zlacker

Fine. But thats distinct from what Graham is saying, which is that collaborating with a trans person is "venturing too far into wokeness".

>>n4r9+(OP)
It is, because why else would they deliberately pick a trans person, and moreover one who goes out of the way to make a big deal out of being trans[1], to sell beer to a demographic that's very very unlikely to be receptive to it? Wokeness is the only explanation left.

[1] There are plenty of trans people who just want to live as their desired gender, and no one would even give them a second glance.

>>userbi+zH
They were trying to sell beer to the demographic that likes Dylan Mulvaney. None of the existing consumers of Bud Light were affected by the campaign until right-wing activists started promoting a boycott.

They didn't run a national campaign with Mulvaney in a swimsuit drinking Bud Light, they didn't put her on the cans, they didn't do anything but do a promotion on her channel.

>>djur+JK
Dylan was definitely on the cans. The demographic that drinks Bud Light that likes Dylan was definitely a minority as the overwhelming majority of its loyal consumers rejected it overnight.

I think its lazy to blame politics for a failed marketing campaign by creating some vilifying your own consumer base. We see the same pattern playing out in all aspects of products that have gone woke, games serving as the most recent example.

We live in a capitalist society and consumers will vote with their money and they cannot be forced to buy a product because the media and special interest groups decide to vilify and defame them publicly. This might work in a communist country but even then the effects are short lived.

>>userbi+zH
I find this line of thought challenging, because it reminds me of what people were saying about homosexuals in the 80s and 90s. Things like "gays are fine as long as they don't kiss in public" and "I don't understand why they have to parade around in these festivals". I'm not sure what's different about transgender people in our generation.

Is it possible in your opinion to publicly support trans rights and not be woke?

>>n4r9+(OP)
“wokeness” is the current right-wing dysphemism for “not being a raging bigot against the groups the Right demands be targeted with bigotry”, and, when understood that way, it is clear that this is at least “venturing into bigotry”, and understandable how it could be “too far” from a particular speaker’s perspective.

>>pkkkzi+AO
Dylan was on the one can that Bud sent her, not publicly sold cans. They did similar promotions with other influencers. The reason this one struck a chord is that right-wing agitators found it a useful way to polarise and confuse the discourse.

>>n4r9+u51
She was definitely on the boxes and promotion materials, are you under the impression that forcefully inserting LGBTQ on people who didn't ask for it achieves the complete opposite of tolerance which the people pushing for it intends?

Are you also aware the negative impact of putting images of someone that the customer base does not identify with or find beautiful influencing sales in a capitalist environment?

>>pkkkzi+b71
> She was definitely on the boxes and promotion materials

Have you got any proof of this? Everything I've read about it says it was just a single can sent for her to promote in a single video. Your argument hinges strongly on this claim, since a single can in a video is hard to square with "pushing woke ideology".

>>dragon+i51
Yes. Ultimately I'm attempting to show up the underhand meaning of the term "woke"; the definition given towards the start of Graham's essay is distinct from the way it's being applied here and later in the same essay.

It's important because conservatives will use different definitions to support different aspects of their arguments. For example, when woke means "performative and meaningless", then you can argue that it's malicious. However, when woke means "doesn't fully reject progressive causes", then you can argue that it's widespread.