Is Bud Light Right And I'm Wrong?

[SunsetBengal]

(06-08-2023, 12:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, this thing definitely has legs and I don't think it's going away soon, if at all.  As I said in the other thread, once you start involving people's children you're going to really rile them up.  We had an incident in Glendale this week were a group protesting against transgender ideology being taught in school were attacked by TGR activists.  The mainstream media predictably labeled it as "right wing extremists" doing the attacking, but friends in Glendale PD said it was the other way around.  Kind of smacks of the school boards labeling concerned parents as "domestic terrorists" and begging the FBI to investigate.

For those that don't know Glendale is a heavily Armenian city and Armenians tend to be a bit more conservative on this type of issue.  I'm sure the media will blame white supremacy though.

EDIT:  Here's the link to the incident above.  This is at least a non-biased accounting of the event.

https://apnews.com/article/glendale-school-district-pride-month-protests-fighting-adcb1e4f9051256a4f35fb3174137229

I saw a clip from that on the morning news today.  Looked like a rather violent altercation.

[GMDino]

(06-08-2023, 12:11 PM)pally Wrote: AB didn't involve children.  It involved something more important to some of those people....their beer.

Even Target didn't involve their children.  Their children are only involved if they purchase the product.  Seeing the products triggers the adults not children

100% this!

It has little to nothing to do with children or the same people would be protesting outside churches and other sources of child abuse.

It's about their worldview being even slightly being questioned. 

"Beer is for men!  Not for men in dresses!  So we have to protect the children from seeing ONE transgender holding ONE can of beer with her face on it"  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2023, 12:11 PM)pally Wrote: AB didn't involve children.  It involved something more important to some of those people....their beer.

As I said in the other thread, the TGR movement has absolutely included children in their agenda.  I won't use the groomer term, as that would be unfair to apply broadly, but to say that children aren't being target by transgender ideology would be false.  For many people this has tainted the entire movement, which would also encompass Mulvaney.

Quote:Even Target didn't involve their children.  Their children are only involved if they purchase the product.  Seeing the products triggers the adults not children

Sorry, this is some poor logic.  If you market children's clothing, and we are talking literal children, not adolescents, specifically for transgender children you are absolutely targeting children by definition.   Sorry, but I'm firmly in the camp that children don't have the first clue what they are or will be.  Some girls grow up enjoying only traditionally boy's activities and clothing.  If a girl does that now people scramble to label them trans.  You have people on social media bragging about their toddler being trans.  A toddler don't know anything about anything.  Let kids be kids, let them enjoy what they want to enjoy.  Don't shame or scold them, but at the same time don't push or persuade them either and the latter is absolutely happening.

Oh, Target might have something to do with the Satanist artist that they decided to promote as well.



Yeah, no problems with that at all. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

A further point on this issue. Since when is it unacceptable for people to vote with their wallets? You can disagree with their reason for doing so all you want, but their right to do so is undisputed. Or is it? Apparently now boycotts of certain businesses is "economic terrorism".

https://www.newsweek.com/target-boycott-over-lgbtq-products-literally-terrorism-economist-1802961

[CJD]

(06-08-2023, 01:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A further point on this issue.  Since when is it unacceptable for people to vote with their wallets?  You can disagree with their reason for doing so all you want, but their right to do so is undisputed.  Or is it?  Apparently now boycotts of certain businesses is "economic terrorism".

https://www.newsweek.com/target-boycott-over-lgbtq-products-literally-terrorism-economist-1802961

I think the threats to employees are the part that this article is calling terrorism, not the boycott itself.

This may be a bit hyperbolic, depending on what the threats are and how likely they are to be carried out, but threats are a real thing and should not be brushed away immediately.

Again, I think this is a symptom of social media culture bleeding into real life. If you say something bad on Twitter, you may get death threats sent to you via DM. The vast majority of those are empty threats since they likely don't know your real name, where you live, where you work etc.

But a person walking into a Target and verbally threatening employees is...different and should be treated as such by the police, if anything escalates to the level of a real threat.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2023, 01:23 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think the threats to employees are the part that this article is calling terrorism, not the boycott itself.

This may be a bit hyperbolic, depending on what the threats are and how likely they are to be carried out, but threats are a real thing and should not be brushed away immediately.

I completely agree.  In the same vein, and as you stated as well, what the actual "threats" were would need to be seen to determine if the claim is indeed hyperbolic.  I recall Lucasfilm claiming that the Obi-Wan actress got numerous racist texts/threats.  When they shared them I think only one of the very few shared could even be construed as racist.  Companies, especially now, appear to inflate these claims for their own purposes.  I'd like to see evidence of a criminal investigation(s) being opened due to threats before I lend the claim much credence.

Quote:Again, I think this is a symptom of social media culture bleeding into real life. If you say something bad on Twitter, you may get death threats sent to you via DM. The vast majority of those are empty threats since they likely don't know your real name, where you live, where you work etc.

But a person walking into a Target and verbally threatening employees is...different and should be treated as such by the police, if anything escalates to the level of a real threat.

On this we agree as well.  It would be amazing if this worked both ways as well.  Using the same logic as the person in that article there have been hundreds of incidents of transgender "terrorism" of late.  One need only search twitter for numerous examples of transgender activists physically attacking people unprovoked by anything but words or signs.  That's clearly terrorism by this person's definition.

Ultimately terrorist is going to become as useless a designation as fascist, or racist.  Overused to the point where all they really mean are "someone I disagree with."

[CJD]

(06-08-2023, 01:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I completely agree.  In the same vein, and as you stated as well, what the actual "threats" were would need to be seen to determine if the claim is indeed hyperbolic.  I recall Lucasfilm claiming that the Obi-Wan actress got numerous racist texts/threats.  When they shared them I think only one of the very few shared could even be construed as racist.  Companies, especially now, appear to inflate these claims for their own purposes.  I'd like to see evidence of a criminal investigation(s) being opened due to threats before I lend the claim much credence.


On this we agree as well.  It would be amazing if this worked both ways as well.  Using the same logic as the person in that article there have been hundreds of incidents of transgender "terrorism" of late.  One need only search twitter for numerous examples of transgender activists physically attacking people unprovoked by anything but words or signs.  That's clearly terrorism by this person's definition.

Ultimately terrorist is going to become as useless a designation as fascist, or racist.  Overused to the point where all they really mean are "someone I disagree with."

Yep. This country is ****** up, for sure. Both sides are convinced the other side is filled with demons. 

[*Nately120*]

(06-08-2023, 01:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ultimately terrorist is going to become as useless a designation as fascist, or racist.  Overused to the point where all they really mean are "someone I disagree with."

Are you a groomer or a domestic terrorist?  I mean, surely no one would vote for a 3rd party when you have those two choices.

[GMDino]

(06-08-2023, 02:09 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Are you a groomer or a domestic terrorist?  I mean, surely no one would vote for a 3rd party when you have those two choices.

Again there are ACTUAL groomer and child molesters out there that never get this kind of attention from the right because they agree politically with them.  

But they want it work "both ways".  It's bizarre.

[*Nately120*]

(06-08-2023, 02:24 PM)GMDino Wrote: Again there are ACTUAL groomer and child molesters out there that never get this kind of attention from the right because they agree politically with them.  

But they want it work "both ways".  It's bizarre.

Yeah, some real monsters are going to sneak by while we are too busy accusing entire groups of people of being systematic abusers and groomers, but that's the price you pay for incendiary politics. The idea that "the enemy" is over in the middle east or in China just doesn't move the needle anymore so the enemy has to be your fellow Americans.

That'll get the votes rolling in.

But yea, clearly there are going to be a few legit sex offenders eagerly telling everyone that Tom Hanks and the local kindergarten teacher are totally the ones abusing kids.

[Belsnickel]

(06-08-2023, 01:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I said in the other thread, the TGR movement has absolutely included children in their agenda.  I won't use the groomer term, as that would be unfair to apply broadly, but to say that children aren't being target by transgender ideology would be false.  For many people this has tainted the entire movement, which would also encompass Mulvaney.

WTF is the TGR movement and transgender ideology? Transgenderism is an identity, not an ideology.

(06-08-2023, 01:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, Target might have something to do with the Satanist artist that they decided to promote as well.



Yeah, no problems with that at all. 

Please, it's not like Target was selling those items. Also, I don't think the artist is an actual Satanist, but I could be wrong.

I do also see nothing wrong with those items, but that's just me. I just consider it under the free speech umbrella. There are some folks I know that sell merch praising Dorner. To each their own.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2023, 03:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: WTF is the TGR movement and transgender ideology? Transgenderism is an identity, not an ideology.

Indeed it is.  But that does not exclude there being a promoted ideology.  They are not mutually exclusive concepts.  Take a transgender man like Buck Angel.  He speaks out against it all the time.

Quote:Please, it's not like Target was selling those items. Also, I don't think the artist is an actual Satanist, but I could be wrong.

I am aware.  I also think the reason Target backed away is they did not fully vet this artist before singing him up for their campaign and knew they had stepped in it.  I don't care if he's an actual Satanist or not either, but there are millions of people who do.

Quote:I do also see nothing wrong with those items, but that's just me. I just consider it under the free speech umbrella. There are some folks I know that sell merch praising Dorner. To each their own.

And again, I don't disagree.  I don't give a shit about these items, I didn't post them as a justification for my moral indignation.  But, there's millions of people who are going to be bothered by them.  And you're absolutely correct, it's totally his right under the 1A.  Just as it is the right of those who object to him to do so and not be labeled "economic terrorists."

[BengalYankee]

(06-08-2023, 01:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sorry, this is some poor logic.  If you market children's clothing, and we are talking literal children, not adolescents, specifically for transgender children you are absolutely targeting children by definition.   Sorry, but I'm firmly in the camp that children don't have the first clue what they are or will be.  Some girls grow up enjoying only traditionally boy's activities and clothing.  If a girl does that now people scramble to label them trans.  You have people on social media bragging about their toddler being trans.  A toddler don't know anything about anything.  Let kids be kids, let them enjoy what they want to enjoy.  Don't shame or scold them, but at the same time don't push or persuade them either and the latter is absolutely happening.

[Lucidus]

(06-08-2023, 01:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I said in the other thread, the TGR movement has absolutely included children in their agenda.  I won't use the groomer term, as that would be unfair to apply broadly, but to say that children aren't being target by transgender ideology would be false.  For many people this has tainted the entire movement, which would also encompass Mulvaney.

This entire statement / assertion is befuddling. What precise ideology does transgenderism possess? That's akin to saying heterosexualism and homosexualism contain specific ideologies. Just a rather nonsensical notion, as any segment of the population will have varying ideologies within said segment. Perhaps you could explain this ideology that is being used to "target" children, and then provide your strongest example. 

Quote:Sorry, this is some poor logic.  If you market children's clothing, and we are talking literal children, not adolescents, specifically for transgender children you are absolutely targeting children by definition.   Sorry, but I'm firmly in the camp that children don't have the first clue what they are or will be.  Some girls grow up enjoying only traditionally boy's activities and clothing.  If a girl does that now people scramble to label them trans.  You have people on social media bragging about their toddler being trans.  A toddler don't know anything about anything.  Let kids be kids, let them enjoy what they want to enjoy.  Don't shame or scold them, but at the same time don't push or persuade them either and the latter is absolutely happening.

Should stores be allowed to sell children's clothing that denotes a political party or religion? Would you consider that targeting literal children and deem it as attempted pushing or persuasion? 

[*pally*]

Most companies don't vet the religious or spiritual beliefs of their vendors or clothes designers. It is IRRELEVANT. The only thing relevant is if they wish to sell that vendor's or designer's product.

Stores like Target are utilized by a wide swath of the population, and guess what that includes the LGBTQ folks as well, and as such carry products that appeal to the wide population. Not every product they carry will appeal to everyone. If someone chooses to wear or purchase rainbow merchandise for themselves or their children it is NO ONE's business but their own. If you don't want those items for yourself or your children don't buy them but you don't to make that same choice for anyone else.

Just as books don't make you gay. Using pronouns doesn't make you gay. Clothing also cannot make one gay. Nor do any of those make you a "groomer"

Everyone has the right to decide where to shop...unless of course you are gay and want a wedding cake (sarcasm alert) But the way the right is going soon they won't have anyplace left if they boycott every company that is LGBTQ friendly

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2023, 06:23 PM)Lucidus Wrote: This entire statement / assertion is befuddling. What precise ideology does transgenderism possess? That's akin to saying heterosexualism and homosexualism contain specific ideologies. Just a rather nonsensical notion, as any segment of the population will have varying ideologies within said segment. Perhaps you could explain this ideology that is being used to "target" children, and then provide your strongest example.

I didn't say transgenderism, I said the transgender movement.  I think anyone but their parents teaching children about sex, sexuality or transgenderism is disturbing.  Why would anyone want to talk to literal children about these issues?  When I worked at a group home I had kids ask me questions about sensitive topics all the time.  I would inform them that my having that conversation with them would not be appropriate.  Why, because they aren't my kids and I have no business offering my position on those types of subjects to them.  I had a kid ask me what I thought happened after you die, he got the same response.  Again, why is anyone motivated to discuss these topics with children who aren't theirs?  That's why terms like indoctrination get bandied about.  

Quote:Should stores be allowed to sell children's clothing that denotes a political party or religion?

They can if they want, just as Target can sell the merch in question.  You'll note at no time did I say Target had no right to sell anything.  I've noticed people here tend to target (no pun intended) arguments they think or wish you made rather than what you actually said.

Quote:Would you consider that targeting literal children and deem it as attempted pushing or persuasion? 

If a store sold a four year old's size set of clothing that said, "Keep trans people out of women's sports", then absolutely yes.  If they sold "Democrats/Republicans are evil" shirts then absolutely yes, and it would be correct to call them out for doing exactly that.  Imagine the insane uproar if Target sold a child's shirt that said "I'm proud of my Caucasian heritage."  In every instance people could correctly call them out, just as was done here.


The real question is, and would be for any of the above examples, why are you pushing this message on kids at all?  Shouldn't we allow children to enjoy their childhood free of this kind of thing?  There's plenty of time for them to argue and bicker with each other over them when they get older.  The plain truth is these clothes are used by parents to virtue signal, and that's it, and that would be the same for every example I gave.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2023, 06:32 PM)pally Wrote: Most companies don't vet the religious or spiritual beliefs of their vendors or clothes designers.  It is IRRELEVANT.  The only thing relevant is if they wish to sell that vendor's or designer's product.

This is true for pretty much anything but kid's clothing/items.  For some reason parents are rather protective of their kids.  If Target was selling children's merch with Trump on them you better damned well believe there'd be a huge uproar from a completely different group of people.

[*pally*]

The sell religious merchandise including kids clothing without much of a pushback. But it is just like with books...if THEY find it offensive to heck with what other parents think.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Lucidus]

(06-08-2023, 06:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't say transgenderism, I said the transgender movement. I think anyone but their parents teaching children about sex, sexuality or transgenderism is disturbing.  Why would anyone want to talk to literal children about these issues?  

So, what's the transgender ideology you asserted was being used to target children? What you're alluding to here isn't an ideology.

Quote:When I worked at a group home I had kids ask me questions about sensitive topics all the time.  I would inform them that my having that conversation with them would not be appropriate.  Why, because they aren't my kids and I have no business offering my position on those types of subjects to them.  I had a kid ask me what I thought happened after you die, he got the same response.  Again, why is anyone motivated to discuss these topics with children who aren't theirs?  That's why terms like indoctrination get bandied about.  

Again, you seem to be avoiding my questions? You asserted rather strongly that transgender ideology was being used to target children. Please define said ideology and give a specific example of that ideology and how it is targeting children. Thus far, you've only referenced anecdotal conversations that you find "disturbing".

Quote:They can if they want, just as Target can sell the merch in question.  You'll note at no time did I say Target had no right to sell anything.  I've noticed people here tend to target (no pun intended) arguments they think or wish you made rather than what you actually said.

I didn't state that you said that, hence why I asked your opinion.

Quote:If a store sold a four year old's size set of clothing that said, "Keep trans people out of women's sports", then absolutely yes.  If they sold "Democrats/Republicans are evil" shirts then absolutely yes, and it would be correct to call them out for doing exactly that.  Imagine the insane uproar if Target sold a child's shirt that said "I'm proud of my Caucasian heritage."  In every instance people could correctly call them out, just as was done here.

Would you find a children's shirt that states "Jesus Christ is King" to be attempted persuasion?

Quote:The real question is, and would be for any of the above examples, why are you pushing this message on kids at all?  Shouldn't we allow children to enjoy their childhood free of this kind of thing?  There's plenty of time for them to argue and bicker with each other over them when they get older.  The plain truth is these clothes are used by parents to virtue signal, and that's it, and that would be the same for every example I gave.

Please give the specific message you think is being pushed.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2023, 07:08 PM)pally Wrote: The sell religious merchandise including kids clothing without much of a pushback. But it is just like with books...if THEY find it offensive to heck with what other parents think.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Are you really trying to claim that it's only an issue when the right finds something offensive?  Please try and make that argument.