@c what companies *should* learn from the bud light affair is that while you can get away with a lot, there are lines you can't cross, and no-one can define them because you aren't allowed to ask the kinds of questions which would tell you
@sickburnbro@c The Bud light "boycott" didn't achieve much because these corporations are oligopolies and the retarded public simply started buying other InBev products. For all the faults of the left, they know how to properly boycott and vote with their wallet.
@racs@sickburnbro@c > For all the faults of the left, they know how to properly boycott and vote with their wallet.
No, they do not. The difference is they have institutional support. The reality is boycotts do not matter. Actual consequences are *always* top down. Same with protests. Protests have zero effect if they are not approved from the top, and are quickly dispatched and the people in them arrested if necessary. Meanwhile if a protest is approved, you will be the one arrested for defending yourself from their violence, and they will get away with anything. It's top-down violence disguised as grassroots. Just like boycotts are never grassroots movements when they succeed.
@sickburnbro@c This is a good point. There is no real standard either way, because it would be crimethought to even think of defining one. By either way, I mean it goes both ways. There's absolutely no clear standard as to what you can say and what will get you cancelled, and it not only changes every year, it also can vary from day to day or even whatever the current seasonal trend is.
At least in most totalitarian dictatorships it was pretty obvious what could or could not be said. You can just shut up about those things. But there's no subject whatsoever that one can safely talk about.
@rein@sickburnbro@c Institutional support makes things 10x easier, that much is true. With that said, beyond cherry-picking examples from Reddit, the left has successfully orchestrated boycotts such as that against Israeli goods. When one side has the government literally creating laws to break boycotts while the other is rotating money from one product to another under the same company's umbrella, they're not even on the same playing field.
@racs@rein@c boycotts as performed by the left are a puppet used to disguise the real hand. The additional benefit they gain is that they can call you a "conspiracy theory nut" when you wave away the useless noisy crowds to point at the real powerbrokers.
@racs@c My point is fairly complex, and if you doubt it you can look at my poasting history;
But in short it is that people are not infinitely malleable, and there are things that will cause them to change their behaviors. The bug light boycott was an example of this. The brand has suffered a continuing loss, 6 months later.
The part that between both this and the target trannysuit share is the incongruity that the c-suite have expressed which boils down to a "but it was only 1 thing!"
You have to look at rules for radicals to get an idea of how action works when there is not institutional support. Moralizing your side is a perfectly acceptable result.
@sickburnbro@c Depends on the angle you're coming at this from. Without further context my default assumption is that you're coming at it from the conspiratorial demoralization angle.