CC Chapman is one of the best-known social media marketing consultants in the business. He's everywhere and constantly visible.
And now he's joined other tech web sites or social media "thought leaders" in waging the campaign against organizations and businesses whose leaders have come out for traditional family values and refuse to be stampeded into the pro-gay politically-correct stance.
Right -- they refuse to give up their beliefs in our free country that is supposed to protect freedom of belief -- or non-belief under the First Amendment.
TechCrunch's Gregory Ferenstein has started a controversial posting that has driven more traffic to TechCrunch, using their usual methods, and of course has caused some to ask if what social media is *about* is really a topic for the tech media.
I'm not surprised that they've made it one, because the geeks are always welding their own views into the tech, especially social media, and view the tech press as not really something to report tech news, but to help spread their worldviews and gain more power. That's natural for every power grouping. They are no different, and just have more of it than others these days.
Mashable also got on the ban wagon. Of course one of the leading Better Worlders, Jeff Bezos, is also going to put money into getting gay marriage passed -- and that means more hate campaigns against conservatives and boycott campaigns against targeted businesses in social media.
All the while they are engaging in this bullying campaign -- yes, it is indeed bullying, replete with snark, hate, incitement, viciousness, anger -- these social media gurus and bloggers are patting themselves on the back for their tolerance and love of human rights and taking star turns for cresting the wave of the latest "progressive" new media-whipsawed campaign.
It's pretty well orchestrated now, so I asked CC if he was paid to casually blog his love-up of Target.
As I say below, I'm glad Target did this ad -- but were they bullied into it? Is this like Shakedown Street?
And I think the way to bring about gay marriage rights and other rights related to the LGBT cause is not by vilifying the Christian right or the conservatives, but to demand equality and praise those who do tolerate gays.
I think the campaign by the aggressive "progressives' is only going to lead to more backlash.
***
I love that we are seeing more ads like this. It reflects the world we live in. Plus I love thinking about all the assholes who will look at this and get bent out of shape.
Someday, this won't be news. That day can't get here soon enough.
i can really care less about that chicken company everyone is talking about. Who I really love today is Target
-
83 people like this.
-
-
Corey O'Loughlin Love love love this! -
Margot Bloomstein Really hope this means Target is changing its ways in the gay community--and not just trying to attract their dollars. It's been a tough boycott! -
Paul Parkinson Next up Chick-Fil-A... -
Rick Liebling Here's the really important part: When we reach the time that people don't look at this and say, "Yeah, Target supports Gay marriage!" but when a heterosexual couple looks at this and simply says, "We should register at Target."Thursday at 10:56am · · 3 -
Kirsten Harrell CC - I appreciate your comment. I look forward to that day too!Thursday at 11:15am via mobile · -
Jackie Funk Lots of love coming your way, Charles. If only we could convince the Boy Scouts of America! -
C.C. Chapman Don't even get me going on them Jackie Funk!!! I grew up in the scouts and their stance on religion and sexuality piss me off to my core.Thursday at 11:23am · · 2 -
Jackie Funk We have kept Jackson in, despite Denise's permanent removal. Fortunately, her current troop is supportive. Unfortunately, her being "banned for life" for simply being gay means she is excluded from numerous outings, scout development programs, etc. She's missing camp this week for this very reason (sigh...). I remain optimistic that awareness and education will eventually prevail.
-
Catherine Ann FitzpatrickI'm glad there are ads like this, too, CC, I support gay marriage and all LGBT rights. The way to campaign is through positive steps like this. These aggressive hate campaigns against Boy Scouts, Chick fil-A, trying to force private organizations to change their views, only causes backlashes, doesn't work, and is actually contrary to American law (First Amendment). The path for tolerance and empowerment of minorities in the US has always led through equal rights and civil rights, not through rabid "progressive" movements that establish hegemony for only one political and cultural perspective. Be pissed off all you want about BSA -- then start your own scouts or join some other organizations rather than *coerce* people into changing their views which in fact are compliant with law. -
Liz GumbinnerCatherine, I have to disagree. I don't think that condemning hate equals a hate campaign. And it's not a first amendment issue or a legal one. Freedom of speech is guaranteed to individuals, not corporations; and customers are entitled to know where their money is going, and to support those companies whose values align with their own. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, and it's one of the most amazing, wonderful hallmarks of a democracy that its citizenry is allowed to speak up about injustices.
It's also not accurate to say that these campaign don't work. Target entirely revamped their political giving policies after customer backlash. http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/02/17/target-enacts-new-political-giving-policies/ And loud support for JC Penney's hiring of Ellen DeGeneres overtook the loud (minority) campaign against her.
There are many other examples of public pressure leading to positive change. Progress only happens when people are willing to speak up and say, "this isn't right."
www.washingtonblade.comChange follows 2010 election donation controversyYesterday at 9:20am · · 2 -
Catherine Ann Fitzpatrick@Luz Gumbinner You're wrong about the First Amendment, and indeed it *is* a First Amendment and therefore legal issue. You don't seem to grasp how it works. It is not that free speech is "guaranteed" or "guaranteed to individuals, not corporations" -- that's incorrect. It's about *absence* of action by Congress to interfere with the recognized inherent freedom of speech -- the wording is "Congress shall make no law..." Of course the First Amendment applies to individuals as well as corporations, and that was true even before Citizens' United, which only reinforced the campaign contribution issue.
What I marvel at is that you say that " customers are entitled to know where their money is going, and to support those companies whose values align with their own" -- applauding the free speech of individuals and their rights -- but can't grasp that the same applies in reverse -- companies have the same rights. Individual CEOs who head those companies get to espouse the views they like and make their companies align with their values. You are not required to use their services. But going to a boycott, and inciting the kind of vicious hatred we've seen (the VP of Public Relations of Chik-fil-A died of a heart attack!) begins then to encroach on others' rights, and isn't merely a fulfillment of one's own rights.
Campaigns like this using the "freeze and isolate the target" Saul Alinsky method don't really work. All they do is bully and shame companies into scared stampeding to get reputation management from people like CC who do social media management. That's all. It doesn't change hearts and minds. It merely changes the semblance of hearts and minds -- it's really fake. The loud support for JC Penny over Ellen DeGeneres may overtake the loud campaign against her, but only from where you sit -- for where the opposition sit, they will only backlash harder in the next round.
This is what I keep saying to people who think you're winning: win the culture war, lose the election. Just watch.
Public pressure doesn't lead to positive change because in fact, gay marriage isn't getting legalized and the battle has grown harder in many states precisely because of these aggressive "progressive" hate and vilification campaigns. I'm confident that in some quarters LGBT leaders know this and at some point they're going to switch tactics and I look forward to seeing how/whether they can really call off their dogs. The 'progressives' overall think they are on a roll now, bullying Komen despite their views to return to funding Planned Parenthood despite some members' objections; harassing Rush Limbaugh for his tasteless remarks that are no different than leftwing talk show hosts' tasteless remarks (and some of them get that); bullying BSA and now Chik-fil-A. Who's next?
I don't want to live in a country where select groups of people get to bully and persecute others and force them to change their views. I don't want it for gay people; I don't want it for Christian fundamentalists. I do not want that kind of country. That kind of country is the Soviet Union. I do not want it. I will fight it.
It's not as you say, that people are saying "this isn't right". Instead, some well-financed Saul Alinsky methodologists in the highly-paid social media hyposphere that CC probably knows are creating the semblance of a social movement and stampeding the clicking crowds. Meanwhile, gay marriage doesn't get legalized. There is a connection here. That's because the focus isn't on equality and civil rights for all. It's about using one right to bully another into backing off from their own exercise of their right. That's wrong. -
Liz Gumbinner I will always stand up against hatred and discrimination, Catherine. I always have. And I'm glad people like CC are willing to do it too. "Bullies" like Susan B Anthony and Martin Luther King have paved the way.10 hours ago via mobile ·
-
C.C. Chapman Catherine, I'm with Liz on this completely. Everyone is entitled to their thoughts, but using the word "hate" in the way you are is completely off base. I also find it interesting that individuals gathering around a cause are bullies, but the big corporations are not. That fascinates me that you believe that.
But, as I was taught, to each their own. -
Catherine Ann FitzpatrickOf course it's hate and intolerance in reverse, CC. The deliberate, tendentious representation of this man's views as expressed on the record is only the beginning. The shrill, venomous hate campaigns on social media are obvious for all to see. You yourself say "their stance on religion and sexuality piss me off to my core" indicating the deep anger *and hate* you feel for a perspective that in fact a) does not prevent YOU from living as you please b) doesn't prevent gays from living as they please c) isn't illegal or threatening d) is only going to grow stronger, as a backlash, for feeling threatened. You just don't see it, CC, because as Madge used to say on the commercial in the old days, "You're soaking in it." Why is a big corporation a "bully" merely for deciding they want to endorse Christian beliefs and promote them in their philanthropy and public statements, but Jeff Bezos, in an even more gigantic wealthy corporation *isn't* a bully for funding the gay marriage struggle, which of course will include funding these kind of social media bullying campaigns!!! Hello! Look on the horrible Yahoo comments. The first thing people do from the "masses" is say "I hate it that this rich guy can buy a vote against what I believe". And you know something? There's a hell of a lot of blacks and Hispanics who have this more traditional belief, and they are a huge growing consumer class of young people for gadgets, and YOU ought to appreciate that. So be fascinated all you like, big guy. You're in a bubble. A person in the social media biz cannot afford to be in a bubble. You read too much TechCrunch, and too much self-reinforcing Facebook friend comments. To your peril.
-
C.C. Chapman Sorry you feel this way. Nothing more I can say as I read this all and have to laugh. It is obvious that we see life VERY differently and that's fine. Great part about this world, room for all opinions.
-
Catherine Ann Fitzpatrick@Liz Gumbinner You sound rather self-righteous and self-congratulatory. I stand up against hatred and discrimination, too. And that's EXACTLY what is happening when the aggressive "progressives" bully and harass individuals and groups and businesses to *forcibly* change their views or lose their business. That *is* bullying. Martin Luther King didn't use violence and didn't use force. He used peaceful methods and peaceful rhetoric. What a world away from the vicious unaccountable Internet mobs that spread hate.
-
Matt Searles CC Chapman I LOVE "Plus I love thinking about all the assholes who will look at this and get bent out of shape" - gives me black heart a warm glow -
Catherine Ann Fitzpatrick P.S. Are you paid to do this campaign on social media, CC?
-
-
-
Matt SearlesWell.. I don't know if I should jump into this.. I think this complex in how it relates to the national discourses on the subject and I think the problem.. is a polarization where the right and left don't hear each other so well.. I think there is tone deafness on both sides.. which just exacerbates the friction... and a lot of it has to with the structural implications of the media system and it's implications on what and how stuff spreads..
But.. on the subject of bullies.. Civil Rights was not all none violent.. Black Nationalism, the Black Panthers, Malcolm X... Nelson Mendela was not a non violent protester.. and all these people and groups played a roll in the movement, and bringing the ball forward..
The way I would describe is to say "beware in throwing out your demons that you don't throw out the best part of you" that.. that the problem is not that you have this demon, it's that you haven't integrated it into your personality in such a way that it would play a constructive roll.. and the personality integration.. if you apply this to collective consciousness.. I mean it basically comes down America is in a big struggle to grow up. -
Catherine Ann FitzpatrickNo, it's not about the "left and the right not hearing each other so well". I'm not on the right. I'm a liberal. I voted for Obama. I won't be doing that again because the pendulum has swung way too hard to the left. While it's fashionable to throw around Foucault words like "discourses," the reality is, there's a very poor understanding on the left particularly among the "progressives" about what civil rights really mean -- they really mean pluralism and free speech and diversity in the very real sense, not in the fake politically-correct sense. All that talk about "structuralist this and that" (Marxist critical approaches) can't disguise the real structure problem: an absolute refusal of the left to accept genuine freedom, genuine democracy, and genuine civil liberties. They've hijacked these terms and used them for so long as a fig leaf to their real Marxist agenda that they have completely lost touch with how fake they are. As for violence in the civil rights movement, that's not the civil rights movement. That's the violent black nationalist radical movement inspired by Soviet-style Marxist ideals and anarchist ideas, that were spread in the world in the 1960s. We don't have civil rights because of violence; we have civil rights because of non-violence. Had the Black Panthers succeeded, we wouldn't have freedom, but would live under Soviet-style tyranny. They bullied, beat, and even murdered their critics. They are not what made the civil rights movement succeed, they are not about the rule of law. Nelson Mandela also advocated and accepted violence. But that's not what won the anti-apartheid movement, it's in fact what delayed it many years from succeeding. This casual embracing of revolutionary radical violence by "progressives" is profoundly disturbing, and it's why they cannot be allowed to come to power in our country. As for your psychobabble at the end -- well, there isn't any need for anybody to grow up but the infantile tantruming left *shrugs*.
-
-
-
C.C. Chapman Catherine, I saw a photo that I appreciated and shared it. That is all. Amazing that you'd think otherwise. Hope you have a great rest of your weekend.
-
Catherine Ann FitzpatrickThat's great, CC, but you should hardly think it's "amazing," given how concerted, contrived and concentrated these campaigns are right now. They are bought and paid social media exercises that whiplash people who do in fact genuinely believe what they do...but it all has LOTS of help. You're in the social media manipulation business, so the question *has* to be asked, given how often what you do on social media isn't merely just "sharing" or "your own personal opinions" but is weaved into the ad business.
-
C.C. Chapman Wow. I'm speechless to say the least. The fact that you think that is how business works shows just how little you understand. LIke I said before have a great weekend and move on to another street corner to picket please. My wall has had enough of it.
-
Shaine Lee Mata From a marketing perspective, it seems very niche. The occasional reference here and there would work. This just seems like overt pandering. It's like businesses jumping on social media just because others are doing it. But, I suppose it depends on where the ad is placed.
-
And this is where CC blocks me because I can't use his wall as a picket sign -- only he can lol.
And like always, the geeks respond to direct, relevant, obvious criticism with making out their arcane priesthood to be even more arcane, that ordinary citizens "can't" understand it.
The fact is, as I worked for the Soros foundations for many years, I sat in on many meetings where just this type of old media, then new media campaign was formed, and the hired guns were brought in who are skilled in the "Saul Alinsky methods" as they are called by the right -- and not without reason. They are manipulative, they're hateful, they're arrogant and superior. It's class warfare of the prime Marxist sort.
It's why I wrote about CC and the "World Domination Summit" -- the sense that staged and contrived huge mass meetings like this feel so much like the Soviet experiment....
Recent Comments