Do you really think people like Ted Nugent were making the distinction you are making?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Jason Aldean controversy
- Thread starter Father Heathen
- Start date
I think people like Nugent just wanted a chance to be relevant in the news cycle again. I just know that Dylan had already gotten a ton of bad press before the Bud Light debacle, so it's hard to say if it would be the same if it were a less controversial trans person. Maybe if it were Jenner, it wouldn't have gone so badly. I don't know.
It is my guess that the vast majority of those who initially boycotted Bud Light had never heard of Dylan Mulvaney before the Bud Light incident. You may have been aware of this "ton of bad press", but not a lot of people were, I wasn't.
Have to ask them. This was all viral online. Dylan's been famous since last year.
I have been famous for decades. It is just that no one knows it.
It's 2023. If you don't pay attention to TikTok or Instagram or online culture, you're not going to know who these people are but young people will. You're not their target audience. But they are very famous online. They're an influencer. Millions of people follow Dylan and they've gotten to meet Joe Biden at the White House, representing trans people.
Exactly my point. I don't think those who boycotted Bud Light initially were her target audience. I don't think they had ever heard of her before.
I'm just saying I don't know. You would have to do a poll about why they didn't like it. A large proportion of Bud Light's customers are college students. It's one of the most popular beers they drink. It's constantly littering the area where I live (I live right by the main Ohio State campus and am constantly surrounded by college students). They would be likely to have heard of Dylan, with their social media addictions.
Fair enough, I really don't know either, not for sure. But my sense is that these people would not have been watching her tickity tocky show.
I decide what my issues are; not you. Again; if people don’t want me refuting their claims, they need to quit making claims on an open forum like this one.
It could be their personal opinion. but when the name calling does not address the issue at hand, it’s just name calling.
When have I ever tried to silence somebody? And how could I possibly do something like that on an open forum like this? It’s not like I’m a moderator with the power to suspend someone’s accounts. So when have I ever done this and how did I do it?
How about if you quote what I said IN CONTEXT and quit trying to make it seem as if I ever suggested people should keep their beliefs to themselves on forums like this one.
Post #170 was in reference to specific cases on this forum with somebody else. You are not in a position to refute it because it did not involve you.
Last edited:
It doesn't matter that it was in reference to a specific case, I still disagree with it. And it doesn't matter who refuted it, it was refuted.
Okay; so I spoke of a personal experience I've had that did not involve you, and you object claiming it never happened. Is that the best you've got? Can you refute anything I've said concerning something you actually know about?
I think you are very confused about what part of post #170 I object to, or at least you are pretending to be confused about it. Never mind.
The central point is that the people who boycotted Bud Light because they send some promotional swag to a trans woman are bigots. That is the point. In the end even you are not defending their actions. Or are you?
They don’t need me to defend their right to boycott, any more than you need me to defend your right to call them bigots. However; I do believe the transgender issue has been taken too far. For a biological male to say they feel like a woman, or even to identify as a woman is one thing, but to claim they are a woman, and to expect or even demand everybody around them believe they are a woman is taking it too far. The fact that every major corporation, academia, and the powers that be seems to be getting on board with this is unfortunate IMO. The Bud Light controversy is only an example of other people who tire of this pushing back.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I'm glad we shipped him south to Texas as he didn't like it here in Michigan because of his right-wingnut politics.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
In what way does Bud Light choosing to send promotional material to a trans person have any relation to "getting on board" with "demanding everybody around them believe they are a woman"? Is the existence of ANY trans person indication of that? Is a company choosing to promote with - or send goods to - ANY trans person an advocation of this?
If so, then how is boycotting Bud Light for doing this ideologically any different to simple advocating AGAINST the very existence of trans people? Is there ANY way Bud Light could have sent goods to - or chosen to promote with - a trans person that WOULDN'T have lead these people to boycott the business? If your answer to that question is "no", then it's pretty obvious that the issue has literally nothing to do with advocating for any specific position with regards to trans people - the issue is just WITH trans people existing.
But light is using their power and influence to promote a biological male who says he is a girl.
Existence? No.
By promoting a male who says he is female, they are being an advocate for such a person; wouldn’t you say?
You don’t seem to be getting it; perhaps we’re talking past each other. Let me put it another way.
Imagine you live in a place where pedophilia is perfectly legal. Now even though it is legal, you still have issues with it. Now imagine a company that you thought shared your values coming out and advocating for adults that like having sexual relations with children, and children who like having relations with adults.
Would you have a problem with the existence of pedophiles? Or are you gonna have a problem with your company promoting pedophiles? To have a problem with the existence of pedophiles is a useless cause because there always has been, and always will be adults who are sexually attracted to children, and children who are sexually attracted to adults; and if it’s legal, there is nothing you can do to change that behavior. But to go after the company promoting such behavior IS useful because it can stop the normalization of this type of behavior. Does this make sense to you?
No they are not, why would they do that? They were trying to use a transgender woman to promote their beer. Beer companies want to promote their beer. They are in the business of selling beer, not promoting transgender influencers.
Seriously, try applying a little common sense to the situation.
So you are comparing transgender people to pedophiles.
Imagine someone were to compare some demographic that you identify with with pedophiles. Would you have a problem with being compared to a pedophile.
There is a reason I say people who opposed this are bigots. And you are demonstrating that for us perfectly.
Last edited:
How was Daylan used to promote Bud Light? I didn’t see him in any of their commercials, I saw no advertising with him in it, I saw plenty of Bud Light advertising, but none of it included Daylan, so how was he used to promote the brand?
Are you kidding me??? It’s called an analogy. Pedophila is something you disapprove of so I used it as an analogy to make a point about something they disapprove of
Seriously; try applying a little common sense to the situation