A Tale of Two Pain-Killer Advertisements.

I've always found myself offended by commercials that don't actually explain why their product is better than another -- let alone prove it -- because I realize that they operate on the concept of impressions. That is, they hope that the commercial itself will be memorable, so that when you remember the commercial -- because it was amusing, exciting, original, etc -- your mind associates the memory with the product. For a simple example, someone trying to cheer up someone else by saying "put a smile on" could result in that person saying, "hmmm, you know I am actually in the mood for some McDonald's."

The business incentive is that what people remember better are images and feelings (what something on TV looked like, or how it made you feel) than they do specifics of nitty-gritty facts, like whether Flonase blocks neutrophils, leukotrienes, histamines, etc (these all show up on the screen for their commercial but the persuasion is far less heady than that. It's a simple "we have 6, the competition has 1. We're better, yay! Buy our product").

The idea that someone's trying to get around my conscious decision-making apparatus and try to get me to buy something not because it's a good choice, but because it's the only product in that category that I can remember by recalling commercials, is insulting to me, because I've always preferentially gravitated toward what I can determine to be true and right and good, rather than what merely makes me feel good or what seems popular.

Plot Twist

Similarly insulting is the "identity politics" of various political movements in vogue at the moment. This is not limited to liberal/leftist/democrat agendas, but they are by far more invested in splitting their constituent demographics into groups and targeting single-issue messages to each one of them. When a political figure says "I think you're too dumb to think about more than one issue at a time," it insults me. But it must work, because candidates for both parties generate massive applause by doing what's called "doling out red meat." The primary season for the Republican 2016 field is getting ramped up, and examples of this include people shouting "God bless America" at the end of the speech, as if that's supposed to make every Christian want to vote for them, regardless of what else they said. But democrats are even more insidious, because they don't just utilize identity politics, they are far more effective than republicans at capitalizing on resentment, envy, hatred of 'the other,' often playing their constituent groups against each other. 

One way they insult you is by pretending that seeing more people "like you" represented somewhere, be it among Olympic sports teams (how many Americans are Olympians?), on television (how many of us are TV stars?), on news broadcasts (how many of us are journalists?), etc, that this will somehow improve your life. This is the insulting lie they tell women, blacks, hispanics and homosexuals, among other groups: that without doing anything significant to improve real life for the vast majority of Americans belonging to those groups, they agitate for rich CEOs to increase the amount of women news anchors, or black film leads, or homosexual sitcom actors, and they do this by telling the constituency to be angry that there aren't "more of them" represented in those positions.

The rich people shuffle the deck, the democrats claim victory, and the constituency feels satisfied with the result of something that does diddly squat to improve their life or liberty. And one simply must ask, "do they really think people are that dumb?"

Apparently they do. Whether people are that dumb depends on how representative the many people who happily follow along with this identity politicking are of the sum of the constituent groups in question.

My Point
And that's why a marketing department can propose this advertisement for an over-the-counter painkiller.

A lot of the promotion of homosexuality in television has been seen as "brave" or "bold," ostensibly because so many people are against it that it must be difficult or risky to endeavor. I suppose that means that the makers of this advertisement likewise think that there must be wide swaths of America that are Adoption-Racists, who don't think people should adopt kids who aren't of the same "race," judging by the still shot alone. It's hard to figure out the reasoning of people who don't expect you to be intelligent. What are they really expecting the response to be?

Well, the clear intent of this Tylenol commercial is to say "gay men raising children are just as good of a family dynamic as a man and woman, therefore, buy our product."

What does a painkiller have to do with homosexual households? Shouldn't I get a painkiller based on whether it reduces my pain? But nope, not according to Tylenol. They're banking on the fact that you don't buy painkillers for any scientific reason, but because you want to support the message and corporate policy of the company that creates the painkiller. They are hoping that you will think, "this company advocates for a single issue that I happen to agree with, so I will buy their product to increase their quarterly profits, to send the message that the American people supports their political views."

In contrast, another common painkiller, Aleve, uses this argument:

Aleve works better than Tylenol or Advil. All day long, all day strong.

It might be true, it might not be, but at least they're making the case that you should buy their product because it works.

Perhaps Aleve's corporate bigwigs are just as pro-ssm as Tylenol's are. That's not the point I'm making here. The point I'm making is, the way in which large companies advertise their products is based on how they are rewarded.

If an ad spot generates more revenue by making a scientific argument: "our product works and is better than the competition's," then they will keep doing that.

If an ad spot generates more revenue by making a political statement: "gay marriage, yay!" then they will keep doing that.

Takeaway:
The increase in recent days of similar ads, which portray happy homosexual couples (together with blended families and "interracial" couples, as if those things were morally controversial) being 'just like everyone else,' bottle-feeding babies and living the American Dream, seem to demonstrate that when it comes to the Public's response to advertisements, the People are thoroughly committed to rewarding rich people who treat them according to "identity politics," rather than rewarding people who encourage them to think and make decisions based on what works.

The consequences are readily apparent to that proportion of us which prefers to think.

~ Rak Chazak

Sarcastic Apologetic Response of the Day

One of the characters that I met through my university forum had an excellent response to a few aggressive feminists and postmodern pro-"transgender" debaters on a discussion thread a while back. I think it was succinct and powerful enough to be worth sharing here.

If I may demand of society how it perceives me in one way, then why not in another way? What limits that principle to gender?
Why can't I demand to be perceived as a different species? So my DNA says I'm human. Who cares? Species is a social construct, just like gender. Species is genetic, while species expression is external. I choose to live as a T-Rex.

…

[omitted for conciseness]

…

[OPPONENT], if I or my ancestors make money and I become wealthy, then I am wealthy according to the natural order. If I run for office and get elected President, then I am President according to the natural order. If I am born genetically human, then I am human according to the natural order. And so on. If I am born with XY sex chromosomes, then I am a man by the natural order.

I'm a middle class male human being. Economic and genetic reality dictate those facts beyond any doubt. So if I were to declare right now that "I am a millionaire" or "I am a T-Rex" or "I am a woman", why would the first two statements be nonsense while the third wouldn't?

~ Rak Chazak

What To Expect If You Are An Outspoken Christian Public University Student

I'm going to start this off on a happy note, with some wise words by the 'Prince of Preachers':

“Discernment is not simply telling the difference between what is right and wrong; rather, it is telling the difference between right and almost right." ~ C H Spurgeon

And end on a more somber note. I often tell myself, to ensure that I maintain a proper perspective, that I really have it good, here in America. I have never been at want for food, clothes, a place to live or enough money--thanks to my hardworking parents--to keep me in school until I've seen it finished. And as a Christian, I've never faced true persecution. Opposition, maybe. But I have lived my whole life without being treated unjustly by society-at-large, or someone in a position of great authority, because of my Christian faith.

That's why the email I received from a faculty member at my university made me pause and consider that maybe, in a small sense, I'd just gotten a tiny taste of what persecution is like. I say tiny, because I still have freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom to engage in the  economy (you don't have that if you're a Christian Dhimmi, or second-class citizen, in an Islamic country), and I don't fear for my life, like they do in Nigeria, for example.

It's weird, when you realize that you just got treated with disregard simply because of your beliefs. At least the first time it happens. You know to expect it, but it's strange nonetheless -- there's just something about it that feels like it isn't a "normal" sort of dislike...which I would of course chalk up to the spiritual nature of the war we're fighting.

I won't say what university, or what State I'm in, but I live in the region that I would consider the Mid-Atlantic Region of the United States. My university has an online discussion-forum where students can debate things if they wish. It is non-anonymous--our names are attached to our posts. I was the only outspoken Christian, who consistently used Biblical arguments and logical reasoning to justify my positions on various political issues that would be brought up. I never considered -- and here I was naive to not do so -- that some students would seek to go after me personally in order to intimidate me out of sharing my beliefs. Well, they don't know me very well. I don't fear man. But what I didn't realize was that my enemies (it's fair to call them that) were engaging in a rumor campaign to poison public opinion against me. It sounds extreme, and a bit ridiculous -- but sinful men will stop at no lengths to justify their rebellion against their Creator, and as a consequence, they will stop at no length to attack that which reminds them that God is in authority over them. Namely, you. There's nothing they won't do to shut you up. Presently they will use intimidation and seek to use the justice system or public opinion to silence you; but if they had the motive and opportunity, they would gladly kill you for your witness. I don't know how long that day is from today, here in America. I won't speculate. But I will say that the hatred I've seen in college students toward God and toward those that preach Christ causes me to be utterly convinced that, given the right cultural climate, the God-haters will easily escalate angry words into murder. Christ said that he who hates his brother is a murderer. I believe it. Those who hate you secretly want you dead. All that prevents that from being a reality is the restraining ministry of the Holy Spirit that holds them back from acting on their sinful desires.

Okay, on to the conclusion of the story. I went to a professor that I had had, and asked him for a letter of recommendation so that I could apply to internships (which required you to turn in two recommendations for your application to be considered). He agreed, at first. Then he sent me an email saying that he had mentioned my name to someone else, and they had told him I'd said "inflammatory" things on the university discussion site. I explained myself to him in a second email. Here is an excerpt of his response:

        Much more significantly my unenthusiastic recommendation will be more readily apparent to any reader for its sterility because they will read between the lines.  I, and most recommenders, would strive to make supporting comments that the student would make a welcome addition to any lab and that their career in science is promising.  I can't offer that for you.  Homophobes and proselytes are not welcome in any lab, or any workplace that I know of, and strict believers in the bible are anti-science.

        "The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also." -Mark Twain

        I can write a recommendation letter, Hakam, but it's probably not one that would advance your chances.  Perhaps your true vocation is in the clergy or as a missionary?  You have faith ... that's great for you. But for those of us in science faith is not enough.

Are the universities tolerant of Christianity? This professor wasn't. A word of advice to Christian parents; think carefully about whether you send your child to a public university. If they go, they'll need to be more skilled than I was at not stirring up the hornets' nest. I would further recommend this online book, which gives advice for how to 'survive' college as a Christian: Fish Out of Water

This email is very real. It reveals the very real animosity that exists toward Christians in the scientific fields at public research universities in the United States.

This is far from open persecution. But it's a part of the cultural attitude that will eventually rationalize the "implementation" of oppressive legal restrictions on Christians unless a miraculous revival were to take place and turn back this country from the brink.

Not to sow fear or anything. 

~ Rak Chazak