Advertisements

Keeping track of boycotts is hard

So let’s see…

We have shit flinging Trumpanzees boycotting Starbucks, because the company has the unmitigated gall to announce they’re hiring 10,000 refugees. Worldwide. Over the next five years. Never mind Starbucks also hires veterans and as of 2015 gives not only them, but their families college benefits. Outrage first, boys and girls!

We have screeching progtards boycotting Uber, because they’re not boycotting Trump… or something.

Then there were the Democrats boycotting a vote on two Trump cabinet picks. Well, guess what happens when you don’t show up for work? The work goes on without you, but whatever.

And the whining lefties who are encouraging boycotts of companies that dare sell Ivanka Trump’s products – companies such as Nordstrom (which has coincidentally or not stopped carrying her line), Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, TJ Maxx, and others. Never mind that Ivanka Trump has been nothing but gracious and generous toward the very people her father is accused of hating. Some of the charities she supports are Habitat for Humanity, AIDS Life, and the Children’s Aid Society. And in 2010, Ivanka designed and sold a bracelet specifically to benefit the United Nations Foundation’s Girl Up campaign, which “aims to raise money and awareness to educate and propel adolescent girls in need to the next generation of leadership.” And let’s not forget that these department stores also employ immigrants, but hey… it’s the outrage that matters, right?

landscape-1486139059-audi-super-bowl-commercialI also read yesterday that people were boycotting Audi, because of some spot they did virtue signaling equal pay for women, while showing fat, male rednecks losing a go-kart race to a pretty, obviously rich and privileged girl. I’m not even sure what I should be outraged about with that one. But that’s not the reason I’m not buying an Audi.

Today’s outrageary comes from the Trumpanzees again. Apparently the hashtag #boycottbudweiser is trending on Twitter, which basically means there is a sufficient number of retards using that hashtag to virtue signal their displeasure with Budweiser’s Super Bowl ad.

The ad shows a fresh off the boat Busch encountering hostile anti-immigrant sentiment upon his arrival in America – a sentiment that some say parallels current attitudes toward Muslim refugees.

It couldn’t possibly parallel a respect for the entrepreneurial spirit in the face of adversity of people who come here with nothing and build empires, right? It couldn’t be a tribute to legal immigrants, right, since that’s exactly what Busch was?

Nope!

Look boycott Budweiser, because it’s a lousy beer. As the old joke goes, it’s much like having sex in a canoe – fucking close to water.

I wouldn’t spend my money on something that tastes like rancid carbonated water.

But it seems like the outrageary is morphing into something more insidious – efforts to destroy the livelihoods of millions of workers, innovators, and yes, many of them include immigrants and refugees, but also U.S. military veterans, common street kids trying to eke out a living, and middle managers – all because we don’t like a commercial, or we don’t like the type of people these companies hire, or we don’t like the political or social points of view of their leadership.

If you don’t toe the line, we will destroy you!

I completely understand voting with your wallet. If you don’t like the product, you shouldn’t spend money on it. If you don’t like the store, you shouldn’t shop there. If you don’t like the music/play/movie, you shouldn’t buy that ticket.

But I find the effort to destroy the livelihoods of thousands of people because you disagree with the policies or political views of these companies’ leadership to be more distasteful than Budweiser beer.

Advertisements

45 responses

  1. Wait a week or a month and see how little the revenue of these companies has been damaged. Audi? For 10% less, you can get a BMW which is a better ride. That isn’t even trying! Busch? Goose Island Beer instead.
    It’s all symbolic, you know, not taking into account that in the real world, a long-standing staple company that symbolized America is nearly gone: Sears (used to be Sears & Roebuck) is nearly belly-up.
    I guess if I don’t boycott companies whose products I don’t buy anyway, and whose stories are places where I don’t shop, it won’t make a tiny bit of difference in the greater scheme of things.
    Those snowflakes aren’t real bright, are they?

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Yeah, it’s hard to tell the players without a scorecard. I do feel sorry for Ivanka, though; having been pretty much apolitical, and also having contributed to worthy and approved social justice causes … now to be treated like a pariah because of Daddy?

    I’ve never shopped at Nordstrom (although my mother did, ’cause their buyer for kid’s things back in the day had amazing taste when she was shopping for her grandchildren) or Nieman Marcus, so I can’t really say that I’d be boycotting them in this instance. (However, I’d really be up the effluvia creek sans paddle if Thrifttown and Tuesday Morning decided to get all in to this boycotting scene.)

    Adophus Busch came to the US in the late 1850s, and likely was welcomed very much as part of the German diaspora in the US. There were already very heavily-German districts in the US – especially in the mid-West and in Texas thanks to the failure of the ’48 rebellion. Largely, the Germans who came during the early to mid 1800s were not desperate impoverished peasants. They were skilled, many with technical degrees in a wide array of useful disciplines; engineering and medicine among them. They usually came with money, or skills they could turn into money readily.

    Yeah, I’m likely to be tedious about this, having written a huuge trilogy+ follow-novels about the German settlers in Texas. Really, no one said much bad about German immigrants to the US until WWI. (Hey, where did this soapbox come from, and why am I standing on it?)

    Liked by 4 people

    1. You are actually not the only one who values the German contribution to America. My heritage is part German and part Scottish. And I also know enough that before the first world war, the secondary language of choice in the public schools was not Spanish, but German. German and English are much more closely related than English is to any other language that I am aware of. At one time, a good portion of American students studied German. My mother’s maiden name was Kroepel, a good German name. My twin brother has my grandfather’s pocket sized New Testament in German. It is very old, I don’t know how old. My grandparents lived on the south side of Chicago in the old boarding houses, after they were married, for a short time. I have a picture taken from the early teens of them standing outside of their place. Of course, they moved here to MI shortly after that, with my grandmother coming from here. But my grandfather was born and raised in Chicago. My father’s family was a strange story. They came over from Scotland, a man and wife. This was actually traced by one of my relatives, and proven, by exhuming their bodies. The man was a massive man, nearly 7 feet tall. The woman was petite, less than 5 feet tall. I don’t know the whole story about how they were able to exhume them, but I do know that there is a written history that talks about it. Oh, and my dad’s father, my grand father, who like myself and my father before, worked in a foundry for life, had a brother who, unlike himself, was a rather unsavory character. This brother was killed on the steps of the post office close to where I live here in MI, during a robbery attempt, by the police. I guess this was back when the post office used to handle payroll or something. But like pretty much every other person in America except native Americans, I am the product of immigrants, like Nicki, only much farther removed. And while unlike her, I have never suffered the horrors of life outside of this country, that doesn’t mean that I don’t both appreciate what I have been given and also what others have given up so that I can have it, both in defense of this country, but also by leaving their own homes long ago to come here seeking a better way of life for not only themselves, but also their families, and for that I am grateful. To somehow accuse a company of nefarious intent when celebrating the achievement of a man, and even an idea, borders on insanity.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. The closest living relative to the English language is Frisian, spoken in the Northern netherlands. There is also something called “Low German” descended from Saxon (not the German taught in our schools as a foreign language) almost as close.

        Of languages you commonly see taught as “second languages” however, (French, Spanish, German, Russian, Latin) “Hochdeutsch” German is by far the closest.

        I’ve listened to some Frisian, and I get the sense that I could *almost* understand what the man was saying.

        Like

        1. I spent a lot of time in Groningen – in the north of Netherlands. I have no fucking idea what they’re saying, and I studied German! What were you smoking while up there, dude? 😉

          Like

        2. I wasn’t ever up there, I was watching a video.

          It wasn’t that I thought I understood the man in the video, it was that I thought it was *almost* understandable…it felt just out of reach, but nevertheless: out of reach.

          Like

        3. I always thought German was very comparable in style and syntax, so German was super easy for me. Up there in Friesland… oh hell no! They speak like Appalachian cave dwellers.

          Like

        4. I dunno about that.

          Mark Twain used to tell the joke of two Germans going to see a play. It was awful, and one of them begged the other to just walk out. But there was reluctance.

          “What on earth are you waiting for? This is scheiss!”

          “I’m waiting for the verb!”

          Like

      2. > payroll

        Post Offices used to function as banks; the Postal Savings System ran into the 1960s.

        Like

  3. Hubby shared that; I laughed because I can actually see that…

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Shamelessly stolen and shared, because that is just awesome. Especially if you imagine the vet’s lines delivered by R. Lee Ermey. 😛

      Liked by 3 people

      1. You Numbnuts!!!!! Coffee

        In order to get your coffee you have to drop down and do pushups, until the barista gets tired.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. I could totally see myself doing that too! 😀 Just for the lulz

      Liked by 3 people

  4. If your best idea of how to protest something is to call for a boycott, you need better ideas. My sense is that almost all boycotts of consumer goods are very ineffective, unless the company immediately wimps-out.

    Not to mention you’d figure Budweiser would have learned their lesson from the failure of their recent Bud Light “social justice” ads featuring a talking dick and a talking cunt.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Wait… wut? Talking genitals? How did I miss this?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I second this statement! This has gotta be seen, if nothing else, but for the lulz!

        Like

      2. I think my description was valid.

        Also, Nicki, you worked in one of my favorite jokes. “Fucking close to water”…heh.

        Liked by 6 people

        1. OMG!!!! LMAO!!!!

          Like

        2. That was indeed a valid description of that pair. Time to bring forth the trebuchet.

          Liked by 2 people

        3. *laughing!!!!!!!* Oh well played.

          And wouldn’t their endorsement actually drive away people who drank beer?

          Like

  5. I’d love to boycott Anheuser-Busch, but I’m already not buying their products because the stuff really needs to be poured back into the horse. Except the poor Clydesdales clearly have enough kidney problems as it is.

    And, well people with my Wal-Mart budget don’t shop at Nordstrom’s, and purchase Hyundais instead of Audis.

    That said: If I get the impression from a business that they’re run by elitist idiots who have contempt for me and mine, it certainly doesn’t encourage me to spend money there. The Audi commercial, with the glamourous rich kid versus poor white trash motif, seems to be a prime example of a company that thinks I’m not good enough to buy what they’re selling even if I *could* afford one of their overpriced autobahn skateboards.

    Doubtless it sucks for the employees and stockholders, but then again, it sure isn’t hell the Trump people who have politicized literally every facet of our lives, to include the Super Bowl halftime show and even the frickin’ commercials. That sort of crap is one reason Trump got elected in the first place.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. I for one won’t be buying Starbucks coffee. Then again, I never do buy Starbucks coffee, because to me their “coffee” sucks rocks.

    Like

  7. Another boycott? Maybe later, I need a nap first. Starbucks? Overpriced burnt coffee. Budweiser? I’d rather drink Schlitz. Audi? I spent nearly a third of my working life working on cars and trucks. Over priced hard to work on pieces of shit. What’s a Nordstroms? I heard once we were supposed to boycott Star Wars. Really? I’ve been a fan longer than some of your readers have been alive. Yep, nap time. I don’t have time for all these idiots boycotts. Especially if it’s something I don’t even buy.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Bud probably tastes better before it goes through the Horse. Course the fact that the name was shamelessly stolen, then AB sued the original company to prevent them from selling Budwies inside Czech, is probably a better reason to not drink them than a damn commercial.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. I am sorry I can’t really boycott. Coffee? If I want It, the local privately owned bar sandwich shop I am in now. Beer, having gone on the wagon back in the spring of 89 complicates that. Immigrants? I am Ani Yun Wiya (of the total of all real people) Most of your ancestors got to ride here, some of mine had to walk, I see nothing to prompt me to boycott what I am not interested in if I were of a different mind, Now someone once did snark that Kauffman did not sound Cherokee. It isn’t. Its Yiddish, on my Father’s side the Cherokee comes from my mothers side, Just thought to save someone the trouble of proving themselves a fool 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Nikki i kind of have to disagree with you here. If a company takes it upon itself to promote values i disagree with and think should not be promoted (Or otherwise openly applys business-practices i believe to be morally bankrupt) that is a valid enough reason to stop giving money to said company. I WANT corporations to have to care about publicity, it’s the only real mechanisim by which to pressure them into having any real regard for ethics in how they conduct themselves.
    And while, yes, it sucks for the people at that particular company, it’s not like i opt to burn my money instead. I will just spend it somewhere else, probably on a similar product, and let the free market worry about the rest.

    That said, i find all the reasons for these specific boycotts to be extremly petty, stupid and vindictive and think anyone who opts to boycott because of something like this is a complete moron.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Ultimately it’s your money, and your right to spend it wherever you want. I find the whole “you will fall in line and think like we do, or we will work to destroy you” thing disgusting.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Well….i don’t know about working to destroy them exactly. It’s just that when a company acts in a certain way or activly promotes certain ideas, that IS a worthy reason to think about wether or not you want your money to indirectly fund that.
        This is doubbely true if a company or it’s owner is known to activly support one side or the other of a political issue. Why WOULD people give their Money to people who use that money to support political causes they don’t support.
        I don’t really see anything disgusting about saying ” Ok, this is a kind of behaviour that really sucks and i don’t want to support that by helping these people make a profit”.
        Sure, everyone can spend their money however they want. The question is more about wether or not it is morally legitimate to base that decision on more than the quality of the product.

        Like

        1. I leave that up to every individual consumer. But when you see entire movements meant to destroy companies if they don’t toe the line, I have a problem with that. Notice I didn’t say they had no right to do so. I said I disagree with the tactics that strike me as really fascist in nature. Look at the link I provided. It literally lists entire companies to be boycotted on the basis of them carrying a product line from a woman whose only crime was being born to a guy they don’t like who was elected President! She has done more for women, for the needy, for the sick, etc. than I bet all those assholes did combined. And yet, they’re willing to kick entire companies in the nuts because they carry her line? Really? If you don’t want to give her money, don’t buy her products! But instead…. they work to impact entire companies, so NO ONE buys her products. And dog forbid the company doesn’t oblige! That is what I have a problem with.

          Liked by 2 people

  11. I’m boycotting the upcoming Mass Effect Andromeda game. Because one of the devs is a blatant racist who hates white people? Nope. Because I still feel screwed by Mass Effect 3’s ending and am not going to pre-order the next one. I’m going to wait and if I hear from enough people that it seems to be a good game I might buy it when it’s on a 70% off sale over some holiday.

    (Though amusingly, I actually like ME3’s *multiplayer* game. It’s still fun after all these years, even if a pick-up game can be an… experience depending on your teammates.)

    Like

  12. I suggest two things are going on:

    1. People who are tired of the “special snowflakes” are replying in kind. As Ace at AoSHQ has said, “treat them the way they treat you; maybe they’ll learn”. The snowflakes had better hope that the other side doesn’t decide to start staging their own Berkeley riots

    2. If companies want to politicize their brand name / product, they must expect a political response from customers (soon to be *former* customers) who don’t appreciate that the simple act of buying a car, a six pack, a box of cereal, &c. has been made into a political statement. To borrow from Laura Ingraham about celebrities becoming political advocates, “shut up and sell your product”.

    I agree that it’s not very fair to the employees of these companies who may lose their jobs if the boycotts really take hold, especially since the upper management who make the decisions will not suffer much (if at all). That, unfortunately, seems to be the way of the world: the fat cats who sew the wind seldom live in trailer parks (if you see what I mean).

    Liked by 3 people

  13. From what little I paid attention, the Busch story is rather made up, (He was far from a poor immigrant when he came) and even before the ad showed, the ownership admitted it was a bit of a tale (translation: mostly a lie).
    Now I don’t boycott them because I never buy the stuff anyhow, though I do occasionally cook with some Busch Beer as my dad left most of a 30 pack here when the folks visited this summer (aside: What the hell? The only way to buy some AB brands in cans here is a 30 pack!?), and it isn’t bad enough to not be used in stew or soup, when all my other beers are heavier than I want to use.
    Coffee? From the overpriced known for burning it place? Don’t drink coffee, and the one time I had tea from there, it was not very good (lower than Lipton on my scale) so not an issue either.
    I have a novel idea though, how about these folks tell me about the quality of their goods and quit with the virtue signaling ads and stay out of politics. They are not going to sway me with the preaching.
    The hammering is getting so bad the pushback is here, and getting just as annoying.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Something happened in the shops here over a period of time. By shops, I mean the groceries. From what I’m told, the stores, at corporate level were bowing to giving halal certification to everything that was halal that was being sold at the groceries, and most of these were not being labeled as such. Folks here in Australia were not happy about this. They didn’t want to have halal-butchered meat, nor did they like not being able to choose whether or not they bought halal-certified meat, and telling people “It’s no different from non-halal certified meat!” because clearly there is some difference (in how it’s slaughtered) that requires certification.

    Simply put, people wanted to know if it was halal-certified, it should be marked on the box, and that not all meat should be halal-certified because not everyone is Muslim and if they wanted their halal-certified meat, then give them their own section, the way that kosher food is separated from non-kosher food.

    If you search about it online, the media relegates it to being merely the protests of a noisy minority. But this isn’t the case, and wasn’t the case. They didn’t like how it felt sneaked in, hidden. Australians did not like the lack of transparency, and they didn’t like how choice was removed from the majority in order to accommodate a minority. Australians also did not like the possibility that they were funding, without any say in the matter even on a personal level, mosques that called for Sharia law, or pushed for greater Islamification of Australia. Some simply did not like how they were not given a choice about participating in a religious observation – regardless of whether or not they were religious themselves. Others did not like how halal slaughter is carried out and felt it was not a humane method of slaughter and didn’t like that they had no choice in buying meat that was unethically slaughtered. While others did not like how everything that was to be sold had to have halal certification that was inevitably passed on to the consumer – even products that were not slated for export to Islamic countries. Why would the certification be necessary for products that very obviously did not have haram food? Why is the majority making accommodations for the minority in Australia, as opposed to the other way around? Why can’t the Muslims in Australia do their own research about what’s in the food because it is important to them that it is halal; not to the rest of Australia to pay for them to ensure that it IS halal.

    Naturally, the media tried to make this sound like a completely anti-Muslim thing, or a completely racist thing, and so on and so forth. The Islamic groups here made much of sadfacing on the news, whimpering about how this was so racist, so intolerant, bad Australia, why can’t you give us our itty bitty halal certification? It’s not bad for any of you to eat the same food we do!

    This wasn’t the case, of course, but it’s easy to make it all about the racists, to try shame others for even daring to raise their voice in protest – even if the reasons for the protests have rational and reasonable objections.

    Australians, I’ve found, don’t riot, they don’t march in protests. They’re a lot quieter, but more effective about raising the conversation, bringing up petitions and getting their representatives to represent. Clearly, there was enough to push against the whole ‘but you don’t need to know!’ Because the certification mark started showing up. A section of the meat department is explicitly marked as halal meat in the major groceries. Things that aren’t meat would have the mark – and the choice was able to go back to the consumer. Of course, there are people who refuse to buy certain products because they are halal-certified.

    I’m okay with that. They are making their own choices about the matter. What was important was that the shops be required to mark them, so they can make those choices – that everyone has the ability to make that choice.

    But this is merely background for why Pauline Hanson’s party is a rising power now. I mean, all we really have to do is watch Europe as it is now…

    Liked by 3 people

  15. I have to disagree with Nicki on boycotts about one thing. I remember a few years ago when Ace Hardware was using Rosie O’Donell as a spokesperson. She came out with the statement that all gun owners should be killed or something along those lines. There was a groundswell of boycott, not an organized one, that I can remember, and Ace Hardware quickly caved and fired her. In a case such as that, I think that it is perfectly acceptable to boycott as an individual any business that has a philosophy that is at odds with your. Just like, if you are a PETA supporter, I would expect you to shop at stores that sell only clothing that doesn’t contain animal fur. I don’t think that is a boycott as much as being consistent with your beliefs. As to the Busch story being made up, I don’t recall that there was a person named Aunt Jemima, or some of the other people we associate with some of the products sold in the market place today. Marketing is about convincing someone to buy your product, not to tell someone the true life story of your founder. Some products are founded after months of time spent mixing chemicals in a test kitchen until they get the proper mix to make things taste good to the consumer, while meeting strict government guidelines. Then the marketing people slap a name on it like Chef Boyardee, or something. No, I don’t know if he is real or not. I do know that they made a commercial that says he is real, but that doesn’t mean he is. I don’t take anything at face value from someone trying to sell me something. I have dealt with too many car salesmen in my life.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think that was K-Mart . . . she did ads with Penny Marshall, and they were dumped after the expected stupidity came out of Rosie, not that with the two of them, rabid leftoid statements should be a surprise.
      On the other hand, I recall all the people whining when ABC canned Hank Jr. and claiming they were blocking his 1st Amendment Rights.
      No, he was still free to say what he was saying (about 0bama iirc, and correct, if not PC) but ABC was also free not to pay him while he was saying it.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. The story in the Budweiser ad may have been “enhanced”, but the Busch family did own Anheuser-Busch until 2008. I did some custom furniture for a fishing lodge owned by August A. Busch III in 1986. Decent guy and gave the shop a pallet of Michelob Dark as a bonus.

      Like

    3. That’s like when HS Precision picked Lon Horiuchi for one of their ad campaigns.

      Talk about a disconnect between corporate management and their customers…

      “Yes, we’ll try to sell stuff to gunheads, and we’ll have it endorsed by a Fed whose aim was so bad he killed the wrong person, then tried to lie about it.”

      Like

  16. I think people should be able to vote with their feet/pocket book. I just have to shake my head at the reasoning behind some of it though. About the only boycott I’m participating in is Tor/MacMillan. That one’s not real hard for me as they only have a handful of books I want anyway.

    Like

  17. It’s all too confusing for me, so I’m boycotting the boycotts.

    Starbucks coffee? I’m retired Army, so as long as it’s real coffee (and not decaffeinated crap), it’s good to go. Fancy it doesn’t have to be.

    Budweiser beer? After five years in Germany (it was West Germany at the time), I want some beer that tastes like beer, not watered-down horse piss.

    I buy what I buy when I buy it and from where I buy it.

    Like

  18. For what it’s worth, I don’t care who Starbucks hires. They’re a private company, and they can hire whoever they like, wherever they like. That’s not the point.

    The point is the statement itself, and the timing of their statement. This was nothing more than a blatant “FU” to the current administration and those who support the stated goals of said administration. I don’t care if you lean Left or Right or Neither. Just sell your product and DON’T CHOOSE SIDES. I was heartened by Starbucks’ original strategy during the Great Guns And Coffee Clusterbungle. They were all “Hey, man, we just follow the laws and culture of wherever that specific store is. We’re not about the politics, we want to sell coffee.” This was a good thing. There were idiots on both sides in that whole affair, but SB did the right and sensible thing then.

    But this is now.

    Starbucks, by releasing this policy, has chosen a side, and IMNSHO, it was the wrong one. I’ve since been patronizing Dutch Brothers because although, like most coffee companies, they may lean Left, at least they’re smart enough not to flip me off right in my face.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. My apologies for no participating in these boycotts. Can’t boycott products I don’t buy anyway.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. […] And then there were the boycotts. […]

    Like

  21. […] work that day, outrage over Starbucks promising to hire some refugees over the next five years, boycotts of Trump products – even ones by his daughter – because […]

    Like

We Want To Hear What You Have To Say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: