Replies: 12
| visibility 2
|
Associate AD [831]
TigerPulse: 94%
23
|
|
|
 |
Associate AD [831]
TigerPulse: 94%
23
|
Re: The original beer boycott.
May 14, 2023, 11:39 AM
|
|
(I only read the Bon Appetit piece after getting this in the Eater email. And this makes a good point about recent food world boycotts.)
If you’ve had television or internet access, a TikTok account, or even just a passing interest in Big Beer™, you’ve probably heard the hubbub surrounding Bud Light, boycotts, and TikToker and actress Dylan Mulvaney. The basic premise of the beer boycotting drama is deceptively simple, but it’s a reminder of why successful boycotts work — and why some don’t.
The whole firestorm boils down to an astonishingly unremarkable social media moment: A big brand sent an influencer some of its product for a sporting event. That’s it. Here’s the more detailed version: As part of a paid sponsorship, Bud Light sent Mulvaney, a trans woman, beer for March Madness. In a short video, Mulvaney, who was celebrating her first year as an out trans woman, used the beers to both advertise the sponsorship and toast her anniversary. But this led to a wave of anti-trans backlash that featured prominent conservative celebrities shooting at beer cans and many people on the right calling for outright boycotts. Now, two executives from the beer’s brewer Anheuser-Busch have announced they’ll be taking leaves of absence.
On its face, boycotting a brand like Bud Light might feel like the obvious thing to do when a brand acts in a way that seems to betray the core values its customers believe it holds. Take the calls for boycotts of Amy’s Kitchen in April last year, for example. Amy’s is a brand that centered its ethics and its “positive impact” on various communities in all of its branding. The company spoke extensively about its belief in providing customers with good, healthy food choices as part of its efforts to take care of people. But when employees alleged mistreatment, saying that the company put them in dangerous working conditions, numerous independent organizations like More Perfect Union and Veggie Mijas began calling for boycotts to pressure the company to raise its workplace safety standards and allow employees to unionize.
Or, consider the Martin’s potato roll ruckus, during which Philadelphia publication Billy Penn reported that the company’s executive chair gave more than $100,000 of support to far-right, Trump-endorsed Pennsylvania senator Doug Mastriano, who has been involved in a variety of intensely conservative political scandals, from attending the January 6 rally on the Capitol and comparing calls for gun control to living under Nazi Germany to spreading denial about the validity of two COVID vaccines. In response, cookbook author J. Kenji López-Alt and self-proclaimed “food antagonist” Joe Rosenthal began organizing a boycott on Instagram, a platform on which the two have significant social followings.
But things get a bit messy when you try to compare these cases to Bud Light and Mulvaney’s. Why? Because at their core, the other two boycotts point to clear workplace issues or the ethical problems tied to allowing a deeply politically involved executive — known for spreading ideas that targeted historically marginalized communities and disparaged lifesaving medical resources during a global pandemic — to lead a company that swore it held no political leaning.
In both cases and many others, the boycotts were useful tools for corralling many underrepresented people’s opinions and desires into a clear, collective message that those with power couldn’t ignore, despite their best efforts. They’ve been used to expand civil rights, overturn discriminatory workplace policies targeted at women and Black employees, and even combat the Lavender scare in the 1950s. (Surprised? Bon Appétit’s Alma Avalle has a great little primer for you on how a boycott of Coors helped pulled this off!) That’s the key: At their most impactful, boycotts are focused on some type of tangible change tied to a direct social, political, economic, or real-world danger.
But here, the beer brand’s critics aren’t protesting a major workplace violation, there’s no ethical deception that directly violates the company’s supposed moral code, nor are there any real, direct political implications for Bud Light consumers. So, the only real goal for the boycotting customer base is to voice their transphobia. And what’s become the target of this tumultuous storm of anti-trans hate is a 26-year-old who raised a beer to a widely beloved sporting event, and herself, during a dime-a-dozen influencer campaign.
If that’s enough justification to break out a gun for beer can target practice, that’s probably the sign to log off and touch some grass. Oh, and grab a beer; you might need it. — Jesse Sparks
|
|
|
|
 |
Hall of Famer [8140]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
Posts: 10467
Joined: 2013
|
|
|
|
 |
Paw Master [17256]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
Posts: 18112
Joined: 2015
|
Ahhh. Another thing ruined by libs…comedy***
2
May 14, 2023, 12:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Hall of Famer [8140]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
Posts: 10467
Joined: 2013
|
|
|
|
 |
Clemson Conqueror [11563]
TigerPulse: 98%
46
Posts: 14110
Joined: 2021
|
Re: Never not relevant.
1
May 14, 2023, 3:59 PM
|
|
This link in itself is hilarious in its self righteous obtuseness.
The doofus author assumes that conservatives are people who despise minorities. True conservatives are anything but bigots. True conservative humor hits EVERYBODY, which gives true conservative humor the broadest range of subject matter in which to find humor.
Liberal comics, however, are so worried about political correctness that they exclude humorous stereotypes associated with those ‘minority’ groups. For example, the Asiatic stereotype of pronouncing “R” as if it were an “L” and vice versa. (By itself, this is not funny. However, in the context of overall humor [poking fun], censoring a tool such as this eliminates one potential ‘humor’ device.)
Certainly, when it comes to political humor, the ‘conservatives’ are blowing the ‘liberal humorists’ away.
Liberal political humor is limited to over-used political tropes. Boring as heck.
|
|
|
|
 |
TigerNet Elite [73592]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 78045
Joined: 1998
|
You seem triggered***
1
May 14, 2023, 12:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Clemson Conqueror [11563]
TigerPulse: 98%
46
Posts: 14110
Joined: 2021
|
Re: The original beer boycott.
May 14, 2023, 4:07 PM
|
|
If ABI had just kept the woke messaging out of their Bud Lite ad campaigns in the first place, then none of this mess with their brand would have ever started.
There’s no hiding this fact.
Xxxxxxx
As for the comparison between the old Coors boycott and the new Bud Lite boycott, the former involved discriminatory practices at Coors. It took activists to dig this up and organize the boycott. Good work by the boycotters; no self-immolative marketing program by Coors itself, though.
ABI, on the other hand, stupidly went over the top with a woke ad campaign that led to disengagement from a key consumer demographic.
Apples and oranges.
|
|
|
|
 |
Associate AD [831]
TigerPulse: 94%
23
|
Re: The original beer boycott.
May 14, 2023, 4:36 PM
|
|
I think the writer makes the point that other boycotts have been motivated by (for lack of a better term) "issues," while those motivated to boycott Bud Light now are angry about the existence of the transgendered, which is a rather sad sign.
But the writer also brings up how a diverse group of disenfranchised worked together to push Coors into making meaningful changes. There is no meaningful change that the Bud Light can-shooters seek. They just want to express how mad they are about trannies.
|
|
|
|
 |
Legend [6863]
TigerPulse: 89%
41
Posts: 13685
Joined: 2008
|
Re: The original beer boycott.
May 14, 2023, 9:14 PM
|
|
you people are just plain ufcked up. Dumb as dirt with no ability to see reality. So sucked in by the echo chamber. Pathetic human existence.
|
|
|
|
 |
Associate AD [831]
TigerPulse: 94%
23
|
Re: The original beer boycott.
May 14, 2023, 9:16 PM
|
|
you people are just plain ufcked up. Dumb as dirt with no ability to see reality. So sucked in by the echo chamber. Pathetic human existence.
Why are you so triggered.
|
|
|
|
 |
Clemson Conqueror [11563]
TigerPulse: 98%
46
Posts: 14110
Joined: 2021
|
Re: The original beer boycott.
May 15, 2023, 12:39 AM
[ in reply to Re: The original beer boycott. ] |
|
No argument from me that the Coors boycott had (IMO) legitimate foundation.
It’s just that the comparison of factors which motivated the boycott at Coors (broad societal concerns about the Coors company itself) vs the boycott of Bud Light (narrow boycott in which, to my admittedly limited understanding) was directed against a singular brand of beer (e.g., Bud Lite) as opposed to AB-I Corp.
Heck, a good part of the boy otters of Bud Lite are probably drinking Michelob Light; AB-I is still making money via beer sales to their base.
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Elite [5278]
TigerPulse: 80%
38
|
Re: The original beer boycott.
May 14, 2023, 8:24 PM
[ in reply to Re: The original beer boycott. ] |
|
Why do you hate diversity? Does the thought of non-whites drinking BLight scare you? Why are you so upset that BLight wants to sell more product?
|
|
|
|
Replies: 12
| visibility 2
|
|
|