Oreo shows it’s support for Gay Pride / Gay Rights
You often wonder why more democratic governments in states and nations haven’t legalised gay marriage yet. Personally, I know far more people in favour of gay marriage (at least, insofar as a legally recognised right to marry without imposing on religions to do the same).
Well, Oreo just demonstrated why this hasn’t happened yet. If a mere cookie company can cause this much of an international outcry by ‘dormant masses’ of bigots, homophobes and religious radicals, can you really blame your politicians for dodging the issue for so long?
Oreo’s Gay Pride cookie campaign last week was akin to disrupting the hornet’s nest and in an awesome display of the internet’s power for mass vitriol and hate speech, the conservative backlash took shape like a tidal wave that pushed the rest of us progressive, open-minded people back in our seats and made us realise just how far we have to go.
It also demonstrated something else: the willingness of people to openly state their mind despite the backlashes of criticism they were sure to get, on publicly accessible pages using their real names and photos. Online privacy meant nothing to these boycotters; their names are forever swimming in sea of re-posts across the World Wide Web, displaying their judgement and intolerance to their employees, their girlfriends and boyfriends, their colleagues, school friends, absolutely everyone. Do they realise this? Surely they do. Do they care? Apparently not. Free speech seems to prevail over protecting ones personal image, in certain subject matter.
In a way therefore, all those opposed to homophobia can rest assured those orchestrating the Oreo Boycott dig their own graves. Consequences will be far-reaching for a long time to come for some of these people, much longer than the Oreo campaign will be active. Suddenly, the conservatives are the minority and homosexuals are backed by the majority.
But, like all radical minorities, governments still like to appease and recognise them, apparently. It’s ironic that in embracing one minority (homosexuality) we shun and anger another (homophobes). So is the way of the world…
This aside, I do like that people — regardless of their stance — still feel they can be transparent and voluntarily self-damaging by voicing their opinions on the Internet without having to resort to a shifty alias or “Anonymous” label. It’s becoming less and less common thanks to the increasing requirement to use your full name, photo and email address wherever you post online.
The fact these commenters publicly announced their disdain for gays also allows me to re-post exposing screenshots of the commenters without fear of retribution. The Internet is fair game like that.
The following screenshots are taken from Oreo’s Facebook page, as re-posted on Buzzfeed‘s article “How Could You Boycott a Cookie?”
Oreo Homophobes. Image Credit: Oreo public Facebook page, via users re-posting on Buzzfeed.com.
Image Credit: Oreo public Facebook page, via user “Jonathanecko” re-posting on Buzzfeed.com.
Blatant homophobia. Image Credit: http://revelandriot.com/gay-pride-oreo-cookie-enrages-homophobes-70266
Let us consider the amount of Facebook commenters here opening themselves up to passionate / hateful debate. It’s obviously a topic they are extremely passionate about, but when topics turn controversial, the level of true opinion is often significantly stifled if there is a requirement to use your full name, or comment via a medium that all your friends, family and colleagues may see and judge.
True, unabashed free speech is important because it enlightens the human conscious in all sorts of ways. The way the above comments enlighten the gay rights debate is by making the rest of us realise how long the road to change still is.
The commenters above make me wonder how much of the Oreo backlash has been muted because people don’t feel comfortable commenting on the Oreo Facebook page for fear of being lumped in with “the bigots”.
I am willing to bet that the number of silent boycotters is a hundred times the number who voiced their disgust.
Governments know this. It’s sad. This is fundamentally the reason gay marriage has failed to be legalised in the majority of places.
Oreo, thank you for exposing the dark, bubbling intolerance that to this day permeates our nations.
Related articles
- Oreo’s Rainbow ‘Pride’ Cookie Prompts Internet Controversy (newsfeed.time.com)
- “Anyone who eats Oreos is now openly a heretic…Eating Oreos is now a Sin” (slog.thestranger.com)
- Oreo’s gay pride Facebook post prompts threats of boycott (guardian.co.uk)
- Oreo Pride: Facebook Post Causes Social Media Stir (radian6.com)
- Oreo Surprises 26 Million Facebook Fans With Gay Pride Post (adweek.com)
- Boycott of General Mills & Also Kraft Over Gay Pride Oreo (friendseat.com)
- Oreo Celebrates Gay Pride Month With A Rainbow-Colored Cookie (pinkisthenewblog.com)
- ‘Gay pride’ Oreo causes cookie controversy (lfpress.com)
- ‘Gay Pride’ Oreo Sparks Controversy (detroit.cbslocal.com)
- Angry Cookie Lovers Threaten to Boycott Gay Oreo (blogs.sfweekly.com)
- See The Gay-Pride Oreo That Overwhelmed Kraft’s Facebook Page With Hate-Filled Comments (businessinsider.com)
- Idiots Boycotting Oreo Because of a Picture (bromoto.wordpress.com)
- Rainbow Oreos: Will Nabisco Make Cookie Inspired By Pro-Gay Facebook Photo? (ibtimes.com)
- Oreo Supports Gay Pride With This Awesome Cookie (howaboutwe.com)
- One Million Moms Condemns Oreo Cookies, Kraft For Gay Pride Support (huffingtonpost.com)
- If You’re Boycotting Oreos, You’re Kind Of A Fucking Retard (joethepeacock.blogspot.com)
- Oreo Proudly Supports Gay Pride (pinkbananaworld.com)
I have never met a soul who had a ‘phobia’ about homosexuals. Nor anyone phobic about Martinis or Mini Coopers. It is just not one of those things that anyone has any atavistic fear of.
So why it is deemed necessary to call people ‘homophobic’ in such an article beats me. Have you any more judgmental and intolerant accusations you would like to invent? Any other ‘hate-speeches’ you would like to make?
“homophobic” is pretty much the standard label for people against homosexual rights. I agree with you though that it isn’t a label meant to be taken literally. I have never personally met anyone who cowers in irrational fear if a homosexual enters a room…. (but I’m sure somewhere out there, they exist). Perhaps a more accurate term would be simply “people opposed to homosexuality”.
‘Standard’ it may be, Andrew, but insulting nontheless. Again I do not know anyone who is ‘against’ homosexual ‘rights’ ( I am sure there are some who are) but what I do see and hear is an awful lot of demand from many homosexuals for privilege. I hear demands for ‘marriage’ from some homosexuals who decry heterosexual marriage. I hear demands for the ‘right’ to cavort in a sexually provokative manner in public displays which heterosexuals do not have or do and could easily be arrested for should they try. I hear demands for taxpayers’ money to support homosexual activities which heterosexuals do not demand such monies for. I see homosexuals trying to inculcate their ‘beliefs’ in even primary schools. I hear many homosexuals claim (as standard) that their particular and quite minority sexuality is ‘normal’ and ‘natural’ as though the former was a mathematical truth and the latter was somehow relevant. After all Belladonna is natural too and so is cancer.
I have not heard of people opposed to people with cancer either, by the way, nor heard of cancer researchers and collection armies being called ‘Cancerphobics’ as though they were suffering from some sort of mental affliction.
I hear people raising objections to homosexual demands, just as anyone has a ‘right’ to do. It is called ‘Free Speech’ and is enshrined in mantras about ‘expressing’ yourself. I do hear people trying to defend the traditional meaning and purpose of Marriage too, with its miryad responsibilities and very few ‘rights’ (indeed, men in marriage have no rights at all). These people get insulted with such ‘standard’ mendacities as ‘homophobic’ or ‘hate-speech’ (another ‘standard) when in fact they simply have a different perpsective. Their view is not ‘tolerated’ by some homosexuals, who like the idea of ‘diversity’ for anyone but those who do not agree with their every demand and utterance. Their ‘right’ to free speech is derided and dismissed by homosexuals for any but themselves.
Personally I have no objection to homosexual people, treating everyone the same – as people. I can even have sympathy with cancer-sufferers. But homosexuals seem to be a little too free with their insults and if a heterosexual person raises any issue that might differ from their perspective, it is they who get demeaned, insulted, discriminated against and dismissed…. by the loud and insulting homosexuals.
That too seems ‘Standard’ these days.
I agree with Amfortas that the pejoratives don’t help this debate. Some of the posters and prejudiced and bigoted yes, but many have legitimate grievances and are passionate enough to stand on principle.
For myself the sanctity of life is important, and the only trait you cannot pass on to your children is sterility. Ultimately, children are the reason marriage exist in the first place.
A phobia refers to an irrational fear does it not?… Pretty reasonable label for such people I’d say.
Fear was an emotion the last time I opened my Psych 101 books. Rationality has nought to do with it. A Phobia is not ‘a fear’, irrational or otherwise, but an atavistic response. We all use our ‘rationality’ to learn things. One does not ‘learn’ to fear. One can, of ourse, learn about fearful things and events and make a rational decision to avoid them.
Learning is quite different from ‘phobia’. It may take 10, 50, 100 exposures to establish a new learned pattern, but just one exposure sets off a phobia. That is why it is a phobia. It is an innate and immediate response.
We have atavistic fears about spiders, snakes, rats, fire, sudden drops etc, but not bottles of Boag’s beer or mini coopers or homosexuals.
Incorrect, a phobia is in fact a fear by its very definition. Also I suspect that the above peoples attitudes stem from the fear of the unknown. Fear of the unknown most certainly does not need to be learned. I’m guessing if any of these people actually met a homosexual person they would likely change their tune.
Sheer rot. For an arachnaphobe, meeting a spider does not bring about a ‘change of mind’, but a reinforcement. Phobia is distinguished from fear for a reason. You must be a leftie, changing meaning will-nilly like that.
If you ask someone why they’re morally against giving homosexuals rights to marry, wouldn’t it most of the time go something like this: my beliefs say it’s wrong > if we legitimise it, it will spread and more people will do wrong > soon it will be more accepted to do wrong than to do good > that’s the fear. It’s a fear of an ideology being broken. Is it not?
Oh dear, how upsetting.
Can’t we make some new laws against people holding these terrible opinions? Why can’t they understand that in this day and age, everyone should be required to celebrate homosexuality?
Well done Oreo, you have showed us that black and white work well together, in time pink filled Oreo’s will be accepted too
never mind what the Oreophobes say, they’re not so smart or dedicated to boycott all the other products of your mother, brother and sister companies, looking forward to seeing the Oreo float at next years Mardi Gras…
I’m not usually a fan of the humble Oreo… However I suddenly have a hankering for a dozen or so boxes… Can’t have such a company losing any money on account of doing the decent thing, now can we!