All purpose news and politics thread part VII: News & Politics Total Landscaping

[Totoro Man]

9 most surreal moments in 2023 politics . . .
Conservatives' war on Bud Light

honestly, I don't consider the Bud Light boycott to be "surreal". if it was merely "conservatives" that were lashing back at the company, you would think that the boycott would have rapidly floundered and had no lasting impact. which is exactly what nearly every journalist and expert said when they wrote about the boycott told us last spring. I don't think a one-sided political response could have had the impact on sales that we actually saw.

are TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminsts) to be considered "Conservative"? when some of the criticisms of Mulvaney's Ulta Beauty campaign included
accused Mulvaney and Ulta of “trolling women,” exercising “male privilege,” treating womanhood as a “costume,” and putting on a “clown parade of misogyny, appropriation and mockery of women.”

it is NOT difficult to imagine that the women who would boycott Ulta would not also take similar measures to boycott Bud Light.

the company (Bud Light) tried to expand the brand and appeal to other types of consumers (in itself reasonable). while doing this they simultaneously tried distancing themselves from their core consumer base (theoretically fratboy rednecks). they deliberately ignored longstanding cultural details associated with the brand and it blew up in their faces. Bud Light managed to alienate conservatives and a fair number of older feminists all at the same time.

a well-done propaganda campaign of that sort can't defiantly ignore tradition and stereotypes. it is better to question, subvert, or undermine. so, if they had actively campaigned and embraced "rednecks" at the same time as the Mulvaney publicity event, it could have done quite a bit to deflect a negative response.

notice that it wasn't simply conservatives who resented Bud Light. even the article itself contradicts the headline with additional information. Mulvaney complained of not getting support afterwards. some transgender rights advocates complained that Bud Light had effectively taken back whatever goodwill they might have generated by not standing more firmly on the issue. when the company argued that it was "just one can" they managed to offend progressives as well. the Bud Light scenario also being influenced by the righteous indignation of leftists who resented Bud Light's weak and inconsistent position. that's a LOT of righteous indignation from both sides of the political spectrum.

there are a number of feminists who had an axe to grind with Mulvaney as well. of course, being a political liberal doesn't exclude somebody from being conservative on social issues. since many older feminists embrace a form of gender essentialism... it makes sense that otherwise thoughtful and progressive women would be appalled that Mulvaney is being heralded as one of the most important and influential women in the culture at that time.

so, if journalists have told us that cultural conservatives and their boycotts have historically failed in every other comparable scenario, why did it seem to make an impact this time? perhaps the only "surreal" thing about this is that many journalists prophesied that the boycott would fail... and now it appears that Bud Light has suffered a huge drop in sales, producing the lowest numbers in 24 years.

Bud Light made mistakes at every single step in this process and managed to alienate people on both sides of the political spectrum. for a product that isn't really all that good and is highly dependent on marketing and brand loyalty... this was a bad move. they took a brand that was in steady decline and then flushed it down the toilet. I suppose I could praise them for their brilliant mercy killing of the brand... except that I don't believe that they did this on purpose!

[Catlady in training]

are TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminsts) to be considered "Conservative"? when some of the criticisms of Mulvaney's Ulta Beauty campaign included
accused Mulvaney and Ulta of “trolling women,” exercising “male privilege,” treating womanhood as a “costume,” and putting on a “clown parade of misogyny, appropriation and mockery of women.”

They are "conservative" in a similar sense as MAGA republicans. More interested in hating the LGBTQ+ community and other minorities than in preserving any sort of conservative values. Any real conservatives who uphold traditional conservative values like family, traditions or civility should be appalled by them and distance themselves from them, but they rarely care to. On the other hand, most feminists do distance themselves from the TERFs.

[Tami]

Plane detained in France sheds light on Nicaragua’s role in US migrant crisis

The flight, which left the United Arab Emirates on 21 December with 303 passengers of Indian nationality, was grounded during a refueling stop after an anonymous tip-off alleging human trafficking.

The passengers, however, were not being trafficked against their will, but rather attempting to migrate.

Nicaragua is the closest country connected by land to the United States that does not impose strict entry requirements upon citizens of many nations who are barred from flying to other destinations without a visa.

While some countries have imposed visa requirements upon certain nationalities under pressure from Washington, experts say that the Nicaraguan president, Daniel Ortega, has taken a contrarian approach in an attempt to weaponize migration and force negotiations over sanctions imposed on members of his inner circle.

“Ortega is being very astute by playing with what hurts the United States the most,” said Ana María Méndez, director for Central America at the Washington Office on Latin America, referring to the current migrant crisis and the political liability it represents for President Joe Biden heading into the 2024 election. “It’s like pouring alcohol on an open wound.”

[Jack Dracula]

The WorldÂ’s Population May Peak in Your Lifetime. What Happens Next?

A friend of mine occasionally brings up the subject of millennials putting off having children as something of an impending crisis. I typically counter with the fact that, if a virus arose and killed half the world’s population it would only take us back to the level of the 1970’s. There is no birth-rate crisis.
The article implies that more people equals an increase in innovation. I’d argue better overall education and increased accessibility to resources like computers and libraries for our existing population would yield equal or better results without straining our planet’s limited resources.

Edit: We also need better ideologies. Consumerism and unfettered capitalism have arguably proven to be detrimental to our species. Instead of competing for control over limited resources which inevitably results in wealth for a small percentage of people we should focus on making the best use of our resources to improve life for everyone.

[ed2962]

honestly, I don't consider the Bud Light boycott to be "surreal". if it was merely "conservatives" that were lashing back at the company, you would think that the boycott would have rapidly floundered and had no lasting impact. which is exactly what nearly every journalist and expert said when they wrote about the boycott told us last spring. I don't think a one-sided political response could have had the impact on sales that we actually saw.

are TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminsts) to be considered "Conservative"? when some of the criticisms of Mulvaney's Ulta Beauty campaign included
accused Mulvaney and Ulta of “trolling women,” exercising “male privilege,” treating womanhood as a “costume,” and putting on a “clown parade of misogyny, appropriation and mockery of women.”

it is NOT difficult to imagine that the women who would boycott Ulta would not also take similar measures to boycott Bud Light.

the company (Bud Light) tried to expand the brand and appeal to other types of consumers (in itself reasonable). while doing this they simultaneously tried distancing themselves from their core consumer base (theoretically fratboy rednecks). they deliberately ignored longstanding cultural details associated with the brand and it blew up in their faces. Bud Light managed to alienate conservatives and a fair number of older feminists all at the same time.

a well-done propaganda campaign of that sort can't defiantly ignore tradition and stereotypes. it is better to question, subvert, or undermine. so, if they had actively campaigned and embraced "rednecks" at the same time as the Mulvaney publicity event, it could have done quite a bit to deflect a negative response.

notice that it wasn't simply conservatives who resented Bud Light. even the article itself contradicts the headline with additional information. Mulvaney complained of not getting support afterwards. some transgender rights advocates complained that Bud Light had effectively taken back whatever goodwill they might have generated by not standing more firmly on the issue. when the company argued that it was "just one can" they managed to offend progressives as well. the Bud Light scenario also being influenced by the righteous indignation of leftists who resented Bud Light's weak and inconsistent position. that's a LOT of righteous indignation from both sides of the political spectrum.

there are a number of feminists who had an axe to grind with Mulvaney as well. of course, being a political liberal doesn't exclude somebody from being conservative on social issues. since many older feminists embrace a form of gender essentialism... it makes sense that otherwise thoughtful and progressive women would be appalled that Mulvaney is being heralded as one of the most important and influential women in the culture at that time.

so, if journalists have told us that cultural conservatives and their boycotts have historically failed in every other comparable scenario, why did it seem to make an impact this time? perhaps the only "surreal" thing about this is that many journalists prophesied that the boycott would fail... and now it appears that Bud Light has suffered a huge drop in sales, producing the lowest numbers in 24 years.

Bud Light made mistakes at every single step in this process and managed to alienate people on both sides of the political spectrum. for a product that isn't really all that good and is highly dependent on marketing and brand loyalty... this was a bad move. they took a brand that was in steady decline and then flushed it down the toilet. I suppose I could praise them for their brilliant mercy killing of the brand... except that I don't believe that they did this on purpose!

I'd argue a couple things though, Bud Light didn't try to distance themselves from their supposed "core" audience of alleged "fratboy rednecks". They didn't pull their other ads. They didn't make any grand statements. They just did this thing with Mulvany, which wasn't even some massive campaign, it was just something for Mulvany's Instagram. Most ppl wouldn't have even seen it, if it weren't for Kid Rock.

Plus Bud and their affiliated brands have been openly marketing to the LGBT crowd for well over 10-20 yrs. Gay and Trans people drink beer too. Advertising towards them isn't some new thing.

Mulvany had something like over half a dozen other sponsorships besides Bud Light, yet those companies haven't seen the same sort of backlash. I'd argue it has less to do with principle and more the fact that destroying bud light cans just happened to go viral the way other dances and stunts go viral on Tik Tok ( also see ppl filming themselves harassing Target workers).

[Malvolio]

I'd argue a couple things though, Bud Light didn't try to distance themselves from their supposed "core" audience of alleged "fratboy rednecks". They didn't pull their other ads. They didn't make any grand statements. They just did this thing with Mulvany, which wasn't even some massive campaign, it was just something for Mulvany's Instagram. Most ppl wouldn't have even seen it, if it weren't for Kid Rock.

Plus Bud and their affiliated brands have been openly marketing to the LGBT crowd for well over 10-20 yrs. Gay and Trans people drink beer too. Advertising towards them isn't some new thing.

Mulvany had something like over half a dozen other sponsorships besides Bud Light, yet those companies haven't seen the same sort of backlash. I'd argue it has less to do with principle and more the fact that destroying bud light cans just happened to go viral the way other dances and stunts go viral on Tik Tok ( also see ppl filming themselves harassing Target workers).

Affiliated brands. That's a key point. Bud Light is not a company. Anheiser Busch is the company that produces Bud Light, as well as several other brands. So while Bud Light is one of their top sellers, they can afford to lose money on it if they can increase sales on other products. Many of the boycotters are probably still buying other Anheiser Busch products while boycotting Bud Light.

[skyvolt2000]

the company (Bud Light) tried to expand the brand and appeal to other types of consumers (in itself reasonable). while doing this they simultaneously tried distancing themselves from their core consumer base (theoretically fratboy rednecks). they deliberately ignored longstanding cultural details associated with the brand and it blew up in their faces. Bud Light managed to alienate conservatives and a fair number of older feminists all at the same time.

That NEVER happened.

Ads to those guys never went away. Stuff like sports gambling have taken over their old ad spots during sporting events.


There are companies that don't advertise in certain areas or even more in other areas and we didn't see the pushback to them that Bud Light got.

When was the last time you saw an ad for Welch's soda? Because Fox had an issue with it when they had a promotion for Fantastic Four movie. Michael B Jordan was on a flavor that isn't sold everywhere. In fact when was the last we saw an ad for anything by Welch?

7UP does not do ads in the United States. They only do Mexico and South America. Meanwhile you do see ads for Pepsi-who OWNS 7UP and Taco Bell to name a few.

McDonalds have gone after black folks since the 70s. Folks forget the Calvin (Played by Even Stevens Ty Hodges) McDonald era of ads.

How many car, Wal-Mart, McDonald, beer and gin ads did we see during almost EVERY black show in the 90s-2000s?


And for that culture war stunt those guys did-they forget something....

Anheuser-Busch makes MORE than Bud Light.

There are 30 different KNOWN brands that they make.

I promise you if you dig down the rabbit hole-you will discover what else they make. Including those so-called OFF BRAND drinks.

Like how Shaq's very first shoes were really Nikes without the Swoosh.

Good Value is really Wal-Mart in disguise.

[ed2962]

Israel planning to pull troops from Gaza but promise to continue fighting for many months

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...c73189a3&ei=17

[Gray Lensman]

That NEVER happened.

Ads to those guys never went away. Stuff like sports gambling have taken over their old ad spots during sporting events.


There are companies that don't advertise in certain areas or even more in other areas and we didn't see the pushback to them that Bud Light got.

When was the last time you saw an ad for Welch's soda? Because Fox had an issue with it when they had a promotion for Fantastic Four movie. Michael B Jordan was on a flavor that isn't sold everywhere. In fact when was the last we saw an ad for anything by Welch?

7UP does not do ads in the United States. They only do Mexico and South America. Meanwhile you do see ads for Pepsi-who OWNS 7UP and Taco Bell to name a few.

McDonalds have gone after black folks since the 70s. Folks forget the Calvin (Played by Even Stevens Ty Hodges) McDonald era of ads.

How many car, Wal-Mart, McDonald, beer and gin ads did we see during almost EVERY black show in the 90s-2000s?


And for that culture war stunt those guys did-they forget something....

Anheuser-Busch makes MORE than Bud Light.

There are 30 different KNOWN brands that they make.

I promise you if you dig down the rabbit hole-you will discover what else they make. Including those so-called OFF BRAND drinks.

Like how Shaq's very first shoes were really Nikes without the Swoosh.

Good Value is really Wal-Mart in disguise.

7 Up isn't owned by Pepsi, it's owned by the Keurig Dr. Pepper Group. Pepsi makes Starry in the Lemon-Line soda bracket, while Coca-Cola makes Sprite. I actually work for an aluminum can manufacturer, and I had to inspect and approve many of the qualification runs for each customer. However, distribution rights for 7 Up outside of the United States ARE owned by Pepsi, so it's a matter of where you live. I'm not sure about distribution in Canada and Mexico, because depending on the product, that can be covered under the US or it might not.

Pepsi does own a lot though. Gatorade, Lays potato chips, Doritos, and a percentage of Taco Bell, Subway, Pizza Hut, KFC, and to be honest, if a chain serves Pepsi rather than Coke, it's likely because Pepsi owns a piece of it. The ones that don't switched to Coca-Cola in protest years ago, back when even the worst performing of those restaurants was still a powerhouse in the market.

[Tami]

Israeli Justices Reject Netanyahu-Led Move to Limit Court

The law, passed by the Israeli Parliament in July, had sharply divided Israelis and sparked mass protests. Monday’s ruling raised the prospect of renewed discord as Israel wages war in Gaza.

[CaptainEurope]

Vanilla Ice was at the Mar-A-Lago NYE party (he was the headliner of the entertainment, believe it or not.) Not at the even: Melania Knaus-Trump. This is fueling speculation that Melania has fled the country in light of Trump's name appearing on the Epstein Lolita Express flight logs.

[Madam-Shogun-Assassin]

Gaza Is A ‘Ghetto’ For Palestinians
The comments by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich are the latest example of Israeli officials saying the quiet part out loud amid attacks on Gaza.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/israe...b0b01d3e40260c

[Totoro Man]

They are "conservative" in a similar sense as MAGA republicans. More interested in hating the LGBTQ+ community and other minorities than in preserving any sort of conservative values. Any real conservatives who uphold traditional conservative values like family, traditions or civility should be appalled by them and distance themselves from them, but they rarely care to. On the other hand, most feminists do distance themselves from the TERFs.

okay, let's assume transphobia is a real, pervasive, and cultural thing that actually crosses over political lines. do we really think it was merely "conservatives" that helped tank the Bud Light brand? perhaps these are the only people who actively confessed to their transphobia and declared their intentions.

most forms of wide-scale cultural oppression manifest in both active and passive participants in systematic oppression.

so, now anybody who could be considered transphobic is automatically a "conservative" in complete disregard of their political views, activities, and voting history?

if TERFs truly live up to their name (as radical feminists) why WOULD they be interested in preserving "any sort of conservative values"? they typically define themselves in terms of a perceived gender war where they have been on the losing side for most of history. if Mulvaney gets named Woman of the Year and participates in a Forbes Women's Power Summit after being a woman less than a year... women who are appalled by this are now automatically "conservative". (of course, sales numbers suggest that women are a small percentage of Bud Light buyers.

"most feminists"? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most feminists are not public figures and have no reason to distance themselves from TERFs at all.

which is why I mentioned that some feminists still adhere to a form of "gender essentialism".

to show an example of how deeply ingrained gender essentialism is... Will Ferrell can ask whether it's time for women to run the world. as if THAT, in and of itself, might be the only sort of revolutionary change required for world peace.... or something. there are still people who believe that if women ran the world we would have less war and inequality... as if Empress Wu Zetian, Isabella I of Spain, Queen Ranavalona, Jiang Qing, Golda Meir, Imelda Marcos, and Margaret Thatcher never existed!

if adhering to the concept of gender essentialism makes somebody "conservative" that could encompass nearly the entire planet... regardless of their political views.

what the article seems to ignore is that this campaign indirectly challenged a pretty basic and deeply rooted stereotype: gender essentialism proposes that men and women are different. there are plenty of people in the center, left, and even progressives who accept this basic stereotype. I believe it is intellectually dishonest to assume that ALL transphobic people are, by definition, conservative reactionaries. this also ignores the fundamentally radical and revolutionary nature of the transgender rights movement.

political expediency is real. if progressive socialists are campaigning for abortion rights and stumble upon libertarians who say that they support the same cause... are they now expected to burn those bridges and refuse to work together towards a perceived common goal?

so, if the goal is simply to punish a beer brand out of vengeance for perceived transgressions against cultural norms... people wouldn't even need to organize the effort. many people would spontaneously respond with their wallets. the fact that people did attempt to organize a response would amplify that action... but it would not be specifically required for many people to simply stop buying the brand. it also would not be limited to mere cultural and political conservatives.

[Totoro Man]

That NEVER happened...

Bud Light made a gamble. and that gamble apparently blew up in their face. journalists and pundits told us that the boycott would most likely fail... but things got even worse. Bud Light started making even more adversaries on both sides of the political spectrum as the controversy unfolded.

I believe the most surreal part of that article is that it attempts to describe the entire cultural and market response to Bud Light into a singular conservative transphobic backlash.

if the conservative backlash was SUPPOSED to fail, how do we explain that damage? does it mean that the so-called conservatives scored a solitary victory in some sort of ongoing culture war? that seems unlikely. what seems more likely is that the authors are attempting to produce a simple, easily digestible narrative where we have a victim and a perpetrator. Bud Light and Mulvaney can be portrayed as victim while a generic, all-encompassing "conservative" can be the perpetrator. rather than admit that transphobia is part of the entire culture... we're going to try and blame it all on reactionary conservatives.

https://beveragedynamics.com/2007/02...phics-of-beer/
in 2007 roughly 40% of Bud Light consumers were women. is the assumption that every woman who has ever consumed Bud Light is automatically conservative?

when people saw that Bud Light effectively backed down and didn't follow through, this alienated progressives as well. some people began withdrawing support and others proposed boycotting Bud Light:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...n/70229893007/
https://www.advocate.com/voices/budw...dylan-mulvaney

now, if the Advocate is a reactionary conservative magazine... well, that would be breaking news for me.

having finally watched some of the videos... Mulvaney's documented behavior doesn't correspond to the behavior of any woman I have ever met in my life. the obviously performative nature of the material looked more like a parody of teenaged girls.

but it gets worse: Mulvaney's sexist caricature and theatrics weren't presented as some sort of goofy drag routine... where absurd affectations and antics are part of playing an amusing character. they were being presented as a legitimate representation of women in general. even going so far as to win a Woman of the Year award and speaking at a Forbes Womens summit.

if Mulvaney's tacky, over-the-top theatrics had been portrayed as mere drag queen camp I wouldn't have found it offensive at all. but the idea that this is somehow a representation of women in general felt like the most absurd and demented sexist caricature I have seen in a very long time.

it seems to me that the backlash against Bud Light and Mulvaney had to come from a much broader spectrum than mere "conservatives". pretending that deeply rooted cultural norms are only kept in place by reactionaries and conservatives is preposterous. liberals and progressives also partake in reinforcing cultural norms.

since Conservatives are NOT supposed to have significant cultural clout...
I'm arguing that we misread the lines of battle in staking everything on a conservative cultural backlash.

it denies the reality that even liberals and progressives can be transphobic.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...-mistreatment/

the upside of this (for liberals and progressives) might be that when conservatives tackle boycotting another product and fail. they might FINALLY discover that it wasn't simply their actions that led to the precipitous decline in sales for Bud Light... but that the brand was run aground by bipartisan antipathy.r.

[numberthirty]

Here is a pretty "Common Sense..." and comprehensive breakdown of why John/Jane Public don't think that the economy is in solid shape. No matter how the "The Actual Numbers Say Things Are Improving..." folks see things.