So real men don't drink Bud Light?

[mildcigar_2001]

I notice that you complained previously about some trans people trying to cancel JK Rowling (yet another canary in that coal mine).



What is the difference between these cases? Why is it unacceptable for some people to try to cancel JK Rowling because they don't like her views on trans, but perfectly okay for others to try to cancel Anheuser-Busch because they object to even limited use of a trans person in marketing?

For the record, no I don't think JK Rowling should be cancelled, and I do think some trans activists go too far.

Also, why do you continually play up the role of fringe trans activists while downplaying the role of transphobes on your own side?

I notice you continue to be evasive on the question of how exactly Dylan Mulvaney was forced down people's throats. Resorting to words like 'perceived' is a circular justification if the perception is just something manufactured by a right-wing beat-up.

I think Dylan is being forced on us because the use of Dylan had nothing whatsoever with trying to sell more beer, but rather yet another attempt to push the woke agenda. I don't have an MBA, but I could have told you a month ago that using Dylan as a spokeswoman to sell Bud Light would not push the needle in a positive direction (i.e. more beer sales). When you conduct an advertising campaign ideally it should be to sell more product (otherwise you are doing a disservice to the shareholders). As I indicated earlier in the thread, Dylan (is an adult, so his "Days of Girlhood" are particularly cringe. It makes a lot of us feel the advertising is being done just to get in our collective faces. Even though the company should have avoided this particular briar patch to altogether, it is my suspicion that with another trans person there would not have seen this hue and cry. Not much of a fuss would have been made if Caitlyn Jenner or even RuPaul was featured in the advertising, and beer sales might have actually increased.

[Fitzcarraldo]

GThe other recent front here in the Midwest is legislation (which I think is needed) restricting sex change therapy for minors. I'm sure this will be seen as a transphobic comment, but I don't think minors are mature enough to able to make those type of decisions until later in life. There also seems to be a good amount of Munchhausen Syndrome by proxy going on with the parents of some of the gender nonconforming minors. I think a good example of going too far too fast in the case of a minor is the case of Jazz Jennings. If I had a child in a similar situation, the last place I would have them work out their life would be in front of the world on The Learning Channel. I think Jazz would have been a lot happier at this point if there had not been a rush to medically and surgically transition her at a very young age.

Why do you think the state should be involved in medical decisions? Parents and doctors should be allowed to decide what's best for a child.

[Fitzcarraldo]

I think Dylan is being forced on us because the use of Dylan had nothing whatsoever with trying to sell more beer, but rather yet another attempt to push the woke agenda.

Anything you don't want to see is "forced" and "woke." Got it.

[filghy2]

It makes a lot of us feel the advertising is being done just to get in our collective faces.

What advertising are you referring to? Have you ever seen any, other than on her social media page as a result of hearing about this controversy? How could something you would never otherwise have seen be done just to get in your face?

[filghy2]

Why do you think the state should be involved in medical decisions? Parents and doctors should be allowed to decide what's best for a child.

Anything you don't want to see is "forced" and "woke." Got it.

Conservative philosophy nowadays:
All for parental choice - unless parents do things they don't like
All for free enterprise - unless companies do things they don't like.
All for limited government - unless people do things they don't like.
All for law and order - unless their people break the law.
All against cancel culture - unless people do things they don't like.

[filghy2]

I don't have an MBA, but I could have told you a month ago that using Dylan as a spokeswoman to sell Bud Light would not push the needle in a positive direction (i.e. more beer sales).

I had never heard of Dylan Mulvaney before this controversy and I really have no opinion on her. It's unlikely that my decisions on buying beer or anything else would be influenced by who appears in their marketing. I see lots of advertising that doesn't work for me. I don't throw a tantrum about it. I just ignore it. Isn't that what any sensible, mature person should do?

[mildcigar_2001]

Anything you don't want to see is "forced" and "woke." Got it.

Finally, someone sees the light of reason.

Well done.

[filghy2]

I think Dylan is being forced on us because the use of Dylan had nothing whatsoever with trying to sell more beer, but rather yet another attempt to push the woke agenda.

One more question. How exactly does this woke agenda work in your mind ? Leaving aside the fact that few people would have seen the promo without the controversy, what would be the result if they had? Would the revelation that some trans people drink beer have underlined the social fabric? Would lots of people decide they wanted to become trans if they saw a trans person drinking beer? Would they be converted to the radical trans rights agenda you keep talking about?

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=mildcigar_2001;2069012]

For example it makes little sense to me for public libraries to host drag queen story hours (we probably shouldn't be promoting overtly sexual entertainment to young children). This very easily leads to charges of grooming. I could care less if adult males want to dress up as women (I assume most of us can admit there is a sexual element at play with this behavior). Nothing particularly wrong with the behavior of crossdressing itself, but it is wrong to put minors into the mix.

-Children like to dress up, and respond to other people dressing up, but if you are sure that there is a sexual element in the situation where most children at that age have no interest or awareness in sexual matters, ask yourself -if these storytime events are introducing children to sexual matters, does watching a Punch and Judy Show introduce, or even normalize violence between parents? Of the two, which is the most explicit -Kandy Floss reading children a story about a dog that gets lost and is found by a five year old; or Punch beating the shit out of his wife with a stick?

In this forum I have expressed the opinion that MTF transsexuals should not compete in sports against biological woman, and predicted that there would be a backlash against the transsexual community as a whole because of the push to include MTF in women's sports.

-This has been debated before in this Forum. And as I have said on those posts the point that is often missed, is that as a male transitions to female, they lose their masculine features as their female ones grow. For some reason, the oestrogen that is part of the transition is not factored in to the transition, so the assumption made is that the athlete is as masculine when competing as they were before their transition began, hence the so-called 'advantage' -so what are authorities to do, insist on medical examinations to ascertain the hormonal balance between athletes? Some women are stronger than others, just as successful swimmers tend to be tall with long arms. A lot of the argument here is bogus, because it collapses all these subtle differences into an either/or option that has no bearing on reality.

I really do believe when corporations (when controlled by woke leadership) advertise with someone like Dylan it is for shock value only...
As a corporation why would you do something that actively hurts your brand (it would lead some to believe that the advertising is for pure ideological purposes to push the radical trans agenda)? Why do advertising that causes you to lose customers? I have not run a Fortune 500 company, but I have run a small business in the distant past, and I never in my advertising was even tempted to get involved in one side or the other on a hot button political issue (it would merely be a way to piss off potential customers that believe whatever the other side of the issue is the correct one)
- I find this quite strange. I don't know what you mean by Corporations have 'woke leadership' -I guess Disney is one you are thinking of?- but I do know that Corporations selling products either hire their own market analysts or pay external consultants to keep them informed of their customer base. As the population of the US has diversified over the decades, so Corporations have adapted their advertising to maintain and expand their customer base. There was a time when you would rarely if ever see a Black face in any advertising, now it is common -and I think you will agree there is a lot of commercial logic in creating a brand that everyone can identify with, and buy the product. You don't need to imagine what would happen if a trans person was used to advertise a product, because it has been done already -the Trans person who gets into a cab gets admiring looks from the driver, until he hears the sound of an electric shaver....the ad was for Levi jeans and as far as I know the company did not lose sales because of it. So below I have linked the ad, preceded by an hysterical piece in the Mail which claims sales of Bud Light have 'fallen off a cliff' because of TIkTok. Whatever, dude.

NANA AKUA: After trans TikTok personality Dylan Mulvaney promoted Bud Light, sales have fallen | Daily Mail Online

Enjoy this instead-

[filghy2]

You don't need to imagine what would happen if a trans person was used to advertise a product, because it has been done already -the Trans person who gets into a cab gets admiring looks from the driver, until he hears the sound of an electric shaver....the ad was for Levi jeans and as far as I know the company did not lose sales because of it.

And you know why? The 'woke agenda' boogeyman had not been invented in 1995, so nobody thought to stir up a campaign against it. This backlash did not arise spontaneously, just as January 6 did not arise spontaneously. If Anheuser-Busch made a marketing misjudgement, it's because they failed to take account of the peculiar right-wing psychology of our times.