bobthened

joined 2 years ago
[–] bobthened@feddit.uk 1 points 2 years ago (4 children)

This isn’t a debate. That person in the video is just a moron, as is everyone who thinks the video makes any kind of remotely valid point.

“iT’s SaTiRe” isn’t the automatic win card that you seem to think it is. The video is making a joke, but in that joke it’s attempting so say something (you know this because you referenced it in the title and caption of this post) — the thing that it’s saying is just stupid and wrong because it’s a false equivalency and a complete misunderstanding of the topic it’s taking about.

[–] bobthened@feddit.uk 1 points 2 years ago (8 children)

That’s not what affirmative action is you cretin. This situation is not even remotely comparable. If you think it is then you’re either a literal child or just a full on bird-brained simpleton (or possibly both).

[–] bobthened@feddit.uk 1 points 2 years ago

People know how to tell the difference between men and women. That’s not what this is about.

[–] bobthened@feddit.uk 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

They aren’t.

6 examples of a trans person also being a sex pest doesn’t mean that all of them are, and it certainly doesn’t mean that granting legal protection and freedom to transgender people causes women to get assaulted/harassed by them. Do you know how many examples of cis men being sexual predators we could find in just a few minutes of googling things like “pastor arrested” or “republican senator arrested”. Does that mean we should start making it illegal for people to identify as republicans in public? should we make it illegal for the clergy to get anywhere near children? Maybe we should, but you won’t see any of these “wont somebody please think of the children” types calling for either of those, even though they’re clearly bigger threats statistically.

[–] bobthened@feddit.uk 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The backlash that Bud Light faced from LGBTQ people was not for the same thing that they faced backlash from the right for, it was because they left Dylan in the dust to fend for herself against hoards of angry reactionaries. Or in other words they pretended to be progressive and then immediately dropped their sponsor like she was mouldy apple as soon as it became even slightly inconvenient for them to keep up with that progressive facade.

They did that because their main market in the United States has always been largely conservatives. Ben and Jerries ice cream has never really been marketed towards conservatives (and also people don’t really identify with brands of ice cream like they with brands of beer), and they’ve always been very public with their political ideology. So they are a) very unlikely to face any kind of backlash for saying something progressive and b) very unlikely to retract any progressive statement/action if they were ever to receive a backlash for it because they have at least a modicum of integrity.

[–] bobthened@feddit.uk 2 points 2 years ago

If you use deliberately inflammatory language like that and ignore the actual numbers then it sure does sound like a big scary issue (still not a trans agender though). In reality though it just isn’t.

[–] bobthened@feddit.uk 1 points 2 years ago (5 children)

None of what you're saying makes any sense. That's why I'm not acknowledging every single talking point.

Why would the left ever be annoyed at the kind of statements Ben and Jerries made??

[–] bobthened@feddit.uk 52 points 2 years ago

Oh my god they were roommates!

[–] bobthened@feddit.uk 7 points 2 years ago (4 children)

No such thing as the trans agenda. People just want to live their lives as themselves without being attacked by bigots.

[–] bobthened@feddit.uk 2 points 2 years ago

That’s just the address of your user page. You can technically post there like you would a subreddit, and people can follow you like you would join a subreddit.

[–] bobthened@feddit.uk 4 points 2 years ago (7 children)

I’m talking after the lgbtq+ push back

I don’t believe you to be honest. I think you’re just saying that now to try to save face.

And if that was what you were talking about then your post makes even less sense than I thought. Why would an obviously true statement like “The USA exists on stolen indigenous land” made by a company that everyone already knows is sorta left leaning politically (and has been saying things like that for decades) ever piss off their market of the exact type of person who would agree with a statement like that?

[–] bobthened@feddit.uk 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (9 children)

Bud light saw a temporary drop in revenue because a big part of their market is right wing reactionary morons. Ben and Jerries doesn’t market towards those types, they’ve always been a relatively ethical and left(ish) leaning company. Saying something like ”the United States is on stolen indigenous land” will only make B&J’s more popular.

Also let’s not forget that Bud Light is just one of the several hundred brands that are owned by Anheuser Busch, the actual drop in revenue is basically nothing to them.

view more: ‹ prev next ›