Jump to content

Target reduces 2slgbtq+ merchandise ahead of Pride month after harassment and violence from the right wing


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Good point.  For a time, chuds were visiting chik fil A in droves it seemed like.  Meanwhile no one, even liberals, seem to be buying Budweiser's piss water beer.

I've been boycotting Budweiser since I was 20 or so because it tastes terrible. 

  • True 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

One of the things I’ve noticed when more liberal contingents say they are boycotting a business over political/social actions, conservatives tend to buttress those firms in response.


This doesn’t seem to happen when the roles are reversed. Firms are left with the most logical choice of capitulation to the boycotters.

I think you're right, in that left-wing cancel culture has never successfully impacted a large company.  I had always attributed that to the fact that it was mostly small groups of individuals trying to cancel PEOPLE, rather than companies.

 

It's been shocking how widespread the boycotting of Bud Light has become -- and apparently Target as well.  My interpretation was that it was because right-wingers were (for probably the first time) willing to boycott something.  Having never lived in a place with a Chik-Fil-A -- do "non-far-righters" really boycott it in large numbers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

One of the things I’ve noticed when more liberal contingents say they are boycotting a business over political/social actions, conservatives tend to buttress those firms in response.


This doesn’t seem to happen when the roles are reversed. Firms are left with the most logical choice of capitulation to the boycotters.

Unless there is data, I don’t believe this at all. Someone post that Steam screenshot of everyone playing CoD after the so called boycott. 
Meme Reaction GIF by MOODMAN

  • True 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

I think you're right, in that left-wing cancel culture has never successfully impacted a large company.  I had always attributed that to the fact that it was mostly small groups of individuals trying to cancel PEOPLE, rather than companies.

 

It's been shocking how widespread the boycotting of Bud Light has become -- and apparently Target as well.  My interpretation was that it was because right-wingers were (for probably the first time) willing to boycott something.  Having never lived in a place with a Chik-Fil-A -- do "non-far-righters" really boycott it in large numbers?

 

Wouldn’t this maybe make you think that all the left ring cancel culture stuff is bullshit and it’s not a thing but something projected from the right since they are constantly attempting to cancel things? 

  • True 1
  • Halal 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, stepee said:

 

Wouldn’t this maybe make you think that all the left ring cancel culture stuff is bullshit and it’s not a thing but something projected from the right since they are constantly attempting to cancel things? 

No.  The left-wing cancel culture is real -- I've seen it happen to people.

 

It's very different to what seems to be happening now.  Maybe, I've just been blind to it.  But, I don't recall anything like what is happening right now in the US (Bud Light/Target) happening in the past.  For example, Nike has been very aggressively progressive in their marketing, and I don't think it hurt their sales?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

No.  The left-wing cancel culture is real -- I've seen it happen to people.

 

It's very different to what seems to be happening now.  Maybe, I've just been blind to it.  But, I don't recall anything like what is happening right now in the US (Bud Light/Target) happening in the past.  For example, Nike has been very aggressively progressive in their marketing, and I don't think it hurt their sales?

 

it was worth a shot :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Brian said:

Unless there is data, I don’t believe this at all. Someone post that Steam screenshot of everyone playing CoD after the so called boycott. 


Who was boycotting CoD, and for what reason?

 

And why do you think these companies alter course or stay the course other than dollars in/dollars out? They choose the path of most profits given the information at hand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sblfilms said:


Who was boycotting CoD, and for what reason?

 

And why do you think these companies alter course or stay the course other than dollars in/dollars out? They choose the path of most profits given the information at hand. 

When the dedicated servers were removed from PC, people went apeshit and “boycotted”. On release day, someone took a screenshot of their friend list that showed every playing CoD. 

 

I have not seen any data that shows boycotting had any measurable impact on businesses. Never hear about it in earnings calls/reports. To me, companies backtrack because why not. Companies are not invested in social issues. They only want to leverage the social issue for profits. When a company miscalculates and offends a sizable group, they simply reverse course, release a basic PR response, and move on to the next profit opportunity.  I assume they are willing to take suck risks because the backfire never hurts the brands as people move on to the next issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Brian said:

When the dedicated servers were removed from PC, people went apeshit and “boycotted”. On release day, someone took a screenshot of their friend list that showed every playing CoD. 

 

I have not seen any data that shows boycotting had any measurable impact on businesses. Never hear about it in earnings calls/reports. To me, companies backtrack because why not. Companies are not invested in social issues. They only want to leverage the social issue for profits. When a company miscalculates and offends a sizable group, they simply reverse course, release a basic PR response, and move on to the next profit opportunity.  I assume they are willing to take suck risks because the backfire never hurts the brands as people move on to the next issue. 

 

Because boycotts normally don't occur for any sustained period of time, or by any notable percentage of customers. It is mostly just sentiment. I mean, even in the Chick Fil A case, I highly doubt those who were saying they weren't going to eat there meaningfully changed their habits. I do know, because I'm friends with the #7 CFA operator in the entire chain, that sales across the company spiked considerably for several weeks in response to the calls to boycott CFA.

There is uproar and people say they will behave differently, the businesses make a calculation as to the impact of a particular strategy, and then pursue the option that nets them the most money.

 

If people who want Target to stock pride merchandise would support the business with additional purchases, they wouldn't run away from these types of products and placements. But quite clearly the message they have received is the net impact of continuing is worse than sticking it out. 

 

But the anecdotes I'm seeing from my friends in the beer sales game is that Bud Light demand has fallen off the face of the earth and many customers are actively chiding the restaurants/bars for carrying it. When I go to ballgames, the coolers that used to be filled with Bud Light now have other nasty offerings. And the actual data seems to suggest these anecdotes are just the reality of what is going on:

 

73bd77e0-e155-11ed-b7a7-dfb74f8fea18
FINANCE.YAHOO.COM

As beer drinkers flock away from Bud Light, investors are losing their taste for InBev stock.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ominous said:

Any good examples? I can't really think of any. 

Locally (for me).

mike-ramsay-school-board-trustee.jpg
WWW.CBC.CA

Trustees with the Waterloo Region District School Board voted against a motion to revoke the censure of Mike Ramsay, who represents Kitchener and who was found by his colleagues to have violated the trustee code of conduct.

He was censured by the white trustees on his board for his (slightly) right-of centre views -- particularly in his stance against some of the anti-racist policies they were implementing.   He was subsequently reelected.

 

More controversial (and potentially deserved) -- JK Rowling, Gina Carano, Dave Chappelle, Goya foods, Evangelline Lily, Jordan Petersen, Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan at Stanford Law School, Jamil Jivani.

  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These people were cancelled? I don't even know any of them except for Kate from lost, Harry Potter lady, and aging comedian. 

 

I must have missed my angry lib news letter. 

 

I think there isn't a unifying voice of "cancel" on the left like there is a unified voice of hate and fear on the right. The right is much better at manufacturing hate and fear, probably because that's their platform. 

  • True 1
  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ominous said:

These people were cancelled? I don't even know any of them except for Kate from lost, Harry Potter lady, and aging comedian. 

 

I must have missed my angry lib news letter. 

 

To the people here (and elsewhere) complaining about cancel culture, what they are really complaining about is people not liking something. There are incredibly few examples of people being "cancelled" (for invalid reasons, not things like rape, etc) that can be shown. Most examples can be counter-shown to have had no impact. It's like when people complain about people like Dave Chapelle being cancelled, but he was never cancelled, people just brought up his problematic views in public.

  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

To the people here (and elsewhere) complaining about cancel culture, what they are really complaining about is people not liking something. There are incredibly few examples of people being "cancelled" (for invalid reasons, not things like rape, etc) that can be shown. Most examples can be counter-shown to have had no impact. It's like when people complain about people like Dave Chapelle being cancelled, but he was never cancelled, people just brought up his problematic views in public.

 

Franken is a good example of an actual leftwing cancel that shouldn't have happened, but it started as a Republican ratfuck.

  • Halal 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Locally (for me).

mike-ramsay-school-board-trustee.jpg
WWW.CBC.CA

Trustees with the Waterloo Region District School Board voted against a motion to revoke the censure of Mike Ramsay, who represents Kitchener and who was found by his colleagues to have violated the trustee code of conduct.

He was censured by the white trustees on his board for his (slightly) right-of centre views -- particularly in his stance against some of the anti-racist policies they were implementing.   He was subsequently reelected.

 

More controversial (and potentially deserved) -- JK Rowling, Gina Carano, Dave Chappelle, Goya foods, Evangelline Lily, Jordan Petersen, Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan at Stanford Law School, Jamil Jivani.


So now canceling means suffering mild to no consequences at all?  

  • Hugs 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...