Culture: The problem with the Coke ad: You don’t get to invent your own definition of America

by: Sarah Barnes on Tuesday February 4th, 2014 published at CainTV.com

Everything means whatever, so nothing means anything.

I did not watch the “big game” because I just don’t care which body part the name-of-the-week celebrity decides to shake in between half-second clips of football. But I did notice the long stream of articles related to the Coke commercial on Facebook today. I wasn’t going to watch it, which is what I always tell myself. I promised myself I was absolutely, no-way-no-how, going to watch that stupid commercial.

But six hours into an unexpected day of being snowed-in, I caved. Having seen it, I noticed that a lot of people clearly had a problem with the ad, but many struggled to put their fingers on exactly what the problem was.

That’s ironic, because failure to communicate is exactly the problem with this ad. We no longer communicate if communicating means defining anything. Nothing has a definition because everyone now invents their own definition for everything. And that’s what Coke did in this ad: It invented a new definition for America.

That’s a problem, because America actually has a real definition connected to its founding and history. And we need the America of that definition. The real one.

This is not about the different languages used in the ad. It’s about something more.

I had a dear friend e-mail me seeking my opinion after she viewed the commercial. She has dedicated a large portion of her life to raising awareness and funds for orphans in countries all over the globe, but she felt the need to precede her comments with clarifying that she is not racist. She travels to orphanages and holds children of every ethnicity by the hand. She works to become engrained in their lives as well as engraining them in hers.

Why did she feel the need to say she isn’t racist? I know that she is far from racist. Everyone who knows her knows that to be true. She felt the need because racism is no longer known by its original definition, or almost any definition at all. It’s a catch-all for: “I’m not going to take the energy to listen to you or think about what you are saying to me.”

The goal of communists and socialists is to destroy our ideals from the inside out. Redefining words is child’s play. They have moved beyond that. To take a word and assign it another definition would still make that word usable. It would leave us with the ability to communicate effectively, allow us to hold on to our culture, heritage, ideals and goals.

What the left has very slowly done is not to redefine words, but to un-define them. Important words we use to structure the very basis for our society have become useless. What is a structure without sound building blocks? We live in a society where father is replaced by words like child-support payment, sperm donor, male role model. Disagree is replaced by hate, loathing, anger. The word different becomes devalue, belittle, diminish. Americans are never sure which word has which meaning and when, so Americans have stopped saying anything. The fear of rejection has caused us to keep our mouths shut. Go with the flow. Keep our heads down. The word family could have an endless combination of players: mother, stepmother, egg donor, birth mother, birth father, male role model, two fathers, three fathers.

No wonder kids don’t respect their parents anymore. What is a parent anyway? Nobody is really sure! We can’t even agree on what a baby is or when it is alive. To take it a step further, we don’t even know when a living baby is considered a human being, or when it is not OK to kill one!

The problem? The unease? What is it? American culture is something children grow up to love. They feel faithful to a country that has sacrificed to provide freedom and liberty. Lives were lost to establish safety for our bodies and our minds. We are grateful! We are willing to die to protect the gift! We send our best, the very best we have to offer, to the front lines of life or death because we believe so strongly in our ideals. We believe so strongly in the culture we have painstakingly built, using building blocks of the lives lost by our best!

It is a part of every single true American. Why then is Coke not glorifying the culture that began this great nation, the spirit that is struggling to stay alive today? Why does Coke need to tell us that those building blocks aren’t good enough anymore? In just over a minute they told us that multiculturalism, political correctness, and forced equality should replace our time-honored culture and heritage.

Read more…

Manhood 101 for feminists

A Voice for Men| August 6, 2013

rat
Feminists are at it again, demonstrating they are equal to men in strength and independence — by damseling themselves, threatening to cry and faint and never step up to prove their equalness again if men don’t start protecting them from harsh words typed from behind anonymous screen names on the interwebs.

You can get a sample of that kind of thinking in this video.

Once again, they need men to clear the way, not of wild beasts or indigenous savages or foreign attackers, but of misfits and teenagers with laptops and low social IQs. Only when this scurrilous plague is extirpated can this brand of woman prove she can do anything men can do, and do it better, and do it in heels.

Feminist woman has so much to say; so many emotions to emote, and she will stand behind it all like Joan of Arc, as long as there are men around to shut anyone up who gives her a hard time. Or who disagrees with her. Or who might look a little creepy.

Her censorship target célèbre this time is the social media website Twitter, where, like everywhere else online, there is no shortage of under-socialized, and likely underage incorrigible misfits who get a rise out of getting under the people’s skins. The thinner the skin, methinks, the better.

Nothing gets under the wafer-thin porcelain epidermis of a feminist quicker than rapey-tweets, which apparently have been coming in abundance.

Mind you, the feminists have reframed these comments into rape “threats,” which almost none of them are. But don’t worry, I won’t bore you long with such realities. The fact is that many of these comments do have a kind of rapey aura to them, which is by design since everyone knows that use of the “R” word outside PSAs for the sexual grievance industry makes feminists wilt like cheap flowers and put 911 on speed dial.

There are actually two phenomena at play here. One is the comments themselves, which we will get to in a minute, but the first one is what I like to call Watson’s Law. This is the principle that social power and dominance for feminist women as a class is roughly equal to a manufactured crisis multiplied by the energy expended by obsequious men to charge in and fix it.

We saw this law’s namesake, Rebecca Watson, pave the way for her sisters by taking a few internet comments and turning them into a security crisis for secular conferences, thereby thrusting her (with her enthusiastic consent) into the public limelight. Since then she can giggle and smile while complaining that she can’t make it through the parking lot at a secular gathering without being raped, or maybe even being invited to coffee.

Anita Sarkeesian was a quick study in Watson’s Law. She took the basic principles and put them to work for profit. Sarkeesian posted some pro-feminist drivel in an online community where she knew it would not be popular, then took the predictable rapey-beaty reactions, parlayed them into a threat narrative and used that to damsel herself in a Kickstarter. She shrewdly manipulated her way into 150 grand, with which she has made a couple of Youtube vids aimed at ultimately asserting feminist hegemony in the gaming world.

Not bad work if you can get it, and these women can.

Read more…

Robert Oscar Lopez: I was raised by lesbians, and I oppose gay marriage

by Robert Oscar Lopez | Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:17 EST | LifeSiteNews

August 14, 2012 (thePublicDiscourse.com) – Between 1973 and 1990, when my beloved mother passed away, she and her female romantic partner raised me. They had separate houses but spent nearly all their weekends together, with me, in a trailer tucked discreetly in an RV park 50 minutes away from the town where we lived. As the youngest of my mother’s biological children, I was the only child who experienced childhood without my father being around.

After my mother’s partner’s children had left for college, she moved into our house in town. I lived with both of them for the brief time before my mother died at the age of 53. I was 19. In other words, I was the only child who experienced life under “gay parenting” as that term is understood today.

Quite simply, growing up with gay parents was very difficult, and not because of prejudice from neighbors. People in our community didn’t really know what was going on in the house. To most outside observers, I was a well-raised, high-achieving child, finishing high school with straight A’s.

Inside, however, I was confused. When your home life is so drastically different from everyone around you, in a fundamental way striking at basic physical relations, you grow up weird. I have no mental health disorders or biological conditions. I just grew up in a house so unusual that I was destined to exist as a social outcast.

My peers learned all the unwritten rules of decorum and body language in their homes; they understood what was appropriate to say in certain settings and what wasn’t; they learned both traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine social mechanisms.

Even if my peers’ parents were divorced, and many of them were, they still grew up seeing male and female social models. They learned, typically, how to be bold and unflinching from male figures and how to write thank-you cards and be sensitive from female figures. These are stereotypes, of course, but stereotypes come in handy when you inevitably leave the safety of your lesbian mom’s trailer and have to work and survive in a world where everybody thinks in stereotypical terms, even gays.

I had no male figure at all to follow, and my mother and her partner were both unlike traditional fathers or traditional mothers. As a result, I had very few recognizable social cues to offer potential male or female friends, since I was neither confident nor sensitive to others. Thus I befriended people rarely and alienated others easily. Gay people who grew up in straight parents’ households may have struggled with their sexual orientation; but when it came to the vast social universe of adaptations not dealing with sexuality—how to act, how to speak, how to behave—they had the advantage of learning at home. Many gays don’t realize what a blessing it was to be reared in a traditional home.

Continue reading…

H/T Teresa Harke from the Oregon Family Council

Mr. President, I’ve Evolved On Gay Marriage Too

Mr. President, I’ve Evolved On Gay Marriage Too (via http://www.thebrennerbrief.com)

Last year during the presidential campaign, President Barack Obama “evolved” on the issue of gay marriage, and decided that he would now support gay marriage. Let’s review how he evolved on gay marriage over the years: However, Mr. President, I’ve evolved on gay marriage, as well. Growing up…