Lurker > adjl

darkknight109 posted...

Gun laws aren't being passed to "punish" you - if you are as responsible a gun owner as you claim to be, laws enforcing that responsibility should not be a concern to you.

And, conversely, if (reasonable and well-designed) laws enforcing that responsibility *do* end up inconveniencing or hurting you, then you aren't actually as safe or responsible as you think.

Okay.

Xenoblade 3 wave 4 comes next week. Like 8 months early. Holy hypenuggets.

*Spoilers for the main game*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFlf_S5Woug

I wanted to do a NG+ playthrough first with the other DLC, but that could be tricky on such short notice.

ReturnOfFa posted...

stop playing 5d chess guys I don't know what you're talking about ok

If it makes you feel any better, I also have no idea what's going on.

Were you not asking for examples of "[throwing] a fit over the Hogwarts game"? Given that we're in a topic laughing at the Bud Light boycott, providing examples of that seems unnecessary, and the third part of his post criticizing the supposed lack of self-awareness is just a commentary on the first two observations and not something that needs an example to be cited. My point is that it's pretty common knowledge that the boycott campaign happened, so unless you're asking specifically for examples of "throwing a fit" (which I read as being mostly hyperbole, but also won't be too hard to find specific examples of because Tumblr exists), I don't think it's terribly necessary to provide any.

Blightzkrieg posted...

I think Mario was the one coming into Bowsette heyo

Why not both?

captpackrat posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/0/1/AAQwHjAAEZZZ.jpg

This is somehow the second Q-bert reference I've seen in like a week, after seeing no mention of him whatsoever (because why would I?) for multiple years. Weird.

pvegeta posted...

Being funny is probably the most important one

Or more than being funny, just being fun to be with. People don't enjoy spending time with somebody who isn't enjoyable to spend time with. This seems obvious, but a lot of people seem to miss out on it.

Ozmose posted...

That number right there says it all. They make it sound like everyone needs to live in fear of being gunned down, when the odds are incredibly small.

Good lord, did you put wheels on those goalposts? Look at them go!

Ozmose posted...

Drunk drivers kill 4 in every 100,000. Should we ban cars too? Alcohol? That's the logic being used here. Punish the millions upon millions of responsible law abiding people because of the actions of a small fraction of criminals.

We should ban drunk driving (done), make improvements to the training and licensing requirements for cars to reduce the associated risks (less done), and strengthen the response to those that are caught to discourage/prevent repeat offenses (not done). All of which is more or less analogous to what gun control advocates are calling for: Not a complete ban, but improved screening, training, licensing, storage, and other regulations that can reasonably be expected to reduce the rate of gun violence in all its forms while minimizing the impact for law-abiding people.

As it happens, though, while not "banning" cars per se, a shift toward a less car-centric society would make considerable steps toward reducing drunk driving rates and harms, most notably in that taking away somebody's license/car would no longer render them largely unable to survive independently and could therefore be applied as a punishment more liberally. Drunk driving is also far less of a concern when anyone can reliably take a bus or train to and from the bar without taking 4-5 times longer than driving would. Even among law-abiding, "safe" drivers, cars are still an extremely high source of mortality (especially for non-drivers), so this would also just reduce that fatality across the board. But that's getting into a much broader discussion.

chelle posted...

Provide examples or shut the fuck up, thanks.

Oh, I wouldn't say examples are needed. The boycott campaign for Legacy was pretty widely publicized, and I can guarantee WB fully expected it. They marketed the game very aggressively, carefully curated who reviewed it in sending review copies to major outlets (to avoid reviewers whose pro-trans bias might colour the review), and threw in an obvious token trans character. WB knew the backlash against Rowling for being a transphobic dinglemuffin was a legitimate threat to the game's success, so they worked very hard to offset it.

Ozmose posted...

Yes, criticizing people for doing something you yourself have done is pretty much the textbook definition of hypocrisy. It's about the behavior, not the ideology behind it. You just don't think that it doesn't count when you do it, because your actions are justified by some kind of moral high ground.

But I'm not criticizing boycotting as a concept. Boycotting as a concept is perfectly fine, and in fact is a critical part of holding those participating in a free market accountable for their actions. It's not, as some might like to believe, anywhere close to sufficient for regulating that market on its own (due to the natural tendency of unfettered capitalism to concentrate power and worsen conditions for everyone without it), but the core concept of "vote with your wallet and encourage others to do the same" is vitally important.

Approving of boycotting as a concept, however, does not extend to categorically approving of every boycott. If I believe a boycott is justified, I'll praise it and defend my opinion as needed. If I believe a boycott is stupid, I'll call it stupid and defend my opinion as needed. I'm not about to suggest that those engaging in boycotts that I believe to be stupid should not be permitted to do so or otherwise have that right taken away, but having the right to do stupid things and having the right to not be criticized for doing stupid things are two very, very different things.

To circle back, Hogwarts Legacy is a product that pays royalties to a transphobic dinglemuffin who has openly used her success and the platform it has bought her to harm trans people, up to and including explicitly saying that she believes the continued success of Harry Potter as a franchise means 90%+ of the fanbase agrees with and supports her transphobic dinglemuffin drivel. I have chosen not to contribute further to that success and encourage everyone I can to do the same. That is a boycott that I consider justified. I'm not necessarily going to think less of anyone who chooses otherwise, particularly given the infinitesimal drop in the bucket that any one customer's royalty contributions are, but I do feel that it's important to ensure that everyone who purchases the game understands what they're supporting by doing so and that their decision to purchase it is properly informed.

Boycotting Bud Light for employing a trans spokesperson, however, is nothing more than a bunch of transphobic dinglemuffins dingling their muffins all over one of the most unjustifiably maligned groups in the country yet again. As it happens, on a personal level, I've already been "boycotting" Bud Light for roughly as long as I've been drinking, mostly because if I want to drink something that tastes like water, I'd prefer it not to be yellow. This whole issue has also brought to light AB InBev's sizable donations to organizations that are also transphobic dinglemuffins or otherwise seek to harm queer people, so moving forward I'm actually going to be following any developments in their choices of donor (since it sounds like they've been pulling a lot of them in the wake of this boycott and that may lead to less reprehensible decisions in the future) and may dig a little deeper to ensure that I avoid supporting them at all in the future, so it's not like I don't think they should ever be boycotted. I'm taking issue with why this particular boycott is happening.

I'm not criticizing boycotting as a concept. I'm criticizing transphobic dinglemuffins for being transphobic dinglemuffins. If you find yourself offended by this criticism because you are yourself a transphobic dinglemuffin, I offer the suggestion of trying to not be a transphobic dinglemuffin, for the simple reason that transphobic dinglemuffins are shit.

Ozmose posted...

The same people that threw a fit over the Hogwarts game a few weeks ago, are laughing at the right for boycotting Bud Light. The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking.

Do you think it's somehow hypocritical to boycott Hogwarts because Rowling's a transphobic dinglemuffin, then also deride transphobic dinglemuffins who boycott Bud Light for doing some pride-friendly marketing? Because that's sounds completely ideologically consistent to me, unless you're considering boycotting as a concept to be its own ideology (which doesn't make much sense).

Ozmose posted...

Someone kills a dozen people at once with a rifle, it's a gun problem, but 500 people get gunned down over a couple of months with handguns in poor neighborhoods, now it's suddenly a socioeconomic problem.

Personally, I'd say that's also a gun problem, but maybe I'm just weird. It's just a gun problem that has different problems associated with it (it's also a socioeconomic problem), making the solution a bit different from potential solutions to solving school shootings and the like.

Ozmose posted...

You consider anything you disagree with to be trolling.

Not remotely.

potdnewb posted...

lets just say that its my believe that addressing the true nature of a problem is more important than addressing how that problem is observed

Translation: Repeatedly saying "Leave guns alone it's all a mental health problem," downplaying the roles guns play in violence, and ignoring any efforts to discuss the matter constructively can get you modded for trolling.

If you would prefer not to get modded for trolling, consider discussing matters constructively, not downplaying a major cause of US mortality, and elaborating on and incorporating new information into your position instead of repeating it ad nauseum with no changes. These factors form a significant portion of the difference between productive discussion and saying controversial things for no reason except to hear yourself speak, the latter of which is broadly considered trolling.

Also of note: Misrepresenting the issues people have with your behaviour also qualifies as trolling. Just FYI.

chelle posted...

$30 on a rebranded beer that they were told to not drink. Brewed and bottled at the very same place they were told not to drink from.

And they eat it up.

Which they're now being told to drink again because the company pulled their donations to the people that were telling them not to drink it and those people are backpedalling furiously.

keyblader1985 posted...

It's so crazy that people are acting shocked and flabbergasted over it. It made me feel a lot of things, but surprised was not one of them.

Indeed. It's appalling, but the only thing that surprises me is that they let themselves get caught before actually doing it.

Clench281 posted...

complaining about having to pay taxes is up there with "I don't know how to cook" on the list of things that people say to make me roll my eyes

"What's the point of playing the lottery if you only actually win $300 million and not the whole $600 million?"

Since, you know, that's what really makes the difference.

chelle posted...

You are also on the very same obscure irrelevant website, the difference is that you have no one who agrees with you.

Don't you know? That's just because he's too intelligent to fall prey to the echo chamber. Never mind that he can't actually defend any of his contrary positions when called out on them or presented with counterarguments, it's everyone else that's just mindlessly following the herd in being wrong.

Revelation34 posted...

All they should have done was make it so you had to take a picture of your ID instead.

Like the customer just has a picture taken of their ID at point of sale? That opens up a substantial can of worms as far as privacy and controlling sensitive personal documents goes (photos of ID can be used as the basis for identity theft) and still doesn't make it more secure than having a person verify the ID because there's nothing to verify that the ID actually matches the person (not without getting into facial recognition, which opens up even more problems). Hardly a magical solution.

Revelation34 posted...

Who cares?

The people trying to buy a product they can't buy might, as might those investing in a product they won't actually be able to sell.

Revelation34 posted...

Laws like that are s*** in the first place. Same with the laws that don't allow shipping of alcohol in general.

The aim is to regulate the sale of alcohol, which is widely agreed to be a good thing (at least in America). There's ample room to criticize the exact execution of that regulation, obviously, but requiring a licensed middleman to make the final sale is generally a better way to handle licensing than giving licenses directly to breweries. If a middleman fails to follow the rules and has their license taken away, you end up with an empty retail store or restaurant, which isn't going to be too hard for somebody else to fill. If a brewery fails to follow the rules and has their license taken away, you end up with an empty factory that was specifically configured to make a relatively small number of products whose recipes are still owned by the now-unlicensed brewer, which is likely to sit empty on a very large plot of land for quite some time because it's only going to be useful to a small niche of potential businesses.

Now, is that the best way to handle it? Probably not. That problem is really only applicable to macrobreweries, whereas microbreweries can generally fit into any larger retail property and also suffer for for having to find a middleman (that law basically prohibits brewpubs from being a thing). There's probably room to improve that law, but I understand why it's there, and in this case it's perfectly applicable: Dude doesn't have a license to sell the beer and the macrobrewery making it can't sell it directly.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Humans learned how to make beer before they learned how to do agriculture, it has been suggested that we began to do agriculture specifically for the purposes of making more alcohol.

Specifically, because beer, cider, and other beverages made by fermentation were quite a bit safer to drink than untreated water due to alcohol's sterilization effect, though it obviously took several thousand years for people to figure out the details of why that worked.

BeerOnTap posted...

And yeah, Ill never buy another AB product again.

Why not?

BeerOnTap posted...

You two do realize youre yelling back and forth on an obscure, irrelevant message board with people who completely agree with you (aka echo chamber) right?

I hate to break it to you, but I dont think this is gonna move the needle one bit.

What makes you think this is supposed to be an argument? This is just laughing at an obvious bit of hypocrisy and sharing the realization for others to laugh at. Sharing funny things is a major function of social media.

What? Publicly encouraging people to stop supporting one of your major donors makes that donor less willing to support you? Who knew?

Count_Drachma posted...

Strongly disagree, since there's almost no universally-beloved things in the world. Even if something has mass appeal, it's more likely that somebody just doesn't like it than it is a matter of trying to find out how to appreciate it. American Dad did a whole episode about sports, but I still don't like them.

"More likely" is not "guaranteed." I'm not saying that not liking something always means you're approaching it wrong, but it's a possibility you should at least consider (especially for new things), if only for the sake of helping you like more things. It's just good to keep an open mind and avoid settling into the trap of feeling superior for having less fun.

Whatever I'm spending the rest of my money on. I don't set it apart.

I'm actually owing this year (I believe because I had some backpay from the previous year that got paid out as a lump sum), so it's even more of a moot point.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

For instance, if you are discussing whether or not a specific comic book is good, the opinions of someone who has spent the last 40 years reading thousands and thousands of comics are probably slightly more valuable than the opinions of someone who has literally never seen a comic book at all.

Depends entirely on the context. Saying that categorically is a textbook Appeal to Authority fallacy: the belief that somebody who has studied a subject has opinions that are automatically more valid than somebody who hasn't. Now, that's a fallacy that gets mis-cited to hell and back (see the response of much of the public to public health professionals' directions throughout Covid), typically stopping at "they don't know more just because they're experts" instead of actually appraising how well those experts are substantiating their opinions, but beyond that you also have to assess the context in which opinions are being sought. If somebody is new to comics and is looking for a place to start, somebody who's read 5 recently and can speak to how well the starting place they ended up with worked out is actually going to have a more useful opinion than somebody whose first comic was 40 years ago and therefore can't remember a time when they didn't have any sort of background to support whatever they were currently reading. Conversely, if somebody's been a long-time comic fan and is looking for opinions on modern stuff, somebody who's also been a long-time comic fan and can draw comparisons to older things the opinion-seeker has read is going to be more useful than somebody who can't be expected to realize that the one comic they've read was just a reprint of an old one with a new name.

I'd actually go do far as to say that, for opinions on purely subjective matters like entertainment (that is, where there are no particular objective consequences to the opinion beyond "I enjoyed/didn't enjoy this"), there's no such thing as "validity." Only "usefulness," which is a metric that's heavily dictated by the context in which opinions are being shared.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

People have a bad habit of confusing their personal experience with objective reality, which sets off a chain of reasoning where opinion leads to "fact" - "I dislike this thing, therefore this thing is bad, therefore no one should like it, therefore anyone who likes it is wrong, therefore there is something wrong with them."

Objectively speaking, disliking any piece of entertainment should be considered a failure. You've spent money, time, and effort on it, so if your opinion has prevented you from enjoying it (using the term "enjoy" loosely so as to avoid getting into the question of whether things like sad movies are "enjoyable" in a stricter sense), you have an inferior opinion to anyone whose opinion allowed them to see a better return on that investment.

Of course, opinions aren't exactly voluntary (not entirely, at least), so that's a largely pointless distinction to make. I do enjoy falling back on it whenever people try to give others a hard time for liking things, though.

Clearly, that's just the media making up lies, as is his usual fallback whenever something happens that he doesn't want to believe happened.

That said, if everyone likes something and you don't, it's very possible that that's because you're somehow approaching it wrong or could otherwise change something to have a better time. While simply being more common doesn't automatically make an opinion "right," it's often worth making an effort to understand why it's so common as part of the process by which you evaluate it.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

If the VPs own words don't persuade you I don't know what will.

Take a step back for a second and ask yourself which possibility seems more likely:

• A high-ranking executive for one of the largest alcoholic beverage companies in the world - with literally millions of dollars' worth of legal and PR advice backing up everything they say - publicly released a marketing strategy in which they announced the company's intent to try selling alcohol to minors, despite the fact that this is unambiguously a crime and would result in massive fines against the company, having that marketing campaign completely trashed within hours of it launching, and that executive losing their job and possibly facing criminal charges over spearheading such a monumental PR disaster
• "Younger drinkers" actually means "people who drink legally and are on the younger end of being able to do so" and your first pass was mistaken

Do you really think the first option is more plausible? Really?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You said that who is buying the beer doesn't matter. The demographic they're targeting is what matters.

"Current buyer demographic" = People that are currently buying the product
"Target demographic" = People that they want to buy more of the product

They're two separate concepts that don't necessarily have to have any demographic overlap at all. Marketing campaigns are always done with a target demographic in mind, which may or may not include anyone from the current buyer demographic.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

My understanding of why the boycott is happening in consistent with discussions I've seen surrounding the boycott.

That may be (but probably isn't), but simply mentioning the boycott still isn't evidence that your interpretation is correct.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

they are using trans issues as a marketing gimmick but that does not mean the boycott is over trans issues

Using transphobia to market something to people that aren't transphobic is a monumentally stupid idea. We can reasonably presume that this grift will be successful, which in turn leads us to the conclusion that the grifter is not monumentally stupid (since he's got enough business sense to run a successful grift), which in turn leads to the conclusion that transphobia is a common element among many of those participating in the boycott, to whom this product is targeted.

Alternatively, we can just skip all those middlemen and remember that transphobia is a core element of far-right political identity and comfortably assume that anything the far right is doing that could be transphobic, is. But that would require a basic understanding of the issue.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Nor is the mention of bathrooms transphobia.

It 100% is, especially when he's outright saying that anyone that uses the "wrong" bathroom does so because they don't know any better (a common transphobic narrative being "they don't have any actual issues, they're just stupid and confused"). I know you like to believe that homophobia and transphobia and whatnot don't actually exist to any meaningful degree as part of your world view based entirely around believing the opposite of what "the media" says, but here in the real world they are in fact very serious problems and this is an extremely common manifestation of transphobia. Anyone that tells you they aren't being transphobic when they say things like that is being 100% disingenuous for the sake of bringing well-meaning gullible people over to their side. Either stop falling for it or stop being the disingenuous one.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

One group thinks bathrooms are for a biological function. Another group thinks bathrooms are divided along social behaviors.

Which biological functions, exactly, require bathrooms to be strictly - and often forcibly - segregated along the lines of birth gender? Last I checked, everyone poops and everyone pees. The only meaningful difference is that you need to stand up to use a urinal, and that doesn't change much when there are also stalls (that, and the overwhelming majority of the opposition to trans bathroom use is focused around trans women using women's bathrooms, with pretty much nobody caring about trans men using the men's room, so that minor mechanical issue isn't crossing any of their minds).

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I pointed out how your interpretation didn't connect with all of the information available.

No you didn't.

papercup posted...

RINO isn't and has never been a thing, it is a logical fallacy. It's called the "No true Scotsman fallacy"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Not every instance of saying that somebody isn't really a Scotsman is a fallacy, though. Somebody who calls themselves a Scotsman because they liked Braveheart but otherwise have zero personal, cultural, or historical connection to Scotland isn't actually a Scotsman. The fallacy isn't simply gatekeeping, it's gatekeeping based on criteria that you can't objectively defend.

In this case, if you call yourself a Republican, but vote against them and oppose most or all of their core ideological tenets, there really isn't much basis for calling yourself a Republican. This gets weird with political parties in that core ideologies change pretty regularly and updating your personal sense of political identity to keep up with that can be hard, but the core concept of RINO/DINOs is still valid: Somebody who calls themselves a Republican/Democrat but doesn't actually align with those parties in any meaningful ways.

LinkPizza posted...

Thats the claim we want proof to

I don't think anyone's expecting proof of that at this point. He's pretty unambiguously demonstrated that he only believed that because he misunderstood the marketing strategy.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

My claim was that this is how people perceive it. You want proof for that? There's a boycott going on.

The existence of a boycott is not evidence that your understanding of why the boycott is happening is correct.

keyblader1985 posted...

I thought it was $60 to get both.

$60 games are $80 in Canadia.

rexcrk posted...

I like the inclusion of Tour courses. Gives me a chance to play courses that I otherwise would never have gotten to play.

I mean, you could play them, but then you'd be playing Tour, and nobody deserves that.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

It sounds like Budweiser picked a spokesperson who has no overlap with who they perceive to be their customer base,

Yes. That's generally how you branch out into new demographics. Getting a new spokesperson to help you sell stuff to people that are already buying your product generally isn't worthwhile.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

and the customer base this person would draw in is unclear at best.

If there's a rainbow anywhere on the packaging, odds are the intent is to draw in either LGBTQ-friendly folks or Pink Floyd fans (and the MAGA crowd lost their minds when Pink Floyd themselves used that branding for a 50th anniversary album, so that latter one can be a bit of a gamble). I wouldn't call anything about it unclear.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

And you think Dylan Mulvaney helps Budweiser to do that?

Couldn't tell you. I'm only marginally more up-to-date on TikTok trends than you are, such that this thread is literally the first time I've heard her name. I can say, however, that frat bro subculture tends to lean towards homophobia, toxic masculinity, misogyny, and other things that generally are not consistent with the LGBTQ Pride movement, so any branding that aims to align with Pride would be more likely to appeal to demographics that don't particularly like frat subculture.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The young drinkers they want more of are the ones entering college and encountering fraternities. How is dissociating the beer from that image going to get more of that demographic drinking it?

Most people in college don't end up as frat bros. A substantial portion of them deliberately distance themselves from that subculture. This rebranding effort aims to capture them.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

After the host asked Heinerscheid about how her background, perspective, and values impacted the Bud Light brand, the Bud Light vice president said, Im a businesswoman, I had a really clear job to do when I took over Bud Light, and it was This brand is in decline, its been in a decline for a really long time, and if we do not attract young drinkers to come and drink this brand there will be no future for Bud Light.

So... "As it stands now, the only young drinkers drinking Bud Light are frat bros, and we need to attract a wider demographic in that age bracket to sustain the brand." Not "We're marketing to children," just "We recognize that people's tastes in alleged-beer are heavily influenced by what they drink in their early drinking days, and the frat bro image associated with canned urine is limiting the number of other people we can reach within that age bracket." It's entirely a matter of trying to widen the brand appeal and not at all about marketing to children.

Now, saying that, I think she's kind of missing the actual issue, which is that heavy drinking is actually declining in that age demographic and that that's naturally going to result in less demand for a product that literally only exists so that people who don't like beer can get drunk off of something that kind of looks like beer. But then they've invested a lot in Bud Light and it makes sense that they're going to try to salvage the product however they can instead of just making a better one.

Shananagainz posted...

Imagine being upset about the fact that you drink the same beverage as trans people lol

Wonder what'll happen when they realize trans people breathe.

HornedLion posted...

Hard to sit on and try chairs online.

Which is why I wouldn't recommend shopping for a chair online.

Though, saying that, shopping in person for one is also hard. You get a couple minutes to decide whether or not you'll be comfortable sitting in the chair for potentially several hours a day, which isn't exactly a great way to make the decision. Unfortunately, it's probably the best you'll get.

captpackrat posted...

Whenever they ask why I want to work for them, I've always wanted to reply:

"Money can be exchanged for goods and services"

It's like the "Objective" section on resumes. It's mostly fallen out of fashion these days, but I really have no idea how it held on for so long. I don't think anyone genuinely believed the pretense that there was more to it than "I like being able to buy things."

Jen0125 posted...

To me it just sounds like overcharging to make quick cash and then they'll drop the product

100%. Such is the nature of cashing in on outrage: It doesn't last very long, but people are particularly passionate about it while it does, so strike while the iron is hot and make up some sob story about the product not being sustainable once interest wanes.

BADoglick posted...

Nah it's all about oWnInG tHe LiBs

Pretty much. There are literally tens of thousands of beers out there that haven't tried to cash in on the LGBTQ market by explicitly promoting them (plus they're actually beer). If it were just about avoiding "woke" products, there are countless alternatives they could buy. Instead, these people want to make sure people know just how upset they are that a company they used to like doesn't hate gay people as much as they do, and for that, they need a product specifically identifying itself as being a contrary response to the thing they don't like, which grifters like this guy are happy to sell them at a ridiculous premium.

Bonus points on the grift side of things where it's probably the same parent company selling both products. Tap into the LGBTQ market by slapping a pride flag on stuff, then respond to angry people boycotting you over that marketing by marketing a similar product with anti-LGBTQ messaging under a different company name. Massive profits all around.

Jen0125 posted...

On Twitter they're saying they can't charge a reasonable price until they make more sales lmfao.

Yeah, that's how that works. Economy of scale is a thing, certainly, but not to that extent.

captpackrat posted...

If I didn't have any scruples I could make so much money conning MAGAts out of money.

One of these days, I want to see somebody pull something like this, then after they've sold a bunch of whatever their product is, turn around and donate 100% of the profits to something like abortion accessibility or trans health. Granted, that's kind of exactly what a substantial portion of the companies pushing Pride marketing already do (employ LGBTQ-friendly marketing when it's profitable to do so, but continue to donate to politicians and organizations that are anything but), but that's generally more for personal profit and not just to troll a bunch of gullible homophobic nogginhosers.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


A major corporation playing both sides of a controversial social issue to maximize their profits? Surely this is unprecedented!

My PC's effectively digital-only. It does have a disc drive, but I think I unplugged it to make room for another HDD and I couldn't tell you the last time I played a game that I needed a disc for.

Nade_Duck posted...

cupcakes are low flavor for high effort treats.

Eh, they're not that high-effort unless you get fancy decorating them (and anything is high-effort if you get fancy decorating it). Sure, it's an extra step beyond "take out of oven-->cool-->eat," but icing comes together pretty simply and putting it on isn't much more difficult.

That said, my favourite fudgy brownie recipe uses one bowl and has weights for all the measurements, so I literally only have the bowl, a whisk, a spatula, and the pan to clean when I make them, so that's really nice.