zlacker

The premise here is that the existence of trans people is inherently political, but in any case, Graham didn't define "woke" as "political", he defined it as "an aggressively performative focus on social justice". How does that describe sending beer cans to a social media influencer?

>>djur+(OP)
you keep moving the goal posts. im asking why its difficult to accept a poor marketing messaging that triggers the consumer base leads to bad sales as demonstrated by Bud Light's decision to feature a transvestite on their beer cans, promotional material.

>>pkkkzi+Yl2
If anything, djur is attempting to keep the discussion on topic. The question is whether Paul Graham is correct to claim that Bud Light did indeed "venture too far into wokeness". Whether or not boycotts are legitimate in capitalism is a separate matter.

P.S. Seeing that you are still posting in this thread, I'm keen to find out whether you can support your asssertions as per my comment here: >>42708660

>>n4r9+xs2
Right. All of the people trying to say "yes, of course supporting trans people are woke" are proving my point: the rational, classical-liberal case Graham claims to be making against "wokeness" is such a thin layer over culture war politics that even Graham can't keep it from leaking. I don't know if Graham himself has anything against trans people -- he might be one of the people under the misapprehension that Bud Light was slapping Mulvaney on all their cans and that the boycott was an organic movement of turned-off consumers. But the people he's allying with certainly do.