We’ll start with the minor controversy, which is a controversy in the sense that someone from ABC News needed something to write about and started calling around to auto workers and therapists to see if he could scrounge up a little outrage about suicidal robots and downsizing. Mission accomplished.
Meanwhile, in the span of not quite 48 hours, Snickers has yanked down its “After the Kiss” website, cancelled the related ad campaign, and promised never again to air its commercial about two mechanics who end up sharing more than a candy bar and then overreact by pulling out their chest hair. Apparently it was the website, which featured outtakes of NFL players wincing at footage of the kiss and an alternate ending where the two men prove their manliness by beating each other, that drew the most outrage. It must have been: the ad itself is obviously a satire of homophobia, not an endorsement of it.
The man to thank for this remarkably rapid reaction and deployment of grievance-group economic power? The same man who claimed, the morning after news of the UK airline bomb plot broke, that it was a hoax designed to distract the public from Ned Lamont’s primary victory in Connecticut.
The Malcontent, who enjoys absolute moral authority in commenting on gay issues, has an excellent post up about this. Quote:
They cannot speak coherently on gay marriage, they could not prevent three-quarters of states from passing amendments, they have not the tools to persuade the electorate on our issues, but yesterday the professional grievance organizations of Gay America vanquished a candy company, and for that they are heroes.
Heroes, at least, if you found yourself among the offended.
For those of us not offended by the Snickers ad campaign, there rested in the twelve hour maelstrom something terribly depressing and clarifying about the pulleys and levers used to operate some quarters of gay activism.
Read on. Here’s the ad, in case you missed it Sunday.
Update (Ian): Greg Tinti calls it “the gayest controversy ever.” Heh.