Emptying out our Creed
“Our Creed” is not the equality of all subcultures, but the political equality of all individuals. It does not mean that to be an American you dispense with all of your own personal standards of judgment; it means that you respect the right of others to do things which you judge to be useless or bad. This commercial conflates moral equality with political equality – precisely to justify moral inferiority and political inequality (ie: the vast amount of political favoritism shown to particular groups precisely because their cultural inferiority is – eroneously – blamed upon political oppression).
If people were honest, they would admit that the pleasure derived from experiencing other subcultures that they, oddly enough, don’t already embrace is not from the objective pleasure which the substance they’re experiencing gives them, but rather from the pleasurable thought that they are being “open-minded” and “inclusive.” That they’re “finally living out their creed” (in the twisted way that they understand it [see above]).
The purpose of political equality is not to reach the state of personal “openness” that welcomes any and all elements into one’s life indiscriminantly. The purpose of it (ie: respecting another’s right to live in any style he wishes) is to ensure that the style in which you live is also respected. The value is your lifestyle, and the “creed” of political equality is the means by which you protect it – not the other way around. “Equality” is not an end in itself.
If the value was “equality” for it’s own sake, and throwing your own lifestyle into the mix simply to have something to contribute to the orgy were the means, then what would be the point in advocating for doing that instead of keeping them seperate? It’s logically incoherent. If the “lines and titles that divide us” are arbitrary and subjective, then isn’t it arbitrary and subjective to repudiate them? What difference does it make? If the best the apologists for certain subcultures can do is attempt to guilt people into experiencing them – as opposed to identifying their objective merits – then why not simply “blindly” follow arbitrary and subjective “lines” and remain divided? Both – the blind embrace of “diversity” or the “blind” rejection of it – amount to the same thing: mindlessness. What, exactly, does the individual have to gain from experiencing a wide variety of subcultures?
The purpose of this commercial’s message isn’t to ensure that all “cultures” (read: individuals) have their individual rights equally protected, but rather to elevate inferior cultural elements by capitalizing on the confusion and conscienteousness of those who hail from superior cultures and have something to lose. This isn’t to say that if a given subculture is inferior that all elements of it are (just as it isn’t to say that all elements of a superior one are superior), but simply that it’s irrational – and in fact morally obscene – for a person to be encouraged to compromise his own standards and tastes for the sake of sparing another person his (deserved) socio-economic discomfort as a result of having embraced an unsatisfactory (read: inferior) set of standards and tastes.