site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 10, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

14
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Unfortunately, I really want to talk about all the Bud Light stuff, and I don't want to make a new throwaway for it. So you will have to deal with this short summary of my jury duty instead of the nice effort post I've been cooking up on dog walks: 1) The pool is almost sarcastically diverse, as though someone had intentionally excluded anyone else resembling my 'peers.' 2) If someone shows up it's because they want to serve on a jury, and they find it strange that someone would intentionally decrease their chances of being selected 3) The entire experience can be a colossal waste of time and energy, 50 otherwise productive people spent all day not working because one illegal immigrant made a sexual innuendo to another illegal's girlfriend/stepdaughter. Why not just deport them?

Onto the Bud Light thing, as discussed earlier here yesterday. The short summary would be that someone (also from San Diego, coincidentally) decided about a year ago that they were a woman, and Bud Light decided to make them a special commemorative can, which apparently they drank in a bathtub as part of a marketing campaign. This has made a lot of people (including me) very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. I'm writing this post now because the company just offered its' first official response and it's perfect gpt fuel-on-the-fire. It's short so I won't give highlights, instead, a summary that suggests it pisses off everyone rather than mollifying anyone. I eagerly invite someone to provide a mirror image of 'their tribes' response but I want to share a few thoughts about mine in a few buckets:

1). For most of my adult life, I drank an incredible amount of Bud Light. Occasionally flirting with the limits of 'functional' alcoholism at ~30 a day, occasionally dipping below my typical 10-12, occasionally taking a month off because I'd been getting fat. This amount of consumption is not unusual in my peer group. Just do some napkin math: (minimally) one beer per half hour of time awake and 'off the clock.' Essentially, Bud Light is not a 6 pack that sits in your fridge for weeks, it's bought in 18 packs by people like me on the way home for the night.

2). We drink Bud Light for exactly the reason you (the proverbial 'you', of course) poke fun at it. It's thin, watery, and doesn't have a lot of alcohol. I can drink 30 a day and never get shithouse drunk the way I will after 3 bourbons on an empty stomach. I can drink more than a tiny sip and enjoy the flavor, unlike a double tangerine ipa. I like to sit around and drink beer, and it's a perfect beer for that.

3). I have my friends that drink Bud Light, and my friends that poke fun at me for drinking Bud Light. I love both, but with the later, we usually don't tool around in the garage while drinking. These days with the later it's usually more like visiting the latest pop-up microbrewery which may or may not have food (or anything drinkable). There's a culture, or if that's a bit grandiose, a vibe around a hot sunny day and a big cold box of weak watery beer.

4). Unlike most potential boycotts, I (and my people) have some purchase with this one ('purchase' for the non-english natives among us here meaning 'agency, power, or leverage'). We get a little say. There is a little verve here. This is not nike, something I already didn't buy, or every insurance company known to man, something I can't really avoid buying, this is weak watery beer!

5). Unlike most Allied marketing, this feels like it was meant to hurt. I'm aware Bud Light has done rainbow pride cans before, and I've probably even bought some without thinking about it. But something feels wrong about buying this beer now that I know they intentionally had a AMAB in a bikini drinking their commemorative can celebrating '365 of womanhood.' Not only can I effectively boycott this, but I can't unfeel the desire to boycott this! This one might have legs.

After the non-apology from the brass, Bud Light may have terminally tarnished their brand. Planting a flag and vitally interested to hear your thoughts

Wait a second, is this whole thing about a couple of videos on Dylan Mulvaney's personal Instagram account? I was assuming there was a tv commercial or Google ad or official Bud Light™ account post or something. I can't possibly imagine you follow Dylan on Instagram given your reaction. Did the Bud Light aisle at your local supermarket get stocked with Dylan Mulvaney commemorative cans? I could understand the anger if AB InBev decided to assault your senses while watching a basketball game, but you would have to go looking to find any of the objectionable content. Who gives a fuck?

Unlike most Allied marketing, this feels like it was meant to hurt.

I've seen those "if you don't agree with us, fuck you," ad campaigns. I don't really get that feeling from this one. I don't think it was ever meant to be seen outside of a targeted demographic. God, I can't believe I'm defending Bud Light here.

I do want to note this particular line from the article:

“I’m a businesswoman, I had a really clear job to do when I took over Bud Light, and it was ‘This brand is in decline, it’s 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,’” Heinerscheid said.

I can't believe we're in the kind of bizzaro timeline where alcohol executives defend themselves by saying, "We were just trying to sell alcohol to minors young people. Why is everyone so mad?"

This is an argument that no one would ever use if Bud Light gave a commemorative can to Adolf Hitler or Russia’s invasion force of 2022. It’s disingenuous. A commemorative can is commemorative — it is in the name — it is clearly spelling out for all to see the values of Bud Light and (one could presume) their executives. Why would you support a company that commemorates, honors, celebrates, and supports something that you perceive as harmful to you and your interests?

If I had a nickel for every time someone said trans activism was comparable to Hitler, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice.

How are those at all similar? In the surreal, alternate universe where Bud Light is using Instagram to attract young Neo-Nazis, people wouldn't make that argument because Hitler was responsible for the deaths of millions!

My point was that a commemorative partnership is a form of support. This is clearly evident in the maximal case: a commemorative partnership with the Russian army. The criticism would be, “how dare you commemorate an evil invasion force”, and no one would say “they are just trying to broaden their market” or “who cares?”. But I can flesh this out better. If Bud Light were to commemorate the relatively obscure Jared Taylor there would still be lots of condemnation, despite his obscurity. Even something just mildly bad, like commemorating a prominent flat earther, would get condemnation.

So the argument that it’s fine that Bud Light is commemorating a transgender is really an argument that transgenderism is acceptable and it’s fine that it’s promoted. As soon you start to see it as even slightly bad, then it becomes permissible if not obligatory to criticize a commemorative partnership

Yeah, that's a better example.

I don't think you're strictly wrong about the meaning of "commemorative," though I'm inclined to make the distinction between what the company values and what it tolerates. Commemoration is cheap. I'm not sure if that's more or less cynical.

The maximal case is categorically different, though.

Also, I wonder how often a large company has irreparably sunk its brand with a bad advertising campaign

Who gives a fuck?

I will die on the hill that a very thin man in a bikini drinking bud light in his bathtub is not a woman in a bikini drinking bud light in her bathtub. Just because some people have absentmindedly skipped to 'okay now man=woman' does not mean I will subscribe to the changing ways of the world.

idk if more transwomen could convincingly pass , that would be worse in some ways

I'm actually curious, in what ways would it be worse if more transwomen could convincingly pass?

There'd be a lot more violence against "traps".

TBH I'd be fine with more passing "traps" and less "blue tribe hons". While we're at it give the passing traps a star spangled banner and a large black gun with the thing that goes up and we can start negotiating a cease fire on the trans front of the culture war.

Sure but why does that impact you? Its just an ad for a demographic that is presumably not you.

I don't drink beer but if my favorite cider company did some ads with a NASCAR driver or Donald Trump or Kyle Rittenhouse or Ben Shapiro or whoever you think the opposite variant of Mulvaney might be then I just don't care. If they think aiming at a particular demo with a particular celebrity who is on the opposite culture war side to me helps their sales so what?

Its no skin off my nose. As long as they don't change how the cider tastes or how much it costs or whatever then they can market it however they please. They don't need to market to me, I already know I like it.

When Bud Lite gives somebody a commemorative can to celebrate their personal milestone of fake womahood, I would say they've sailed past bland ol' marketing and are deliberately pandering. And while I have a degree of tolerance for pandering, I have grown incredibly tired of the relentless affirmation of falshehoods and poor understandings woven throughout the trans phenomenon.

You want to put a rainbow flag over a six-pack? I think that's cringe, but I'm fine with it because I understand that symbol to be vague and open enough for people to read what they want from it. You want to personally celebrate a weirdo with their farcical, unconvincing transition into womanhood? Well... why? Could you imagine Bud giving commemorative cans to Dolezal for her inspiring journey into 'blackness'? And what would the reaction from the hoi polloi be? Sure, it wouldn't affect me personally. But it would be such an opportunity loss to not criticize it as abjectly stupid, or to question what the hell Bud was even thinking when they greenlit this stunt, and to also point out this pattern in marketing is increasingly ubiquitous from all major brands.

No, this doesn't affect the taste or quality of the product. But the cultural assumptions and messaging being baked into media and ads - now coming from your 'classic degenerate US beer company' - are absolutely obnoxious and demanding a pushback. What specificially is Bud celebrating here? What values are they displaying when they treat Dylan's transition as some legitimate thing that isn't to be questioned? Does the average employee even believe it? Or are they just going to continue ramrodding this shit, and once cornered default to "Hey guys! We just want to be nice and inclusive, no big deal! Choo choo", as if there isn't

a festering sociopolitical rat's nest of unexamined assumptions and contradictions roiling underneath?

"I just consume what I like and pay no attention to the marketing" is very much where I'd like to be, and probably where I still would be if this was the era of non-political Budweiser Frogs. Unfortunately, I have learned that I 'live in a society', and wokeness is intent on appropriating and weaponizing everything it can get its hands on; 'forcing' consensus through pop culture while skipping over every serious deliberation that could undercut it.

The Mulvaney cans are one of the biggest flexes I've seen, in many ways because of Bud Lite's preexisting image of a low-class red tribe beer. As if to say "even this territory can be conquered and made fabulous and gay, and boy aren't you the dysfunctional non-nice weirdo if disagree with any of this". One wonders why this whole performance - separate from the beer itself - might piss people off.

You might not, but the left certainly cares based on all the cancelings: Netflix protests around Dave Chapelle, Spotify around Joe Rogan, the insane backlash to J.K. Rowling, and those are people that barely stepped out of line and were/are basically leftist in most other ways. Pretty much any right wing personality online has a hate mob that seems to be more obsessed with them than their own following is. Look at Andrew Tate recently or the other one whose name I can't remember and didn't manage to find online because a search for 'right wing twitch streamers' just brought up nytimes and cbs hit pieces complaining about them in general.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/27/technology/twitch-livestream-extremists.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/right-wing-influencers-turn-to-live-streaming-platform-twitch-to-reach-their-supporters/

Controlling the culture is power, it's clear the left understands this, not surprising that the right is starting to. Giving an inch was their biggest mistake in the first place.

Sure but why does that impact you?

A society accepting what you see as a bad set of memes affects everyone. No man is an island.

The activists know this - that's why they went from "we just want to be left alone!" to "we need X, Y and Z to feel comfortable, fulfilled and validated".

"'You do you and I do mine" is at best an ideal that the temptations of actual power erodes or just an outright tactical lie to wear down opposing norms before instituting your own.

But does an ad targeted to a diffetent demographic do that, if said demo is already different?.

The people who would buy Bud light after seeing promoted by Mulvaney are presumably onboard with transness already no?

Society is not based on reason in the first place so I don't care what beliefs Bud light are exploiting or if they are true or not. Like i don't care if America truly is the greatest nation on earth in every third beer commercial or whatever. The truth doesn't matter. Its aimed at people who already believe it.

The people who would buy Bud light after seeing promoted by Mulvaney are presumably onboard with transness already no?

I don’t think any reasonable person thinks this demographic actually exists outside of like, 10 people.

The real story is probably that bud light is in decline, there isn’t really a way to fix that decline, and the head of marketing knows that and is trying to make it look good on her resume by attributing declining sales to transphobia. I don’t particularly care about that, but I do care that this is the one time my demographic can hit corporates with a boycott that hurts.

Why isn't the more parsimonious answer more likely? Bud light is in decline. They decide to market to a younger demo and pick a person to sponsor accordingly. The campaign was small it wouldn't cost much to test.

More comments

It boggles the mind that anyone would be so ignorant as to think that there are potential bud light buyers in support of trans.

More comments

It’s simple. Trans is bad. It’s not a demo. It’s a mental illness. Like would you drink a beer that promotes Hitler?

I observe that Hitler is neither a demographic nor a mental illness.

Conversely, to the best of my knowledge, Mulvaney has not ordered millions to their deaths, nor even seized political power.

Even if it is a mental illness that doesn't stop it being a demo. But the demo in question is people who don't think it is a mental illness and are supportive of it.

But this is basically my question, why is celebrating one trans person considered in the same level as celebrating a genocidal dictator? They aren't really the same no?

Look, you are allowed to criticize transgenderism and say you think it's a mental illness, but this is just waging war against your outgroup. However strongly you feel, accept the fact that there are trans people who might be participating in the discussion and while you're allowed to tell them you think their self-identification is not reality, you are not allowed to tell them they're just like Hitler.

Respectfully you’ve drank the trans koolaid if you think this post was bad

More comments

But I do care buddy and the truth is I'm not going to buy bud light anymore. life is real beyond mental calculations of possibilities and hypotheticals

Would any trans spokesperson elicit this response even a conservative one? No gotchas, just trying to explore this.

Skipping past the joke I can't quite form about the paradoxical 'trans conservative spokesperson' - my gut says no, there was something uniquely perturbing about this specific AMAB being selected as a brand ambassador. Although the bathtub aspect would be an aggravating factor regardless of who it was

More comments

Bud Light buyers would probably buy a Bruce Jenner-themed can campaign, but not a Kaitlin Jenner can. But I’m neither a beer drinker nor a sports guy, so I’m just listing my priors.

But does an ad targeted to a diffetent demographic do that, if said demo is already different?.

Why would who the ad is targeted at change that it is a normalization of something some people clearly see as bad memes/unreason? They [the ad critics] know it is aimed at a different demographic; that is precisely the problem.

The "'You do you' is a lie" comment was more of a general response to "how does it impact you?" and what usually is the implicit idea behind it - that if you can't draw an easy direct causal link to some harm done to you, the changing of social norms should be of less concern to you.

I don't drink beer but if my favorite cider company did some ads with a NASCAR driver or Donald Trump or Kyle Rittenhouse or Ben Shapiro or whoever you think the opposite variant of Mulvaney might be then I just don't care.

You are telling on yourself, respectfully. That means NASCAR/Trump/Rittenhouse/Shapiro has never actively suggested anything like ‘man=woman’

Ok pick whatever you think the opposite is. I am not getting at the exact likeness, just the idea. Like a MAGa commercial when i don't think Trump actually makes Anerica greater or something. It doesn't have to be 1:1.

A lot of people would boycott a Trump beer. (or maybe wine would be more demographically appropriate)

In fact, didn't some non-Yeungling drinkers try to get a Yeungling boycott going when the owner had the temerity to say he supports Trump as a political candidate?

The difference here is that the pissed off people actually consume the product, like, a lot.

A lot of people would boycott a Trump beer. (or maybe wine would be more demographically appropriate)

Didn't that actually happen? Or was that a wine that people thought was associated with Trump, but it was unaffiliated?

Regarding Yuengling, the stated reason for disliking the brand is union-busting. How much of that is a cover for disliking Trump, or how much of it is not unique to Yuengling but only spoken about because of Trump, I cannot say. I do know that I appreciate Yuengling as a family owned company because (to my understanding) the kids don't inherit a share by default: they have to work for it.

But i am wondering why. The ad campaign was targeted at a different demo. And it didn't say our current drinkers are transphobes or bad right? It just used a trans (pseudo)celebrity as far as i can tell?

Not even a political one. Just someone who is trans. Is that really enough?

The other thing that amuses me a little is i am old enough to remember when people drinking light beers were seen as not being manly enough. So that too is a little interesting.

I don't drink beer but if my favorite cider company did some ads with a NASCAR driver or Donald Trump or Kyle Rittenhouse or Ben Shapiro or whoever you think the opposite variant of Mulvaney might be then I just don't care.

...

Ok pick whatever you think the opposite is. I am not getting at the exact likeness, just the idea.

You asked us to imagine how the scenario would play out given somebody that the left hates as much as the right hates Mulvaney -- it turns out there was an actual example, and the left got all pissy and tried to enact a boycott of a product that wasn't even targeted at them in the first place.

I'm not sure why this is surprising to you -- have you seen the things people have been up to in this CW?

More comments