|
I think others are right when they say that primarily chuds or chud adjacent folks are the main group of people drinking Bud Light. Living in Seattle I'm not even sure I could even buy a Bud Light at any of the bars I go to if I wanted one. Definitely not after they caved to the rednecks. The cheap option here is Rainier or a PBR.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Tuberville on an interesting roll today. This is the natural result of the media adopting "white nationalism" instead of just saying "racists."
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
Name Change posted:This is the natural result of the media adopting "white nationalism" instead of just saying "racists."
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:54
|
|
|
Seems like kind of a counterfactual to say that only chuds drink bud lite. I've been to plenty of gay bars with bud lite signage all over the place, even in the I5 corridor. It's silly to paint the consumers of such a ubiquitous brand with such a broad brush.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 17:00
|
|
|
I don't think that only chuds drink bud light. I think that the majority of drinkers are more conservative, and in areas where they are the majority that also effects there acquaintances who will also stop drinking bud light so they can stay in their social groups without having to deal with it. Something having signs just says to me that they send out signs everywhere to advertise. They can try to be a generic beer all they want, but I don't think that exists beyond the category of light, mass produced beers, not a specific brand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 17:05
|
|
|
I think you have to be using a very global definition of conservative if you look at Bud Lites sales numbers and think only conservative leaning people drink bud lite. Like how foods will say 20% fewer calories as though there aren't still a fuckton of calories.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
Gah, breaking my lurker streak because it’s so loving frustrating to see people here buying into regressive framing. Here's an article from 1999 with an advertising consultant saying the failure of similar boycotts back then was a “strong signal to other companies that you can market to the gay community and not worry about a backlash” and Bud Light’s decision for a gay couple in an ad was a “brilliant marketing stroke”. An A-B spokesperson at the time said “Today's consumer is not one of a specific gender, race, geography or orientation.” All before the InBev buyout and “wealthy harvard educated marketing vp” could ruin things. Was still the dominant beer for years after. But here in the TYOOL 2023, some posters here seem to agree the brand was dumb for pivoting "too fast" or something? Critiques against corporate rainbow-washing can be made without implying that homophobic/transphobic reactions are understandable due to some kind of frustration over lack of cultural influence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
There’s no way it could have been predicted that the right would seize on this situation where Bud Light gave a special can to this one random trans woman influencer and that not only would they find out about this but also mass-mobilize against it that quickly
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
I am curious about the degree and forms of sustained right wing messaging on this boycott compared to other ones in the past; different messengers, media, etc, that might have played a role in impact.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 17:33
|
|
|
Over the weekend I was at a busy bar downtown in a city outside of a major military base in a big red state, and the only national beer offering that they had was Bud light. Everything else was craft.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I’ve been kind of annoyed that they used that term when it used to be ‘white supremacists’ Theoretically, iirc, white supremacists, white separatists, and kill-em-all genocidal neonazis are all under the aegis of white nationalism. It's an umbrella term.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:I think you have to be using a very global definition of conservative if you look at Bud Lites sales numbers and think only conservative leaning people drink bud lite. Like how foods will say 20% fewer calories as though there aren't still a fuckton of calories. He didn't say only conservative leaning people drink bud lite, or anything like that
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
Does anyone besides me find mainstream news outlets way too eager to present the RFK Jr presidential candidacy as some kind of semi credible thing? I mean I realize there was some poll that had him at 22 percent or so when he jumped in, but when I listen to things like NYT podcasts covering him it's always in terms of "this is why it could be a big problem for Joe Biden!" but no examination of "well a good chunk of that might be Kennedy name recognition from people who have no idea dude is an antivax weirdo, let's see if it holds up for a month or so". There is absolutely nothing in what the guy has said or done that says anything other than weird cranky weirdo to me, his candidacy seems profoundly unserious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:00
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:He didn't say only conservative leaning people drink bud lite, or anything like that Right, he said that the majority of bud light drinkers were conservative leaning, which I think is false given the ubiquity of the brand. Unless you're lumping libs in with conservatives in a more global sense of the word conservative, I don't think that's likely to be true at all. Now, if you want to specify that people who primarily identified as fans of the brand or preferred to drink bud light prior to this campaign were majority conservative leaning, that I could see. But not the majority of "people who drink bud light."
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:01
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I am curious about the degree and forms of sustained right wing messaging on this boycott compared to other ones in the past; different messengers, media, etc, that might have played a role in impact.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:02
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I am curious about the degree and forms of sustained right wing messaging on this boycott compared to other ones in the past; different messengers, media, etc, that might have played a role in impact. Wasn't it one of the last big pushes tucker Carlson made? Past that I fear trans panic is working for the GOP because almost everybody knows a gay person at this point but there are relatively fewer trans people so demonization campaigns have more room to work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:05
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Does anyone besides me find mainstream news outlets way too eager to present the RFK Jr presidential candidacy as some kind of semi credible thing? Very. He’s an unserious person coasting on his name and not sane enough to even do that well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:06
|
|
|
goat711 posted:Gah, breaking my lurker streak because it’s so loving frustrating to see people here buying into regressive framing. I think most people here think that InBev should have stuck by their marketing and that it was good to reach out to new people who might not know the joys of Bud Light. They could have told people who were offended that if it was bad to be supportive of people who are different than they are, then that's too bad because Bud Light is a beer for all people. The thing is that is not what InBev did. The CEO was mealy-mouthed about it and tried to just be in some magical middle ground of saying nothing and offending nobody, which just ended up offending everyone. Is that regressive framing? I don't think so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:07
|
|
|
He’s Connor Roy and I feel like it would take just one good meme to that effect to kill his campaign
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:08
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Social media makes a major difference That's a really good point. That quote further up about the stuff from the 90s/2000s not catching on/making a dent was long before social media. Social media makes it really easy to astroturf a campaign that spreads memetically and rolls up a bunch of genuine believers like a hosed up katamari of bigotry, in a way that they really weren't capable of doing as easily 20 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:10
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Does anyone besides me find mainstream news outlets way too eager to present the RFK Jr presidential candidacy as some kind of semi credible thing? I think it's likely bc he has reached 20 percent in a couple of polls for the Dem primary, which is notable for a challenge to an incumbent, while media outlets have continued to cover DeSantis as he sinks in the polls for the GOP primary as if he's a serious contender. There's also the horserace aspect bc of the DNC's wishlist schedule for the primaries, which doesn't have a prayer of happening given the GOP dominance in IA, NH & SC, but allows media to pretend that the DNC won't strip delegates as they see fit. In other words, there's a possibility that RFK could take NH even if it doesn't matter a whit when it comes to the nomination. But I haven't seen any *positive* coverage of RFK's views except from rightwing media outlets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:10
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Does anyone besides me find mainstream news outlets way too eager to present the RFK Jr presidential candidacy as some kind of semi credible thing? I honestly think thats the appeal? They get a horse race without entertaining a candidate that actually poses a risk of threatening their profit streams. Professor Beetus posted:Right, he said that the majority of bud light drinkers were conservative leaning, which I think is false given the ubiquity of the brand. Unless you're lumping libs in with conservatives in a more global sense of the word conservative, I don't think that's likely to be true at all. You argued against something that wasn't said, and your new goalpost isn't supported by your old arguments, so, like... what is even your point, at this point? Like even if you are technically right at this point, it doesn't seem to much undermine the actual point he was making. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Jul 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:That's a really good point. That quote further up about the stuff from the 90s/2000s not catching on/making a dent was long before social media. Social media makes it really easy to astroturf a campaign that spreads memetically and rolls up a bunch of genuine believers like a hosed up katamari of bigotry, in a way that they really weren't capable of doing as easily 20 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:12
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I honestly think thats the appeal? They get a horse race without entertaining a candidate that actually poses a risk of threatening their profit streams. What the gently caress are you on about? gurragadon posted:I don't think that only chuds drink bud light. I think that the majority of drinkers are more conservative, and in areas where they are the majority that also effects there acquaintances who will also stop drinking bud light so they can stay in their social groups without having to deal with it. Bolded is literally the claim I was responding to, I didn't move any goalposts. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:17
|
|
|
The social media fervor wouldn't have mattered if there wasn't a critical mass of worthless sacks of poo poo willing to actually do it. A majority of all bud light drinkers? No, but enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:25
|
|
|
“Willing to actually do it” is a pretty low bar, you were going to buy beer anyway so you just pick one of the 50 other brands next to the bud lite on the shelf
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:26
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Bolded is literally the claim I was responding to, I didn't move any goalposts. Yes, that was what you were responding to, but this was your original position on what he said in two different posts: Professor Beetus posted:Seems like kind of a counterfactual to say that only chuds drink bud lite. Professor Beetus posted:[...] if you look at Bud Lites sales numbers and think only conservative leaning people drink bud lite. [...] And now you're retroactively acting as if that was never what you were arguing
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:28
|
|
|
I never claimed there weren't enough conservative bud light drinkers for the boycott to be effective, I just disputed the claim that most bud light drinkers were conservative because it's wrong and I don't think it's the primary reason that this boycott ended up being so effective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:33
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:I never claimed there weren't enough conservative bud light drinkers for the boycott to be effective, I just disputed the claim that most bud light drinkers were conservative because it's wrong and I don't think it's the primary reason that this boycott ended up being so effective. I agree. The reason this controversy is sticking seems like a perfect storm of circumstances to me. Transgender people are already a high visibility target and various responses by people at InBev gave more oxygen to the fire and let stuff get twisted. I feel bad for the marketing executive, but I think a lot of the online rage came from people hearing that she said Bud Light needed to change from being "fratty" and that got twisted into endless amounts of rage fuel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:41
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Trying to pivot from your customer base of working class rednecks to upper middle class white liberals over a cheap lovely beer that only the former would drink is monumentally stupid, and i'm not surprised that a wealthy harvard educated marketing vp would be this out of touch. It didn't happen in a vacuum though, i imagine most conservatives are upset at having no cultural influence in any important institution of note, and it sort of boiled over. Overseas bud light is extremely popular among a very very different demographic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:41
|
|
|
I tried to look up some statistics but all I could find was stuff on age and gender that didn't go any more granular than that. If anybody has statistics, it they exist, I would be interested in seeing them. It's not silly to think that if a majority of users of a substance are more conservative than they are going to have an outsized impact on a boycott. Even if it was 55% conservative/ 45% everyone else, a conservative boycott is going to kill bud light. They need to understand what they are and not what they want to be. A brand isn't defined just by its current ad campaign and even if bud light is trying to be "generic," I don't think it is outside of a few geographical areas. And if the brand wants to change to be inclusive, they do need to stick to it, I agree with that. The Bud Light brand picked the worst of all choices, but that's to be expected. I don't really put any weight behind corporate support because it's only based on making money, not any real principles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:42
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Yes, that was what you were responding to, but this was your original position on what he said in two different posts: I used imprecise language in those posts and attempted to elaborate and explain, are you still struggling to comprehend or are you going to be forever confused because I misspoke in a couple of posts?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:43
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I think it's likely bc he has reached 20 percent in a couple of polls for the Dem primary, which is notable for a challenge to an incumbent, while media outlets have continued to cover DeSantis as he sinks in the polls for the GOP primary as if he's a serious contender.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:57
|
|
|
Bank of America was apparently pulling an even worse version of Wells Fargo (they actually charged people instead of just opening accounts in their name and doing nothing) for years and not hiding it especially well, but literally nobody ever bothered to check until last year. The sweep last year caught several banks double charging people, failing to deliver promised rewards for opening a checking account or credit card, and opening extra accounts in their names. The following banks have to pay back restitution to their customers and additional fines as a result of the sweep: - Bank of America: $230 million in fines and repayments. - Wells Fargo: $500 million in repayments (which is on top of the $3.7 billion in fines and repayments from their settled case with the SEC) - Regions Bank: $191 million in fines and repayments. If you bank at any of those places and have been charged an overdraft fee or did not receive a sign-on bonus for opening a credit card/checking account in the last two years, you will be able to get repaid + interest sometime in the next few months. Also, if you had cards opened without your knowledge you will be compensated an unspecified amount of money. Many banks have also voluntarily ended or reduced overdraft fees and practices that could lead to double charging in an attempt to argue that no further regulatory action is needed because they are self-regulating. It now appears that at least some of them were making those changes in the hopes it would stop the sweep from investigating them. quote:The banking industry has been trying recently to pre-empt regulatory crackdowns over customer fees. Several of the largest U.S. banks announced changes to their overdraft policies in late 2021 and early 2022. Trade groups later argued that the changes banks made on their own meant that no new laws or regulations governing overdraft fees were necessary. The craziest/saddest part is that is that these practices were not even hidden especially well, but nobody bothered to do a complete sweep and review until it was ordered by Biden last year. The Trump CFPB was actively avoiding getting involved to "give the industry time to self-regulate." https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1678806323910017033 quote:Bank of America withheld promised perks from some of its credit card customers, double-charged overdraft fees and secretly opened card accounts in customers’ names without their knowledge or consent, federal regulators said on Tuesday. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Jul 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 19:33
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I think most people here think that InBev should have stuck by their marketing and that it was good to reach out to new people who might not know the joys of Bud Light. They could have told people who were offended that if it was bad to be supportive of people who are different than they are, then that's too bad because Bud Light is a beer for all people. The thing is that is not what InBev did. The CEO was mealy-mouthed about it and tried to just be in some magical middle ground of saying nothing and offending nobody, which just ended up offending everyone. What I mean is the sense that they [Bud Light] pivoted/did anything significantly differently to provoke such a reaction. Seems like they were just continuing the same corporate half-step-behind-the-times ad campaign they’ve been doing without this level of blowback for decades. Agree the subsequent reply from ABInBev was disgusting in itself, but the primary reason for the boycott’s success (to whatever degree) was the concerted right wing effort to weaponize this and the social media landscape that’s allowed it… …which admittedly I didn’t do a good job of saying in my initial post, so appreciate the other posters who actually made that point. Still, I think comments like gurragondon’s above ”[Bud Light] need to understand what they are” are what I’m getting at. I feel that cedes too much ground to the notion that this is some radical thing they did and that's the framing I meant. Again, this wasn’t some inescapable campaign, it was single influencer post that showed a trans woman existing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 19:37
|
|
|
look the free market works, let's not get crazy here
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 19:39
|
|
|
goat711 posted:What I mean is the sense that they [Bud Light] pivoted/did anything significantly differently to provoke such a reaction. Seems like they were just continuing the same corporate half-step-behind-the-times ad campaign they’ve been doing without this level of blowback for decades. Agree the subsequent reply from ABInBev was disgusting in itself, but the primary reason for the boycott’s success (to whatever degree) was the concerted right wing effort to weaponize this and the social media landscape that’s allowed it… TBH I wonder if the only significant reason that conservatives had so much success with this particular boycott is because it's pretty much rolled into the current well-coordinated and funded effort to push anti-trans propaganda as loudly as possible. If it weren't for the current climate I'd bet the boycott would have been about as effective as the ones against yeti or dicks or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
Tuberville takes one step forward and two steps back on "clarifying" his comments about white nationalism. It kind of seems like Tuberville's goal is to be as confusing and contradictory as possible to avoid both apologizing or overtly endorsing white supremacy. But, there is a very good chance that he is just extremely dumb and confused himself. Step 1: Discussions about white nationalism have nothing to do with racism. Also, "American" and "white nationalist" mean the same thing. quote:When asked what his opinion was, Tuberville said, “My opinion of a White nationalist, if someone wants to call them White nationalist, to me is an American.” quote:Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama expanded on his comments about White nationalists in the military, insisting “racism is totally out of the question.” Step 2: Racism is bad and if any white nationalists are racist, then he thinks that is bad. quote:“I’m totally against racism. And if Democrats want to say that White nationalists are racist, I’m totally against that, too,” he said on Tuesday. When pressed if he believes White nationalists are racist, during a tense back and forth with reporters on the definition, Tuberville replied, “Yes, if that’s what a racist is, yes.” Step 3: He also thinks, in his personal opinion, that white nationalists are racists??? quote:Speaking on an individual level, Tuberville added, “If people think a White nationalist is a racist, I agree with that.” Step 4: Being elected means you are smarter. The 600 people who are stuck waiting for promotions or having to delay their moves across the country are actually not being impacted financially because getting the military to stop funding abortions and stop discriminating against white nationalists (who may or may be not be racists - he thinks they are racist now, but that is just his personal opinion) is literally priceless. The members of the military who are out travel expenses and thousands of dollars will eventually be repaid and be fine, but the aborted babies will never be fine if he stops now. quote:Tuberville told CNN Monday night that when lawmakers are in the minority party in the Senate, “the only power we have is to put a hold on something.” https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1678804097149939712 https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1678837456840323072 Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Jul 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 19:55
|
|
|
goat711 posted:Gah, breaking my lurker streak because it’s so loving frustrating to see people here buying into regressive framing. I think a few issues are at play 1) The trans rights issues is a lot more divisive than the gay rights issue. A lot of people, normies included, thought it was kinda stupid that gay people couldn't get married back then. There are people even on the left who are uncomfortable with SOME of the trans rights issues (from moderate left leaners to radfems... hell even some LGBers have issues). 2) Personally, i think gay people did a lot better job of making their case, rather than throwing invective, they were more than happy to debate their case and did a great job. The trans debate is far more acrimonious. 3) Everything above is amplified by social media. There appears to be a twitter effect. Social media wasn't as big of an influence during the gay rights movement than the trans rights movement (i mean, if you're talking about 1999 too, there wasn't such a thing as 'social media').
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
Mister Fister posted:I think a few issues are at play For point one, I think you’re downplaying the brutal fight that it took to get gay rights. Don’t start your timeline in 2000, start it before Stonewall. The right is using the exact same playbook now that they used then. It stopped working against gay people because over decades more and more were brave enough to come out, and the more openly gay people someone knows the less opposed they tend to be to gay rights. I’m having trouble calmly replying to point two. Trans people are up against a large group of people including those leading state governments who want them dead. The invective is a result of that, not a cause. It reads like, and I’ll give you the benefit of a doubt this isn’t actually what you meant, you’re blaming trans people and supporters for the “debate” being acrimonious. And I again would challenge that it’s more acrimonious than the gay rights struggle if you actually go back to the beginnings of the movement. I also think you have it backward on point three. Social media plays a huge factor sure, but I see it stirring up hate against trans a lot more than I see it doing whatever you’re implying here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 20:16
|
|