Demonstrating compassion for the poor used to be an industry. Lately, it’s become a religion, as demonstrated by this post, this one, and this one.
Like every other religion, this one too has its commandments. Here they are:
- The Poor are Holy, and must be venerated for their poverty.
- Poverty is mysterious, and cannot be understood by the privileged- they are Infidels.
- But even among the privileged, there are The Compassionate- Anointed Ones who can understand the mysterious ways of poverty.
- The Anointed Ones must educate the Infidels, and show them the error and folly of their ways.
- The Anointed Ones may use images of the poor to demonstrate their compassion. To use images of the poor for any other reason is a sin.
- To subject poverty, the Holiest of Holies to rigorous analysis, using evidence or logic is a sin. Infidels will use these, but they are traps of the devil. Faith in the Anointed Ones is enough.
- The Infidels will worry more about their own life than about the Other Life and their relationship with the Holy Poor. The Anointed Ones must save them. The Other Life is far more important.
- The Anointed Ones must always speak only of the core truths of the Holy Scripture that they have written. Responding to the queries of the Infidels cheapens Holy Poverty.
- The Holy Scripture is eternal and unchanging, and need not ever be changed to reflect new knowledge. Only the knowledge possessed by the Anointed Ones matters.
- The Anointed Ones are always superior, because they are Anointed.
The Ten Commandments of Markets
Demonstrating compassion for the markets used to be an industry. Lately it has become a religion.
Like every other religion, this one too has its commandments. Here they are:
1. The Marketers are Holy, and must be venerated for their marketing.
2. Market is mysterious, and cannot be understood by anyone but the Libertarians – others are Infidels.
3. But even among the Libertarians, there are The Cartelians – Anointed Ones who can understand the mysterious ways of market.
4. The Cartelians (Anionted Ones) must educate the Infidels, and show them the error and folly of their ways.
5. The Cartelians (Anointed Ones) may use personal attacks on others to demonstrate their serious intentions to debate. To use personal attacks against the Cartelians by anyone else is a sin called ad-hominem and invokes instant damnation.
6. To subject markets, the Holiest of Holies to rigorous analysis, using evidence or logic is a sin. Infidels will use these, but they are traps of the devil. Faith in the Cartelians is enough.
7. The Infidels will worry more about Others’ Life and neglect to worry about their relationship with the Holy Markets and its effect on their lives. The Anointed Ones must save them. The Market is far more important than lives of others or otherwise.
8. The Anointed Ones must always speak only of the core truths of the Holy Scripture that they have written. Responding to the queries of the Infidels cheapens Holy Markets.
9. The Holy Scripture of classical liberalism is eternal and unchanging, and need not ever be changed to reflect known pitfalls. Only the knowledge possessed by the Anointed Ones matters.
10. The Anointed Ones are always superior, because they are Anointed.
How I was missing this condescendation from the Cartel! I was begining to wonder whether the Cartel has suddenly passed a dictat against indulging in such attacks. I could go on and on about how this is classic type-M argument attributing motives to opponents. How this is a strawman as none of them mention anything about venerating poverty. How this is also ad-hominem. But I am too tired. And this was so out of line that I don’t think it even deserves that kind of a response.
Besides I agree with the thrust of your argument. And those commandments are indeed true for many people in real life as well as in the blogosphere. But choosing to indict people who found an advertisement tasteless for all of the above crimes is plain stupid and even against Libertarian ethos. A person is free to find anything tasteless. Who are you to determine what constitutes good taste and what can qualify one to be anointed a member of leftist religion. You did not find ON@TCC to your liking. Somebody should have called you out on that one publicly derided you for qualifying as a member of a religion called “Americophiles” and write down 10 commandments of how some people appoint themselves to be America lovers and look down on anyone who criticises America. This thing that you have done is as stupid or more so than that.
This is from one of the members of leftist religion in the posts that you have linked to. What was the need to display your intellectual smugness and come up with the commandments in response to that? And please don’t try to impute motives and bundle me as a member of that religion that you so love tearing apart. I totally agree with the second post by Ravikiran Gaurav has linked today. It makes a point, unlike yours which is just an indulgence in you know what!
Chetan. totally agree with you. While I agree with the spirit of this post, this kind of propagandist rants obscure the real point.
Loved the post. Pomposity and self-righteousness needs to be pricked, each and every time. For heaven’s sake, these are ads. If you don’t like them, don’t buy the products. If you are a left-leaning liberal, there are definitely more important battles to fight!
Amartya Sen said “There is nothing false about Indian poverty, nor about the fact – remarkable to others – that Indians have learned to live normal lives while taking little notice of [their] surrounding misery”.
This quote was given to me by Kamesh. Thought I will share it with you.
It is nice to read an angry sounding yet logical Chetan 🙂
Great rebuttal Chetan! I too fail to understand the logic here. There are so many ads I find tasteless. For example, I had seen a billboard having a Shopper’s Stop ad that said something to the effect – “[shopper’s stop is] the difference between a hefty pay package and no job!”. I had found it utterly tasteless and stupid. Similarly, I find the “mission statement” of Khadder stupid. I had posted about it over here. Well, and how are one finding an ad tasteless and one buying the product or not related?! I totally fail to understand the whole connection.
Hi Aadisht
Your link to my post doesn’t work, possibly because I changed the title.
I never said the poor are holy, must be venerated, poverty mustn’t be subjected to analysis etc so I am assuming your commandments apply to what I said.
What I did say was that one could either find the ads innovative or find them tasteless. I found them to be the latter. How that makes me belong to a “religion”, I fail to see.
I find ads that romanticise poverty objectionable too. Especially tv ads that show starving children with sad music playing in the background. Not because I suffer from an overdose of compassion as an annointed soul belonging to this mysterious religion you speak about, nor because I think poverty is “holy”, but because I don’t think poverty is funny or that is should be commodified. Thinking that doesn’t equal to “venerating” something.
smalltalk, surely on my own blog I can pick whatever battles I wish to fight, whether big or small, important or unimportant? I am free to criticise or praise an ad, quite independently of whether I intend to buy the product or not, am I not?
Sorry, I made a mistake- I meant to say: I am assuming your commandments don’t apply to what I said.
[…] Aadisht presumably senses some hollowness in the offense taken by a few bloggers at the recent SBI and BEQ ads, which could arguably be perceived as being insensitive to the poor, and spells out the Ten Commandments Of Poverty, being duly subjected to attacks in the comments section, and elsewhere. […]
What do I say? Aadisht, wow, what a post. After reading the blog posts on SBI ads I had the same feeling but you put in words very well.
Yeah, self righteousness is the birth right of every ism.
I dont need to comment further. Your post said it all and hit them where it should.
Sorry, I am with Aadisht on this one. He has merely ranted on some other rants elsewhere. I don’t think he is passing any judgment on the poor nor is ridiculing them. It has often become regular to ’emotionally blackmail’ people into not enjoying your hard earned wealth just because several million of your countrymen cannot. By not doing so, I am not improving their plight either. Bill Gates couldn’t have donated those billions if he hadn’t earned them in the first place.
For an apt comparison, I recently heard (for the millionth time) the golden oldie, “Yeh Bombay Meri Jaan” and the lyrics are the typical socialist-libertarian argument. The ads might have been unsympathetic to the poor but then you cannot force sympathy on someone, can you?
Aadisht: what do you think about these two sentences in the Brand Equity ads: “
Shivam, because of people like you?
Aadisht: why is the designer so bothered by people like me or as to try and pre-empt my criticism!
I think the Brand Equity ad amounts to making fun of poverty. That does not sound as gross as its Hindi equivalent: “Kisi ki garibi ka mazaak nahi udana chahiye.” The ad does not use any words to tell you the social status of the ‘models’, and the copy writer seems to be aware that he is doing something politically incorrect: “Now, we don’t
mean to be disrespectful to anyone.”
The problem of poverty then becomes a problem merely of marketing: it is a problem insofar only as poor people can’t afford designer tan or Monte Carlo. Poverty ceases to be a social, economic or political problem.
Btw, too many bugs in your site. Ask Saket for help 🙂
Shivam, because people like you are religious nutjobs. You are to that copywriter what the imams are to Danish cartoonists.
A-ha! So you are aligning yourself with the Danish cartoonists?!
But even the Danish cartoons didn’t carry such disclaimers!
Religious nutjob? I’m an atheist.
[…] There are ads and then there are ads: http://www.wokay.in/2006/03/15/the-ten-commandments-of-poverty/ […]
[…] he follows her polemics religiously? But wait! Wasn’t he an atheist? Oh, I get it now. It’s a metaphor only when he uses […]