Comment by userbinator
4 days ago
It is, because why else would they deliberately pick a trans person, and moreover one who goes out of the way to make a big deal out of being trans[1], to sell beer to a demographic that's very very unlikely to be receptive to it? Wokeness is the only explanation left.
[1] There are plenty of trans people who just want to live as their desired gender, and no one would even give them a second glance.
They were trying to sell beer to the demographic that likes Dylan Mulvaney. None of the existing consumers of Bud Light were affected by the campaign until right-wing activists started promoting a boycott.
They didn't run a national campaign with Mulvaney in a swimsuit drinking Bud Light, they didn't put her on the cans, they didn't do anything but do a promotion on her channel.
Dylan was definitely on the cans. The demographic that drinks Bud Light that likes Dylan was definitely a minority as the overwhelming majority of its loyal consumers rejected it overnight.
I think its lazy to blame politics for a failed marketing campaign by creating some vilifying your own consumer base. We see the same pattern playing out in all aspects of products that have gone woke, games serving as the most recent example.
We live in a capitalist society and consumers will vote with their money and they cannot be forced to buy a product because the media and special interest groups decide to vilify and defame them publicly. This might work in a communist country but even then the effects are short lived.
Dylan was on the one can that Bud sent her, not publicly sold cans. They did similar promotions with other influencers. The reason this one struck a chord is that right-wing agitators found it a useful way to polarise and confuse the discourse.
2 replies →
I find this line of thought challenging, because it reminds me of what people were saying about homosexuals in the 80s and 90s. Things like "gays are fine as long as they don't kiss in public" and "I don't understand why they have to parade around in these festivals". I'm not sure what's different about transgender people in our generation.
Is it possible in your opinion to publicly support trans rights and not be woke?
Thing is, it's a test of obedience to woke dogma. You're expected to ignore the man you see before you, and proclaim that he's a woman. Even if you don't believe it, which most do not.
This is apparently the polite thing to do. But using "preferred pronouns" is not courtesy, it's conditioning.
"Trans rights" is fundamentally about compelling people to participate in a lie.
I wouldn't describe it as a "lie" so much as challenging the socially prescribed link between sex and gender. Trans people know they're biologically male, and they know you probably know it. But they're challenging the social expectations that get associated with that.
The same analogy can again be drawn with homosexuality. 100 years ago, many people believed that it was a biological fact that men preferred women and vice versa. To hear a man proclaiming that he prefers men, or a women proclaiming she prefers women, sounded to them like a lie. But as society progresses, social norms tend to relax. In fact there are people to this day who cannot quite accept the idea that homosexuals might genuinely exist. To such people, seeing a gay couple kissing feels like being expected to ignore a biological fact.
3 replies →
The crux of the problem is that the parent believes that putting a trans "woman" on a product that is intended for people who never asked for it is supposed to spread tolerance and acceptance.
The parent's view is that it is the fault of the consumer that voted against such imagery because they do not identify with its messaging because they were "nazis"
Yet seems oblivious to the fact that if it was done on to their favorite product, they would react in the exact similar manner. For instance, trying to stop the sales of a game which depicts women in a voluptuous manner, purposefully making them more "butch" because it offends a small group of people.
This is the exact issue that we recognize as wokeness that someone on the far left is incapable of tolerating. So the issue is always one side wants to force tolerance by forceful means, the other just wants to be left alone and leave it to individual tolerance.
The collective brute force method has completely backfired yet this still does not register in the mind of those that still think indoctrinating, forcing ideology on to people is going to lead to more tolerance.
1 reply →