Actually, I think that this onion piece comes so close to the truth that one could comment seriously on it.
A typical TV broadcast of a gay pride certainly isn’t going to result in people realizing their preconceived opinions about gays were misguided or in changing their views about a gay marriage being a laughable parody.
Yeah, but if someone is willing to tolerate gay people only if they’re quiet and nonthreatening, how open minded are they really being?
Yesterday, a pollster came knocking on my door and asked me what I thought about some ads, despite me not having the first clue about advertising as a job.
Presumably, those people are trying to convince non-gays. So, it seems to me that how non-gays perceive the PR operation has some relevance.
You may have a point.
According to this report the organizer of the event had this to say
Heh, heh. That reminds of something that happened to me the other day. This politician came to my house and asked me how much I want to spend on NASA. Then he asked me how much I’d like to spend on Iraq. It was great! Then we talked about whether we should spend a trillion bailing out big business. That was Awesome! I couldn’t believe how important my views were!
Then I woke up.
Woke up in a world where the opinion of 2% of the population who has no clue about NASA, Iraq, big business or gays can change drastically the policies regarding these issues in your country.
Basically, I’d like to see civil rights elevated to the level of “don’t let the stupid people decide.”
Television.
Frankly, most people in this country pre-1964 didn’t give blacks much thought. They were little seen, and their plight, even if it came to mind, seemed abstract and unchangeable. Television brought home their dignity and humanity (in large part because of the peaceful, dignified and non-violent way they comported themselves, even in the face of violence themselves) and made everyone aware for the first time just how badly blacks were being treated in this country and what they were having to endure in their efforts to correct it.
Thus millions and millions of Americans who theretofore had been ignorant of how blacks were having to live and how heavily it weighed upon them, became sypathetic to their plight and began to support civil rights, both legislatively and societally.
And RT, thanks for the accurate reading of my intent. 
And to achieve this goal, you’ll still have to convince people, however stupid, that it’s a civil right issue or to pray for a benevolent dictator.
Television certainly was a contributing factor, but it’s not the sole factor here. The statistics I’ve seen indicate that by 1954 (which is the year of the landmark desegregation ruling), only around 30% of the population had a television set. You can keep peddling these simplistic narratives, but there’s no particular reason to believe them.
I wouldn’t approve of straight people acting like this either, and if that’s what being “open-minded” means, no thanks.
Like Mardi Gras or something? I’m pretty sure the straight revelers would tell you to fuck yourself, and you’d have no choice but to self-fuck.
I hate Mardi Gras, the mindset behind Mardi Gras, and the original purpose of Mardi Gras. (Ooh, let’s sin all we can before we have to give stuff up for Lent!)
Did I say it was the sole factor?
So, the battle was over by 1954?
And besides, 30% of the population having access to certain information can have a huge ripple effect. Look at the influence Playboy had on society in its early days and it was in nowhere near 30% of American homes.
I submitted my take on it, a take which has also been used to describe the sudden popularity and widespread embracing of rock music, the British Invasion, Carnaby Street fashion and its morphing into hippie modes of dress, and hippiedom itself. Television is also what brought Vietnam and civil rights marches into the homes and living rooms of everyday Americans across the country.
In no previous generation had there been such a widespread and instantaneous cohesiveness and acceptance of experience among such large segments of the population.
Prior to that time, styles, fads and issues moved slowly across the country, often taking three years for styles and attitudes to move from, say, the west coast to middle America, and even then they often arrived in a watered down or altered state.
So, when you get huge numbers of the population adopting certain views and attitudes all at once, major change can happen quite quickly.
Sorry, but I’m really not able to complex it up for you much more than that.
we had an inkling you were sick. now we’re sure. and you all wonder why prop 8 passed.
It’s not that gay people should be quiet and non-threatening; it’s that they shouldn’t be loud, obnoxious and deliberately threatening (if they want votes, acceptance and to be treated the same as everyone else by the populace at large, that is).
When you go shopping or out to a movie, could your behavior more likely be described as civil, polite and respectful of others…or quiet and non-threatening?
There’s a difference between behaving civilly and behaving meekly.
Why does someone like you *always *have to come in after people make perfectly reasonable conservative arguments?
There’s nothing in your post to indicate you thought it was an additional factor. Your flat statement reads to me like you thought it was the major factor. If you didn’t, then I appreciate the clarification.
I, however, in my first post clearly indicated that the civil rights movement extended well past the bus boycott which occurs slightly after this time.
It’s the bell curve effect. He’s sort of (but not quite) our version of what Der Drihs is to the left.
I do think it was a (or maybe even the) major factor in the civil rights movement taking off like it did.
That’s not to say that there weren’t important events or movements preceeding it.