(there are dozens of cites for this, pick your own)
“Something tells me Jesus would not spend millions of dollars on Super Bowl ads to make fascism look benign,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted on Sunday night.
Okay, she doesn;t like the ad. Fine.
She thinks they shouldnt be spending money on advertising, but advertising often pays back many fold. However, a valid point.
But “fascist”? What the hell was fascist about that ad? And worse, how was it far worse than the Nazis? This is stupid hyperbole.
This. I haven’t done a deep dive on this but my limited understanding of the organization behind this is that they are pretty shady individuals to say the least.
I think this is a summary I can agree with. About a half dozen articles about the Signatry came across my feed all showing about the same information. The ad seems to be, IMHO, similar to a bunch of other JAQ / opinion pieces that in and of themselves are innocuous, or at least, not all that out there. And then you go deeper, and it leads to something slightly less ‘okay’. And then you go deeper, and you’re in CT theory / Proud Boy / Qanon style lunacy, with each stage supporting the next.
In this case, it’s about dragging you into a loving, Christian support that understands you, and that’s fine. And then later, you’re likely to be asked what would Christ vote for, or candidates to support, or legislation, and of course, it’s for supporting their own and removing anyone who doesn’t “Get you.”
I’m not a fan of this argument. Sure, you can come up with a reason why it is fascist, but most people aren’t going to see that logic. It will just come off as using “fascist” to mean “something I morally object to,” which waters down the concept.
Personally, who puts out the ads isn’t that important to me, The messaging from those ads isn’t about supporting those people. It doesn’t benefit them.
The message of the ad seems to me to be something I’ve been wanting Christians to do for a while. Checking the website they push, it seems to be about taking the megaphone away from the nasty, unloving people. Instead, let those who are interested in love and compassion take charge. Disavow the haters.
I do have some qualms, as some of the language might be construed to say that Christians can’t stand up against those people, and should just “get along.” I get the need to be somewhat vague to not scare people off, but it would be nice if it could actually come out against some specifics.
Yeah, maybe the site will change, and start directing people to other, actually bad things. But that’s when it would make sense to sound the alarm. Not attack them for a conspiracy that hasn’t even happened yet.
I do like AOC, in general. The overuse of the term fascist can be counter productive. I would say that this is a poor use of the term, although there is a Christian nationalist movement in this country that could be called fascist.
Sorry, I was under the impression that they were supported by entities that endorsed the eradication of LGBTQ people from public life, which seems pretty fascist to me.
I don’t think you have to be rounding people into camps to count as fascist.
If you’d prefer “Christian theocracy” I’m fine with that terminology. Pretty much what I’m going for is “using your religious beliefs as a justification to discriminate against, harass and strip people of their rights.”
I don’t think AOCs comment is going to be well understood. Most people are not going to understand the ulterior political motive there. Ill-advised.
“make fascism look benign” could be interpreted as meaning that fascism is benign in comparison.
However, that’s not my interpretation. I think she is just equating the badness of this to fascism, not saying it is worse. Also, she didn’t say it was as bad as Nazism. Maybe she meant that it was as bad as something associated with Mussolini’s Italy.
To me, the ad seems an improvement over past messaging by those involved. There no reason to make them out ot be more extreme than they are. And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s statement should not be exaggerated either.
When she said it makes fascism look benign, she’s pretty obviously saying the ad is deceptively benign considering its covert intent. As in, “they are dressing up fascism in this friendly, benign appearance.”
It’s pretty much her fault if that’s misinterpreted. I really can’t stand how carelessly she speaks.
She didn’t say it makes fascism look benign by comparison, she said it makes fascism look benign.
That is, take a tiger and dress it up to look like a lamb. That’s what she’s saying.
These ads do seem pretty benign and I never got any subtext of Christian theocracy, although I don’t dispute that the people funding it may be pushing for that. Maybe it’s like those commercials that do a shitty job of selling the product – when I see these ads, I think, well, isn’t that a nice message. Finally, some Christians on TV who seem to get the message.
ETA: Disagree here. I think her messaging was clear in this case.
Not clear to @DrDeth or probably anyone to his right.
The people who needed to hear this message are not thoughtful informed progressives willing to give her a benefit of a doubt. It seems to me that any time a politician says anything they need to consider how it’s going to be heard by everyone. But I don’t think she cares. I think she is just talking aloud to her fan club.
That’s beside the point, I guess. I agree with the general thrust of her criticism.
…yeah, but in the particular era that we are living in at the moment it is simply impossible to tailor a message that will be accepted or understood by everyone. We just have to accept that.
You don’t think they are considering all of this?
The thing is:
“Something tells me Jesus would not spend millions of dollars on Super Bowl ads to make fascism look benign”
Is a perfectly fine thing to say. Because I just watched that advert and as far as I’m concerned it really does make fascism look benign. As in “holy crap that was full on propaganda”.
I’m fully in support of politician’s calling it as they see it. And I think she’s made a pretty simple correct call here.
This is my question as well. People are objecting to Jesus being portrayed as…well, what they claimed they wanted Jesus to be portrayed as. More loving, compassionate, un-political instead of right-wing, Trumpish and Republican - and they still complain. The impression one gets is that they just don’t want Jesus in TV or ads, no matter how portrayed.
Speaking as a liberal Christian, from a very liberal UMC congregation: the messaging that’s been in that ad campaign is something that I appreciate. IMO, a lot of people, particularly young people, have gotten turned off by Christianity, as a whole, because it’s the conservative, intolerant Christians who get the press, and have defined the religion, in the minds of those young unchurched people, as being something that’s inherently hateful and intolerant. Seeing Christianity portrayed in a kinder, more tolerant light is a good thing.
The issue, to me, is now learning that the funding behind the campaign is from conservative, intolerant Christian groups. And that makes me concerned that there’s another, hidden agenda in play behind the ads.
As been said many times: “If fascism ever comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.”
Now we can add: “and buying ad time during the Super Bowl.”
So AOC calls this ad “fascist.” Is this hyperbole? Possibly. Should we give a crap if it is? Not when Christian Nazionalists are actively trying to turn this country into a theocracy, wiping their bottoms with the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause and the rest of the First Amendment in the process.
This is just the sort of thing @adaher used to warn about, and he got poohed-poohed right off the board for his troubles.