Poll of the Day > Conservative Dude creates 'Anti-Woke' Beer

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm not buying anything that supports something that stupid.

Insanely embarrassing and pathetic, small PP energy from conservatives

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I feel like such a plea will be seen by at least some of the Regressives as some deep state conspiracy from the libs, so they'll keep "boycotting," and some of them will keep drinking that whatever-Right beer from the same brewery and company.

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.

words mean things, and if you just ignore words then you will completely not understand what was said

i doubt SKARD would be willing to acknowledge that trans people are outright banned from public washrooms in some states

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 guy got a money shot of bud light to the face when he hit it with that bat.

the gop is in MAD shambles because, as it turns out because of course it does, they are one of the main major donors

and they just pulled donations

now the gop is running the media gauntlet to get people to ignore when they said to stop drinking it

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

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Oh it has? On a scale from 1 to 10, how surprised are we?

I find it amusing that people keep using the term "woke" not knowing where it came from but we all know what it means when the MAGAs use it.

Bring back the Budweiser frogs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8TTWtbT088

BUMPED2002 posted...

I find it amusing that people keep using the term "woke" not knowing where it came from but we all know what it means when the MAGAs use it.

Lead Belly said "stay woke" in 1938

but yeah I wouldn't expect MAGA folk to bother with actually understanding a word that originated from African Americans. a lot of Americans prefer ignorance, even of their own countrymen.

Well the article is pay walled... https://www.chicagobusiness.com/consumer-products/anti-woke-ultra-right-beer-faces-legal-challenge-illinois

but basically:

Nothing will stop the self-righteous brewers at Ultra Right Beer from shipping its boozy woke-free brew directly to thirsty conservativesexcept maybe Illinois state law, according to experts. The beer company, launched in the wake of right-wing outrage over transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaneys partnership with Bud Light, is currently taking orders for six-packs at $19.99 a pop. But, according to its website, it brews and cans its beverages in Illinois, a state that bans its breweries from selling beer directly to consumers. Crains Chicago Business also reported on Thursday that Illinois requires its brewers to register their labels and become licensed beer retailers before they can hawk their products in the state. Its highly unlikely that they will be able to gain the proper licensing in time, Ray Stout, the executive director of the Illinois Craft Brewers Guild, told the business newspaper. The suitably-named Stout also said that none of the guilds brewerswho together run nearly three-quarters of the breweries in Illinoisare working with Ultra Right, as far as he can tell. People think this is kind of a hoax, he added. There's nothing pointing to it being real.

Like most conservative things what is being promised is illegal and is either not properly thought out and won't happen or it's just a scam from the outset.

Wouldn't it be nice if everybody could just boycott beer at the same time and put that whole industry out of business? Especially since beer has done more to hurt America (and the world) than the various social issues people have protested in relation to that beer.

Count_Drachma posted...

Wouldn't it be nice if everybody could just boycott beer at the same time and put that whole industry out of business? Especially since beer has done more to hurt America (and the world) than the various social issues people have protested in relation to that beer.

ahahahaha good one

Count_Drachma posted...

Wouldn't it be nice if everybody could just boycott beer at the same time and put that whole industry out of business? Especially since beer has done more to hurt America (and the world) than the various social issues people have protested in relation to that beer.

Just because you hate beer doesnt mean everyone has to Some of us like it Or other alcoholic drinks

Count_Drachma posted...

Wouldn't it be nice if everybody could just boycott beer at the same time and put that whole industry out of business? Especially since beer has done more to hurt America (and the world) than the various social issues people have protested in relation to that beer.

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.

Count_Drachma posted...

Wouldn't it be nice if everybody could just boycott beer at the same time and put that whole industry out of business? Especially since beer has done more to hurt America (and the world) than the various social issues people have protested in relation to that beer.

We had a similar conversation already. It was one of our first arguments, involving prohibition and the mafia, and I had to stop when I almost died laughing at your last comment. "Mafia doesn't exist anymore because it's illegal!" No, really, your words.

Alcohol is a necessity in society, even if people continue being irresponsible about or around it.

Ill stick with Yuengling. Of the cheaper beers, its easily the best one. And yeah, Ill never buy another AB product again.

Hey look, a snowflake.

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?

BlackScythe0 posted...

Well the article is pay walled... https://www.chicagobusiness.com/consumer-products/anti-woke-ultra-right-beer-faces-legal-challenge-illinois

but basically:

Like most conservative things what is being promised is illegal and is either not properly thought out and won't happen or it's just a scam from the outset.

Who cares? Laws like that are shit in the first place. Same with the laws that don't allow shipping of alcohol in general.

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.

adjl posted...

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.

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.

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

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

Who cares if it's a scam? Well I've got no personal stake in this issue, I just find it funny how prone to falling for obvious scams people on your side of the aisle are.

Alcohol you say? It's a yes from me.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Who cares if it's a scam? Well I've got no personal stake in this issue, I just find it funny how prone to falling for obvious scams people on your side of the aisle are.

I'm not on any aisle. I'm not even close to a store right now.

Revelation34 posted...

I'm not on any aisle. I'm not even close to a store right now.

I know this sounded a lot more clever in your head

The fact that I have any morals left is the only reason I haven't started grifting conservatives. Imagine spending $30 on a 6 pack of beer with 4% alcohol content to trigger the libs lol

$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.

DeathMagnetic80 posted...

The fact that I have any morals left is the only reason I haven't started grifting conservatives.

I would argue that grifting conservatives IS moral at this point

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.

Yeah Im in the why arent I grifting these people yet? camp, but I also dont want to boost their beliefs even if Im making a quick buck off of it and I dont believe what Id be pushing.

papercup posted...

Yeah Im in the why arent I grifting these people yet? camp, but I also dont want to boost their beliefs even if Im making a quick buck off of it and I dont believe what Id be pushing.

Well, if Fox News is anything to go by not believing in what you're pushing is a pillar of right-wingers.

the guy posted an image of a fermenter on his twitter a while ago, and he censored the logo on the tank, but it's whatever because i've seen the ceiling before, it's just the goose island taphouse in chicago

you can go on tours there, i've been to it

Now theyre claiming Anheuser-Busch is a front for the CIA XD

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.

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.

Who threw a fit over the Hogwarts game? I only know one person. Who did

LinkPizza posted...

Who threw a fit over the Hogwarts game? I only know one person. Who did

Im sure there were circles of folks from all over the spectrum who were planning on not buying it. I cant say that I know any person who was going to judge others for buying the game.

there were a lot of people that were boycotting hogwarts. didn't see myself but heard that they were harassing a lot of streamers and youtubers that did.

LinkPizza posted...

Who threw a fit over the Hogwarts game? I only know one person. Who did

The usual suspects. The Twitter crowd. I can't say I personally knew anyone that was broken up over the game, but I can't say I know anyone upset over Bud Light either. There was someone ranting about J.K. Rowling on the boards here a while back. It's mostly keyboard warriors on both sides.

I've just boycotted the franchise since the last book because I thought it was all a pile of shit.