The Jason Aldean controversy

[Viker]

Have to ask them. This was all viral online. Dylan's been famous since last year.

I honestly didn't know until this whole Bud Light thing. I now know Dylan had millions of followers, on TikTok, TikTok being something I don't have.

Today's concept of famous is radically different than 30 years ago. No, it isn't. Metallica had sold millions of records before fame and Grammies started rolling in. In 1987, almost no one had heard of them.

Today is still like back then. Until something breaks, one can have 5 million followers on TikTok and nearly 8 billion haven't heard of them. Mr. Ballen has almost 8 million subscribers on YouTube. I bet most don't know who the heck he is.

 

[fantome profane]

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?

Then how did Bud Light promote Dylan? (and even if you refuse to use her pronouns, please try to spell her name right)

If you didn't see her in any Bud Light commercials, no Bud Light advertising, then obviously Bud Light was not using their power and influence. And that was your claim.

But light is using their power and influence to promote a biological male who says he is a girl.

No, Bud light was using her power and her influence. After all, that is what she does, she is an influencer. And obviously they were doing it because they wanted to sell beer. If you think that the beer company had any motive other than selling beer you are living in a fantasy land.

As our good friend @Saint Frankenstein pointed out, millions of people follow Dylan.

And Bud Light was using her platform to sell beer, not the other way round. They were trying to sell beer to people who follow her. They were not trying to sell her to people who don't follow her. If they were trying to promote her, they would have put her in commercials and advertising, and as you correctly point out, they didn't.

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

So it is ok for me to say that you are "like a pedophile". I didn't say you were a pedophile, just that you were "like a pedophile" It is called an analogy.

People said the same thing about homosexuals. People said Jews ate babies. There is a word to describe people who say things like this. Bigots.

 

[Kfox]

.

 

[Kfox]

So it is ok for me to say that you are "like a pedophile". I didn't say you were a pedophile, just that you were "like a pedophile" It is called an analogy.

Did I say Dylan was like a pedophile? Or anyone was like a pedophile? No. Where are you getting this stuff? Is this an attempt at fake outrage in an effort to pretend I’ve said something I did not?

 

[fantome profane]

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?

Go ahead and try to pretend you didn't say this. But the internet never forgets.

 

[Kfox]

.

 

[Kfox]

Go ahead and try to pretend you didn't say this. But the internet never forgets.

I don't have to pretend anything; anybody who understands analogies will understand what I said in no way compares the two. This looks like your attempt to avoid addressing my point.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't have to pretend anything; anybody who understands analogies will understand what I said in no way compares the two. This looks like your attempt to avoid addressing my point.

Racist and bigots use analogies all the time. You can compare people to dogs,to vermin, to disease, and those are analogies. And people who use those analogies are bigots. People who compare homosexuals, or transsexuals to pedophiles are bigots.

So what was your point, I would love to address it directly. I think I have addressed your point about Bud Light promoting Dylan, and I think I have debunked that garbage. (Notice that is another analogy, your point is like a big pile of stinking trash).


So what was your other point, Was your point that people hate transsexuals like they hate pedophiles? Because if that was your point, I agree. Certain people feel the same way about transsexuals as they do about pedophiles, and that is because they are bigots. If that was your point consider it addressed.

 

[Viker]

I don't have to pretend anything; anybody who understands analogies will understand what I said in no way compares the two. This looks like your attempt to avoid addressing my point.

An analogy is a comparison between two things. It's how analogies are and how they work.

definition of analogy:

a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"

a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"

a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"

What you are implying is that being transgender is similar to being a pedophile. And therefore, outrage against transgender people is similarly justified.

If you didn't mean this then you are terrible at analogies.

 

[Kfox]

People who compare homosexuals, or transsexuals to pedophiles are bigots.

Nobody was compared to pedophiles. The person I was responding to was stuck on this idea that the controversy surrounding Bud Light had to do with those people not wanting transgender people to exist.
I pointed to something he disagrees with (pedophilia) and something the people in question disagrees with (an adult man claiming to be a girl) to make a point. In no way does this suggest those things are related, similar, or have anything to do with each other.

 

[Kfox]

An analogy is a comparison between two things. It's how analogies are and how they work.

The person I was responding to was stuck on this idea that the controversy surrounding Bud Light had to do with those people not wanting transgender people to exist.
I pointed to something he disagrees with (pedophilia) and something the people in question disagrees with (an adult man claiming to be a girl) to make a point. In no way does this suggest those things are related, similar, or have anything to do with each other.

 

[fantome profane]

Nobody was compared to pedophiles. The person I was responding to was stuck on this idea that the controversy surrounding Bud Light had to do with those people not wanting transgender people to exist.
I pointed to something he disagrees with (pedophilia) and something the people in question disagrees with (an adult man claiming to be a girl) to make a point. In no way does this suggest those things are related, similar, or have anything to do with each other.

That is a comparison. You are comparing two things.

So what point do you think you were making?


Could you try making the point using something else? Could you make you point with something like stamp collectors? Or tap dancers?

No, that would not work. To make your point you needed to refer to something disgusting. That is why your point shows that these people are hateful bigots.

 

[Kfox]

That is a comparison. You are comparing two things.

But I was not comparing the two things to each other.

So what point do you think you were making?

My point was their disdain was not about transgender people existing.

Could you try making the point using something else? Could you make you point with something like stamp collectors? Or tap dancers?

If the person I were addressing had disdain for stamp collecting or tap dancers, yes I could have.

 

[fantome profane]

But I was not comparing the two things to each other.

My point was their disdain was not about transgender people existing.

If the person I were addressing had disdain for stamp collecting or tap dancers, yes I could have

So it has to involve disdain. You are comparing the disdain these people have for transgender people to the disdain people have for pedophiles. This is a perfect description of hateful bigotry.


Check this. Using stamp collectors in your analogy would not work. What about disease infested vermin? Would that work in your analogy?

 

[Kfox]

So it has to involve disdain. You are comparing the disdain these people have for transgender people to the disdain people have for pedophiles. This is a perfect description of hateful bigotry.

So you agree it has nothing to do with transgender people existing?

 

[fantome profane]

So you agree it has nothing to do with transgender people existing?

She got death threats because of this. And they hate for no reason except the fact that she exists. This has everything to do with transgender people existing.

 

[Kfox]

She got death threats because of this. And they hate for no reason except the fact that she exists. This has everything to do with transgender people existing.

I disagree. However, if that's what you wanna believe; that's your choice. Somebody asked a question, I gave him an answer. If you don't agree with my answer you can believe whatever you want; I don't have a dog in this fight; I couldn't care less.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But light is using their power and influence to promote a biological male who says he is a girl.

So, literally, it has nothing to do with advocating any actual position. The mere fact of a company choosing to cross promote WITH A TRANS PERSON is bad. Do you understand the implication there?

Existence? No.

Clearly, yes. As you say above, if Bud Light chooses to promote a "biological male who says he is a girl" it justifies a boycott. So the boycott has NOTHING to do with advancing any position. ANY company doing ANY promotion with ANY trans person counts as justification, to you, to boycott them. It is pretty explicitly an opposition to the mere fact that trans people exist.

The alternative is literally no company ever promoting with, supporting or endorsing any trans person for any reason. That's the logical consequence.

By promoting a male who says he is female, they are being an advocate for such a person; wouldn’t you say?

Nope. Again, your logic here would mean that you're just advocating against the very existence of trans people, because ANY company doing ANY promotion with ANY trans person should result in a boycott.

Imagine if I were to say "I don't like Israeli foreign policy, so the fact that Bud Light are choosing to send promotional materials to a Jewish person justifies a boycott", what's the logical conclusion of that position? It's got nothing to do with whether or not that particular Jewish person has any connection with Israeli foreign policy. It's just ANY Jewish person being given ANY publicity by the company is unacceptable to me. Do you understand?

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.

Ah yes, a totally accurate and honest analogy.

No, actually, it isn't. I refer you to my analogy above, which is more accurate.

Would you have a problem with the existence of pedophiles?

So you are saying that you DO have a problem with the existence of trans people. You're just admitting the very thing you're claiming to deny. I mean, equating trans people to paedophiles is a pretty big red flag.

Or are you gonna have a problem with your company promoting pedophiles?

Is a company choosing to cross-promote with a Jewish person an endorsement of Israeli foreign policy?

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.

This is actually pretty damning to you. You literally claim you wouldn't have a problem with paedophiles if it were legal?

Are you serious? You don't have ANY personal, moral issue with underage children sleeping with adults?

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?

Except "trans people" aren't a "kind of behaviour". It's just a group of people. You literally are arguing that it is perfectly justified to boycott a business not because of any particular stance, but because that company cross-promotes with ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO BELONGS TO ANY PARTICULAR GROUP. Again, you have EXPLICITLY STATED that it has nothing to do with any issue - it's if ANY biologically male person who identifies as female is given promotional material by, or cross promotes with, any corporation, it justifies BOYCOTTING THAT CORPORATION. That is your position, so please don't pretend it's about whether or not that corporation or individual is "promoting any particular agenda".

By your own argument, agendas are irrelevant. ANY promotion with ANY trans person is just CALLED "promoting an agenda", so there is no difference whatsoever between the position "I don't think corporations should be promoting a particular agenda" and "I don't think corporations should be allowed to promote with trans people". Your position is the latter, not the former.

Again, imagine this logic applied to any of the following:

"I am against Israeli foreign policy, and companies choosing to send promotional materials to Jewish people is obviously an endorsement of that, so companies that promote with Jewish people should be boycotted."
"Black people commit more crime than white people, so companies choosing to send promotional materials to black people is obviously an endorsement of crime, so companies that promote with black people should be boycotted."
"I am against the Catholic church protecting paedophiles, and companies choosing to send promotional material to Catholic people is obviously an endorsement of that, so companies that promote with Catholics should be boycotted."

This is identical to your logic.

What's hilarious about this line of argument, as well, is that it is literally advocating cancel culture. You're literally doing that.

 

[Kfox]

So, literally, it has nothing to do with advocating any actual position. The mere fact of a company choosing to cross promote WITH A TRANS PERSON is bad

How is cross promoting with this trans person different than advocating for his position?

.Do you understand the implication there?

I understand my implications, but not yours. Perhaps you can explain what this implies to you.

Clearly, yes. As you say above, if Bud Light chooses to promote a "biological male who says he is a girl" it justifies a boycott. So the boycott has NOTHING to do with advancing any position.

Wrong; it has everything to do with advancing his position. His position is that a man can be a girl, and when Bud Light shines their spotlight on him, it advances his position

ANY company doing ANY promotion with ANY trans person counts as justification, to you, to boycott them.

Not to me, to the people boycotting; and probably not to them either. If a trans person were promoting something else that has nothing to do with trans-agenda, it probably would be okay by them.

It is pretty explicitly an opposition to the mere fact that trans people exist.

This makes no sense to me. How does boycotting effect the existence of trans people? Are trans people supposed to just magically go away due to the boycott? Explain the logic of this to me because I do not understand this leap of logic you are making

The alternative is literally no company ever promoting with, supporting or endorsing any trans person for any reason. That's the logical consequence.

No. The logical consequence is no company ever promoting any person who is promoting the trans agenda.

Nope. Again, your logic here would mean that you're just advocating against the very existence of trans people, because ANY company doing ANY promotion with ANY trans person should result in a boycott.

No. Any person (not just trans people) who advocates for this position will result in a boycott.
I will respond to the rest later

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How is cross promoting with this trans person different than advocating for his position?

Exactly. So, to you, promoting with ANY trans person means they deserve to be boycotted, so to say it has anything to do with advocating any particular position - rather than just the EXISTENCE of trans people - is false. To you, them promoting with trans people WILL ALWAYS be bad.

I understand my implications, but not yours. Perhaps you can explain what this implies to you.

I felt I explained it quite well.

Wrong; it has everything to do with advancing his position.

You've already admitted that this is not true. You object to them promoting with ANY trans person, because you see any promotion with ANY trans person as "advancing [his/her] position". Thus, it is ideologically no different objecting to any promotion working with trans people, full stop.

His position is that a man can be a girl, and when Bud Light shines their spotlight on him, it advances his position

Okay. So, let's say a sports drink decide to do a promotion with a well-known athlete, and this athlete JUST SO HAPPENS to support trans people. Would you say that's the same? Would you expect a boycott?

Not to me, to the people boycotting; and probably not to them either. If a trans person were promoting something else that has nothing to do with trans-agenda, it probably would be okay by them.

I doubt it. It's pretty obvious they're just upset about them being trans, and nothing else.

This makes no sense to me. How does boycotting effect the existence of trans people?

The same way that boycotting a business for cross-promoting with a black person, purely because the person is black, is clearly intended to send the message that black people shouldn't be used in promotion. If companies receive the message "we shouldn't use trans people in our promotions", it effectively is limiting the visibility of trans people, as well as their job opportunities. The messaging is pretty clear: trans people should not be allowed the same freedoms as others, and if companies engage with trans people in any positive way it will result in negative consequences for them.

Are trans people supposed to just magically go away due to the boycott? Explain the logic of this to me because I do not understand this leap of logic you are making

It's pretty obvious. They're objecting to a company sending merchandise to a trans person, because that person is trans. The message is: if companies support trans people, or promote with them, they should lose our business.

Again, this is not hard to understand. All you have to do is imagine the exact same thing happening to ANY OTHER GROUP.

No. The logical consequence is no company ever promoting any person who is promoting the trans agenda.

Which, to you, means any trans people. So it's effectively the same thing. You're just not brave enough to admit it and hide behind this line about "the trans agenda". You have already admitted that "agendas" are irrelevant, because - to you - ANY TRANS PERSON should be considered part of "the trans agenda".

"The trans agenda" is just a euphemism used by people who want to trample on the rights of trans people and aren't brave enough to admit it.

No. Any person (not just trans people) who advocates for this position will result in a boycott.

I don't believe you. There are lots of promotions by lots of businesses with people who support trans rights that met nowhere near the level of vitriol as Bud Light did promoting with a trans person. It's pretty obvious to anyone objective that this is false.