Meanwhile, what made the Drudge Report today was the LA Times story about the vandalism of a Torrance Chick-Fil-A.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-hate-graffiti-vandalized.html
I guess it was more fun than painting a swastika on a synagogue to make a statement about Gaza.
That's at least twice now that you've gone to the Nazi well over this situation (see below). Don't let there be a third time or it will result in another trolling warning. I don't care if you're trying to be funny.
That wasn't meant to be funny, that was serious, though misplaced because it was the Fascists who used threats, government sanctions, and initimidation to instill fear in anyone who opposed their
anti-racist agenda.
It was only random luck that the Torrance vandals didn't use the German symbol to denounce Chick-Fil-A as "Nazis", and if this keeps up, within a week on of them
will use it, and when they do the headline writers will be free to write their own captions.
The problem with getting people so fired up over so little is that it attracts a lot of hate-filled idiots who go overboard. This has already been happening. People with no sense and no idea how their antics will be perceived have posted Youtube videos of their actions, and this is only feeding public support for Chick-Fil-A, giving the chain victim status and causing a massive outpouring of sympathetic support.
For a hypothetical example, if you support gay rights, you opposed the views of Anita Bryant, who famously denounced gays while she was the spokesman for the Florida Orange Juice council. Back then, if you'd have started showing everyone videos of you driving around town, going up to little girls' sidewalk orange juice stands and punching them in the face, everyone would've rallied in support of Anita Bryant and she wouldn't have been fired.
When the accusation of wrongdoing is weak, nebulous, hard to define, and constantly shifting, but the attacks are simple, clear, and illegal, people make up their minds very quickly about who is the bad guy and who is the good guy.
Taking an example from this page, a very sweet, patient woman working the drive thru was viciously berated, and a different store was physically vandalized, not because she did anything wrong, nor her coworkers, nor her manager, nor her franchise owner, nor the middle management at corporate, nor the CEO, nor the charity the CEO donated money to, nor the charity's lobbyist, nor the US Congress that was lobbied over the wording of a meaningless resolution, nor the Ugandan parliament that was the target of the meaningless resolution, but because someone
in the Ugandan parliament proposed an anti-gay bill that won't get voted on. For this, someone here was outraged.
The drive-thru video was posted online, so all people see is a girl getting punched in the face by a person eaten up with hate - over some proposed law that won't pass in Uganda, where there are already more than a million displaced persons living in squalor, constant war, rape, and murder. It's punching random six-year olds in the face, on camera, because you're mad at Anita Bryant.
To win and maintain public support over a victimization issue, yoiu can't throw away victim status by going overboard in your attacks or everyone rallies to the other side. The mayors of Boston and Chicago stupidly went offsides on first down and pissed off the crowd, and the errors have only multiplied since.
That's what happened with the record-setting sales Chick-Fil-A has been having since the boycott started, and why just today in a business meeting I was in, someone said "What we need is a gay boycott," a term that will probably fall into business vernacular as a synonym for winning the lottery.
As I've said, I'm frustrated watching people who intend well, but whose actions are entirely self-defeating. If gays are so upset with Chick-Fil-A, why did they go out and double or triple Chick-Fil-A's revenue? Why did they do so much to convince other franchises to adopt whatever political stand Chick-Fil-A had that made Chick-Fil-A so suddenly popular? Why did they make eating at Chick-Fil-A seem like an act of rebellion, hip, cool, patriotic, and American, all at the same time? Chick-Fil-A could've bought this kind of PR if they'd spent a billion dollars. The drama queens are too self-absorbed to see how the controversy is unfolding in everyone else's eyes.
Martin Luther King, who didn't support gay marriage and donated to Christian charities that supported families, is going to be rewritten as an evil "hater" who worked to suppress civil rights. He was probably worse than Cathy, and all the black civil rights leaders know it, and many agree with him, publically.
To win the issue, you have to carefully pick which hill to fight on, and carefully decide how to fight, and against which opposing forces. Being spastic, random, and rushing forces into an untenable position against overwhelming odds just hastens disaster instead of victory.
