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

(+) Yeah! (+)

Be consistent. Shananagainz made a claim and I challenged it. You say the burden of proof is on me for making a claim. Demand that Shananagainz prove their claim.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

What percentage of viewers have to be under drinking age for it to be considered marketing to them?

no one is marketing this to children, full stop.

provide proof of this beer being marketed to children or shut the fuck up about it and accept that you're wrong.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I think I missed your post while responding earlier. I'm not sure what point you're making. How does the largest group of people who were buying the beer being in their 30s connect with the "fratty" image the VP mentioned the beer had. Build that bridge for me because I'm not getting there on my own.

Then you say their current buyer demographic is not relevant in this situation. So it didn't matter that the largest group of people who were buying the beer were in their 30s? Why bring it up in that case? I actually agree with about that. It seems to me that if they wanted to appeal to the college age early 20s demographic they would play into the image they have and want to be seen as a beer popular with fraternities.

my fucking god dude what the fuck is wrong with your head

we've already established that the average college age is higher than the legal minimum drinking age, and we've established that their target demographic is frat houses, while their actual demographic males in their mid 30's.

they want to target away from the frat houses.

that's it, that's all this is. they're moving their marketing strategy to not focus on frat house shit.

that's all this means. every other thing you misunderstood has been explained in detail in earlier posts. it's not anyones job to treat you like you're five years old and explain things to you like a baby. no, their current buyer demographic does not matter to what they target, aside from their current buying demographic not being what their target demographic is, and as a result, they're changing their target demographic. this is normal. this is how marketing works.

you keep arguing shit based on your own misunderstanding, and no one here can help you understand what you choose to purposefully not understand.

he's just a fuckin idiot, it's insane the amount of times this dude argues without even doing any research into what he tries to argue about.

it's like reading the headline "dog kills man" and somehow associating it with "dogs are creating nuclear warheads and are initiating world war 3, the world v animals"

it's the only way to explain him seeing "younger drinkers" and going "CHILDREN" and not just...younger drinkers, like it says.

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.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Be consistent. Shananagainz made a claim and I challenged it. You say the burden of proof is on me for making a claim. Demand that Shananagainz prove their claim.

Hey man, could you just, like, shut the fuck up already.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

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

Thats not proof. From what Ive seen, no one is boycotting the alcohol because they think its selling to kids. They seem to be boycotting them using a certain person on a set of beer cans (that only they got), and the company putting LGBTQ+ positivity of whatever

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Doesn't the burden of proof lie with Shananagainz to prove people are upset about a trans person drinking beer. That's the claim that I challenged.

No. The claim were talking about is the one where you claimed they were trying to sell to children. Thats the claim we want proof to You made a ridiculous claim, so show us some proof

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.

adjl posted...

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.

Oh. I already knew there wasnt any actual proof I was just telling him thats the proof we wanted if he wanted that claim to stand But since that was never a stance the company took, there obviously wouldnt be proof. Haha.

I saw one guy going off in a comment section about how drinking Bud Lite was just like eating Dylan Mulvaney's butthole. He kept saying it. Someone really had butthole on the brain.

ReturnOfFa posted...

I saw one guy going off in a comment section about how drinking Bud Lite was just like eating Dylan Mulvaney's butthole. He kept saying it. Someone really had butthole on the brain.

Has he eaten Dylan Mulvabeys butthole before Because he seems to have that frame of reference

adjl posted...

The first post in the topic unambiguously proves that the outrage is rooted in transphobia ("doesn't know which bathroom to use" is overtly transphobic rhetoric, as anyone with a modicum of understanding of the situation can tell you), and being outraged that the beer is being marketed to the LGBTQ community means being outraged by the idea that trans people would drink it. I'm not sure what more proof you're looking for.

Im honestly surprised this had to be stated.

https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/bomb-threat-made-to-budweisers-van-nuys-factory/

Cool, republicans are alienating the media and alcohol industries. I hope to God these companies flood left wing candidates with money next year.

Edit: and I'm saying this as a Republican. Fuck my party.

...why are you a republican in name only?

If you're in active disagreement with it, I don't think that means you're in it anymore.

I'm a registered republican. There's no such thing as "republican in name only". Being a republican makes you a republican. That's the one and only requirement and state of being a republican.

Uh huh. Not really how that works, it just means you're a RINO.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_in_Name_Only

You're aware that you can change which party you're registered with, yes?

And that you do not have to only vote what you are registered as. Ideally you vote with you aligns most with your ideology, not based only on party.

lol

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

No.

Besides, RINO and DINO have existed longer than that, and it is quite what it says on the tin. Someone who is x in name only. You are registered as a republican, yet you are actively hoping they lose. You are a republican in name only.

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.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

no one is marketing this to children, full stop.

That is the interpretation I have heard in discussions around this subject.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

provide proof of this beer being marketed to children or shut the fuck up about it and accept that you're wrong.

If the VPs own words don't persuade you I don't know what will. I don't have access to Dylan Mulvaney's viewer demographics. And thus far neither does anyone arguing that it isn't largely under the legal age for buying alcohol.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

we've established that their target demographic is frat houses, while their actual demographic males in their mid 30's.

You said that who is buying the beer doesn't matter. The demographic they're targeting is what matters. The mid 30s demographic doesn't fit with the "fratty" image. You're intentionally ignoring part of the information to make your argument.

adjl posted...

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

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

adjl posted...

The first post in the topic unambiguously proves that the outrage is rooted in transphobia ("doesn't know which bathroom to use" is overtly transphobic rhetoric, as anyone with a modicum of understanding of the situation can tell you)

Wrong, they are using trans issues as a marketing gimmick but that does not mean the boycott is over trans issues any more than it means the boycott is about introduce a competing beer. Nor is the mention of bathrooms transphobia. One group thinks bathrooms are for a biological function. Another group thinks bathrooms are divided along social behaviors. It's a different perspective. Having a different perspective from someone is not a form of bigotry.

LinkPizza posted...

From what Ive seen, no one is boycotting the alcohol because they think its selling to kids.

From what I've seen, that is what they think.

adjl posted...

He's pretty unambiguously demonstrated that he only believed that because he misunderstood the marketing strategy.

I acknowledged that another interpretation was possible. I pointed out how your interpretation didn't connect with all of the information available. I am still under the impression that my interpretation is correct.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

From what I've seen, that is what they think.

And from what Ive seen, that is not what they think Where have you seen this boycott about selling beer to children? The only people Ive seen arguing are the ones mad about LGBTQ+ rights

Because reasons...

https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/bomb-threat-made-to-budweisers-van-nuys-factory/

LinkPizza posted...

The only people Ive seen arguing are the ones mad about LGBTQ+ rights

You're straw-manning the issue by making a discussion on 'what the best treatment for them is' about 'denying them their rights' instead. From what I've seen they take a position on that as well. But that is not their only position.

Conveniently, here's Tim Pool talking about both subjects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjnG9N3E7as

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Strawman - an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Gee, that's exactly what I said LinkPizza was doing.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You're straw-manning the issue by making a discussion on 'what the best treatment for them is' about 'denying them their rights' instead. From what I've seen they take a position on that as well. But that is not their only position.

How is what I said a strawman?

And thats one line Which also doesnt make sense They just added it at the end. And, tbh, its probably due to dumb people thinking the LGBTQ+ group is someone converting their kids Thats probably what they mean by start away from our kids Thats also 3 people on a podcast and not the whole group. But this also isnt what we asked for. You said the VP said they wanted to market to kids. Where is the proof of that? You still have not shown the one thing I asked for since the beginning

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

That is what LinkPizza did. No one wants to deny trans people their rights. That is an easier argument to defeat because no one holds that position.

LinkPizza posted...

But this also isnt what we asked for. You said the VP said they wanted to market to kids. Where is the proof of that?

Is the omniconsciousness starting to forget which role it's playing?
You, LinkPizza, did not ask me for that. You asked me for 'Where have you seen this boycott about selling beer to children?'

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That is what LinkPizza. No one wants to deny trans people their rights. That is an easier argument to defeat because no one holds that position.

Thats not what I was doing. Im asking you for what Ive been asking from the beginning

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Is the omniconsciousness starting to forget which role it's playing?

You, LinkPizza, did not ask me for that. You asked me for 'Where have you seen this boycott about selling beer to children?'

I havent forgetting anything Ill show you where I asked for it

Heres post #83 I bolded it for you

LinkPizza posted...

First, like helly said, younger drinkers refers to younger people who can drink. Meaning they still have to be 21 (in the US) And the Frat crowd ISNT the only crowd of people that drink. They are just one of the crowds. And can you show me where she said, Younger than the frat crowd? If you can show me that actual sentence, that would help Because she didnt say that. You are moving two sentences together Moving away from the Frat Crowd and Attracting young drinkers are different things you can have one without the other So, its just you making up stuff.

And here is post #109 where I asked for it again

LinkPizza posted...

No. The claim were talking about is the one where you claimed they were trying to sell to children. Thats the claim we want proof to You made a ridiculous claim, so show us some proof

I asked for proof in both of those And you still havent shown any

So I, LinkPizza, have asked for it multiple times Are you going to show proof? At the very least, can you stop lying out of your ass

LinkPizza posted...

Heres post #83 I bolded it for you

And here is post #109 where I asked for it again

Neither of those are the post I responded to, are they?
We moved on from that to you denying that anyone was boycotting for that reason, and now I have given you a clip of people discussing that reason.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

In a debate persuasive arguments are given to counter an opponents position.
So where are yours?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Neither of those are the post I responded to, are they?
We moved on from that to you denying that anyone was boycotting for that reason, and now I have given you a clip of people discussing that reason.

Chances are you didnt respond to it because you have no proof of your claim. But that doesnt matter. All that matter is that I asked for you proof. And thats what Ive been asking for. Whether or not you answered doesnt change what I asked you for And I have not moved on from that. So, how about we circle back and you give me proof before moving on? And all you gave me was a clip of a couple of guys on a podcast saying that. Thats a couple of guys. Not the majority of them But we should go back to my original question If you deflect again, that will basically be you saying you have no proof that they are marketing to children. So, show us proof, or admit that you were wrong/lying

alcohol is dumb

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You said that who is buying the beer doesn't matter. The demographic they're targeting is what matters. The mid 30s demographic doesn't fit with the "fratty" image. You're intentionally ignoring part of the information to make your argument.

current buyer demographic =/= target demographic.

my dude, fucking seriously

maybe a different example will get you to understand what this means

my little ponys target demographic was little girls

my little ponys actual viewer demographic was males in their late 20s.

no, a mid-30's male does not fit with their target demographic of frathouses.

that's because a mid-30's male is not their targeted demographic.

a mid-30's male is their actual buyer demographic, they make up the majority of sales, despite the targets being mid-20's males.

there's 100% a reason these are labeled the way they are, and it's because they're each a different thing.

"ThIs DoEsNt lInE Up wItH wHaT YoU sAiD"

yeah the fuck it does if you had even a 3rd grade level of reading comprehension

adjl posted...

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.

yeah lol

those terms have been around since the parties have been around

like you can change what party you're registered easily, too. i went from republican to democrat easily enough when i realized that the republican party has strayed so far from what their actual ideologies are claimed to be

User is not currently an active member.

Or an intelligent one. But small victories, I guess.

Tale as old as time.

At this point I cant really be convinced that its anything more than getting their rocks off.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I read that and audibly laughed. I get not being in tune with everything regarding queer stuff but holy shit that is a wild take.

Shananagainz posted...

I get not being in tune with everything regarding queer stuff but holy shit that is a wild take.

Hes said some borderline homophobic stuff before in other topics

LinkPizza posted...

Hes said some borderline homophobic stuff before in other topics

Oh I dont post often but Im around enough to know how some folks can be. I appreciate the heads up though!

This topic should be archived and shown to debate classes