Bud Light, Your Reputation Is a Mess and There’s No Easy Fix

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Then, as said before, you have no argument.

I am very tolerant, I treat everyone equal. If you are an ahole to me, I will be one right back. If you are nice to me, I will be nice to you. If you try to force your ideology down my throat and call me a bigot/transphobe because I don't care what you "identify" as, I will ignore you and any argument you have or "facts" carry no weight

But your and others' attitude here is antagonistic, and fits the description of bigot.

big·ot

a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

Just stop it, quint. That's a revised definition to fit the left's idea of a bigot because y'all love to call everyone else the bigot. Merriam-Webster and Britannica changed that # back when Trump was president, lol.

Cambridge Dictionary:
bigot: a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life.

Vocabulary . com
bigot: A bigot is someone who doesn't tolerate people of different races or religions.

Collins Dictionary
bigot: 1. a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.
2. a narrow-minded, prejudiced person

Dictionary . com
bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Wiktionary
bigot: One who is narrow-mindedly devoted to their own ideas and groups, and intolerant of (people of) differing ideas, races, genders, religions, politics, etc.

Oxford LEARNER'S Dictionary
bigot: a person who has very strong, unreasonable beliefs or opinions about race, religion or politics and who will not listen to or accept the opinions of anyone who disagrees.

American Heritage Dictionary
bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


I'm gonna do you a solid and leave one more for ya...

hypocrite: a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that they do not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

transphobia
noun [ U ] disapproving

harmful or unfair things a person does based on a fear or dislike of transgender and non-binary people

yawn

Nothing screams "panic attack" like not showing support for someone's lifestyle.

No wonder that word is misused and so off-base from what a real phobia is, it was made up 10 years ago.

The words transphobia and transphobic were added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2013.

So have transmisia and trans-antagonism, we all just need to figure out when to apply the correct term.

Well, nobody is antagonizing them so I doubt you'll find the right time to use the terms. Disagreeing with their lifestyle doesn't constitute the use of any of the terms you're throwing out. You act like they're being physically attacked everyday or something.

If you're not accepting of a 26 year old dude caricaturing a 13 year old girl playing adult dress up to tell actual women how to be a women then you're a transphobic bigot.

Yes, it's amazing. Amazingly mind-numbing. Mind-numbing that they constantly contradict themselves.

Next they'll push for legalizing pedophilia and Dylan the grown man tweener girl will be their poster boy for it. FFS, when the dude whacks it, he's basically having sex with a 13 year old girl and these people love him.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

So, I rest my case. We cannot disagree. If we do, we have "transphobia".

Well, then, you are phobic as well, bigoted, and intolerant of any views except your own. You can no longer even reasonably disagree with us without being a hateful bigot.

Conservaphobia is real.

I actually think some conservative policies are good, but that's not what you want to hear now is it?

No. What I want to hear is you admit that your terms are misused and it isn't any kind of phobia just for disagreeing with a lifestyle.

I was referring to the antagonism I see here, that's different from just disagreeing with someone's lifestyle. Do you not see that? People boycotting a beer company, because of a transgender ad, what the hell is that?

It sure as hell isn't antagonism.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

Stigmatized or harms ... too facile. That's "anything that keeps Tham from getting their way."

You will notice that when this all started with changing rooms and locker rooms, response was a separate, private facility that allowed everyone to be out of uncomfortable situations. It was a reasonable compromise.

For the trans, it was all or nothing. Not the locker rooms of their biological sex; that caused discomfort. It had to be the communal locker rooms of their chosen gender where they inflict that same discomfort on all others,but since they are not trans, they're bigots if they object.

And you help make them so.

They acted the same way with gay marriage. It would have been easier to allow the same benefits to a civil union, but that wasn't good enough for them.

And why should it be?

Because all they supposedly wanted were the same benefits of a married man and woman.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

So, I rest my case. We cannot disagree. If we do, we have "transphobia".

Well, then, you are phobic as well, bigoted, and intolerant of any views except your own. You can no longer even reasonably disagree with us without being a hateful bigot.

Conservaphobia is real.

I actually think some conservative policies are good, but that's not what you want to hear now is it?

No. What I want to hear is you admit that your terms are misused and it isn't any kind of phobia just for disagreeing with a lifestyle.

I was referring to the antagonism I see here, that's different from just disagreeing with someone's lifestyle. Do you not see that? People boycotting a beer company, because of a transgender ad, what the hell is that?

It sure as hell isn't antagonism.

It is a political agenda and it's anti-trans sentiment whether or not antagonism is bubbling up in there somewhere is for those taking part in the boycott to realize or not realize. But the beer company will do a 180, watch and see. Money is the driver here.

a reply to: DerBeobachter

There is a lot of very sad truth here.

I would add that for rainbow people to stand out, they almost have to be uncomfortably outlandish and loudly broadcast why they're so different and victimized.

Otherwise, as you say, the main difference is in the bedroom, in private.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

Stigmatized or harms ... too facile. That's "anything that keeps Tham from getting their way."

You will notice that when this all started with changing rooms and locker rooms, response was a separate, private facility that allowed everyone to be out of uncomfortable situations. It was a reasonable compromise.

For the trans, it was all or nothing. Not the locker rooms of their biological sex; that caused discomfort. It had to be the communal locker rooms of their chosen gender where they inflict that same discomfort on all others,but since they are not trans, they're bigots if they object.

And you help make them so.

They acted the same way with gay marriage. It would have been easier to allow the same benefits to a civil union, but that wasn't good enough for them.

And why should it be?

Because all they supposedly wanted were the same benefits of a married man and woman.

That's her point. Why can't they have it all?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: quintessentone

More made up words to try to cut the argument short when you're losing.

Again, shocking.

I am not trying to win anything and I still say some of you ATSers are antagonistic against transgendered people, so what term do we apply to that? In this case, we may have to make up a new word specific to ATS.

Disagree

to have or express a different opinion.

I think I found the perfect term - anti-trans. All encompassing isn't it?

This made some people very mad, and not because Holly Golightly wasn’t really a beer gal (her preference was the White Angel, a boozy mix of vodka and gin, which, whew). Instead, they were upset because Mulvaney is transgender.

Trans issues are currently front and center in America’s culture war. Anti-trans sentiment is sweeping many corners of the right, targeting children, drag shows, driver’s licenses, and health care, among other areas. It’s showing up in conservative media and conservative legislation and even working itself into the mainstream.

www.vox.com...

Sure, if you'd like to use anti-trans then go ahead. But a lot of people aren't anti-trans, they just disagree with the trans lifestyle. Bruce Jenner is liked among a lot of the right, so is anti-trans really the term you're looking for? I'd think it's more political and we're anti-liberal.

How would Bud Light have been received if they'd have put Jenner on a can? Or even someone like Milo Yannopolis? The left would have come unglued. We both know it, too. This is all political.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

So, I rest my case. We cannot disagree. If we do, we have "transphobia".

Well, then, you are phobic as well, bigoted, and intolerant of any views except your own. You can no longer even reasonably disagree with us without being a hateful bigot.

Funny, innit?

If you have a different opinion, you are immediately ostracized.

Sounds familiar somehow. . . can't remember where though. . .

. . . hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Tis the way with some here. They think their cases are closed because they say 'case closed'.

Yeah, ummm, "Case Closed" is also another way of saying QED.

"Case Closed" is not the same as labeling someone a bigot.

I said some here are antagonistic towards transgenderism, if they are not bigots then that's good.

There is such a thing as Trans-antagonism and any way you slice it, it's discrimination (as is bigotry).

blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu...

Oh the drama. Please stop. I don't know how much longer I can go on if this continues.

Exactly, the volume of squealing and angst over not getting complete acceptance and understanding is ridiculous and unrealistic.

Perhaps it's because most of us grew up with our Dads, Moms, and older brothers telling us every time we had a personal crisis or grievance, to get a grip or put on their big boy pants and/or suck it up buttercup. Some did otherwise and it drove them absolutely bonkers, thus thats where we are.

330 million people aren't gonna agree on everything. Everybody has their line in the sand

THANK YOU!

Freaking thank you.

We'd get slapped in the back of the head by our friends too, saying who the f cares. Get over it and let's go check out some chicks at the mall.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

So, I rest my case. We cannot disagree. If we do, we have "transphobia".

Well, then, you are phobic as well, bigoted, and intolerant of any views except your own. You can no longer even reasonably disagree with us without being a hateful bigot.

Conservaphobia is real.

I actually think some conservative policies are good, but that's not what you want to hear now is it?

No. What I want to hear is you admit that your terms are misused and it isn't any kind of phobia just for disagreeing with a lifestyle.

I was referring to the antagonism I see here, that's different from just disagreeing with someone's lifestyle. Do you not see that? People boycotting a beer company, because of a transgender ad, what the hell is that?

It sure as hell isn't antagonism.

It is a political agenda and it's anti-trans sentiment whether or not antagonism is bubbling up in there somewhere is for those taking part in the boycott to realize or not realize. But the beer company will do a 180, watch and see. Money is the driver here.

Money for Bud Light, division for the politicians. That's their main goal.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: quintessentone

More made up words to try to cut the argument short when you're losing.

Again, shocking.

I am not trying to win anything and I still say some of you ATSers are antagonistic against transgendered people, so what term do we apply to that? In this case, we may have to make up a new word specific to ATS.

Disagree

to have or express a different opinion.

I think I found the perfect term - anti-trans. All encompassing isn't it?

This made some people very mad, and not because Holly Golightly wasn’t really a beer gal (her preference was the White Angel, a boozy mix of vodka and gin, which, whew). Instead, they were upset because Mulvaney is transgender.

Trans issues are currently front and center in America’s culture war. Anti-trans sentiment is sweeping many corners of the right, targeting children, drag shows, driver’s licenses, and health care, among other areas. It’s showing up in conservative media and conservative legislation and even working itself into the mainstream.

www.vox.com...

Sure, if you'd like to use anti-trans then go ahead. But a lot of people aren't anti-trans, they just disagree with the trans lifestyle. Bruce Jenner is liked among a lot of the right, so is anti-trans really the term you're looking for? I'd think it's more political and we're anti-liberal.

How would Bud Light have been received if they'd have put Jenner on a can? Or even someone like Milo Yannopolis? The left would have come unglued. We both know it, too. This is all political.

I find this behaviour as trans-antagonistic and political.

The post started to pick up steam in conservative circles relatively quickly. Right-wing commentator Ben Shapiro decried the collaboration on his show, saying, “Well, folks, our culture has now decided men are women and women are men and you must be forced to consume products that say so.” Shapiro appears not to be much of a Bud Light fan himself, so he probably doesn’t have much to boycott. “I understand Bud Light is piss water masquerading as beer,” he said, “so I guess that, you know, it’s sort of trans beer.”

’90s rocker Kid Rock posted a video of himself shooting a few cases of Bud Light, which he presumably paid for. “Fluck Bud Light, and fluck Anheuser-Busch,” he said, “have a terrific day.” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) put up a photo of a Coors Light case in the back of her vehicle on Twitter, the accompanying caption reading, “I would have bought the king of beers, but it changed it’s [sic] gender to the queen of beers.”

While corporate decisions sometimes serve as flash points in America’s culture wars, it’s probably important to point out that, by and large, they don’t have values. Or rather, they have only one: money.

www.vox.com...

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

Stigmatized or harms ... too facile. That's "anything that keeps Tham from getting their way."

You will notice that when this all started with changing rooms and locker rooms, response was a separate, private facility that allowed everyone to be out of uncomfortable situations. It was a reasonable compromise.

For the trans, it was all or nothing. Not the locker rooms of their biological sex; that caused discomfort. It had to be the communal locker rooms of their chosen gender where they inflict that same discomfort on all others,but since they are not trans, they're bigots if they object.

And you help make them so.

They acted the same way with gay marriage. It would have been easier to allow the same benefits to a civil union, but that wasn't good enough for them.

And why should it be?

Because all they supposedly wanted were the same benefits of a married man and woman.

That's her point. Why can't they have it all?

Why couldn't they have it under a civil union, which was already the route for gay couples to marry? Because that wasn't enough, they wanted to force churches to marry them because they knew churches didn't agree with their lifestyle.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

So, I rest my case. We cannot disagree. If we do, we have "transphobia".

Well, then, you are phobic as well, bigoted, and intolerant of any views except your own. You can no longer even reasonably disagree with us without being a hateful bigot.

Conservaphobia is real.

I actually think some conservative policies are good, but that's not what you want to hear now is it?

No. What I want to hear is you admit that your terms are misused and it isn't any kind of phobia just for disagreeing with a lifestyle.

I was referring to the antagonism I see here, that's different from just disagreeing with someone's lifestyle. Do you not see that? People boycotting a beer company, because of a transgender ad, what the hell is that?

It sure as hell isn't antagonism.

It is a political agenda and it's anti-trans sentiment whether or not antagonism is bubbling up in there somewhere is for those taking part in the boycott to realize or not realize. But the beer company will do a 180, watch and see. Money is the driver here.

Money for Bud Light, division for the politicians. That's their main goal.

We both could have come to agreement 10 pages ago with that statement and left transpeople out of it. Just saying.

a reply to: quintessentone

You gotta stop relying on Vox my friend.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

Stigmatized or harms ... too facile. That's "anything that keeps Tham from getting their way."

You will notice that when this all started with changing rooms and locker rooms, response was a separate, private facility that allowed everyone to be out of uncomfortable situations. It was a reasonable compromise.

For the trans, it was all or nothing. Not the locker rooms of their biological sex; that caused discomfort. It had to be the communal locker rooms of their chosen gender where they inflict that same discomfort on all others,but since they are not trans, they're bigots if they object.

And you help make them so.

They acted the same way with gay marriage. It would have been easier to allow the same benefits to a civil union, but that wasn't good enough for them.

And why should it be?

Because all they supposedly wanted were the same benefits of a married man and woman.

That's her point. Why can't they have it all?

Why couldn't they have it under a civil union, which was already the route for gay couples to marry? Because that wasn't enough, they wanted to force churches to marry them because they knew churches didn't agree with their lifestyle.

Because some never lost their faith in God, just some other sayings in the Bible that didn't come from Jesus or God's commandments.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: quintessentone

You gotta stop relying on Vox my friend.

I am likely to believe it than to not believe it, consider the sources of the antagonism. Anyway, it is what it is and time will tell if it will be what it will be.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

So, I rest my case. We cannot disagree. If we do, we have "transphobia".

Well, then, you are phobic as well, bigoted, and intolerant of any views except your own. You can no longer even reasonably disagree with us without being a hateful bigot.

Conservaphobia is real.

I actually think some conservative policies are good, but that's not what you want to hear now is it?

No. What I want to hear is you admit that your terms are misused and it isn't any kind of phobia just for disagreeing with a lifestyle.

I was referring to the antagonism I see here, that's different from just disagreeing with someone's lifestyle. Do you not see that? People boycotting a beer company, because of a transgender ad, what the hell is that?

It sure as hell isn't antagonism.

It is a political agenda and it's anti-trans sentiment whether or not antagonism is bubbling up in there somewhere is for those taking part in the boycott to realize or not realize. But the beer company will do a 180, watch and see. Money is the driver here.

Money for Bud Light, division for the politicians. That's their main goal.

We both could have come to agreement 10 pages ago with that statement and left transpeople out of it. Just saying.

That's ok, we covered a lot of ground that would've been missed otherwise.

I do admire your sticking around though, and not disappearing. At least we could finish the conversation and end it on a somewhat agreeing note. I have to run though, it's quitting time and I have some LSU baseball to watch in an hour and a half.

a reply to: LSU2018

And it wasn't like it was even all churches. It was and still is denomination by denomination, so they can't even claim this is a monolithic Christian thing. If they wanted that Christian marriage,it was a simple matter of finding an accommodating denomination, so much for live and let live, you know?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Waterglass

The fix here would be for the LGBTQ+ community to step up and advocate for this company because the company, at the very least, tried to portray inclusiveness and the company should not suffer because of it. And IMO the only reason they are losing money and customers is because the LGBTQ+ community took a hissy fit and walked away.

They threw the baby out with the bath water. Shame.

www.fastcompany.com...#:~:text=Then%20there's%20its%20two%20decades,ally%20to%20the%20L GBTQ%20community.

Why should LGBT support a company because they made a failed attempt to pander to a subset, of a minority, of an offshoot of their membership? Bud wasn't trying to promote positive social change, they were trying to capture part of an already exploited minority market and to earn good-(boy) points for their future ESG scores.

Are LGBT people not dealing with their own problems? I feel like maybe the global corporation should just take the bump and call this one a loss. Next time they should think before they try to pander to controversial niche groups that have no market share of anything except hormone therapy.

I think LGBT should reject both the gross pandering and being forced into a box because political narratives.

Your wish came true, LGB minus the T from now on.

I've been saying this for a couple years; LGB = "You can't help who you love"
T+ = people with emotional problems

the LGB would do well to disassociate themselves from crazy people ruining the progress they fought so hard for

a reply to: quintessentone

I think Jesus is very clear on what a marriage is.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

So, I rest my case. We cannot disagree. If we do, we have "transphobia".

Well, then, you are phobic as well, bigoted, and intolerant of any views except your own. You can no longer even reasonably disagree with us without being a hateful bigot.

Conservaphobia is real.

I actually think some conservative policies are good, but that's not what you want to hear now is it?

No. What I want to hear is you admit that your terms are misused and it isn't any kind of phobia just for disagreeing with a lifestyle.

I was referring to the antagonism I see here, that's different from just disagreeing with someone's lifestyle. Do you not see that? People boycotting a beer company, because of a transgender ad, what the hell is that?

It sure as hell isn't antagonism.

It is a political agenda and it's anti-trans sentiment whether or not antagonism is bubbling up in there somewhere is for those taking part in the boycott to realize or not realize. But the beer company will do a 180, watch and see. Money is the driver here.

Money for Bud Light, division for the politicians. That's their main goal.

We both could have come to agreement 10 pages ago with that statement and left transpeople out of it. Just saying.

That's ok, we covered a lot of ground that would've been missed otherwise.

I do admire your sticking around though, and not disappearing. At least we could finish the conversation and end it on a somewhat agreeing note. I have to run though, it's quitting time and I have some LSU baseball to watch in an hour and a half.

Me too, dinner's on the stove and there's a wine spritzer with my name on it. It's nice to agree on a somewhat agreeing note.