Christians cannot complain because they are not an oppressed group in this country.

I would say that it is something to argue about. Not everything is offensive, nor is it intentional. Not every claim of offense is real. Sometimes it can be part of a game. If I am offended, that allows me some space and power. I think I have enough empathy, so if you can explain to me why you are offended, then I can understand that, in the same circumstances, I would be offended too. Some people are reasonable and some are not. Some are easy to offend and others are not.

Once I found a young friend of mine who was gathering neighborhood kids to attack an "archery guy" who had walked by and given this kid a dirty look. I talked him out of it based on the fact that this guy had not really done anything. Sometimes what seems to be a dirty look is really somebody with bad vision or with the sun in their eyes or still mad thinking about how the Bears lost or whatever. My goals are peace, love, and understanding - not 'to arms, to the barricades, an offense has been committed!'

[noamnety]

31. Don't make up shit and attribute it to me.

According to you, then, it is okay for atheists to say that Christians are insane.

I haven't said it's okay to bash anyone based on their religion.

However, if you are looking for sympathy from me specifically based on you being born into the most privileged race, religion, gender and country in the world, you'll have to look elsewhere.

I'm feeling a little oppressed here that I never get to be the victim.

I don't even have words to address a comment like that.

[hfojvt]

35. sympathy should not be based on race and gender or religion

in my view. That's kinda what I was trying to get at. If you view blacks as an 'oppressed group' then who is in the 'oppressing group'? The fact that I have been similarly opprossed and maltreated by my peers is somehow discount because of my race, gender, or religion. My group is 'privileged' even if the privileges never seem to trickle down.

True, I extended things there, but I still find it odd that you would give an automatic pass to atheists to claim oppression against Christians any time they feel slighted, but the same consideration seemingly would not exist if a Christian cried foul. I think there can be unreasonable people in any group, and everyone gets hated, abused and mistreated at some point. A foul is a foul no matter what team either player is on.

Double standards are rife here, that on the same day one group will be defended, another group will be attacked or ridiculed. Christians and fundies are mocked for thinking that their religion is under attack. So I did not make that up, although I did falsely attribute it to you. Sorry.

[noamnety]

36. Don't make up shit and attribute it to me, part II

I still find it odd that you would give an automatic pass to atheists to claim oppression against Christians any time they feel slighted

Perhaps that was a typo and what you meant to post was "thank you for taking a principled stand as an atheist and speaking out against other atheists who bash religions."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=107609#107745

[hfojvt]

38. reality vs. theory

that was an interesting thread, but it does not fit what you said here:

"If someone in an oppressed group tells you they are offended, they are offended. That's not something to argue about."

In theory, you gave atheists, as part of 'an oppressed group' the ability to cry foul and nobody can challenge it except another atheist. But if it's a bad call, then it's a bad call.

[noamnety]

39. I give up.

You seem determined to prove you're a victim because you're a white male Christian. Go for it, dude.

[blonndee]

14. My problem isn't that I think people who weren't offended are homophobic

but is with those who continually ridicule those who did find the ad offensive, engage in put-downs, and thoughtlessly dismiss the feelings and interpretations of those who were hurt or offended by the ad. I would think that people here, even if they didn't interpret the ad in the same way, would at least be willing to listen to and perhaps (gasp!) learn from those who perceive themselves as the target of cruel and bigoted humor. I saw that you yourself did this in at least one other thread, and seemed reasonable and thoughtful to me. But there's a whole hell of a lot of what I described above going on, and it's sad and sickening. So I think that your characterization "you didn't find it funny, so you're a homophobe" doesn't fairly sum up the complaints and objections you will find in the vast majority of the threads.

[Goblinmonger]

20. I can see the difference you make

and perhaps on some more reflection I will find that the replies I speak of in this OP were more aimed at those dismissing feelings and not at me, but it's hard to distinguish sometimes when I'm in the middle of it.

I can guarantee I'll be thinking about this for a bit.

[Zhade]

16. I'm queer, and I agree with you - it didn't offend me.

I think I'm qualified to tell if it's offensive. :)

[Goblinmonger]

18. Actually, dude

I thought about you when I was posting about it being satire. I wondered what you would have thought about it. As I type this, I know this comes across as a "you're my only gay friend" kind of thing, which isn't true, but just thought I'd share. I'll shut up now.

[Zhade]

40. LOL! Hey, I love being thought of by others.

If I'm your only pansexual-but-lean-toward-gay-more friend, so be it!

[damntexdem]

17. I'm totally with you on the ad.

Sorry.

[Bluebear]

19. "We are all progressives here" - I thought so until yesterday.

honestly. nt

[Goblinmonger]

22. OK, another tough person to respond to.

To be honest, I don't remember reading anything by you before this Snickers explosion, but my perception of you during this melee is that you are intelligent and someone I would get along well with on pretty much every other topic. So I hope I can articulate what I am thinking clearly enough.

A lot of shitty things were said by people in the past couple of days. I get that. Trust me. I'm a pretty vocal atheist on here and you would be surprised (or maybe not, actually) the hateful shit that is said to me and about atheists on DU. So I know the type of thing of which you speak. But my point is that there is some middle ground here, isn't there. Can't there be some room for discussion on a progressive board where I can argue that there are elements of satire strongly threaded through the ad without people telling me that, in essence, I am a bigot and, at least, a homophobe enabler? Believe me, outside this internet hideaway I've got your back. I campaigned long and vigorously in Wisconsin to defeat the gay marriage ban. I let the kids I teach know that "gay" is not to be used as an insult. Why does my difference of opinion on this one thing have to put me on the other side from you?

[Bluebear]

25. It doesn't necessarily

Nice to meet you, by the way. I have been around. I support woman's right to choose. I fight the Christofascist tendencies of our country. I stand in solidarity with people of color, I am a Union member.

But when it comes to gay issues, you will see at Democratic underground that support only goes so far. We were told we lost the '04 election for Kerry. We were told we lost the '06 election because of New Jersey civil unions. We were told those things HERE. So, if this ad offended some, I wonder why that isn't enough? Why do people have to start polls to see who is "right", analyze the ads to find some brilliant writing techniques that are "zinging" homophobes, etc... If people were offended, coudn't it be enough just once to say "OK, I am sorry you were upset" and shut up about it? :)

[Goblinmonger]

28. Nice to meet you too.

I know there is no way to confirm this, but outside of DU I am saying that. The ad offended a lot of people and Snickers was right to pull it. I hope they issue an apology. They should if they don't. I am sorry that people were offended by it.

I want to just end with that but I can't. I saw it as satire in the middle of the commerical. The end of the commercial just confirmed it for me. Perhaps it is the English teacher in my that just wants to make that clear to my "students" and I can't ratchet that part down. I don't know. But it just seems odd that I can't discuss that satire on DU without being and "other."

And if I had a dollar for each time someone told me that a concern I have as an atheist just shouldn't be talked about because it gives the whackjobs like O'ratsass and Limbaugh ammunition or it will cost us the election because the moderates will backlash, I could retire. I hate that attitude, too.

[Bluebear]

29. Short answer, we can can discuss the satirical aspects of it all night long

I enjoy conversation, I even enjoy healthy debate. I do not enjoy people who have to tell me to "lighten up" because they didn't see the thing the same way.

[hfojvt]

37. I think the goblins ruin everything

although most people blame it on the trolls.

Alot of us here have the attitude that "anybody who says X loses all progressive cred." With a variety of X's. Since there are trolls here, many people are wary if not paranoid. "Aha, you said 'Democrat' your one of them, especially since you made a grammer errer!"

There is an unwritten progessive Bible (which is really not unwritten, per se, it just has not been compiled in one book) and almost everyone, from time to time, commits some kind of heresy against it (although probably not as often as a socially conservative red-stater such as myself), which rouses the inquisition. It is a witch-hunt mentality. To argue with somebody and not only think they are wrong, but are not 'one of us', not really an ally, and should not be part of this group.

[walldude]

24. I skipped the Superbowl as I do every year

so I didn't see the commercial. But my question would be this. Obviously the commercial could be construed more ways than one as evidenced on DU. So why air it in the first place? Was it necessary to allude to homosexuality to sell a fucking candy bar during the Corporatebowl.. sorry I mean the Superbowl? The entire move was about as fucking stupid as Joe Bidens comments on Obama. We have become a nation of complete idiots. Apparently this is something the Freepers are proud of. Mike Judge is right, Idiocracy is where we are heading.

[Dorian Gray]

30. People always jump all over each other here...

that's what you get when you get 90,000 opinionated people on one little website.

Good luck!

:)

[LostinVA]

32. It isn't -- it's being told we have no right to be offended

If we find the ad offensive, then it is. Period. Go read Oedipus Rex's thread and SEE what we're talking about. The nasty personal, often homophobic attacks in that thread are breathtaking.

[Goblinmonger]

41. OK, yeah, I get that

There is some horrible things going on even on DU. And I have my masters in communication so I also get that the message that is received is the important one. But that does not exclude the receiver from having to do a frame of reference check. If the message was not encoded to be offensive and was actually encoded to be supportive of the group that takes offense, than the receiver bears responsiblity for the miscommunication as well.

If you find the ad offensive then you were offended. Your perception of the communication event does not change the purpose and encoding of the message. My argument was/is that the message was intended as satire. Perhaps that satire didn't work for you. Doesn't change the offense. Doesn't change the intent. I am only arguing that those that decoded the message as offensive perhaps should reevaluate their perception to encompass the thought that the intent was something different.

Particular issue of homophobia aside, do you really want to live in a culture/society that deems inappropriate any message that anyone finds offensive? What could possibly be communicated that would be remotely interesting that someone, somewhere doesn't find offensive?

[Nikki Stone1]

43. I am now boycotting M&M/Mars products because of that ad

If anyone knows about products of theirs that might not be obvious, I'd appreciate it. (Snickers, M&M and Mars bars, of course, are obvious.)