In the pink

Jay Michaelson of The Daily Beast discusses "pinkwashing." It is similar to "greenwashing" in which a company does some small thing for the environment and trumpets it loudly to try to hide the huge amount of damage they are doing to the environment. An example (though maybe not a real one) of greenwashing is a coal company making a nominal donation to Yosemite National Park, then taking out a big ad in USA Today to congratulate itself.

Back to pinkwashing. Here's Michaelson's example: An organization promoting Canada's tar sands (though not the corporation actually extracting the stuff) says that Canada has a great record of rights of gay people. Various OPEC nations, such as Saudi Arabia, treat their gay people horribly. Therefore gay people should support the Keystone pipeline. "Say no to homophobic OPEC oil!"

There is also an ad proclaiming how much Israel is doing for gay rights and how willing Israel's enemies are to execute gays. Therefore, support Israel!

I'm sure my friend and debate partner could poke lots of holes in the logic. I could put in a few pokes as well. But I'll let Michaelson do the job. Yes, Canada is wonderful on gay rights. Yes, Israel is too. Yes, many OPEC countries as well as Israel's enemies persecute gay people. But... The biggest fallacy is these campaigns "assume that LGBT people are an interest group with only one interest: their own." Or put another way, "Look over here, gays! Pay no attention to the tar sands behind the curtain!" Pay no attention to how Israel treats Palestinians. These efforts are to divert debate from the environmental impact of mining tar sands, substituting discussion of anti-discrimination laws, civil liberties, and marriage equality. It is a debate bait-and-switch.

Michaelson shows evidence that the groups behind these campaigns are fiscal conservatives. Strange that they promote gay issues to get what they want.

Michaelson also shows evidence that the conservative "talking points" actually come from a small number of people. These points are effectively communicated so that a lot of conservative groups start talking the same line at the same time, giving the impression of a vast grass-roots movement (amusingly called "Astroturf"). Remember how quickly everybody was accusing Obama of not doing enough to stop Ebola? Notice how that subject was universally dropped after the election when it no longer served a purpose?