I have long been wary of those who “doth protest too much”. When somebody or something is being overly active in regard to their apparent beliefs, I tend to ask questions as to the motivations of why they feel the need to yell the loudest on certain issues.
This isn’t to necessarily say that those who are seen to vehemently oppose something are, in fact, closet supporters of that thing. However, that could be the case in some instances.
Time magazine recently ran a piece on brands having to “pick a side“, especially in these tumultuous political times (which is a euphemism for “Trump’s in charge, yo”). The article suggests that brands and corporations need to highlight just how virtuous they are, so their customers can, I dunno, support those who align best with their ideology?
Is this what we want to really start? We start to set our purchasing decisions over who supports our team? Why don’t we just get a white marker and draw a line down the middle of the country and just be fucking done with it? Democrats to the north and Republicans to the south, while California fucks off into the Pacific.
It’s bad enough these days that companies vehemently put on a veneer of support for whatever cause they feel is important, perhaps for fear of not pandering to the blaring chorus of social media (who never seem to be satisfied), but I cannot see anything good coming of telling companies to take a side. Businesses should create demand for something, not cater to our allegiances.
Because, at the end of the day, if it’s proven that one team is more lucrative than the other, then you will see a lot businesses jumping on that bandwagon dishonestly. What worries me is that while people can put on a face to suggest that they like Column A, they might secretly support Column B. Would people give them a pass, simply because they’ve paid lip service to Column A?
That’s a rhetorical question, in that the answer potentially scares me.