Earlier in the topic we discussed the Bud Light/Mulveney ad campaign and unlike the AE campaign’s subtlety (which may or may not have been intentionally provocative), the Mulveney campaign was overtly woke. In your opinion, was the Mulveney campaign humble or self-aggrandizing? Did it respect diversity or demean gender?

the Mulveney campaign was overtly woke. In your opinion, was the Mulveney campaign humble or self-aggrandizing? Did it respect diversity or demean gender? — praxis

I’d be happy to address that but you need to address a couple things I just said. I need to know how you think a bit more. We need to stay on some paths a bit longer and I can’t provide all of the analysis for this to be a conversation.

Why don’t you answer your own question in detail, discuss Mulveney, what “overtly woke” means in the context of selling beer, for all to clearly understand, and I can respond to that, instead of just answering your questions, and instead of you answering the questions I posed? How about you give a little more?

You asked the following:

Are you both equating the values we happen to choose with our feelings, or saying we make our choices out of gut feelings, and random “cultural influences” and “innate traits” that we don’t choose? — Fire Ologist

I’m saying we all share the same basic gut feelings or intuitions, but we prioritize them differently—shaped not by randomness, but by cultural trends or intentional personal development, and perhaps our personal innate traits like introversion or extroversion.

Overtly woke means being openly and deliberately aligned with “woke” values.

The problem is, any time anyone gay, non-binary, disabled etc does anything now, it gets labelled as "woke".
Are they supposed to just hide? Like they've had to do for most of the history of Christian and Muslim countries?

How could you say that?

You know what humility is.

You said above that you “support diversity”. — Fire Ologist

Diversity and tolerance and acceptance of those who are different are made possible by humility.

Humility is being grateful. And thankful. It is thanking someone else for what they do for you. It is acknowledging others, before yourself, above yourself at times. It is not taking credit for the good you might do, and even giving credit to others for the good you do.

We all do these things. That is humility. — Fire Ologist

Sorry, I don’t relate to this frame. I’m not saying it isn’t right in its own way but it just doesn’t come up in my framing of this matter. I tend to go more with a rights approach (I don't ground rights in humility or any brand of ultimate truth, just pragmatically), but I am not a theorist.

(Added later) I guess we would hope for a form of humility: or at least a lack of dogmatism and arrogance, in all interlocutors when we are in discussion about an apparent clash of values.

Here is where we have to be careful. We just said we value conversation with people who think differently. So isn’t binary thinking just another different way of thinking that we should humbly respect (at least once in a while)? Is binary thinking nothing but a stumbling block? What is really wrong with a little binary simplification, once in a while? We should tolerate that too, at times. — Fire Ologist

Dividing people into “us” and “them” is so often the nub of the problem: binary. In fact, this is how you appeared to frame the discourse when you wrote this:

I think progressives need to understand that being conservative doesn’t mean having no heart or empathy or feelings.
And conservatives need to understand that being liberal doesn’t mean having no common sense. — Fire Ologist

But I didn’t say that some binary thinking isn’t useful. We didn’t get into parsing the notion of binary or dualistic thinking more broadly; I was just pointing to the tribalism and dualistic frames that seems to be at the heart of our culture wars.

Can you square tolerance, acceptance, support for diversity, with people who don’t share our values? — Fire Ologist

I have no problem with this. All we can do is have a conversation advocating for our values and present some reasons. I tend to value solidarity over division. But I'm not interested in getting into a conversation about my 'worldview', there have been enough monomaniacs flogging brittle worldviews on this site already.

I focus on solidarity, because for me all we really have are conversations with others, not the exchange of ultimate truths. Talking about values this way helps me understand others and build empathy. The aim is finding ways to live together respectfully, not proving anyone right.

Are you both equating the values we happen to choose with our feelings, or saying we make our choices out of gut feelings, and random “cultural influences” and “innate traits” that we don’t choose? — Fire Ologist

I have no advanced theory about this. What I experience is people settling on what appeals to them aesthetically and culturally (often through upbringing ) so it’s contingent. Reasoning often seems post hoc.

An obvious response is: ‘If all is contingent, then there’s no right or wrong, and how can one view (mine for instance) be superior to another?’ But contingency only describes how values arise, not whether we can evaluate them. We can still judge perspectives based on consequences, coherence, or social effects ‘no absolute truth’ doesn’t mean ‘no basis for judgment.’ This process will always be a bit loose and jagged.

If people’s opinions are a bundle of randomly developed value choices not even really in their control (influenced and innate) then a real, open conversation Tom mentioned above is hardly ever going to happen. Only by shaping society first can we even open people up to those conversations. And to want to reshape society we can’t be tolerant, we can’t respect diversity, we can’t humbly include those who think things that should not be valued. We have to reshape the diverse to conform. — Fire Ologist

Even if our values are influenced by factors beyond our control, conversation is still the main way we learn from each other and reconsider what we care about. I’ve had many useful conversations with fundamentalist Christians in the atheism space—no arguments, no antipathy.

If you’re asking how we change the opinions of people who hold firm beliefs opposite our own, I think it happens slowly, through time and exposure and boredom. And conversation. I suspect, for instance, in 50-100 years transpeople will be commonplace and mostly accepted. Which is how we come to no longer jail gay people or force treatment upon them (except, perhaps, in a small subset of fundamentalist communities).

What I experience is people settling on what appeals to them aesthetically and culturally (often through upbringing ) so it’s contingent. Reasoning often seems post hoc.

An obvious response is: ‘If all is contingent, then there’s no right or wrong, and how can one view (mine for instance) be superior to another?’ But contingency only describes how values arise, not whether we can evaluate them. — Tom Storm

:up: Appreciate the response.

I tend to go more with a rights approach (I don't ground rights in humility or any brand of ultimate truth, just pragmatically) — Tom Storm

If we frame things more as rights, then, to me we are talking about how government and society can identify wrong-doers and enact and enforce laws against them. Like we all have equal rights to a public park, someone is not being equitable about who can go, we can fix that by enforcing the equal rights law.

But I was more talking about values. Woke values seem to be diversity, equity and inclusion. I’m saying better values to teach about and practice internally are respect and humility. If people take these values to heart, they will respect and include the diverse, they will humbly see the equal importance of all other people, at least enough importance in others to treat them better.

I think the conversation should be about something deeper than surface appearances like diversity and visible inclusion. We need to include people in our hearts, not just on paper with ethnic frouonandnsecualnorietstiin checkboxes.

There will always be new victim classes. You said you disfavor binary thinking and used me saying “progressives and conservatives”. I’ll work on that because I agree, those are cheap categories - they simply make it easier to have a discussion. No whole person falls neatly into any of the buckets we create. Just because you are white doesn’t mean anything more than an assessment of your skin - says little about the person inside. Wokeism is full of buckets of people, and identity politics. If that is all you mean by binary thinking then I agree 100%.

And to be consistent, I’m not creating a class of binary thinkers and saying all people who fit in that bucket are baddies. I’m saying all of us at times are binary thinkers - and we all need to work on that.

That shows you how the values of respect and humility work. I humbly, publicly, admit I have to do better myself with my “binary thinking” as we are calling group identification. And I apply this respectfully to all of us, not to any classes who are better or worse than me.

hope for a form of humility: or at least a lack of dogmatism and arrogance, — Tom Storm

People are too afraid of dogmatism. No one else can tell you what to believe, and arrogance is ugly. But I have no issue saying “all arrogance is ugly and foolish.” There is good dogma we can agree on.

There is no functioning society without some sense of absolute rights and dogma about them. These things can change in time, but we can’t live like the “right to life” is fleeting and up for discussion all of the time. It’s a sort of absolute. We tweak it at the edges with capital punishment, killing in self-defense, abortion, and have to continue discussing and debating these things. But as to two citizens walking down the street, the right to life is absolute dogma. Why avoid “dogmatism” writ large? Isn’t that a kind of absolute dogma in itself? We need to aim toward something - why not believe we could build a society that is so good some of our rules will never be questioned again (even if one day they are questioned)? The right to vote on those who rule us - the right to self-rule - make that an absolute dogma.

:up: fair points well made.

I think the conversation should be about something deeper than surface appearances like diversity and visible inclusion. We need to include people in our hearts, not just on paper with ethnic frouonandnsecualnorietstiin checkboxes. — Fire Ologist

Yes, that's reasonable.

frouonandnsecualnorietstiin — Fire Ologist

I think that was supposed to be “sexual orientation.” Idk.

Yep, I got the gist from 'checkboxes'.

There is good dogma we can agree on. — Fire Ologist

The problem with dogma is that no one but the absolute authority can disagree with it.

Dogma is a belief held to be absolutely true regardless of evidence, often defended without question and resistant to challenge. A well-founded principle, by contrast, rests on reasoning, evidence, or lived experience, and remains open to revision if better information arises. Where dogma closes inquiry by demanding acceptance, a principle encourages ongoing testing and refinement, making it more flexible and adaptable to new circumstances.

Why would you advocate for dogma instead of well-founded principles? It’s as though you want our moral reasoning stifled and fixed on external control (punishment, approval, laws) rather than developing internal principles (justice, fairness, human rights).

The problem with dogma is that no one but the absolute authority can disagree with it. — praxis

I guess I used the wrong word. I generally don’t listen to anyone. By dogma I meant well-founded principles.

Absolutely not. This is evidenced by the fact that non-white, gay, trans, weird people do things constantly, in all contexts and we only ever hear anything about it when its preachy, invasive, irritating or obviously performative. The issue, for many, is that any time one of these group do something vaguely noteworthy, they are praised as some kind of supernatural Hero. Literally:

Its grotesque football-passing, virtue signally nonsense. Those of us who notice call it out. It didn't used to be like this.

Well I was replying to a post about Dylan Mulvaney. Just the very notion of a trans person advertizing beer is "woke". So is it the case that anyone that isn't white, male, Christian needs to hide?

Nice skit by Alan Cummings though, thanks.

But it's not. A trans person behaving like that is 'woke'. And specifically, it's 'woke' because it was a cynical attempt at identity politics for sales point percentage by Bud Light. It has (almost) nothing to do with the simple fact that Dylan is trans and advertising beer. I wouldn't be surprised to find out we've been advertised to by trans people for beer in the past. I, and anyone I know, simply don't care about that. Its the surrounding ideological problems.

o is it the case that anyone that isn't white, male, Christian needs to hide? — Mijin

I have no idea where this has come from. This is the kind of response that definitely Fire and I, perhaps others, find infuriatingly out of step and possibly a form of 'gotcha' we need to ignore. No one has said, intimated or even vaguely referred to anything of this kind, including both the AE and Bud campaigns.

The issue, for many, is that any time one of these group do something vaguely noteworthy, they are praised as some kind of supernatural Hero. Literally: — AmadeusD

Before each trans characteristic he repeatedly say “like superheroes” which is simile. A clever rhetorical device isn’t meant to be taken literally, obviously. To Mijin’s point, the first superhero-like characteristic mentioned is the need to stay hidden.

The monologue was informative as well as entertaining and persuasive. I didn’t realize that hate crimes against the trans community had spiked so sharply in LA over the last few years. Thanks anti-wokesters? :confused:

No. It is a literal description, which he says.

Further, this simply illustrates what Im talking about. Shut the fuck up about it, and people will stop caring what you identify as. Its this self-aggrandizing, delusional hyperbole. You seem to enjoy it - fine. It's ridiculous to most.

Trans people aren't superheros. They aren't like superheros, unless we want to agree that both categories are deluded. I'd prefer not to do so, but that's all they have in common. Its horseshit.

Hate crimes are generally speaking, based entirely off the reportage of the victim. Those stats mean essentially nothing without hearing the individual stories. Saying 'he' instead of 'she' when someone is demonstrably male is a hate crime, if reported as such. Its "woke" writ large.

The problem is, any time anyone gay, non-binary, disabled etc does anything now, it gets labelled as "woke".
Are they supposed to just hide? Like they've had to do for most of the history of Christian and Muslim countries? — Mijin

One has to understand that the whole discourse about anything that involves especially sexual minorities has been hijacked by the politically driven culture war rhetoric. The whole culture war rhetoric spreads simply like a cancer and it dumbs down everything. Just like anything involved with feminism, DEI etc. And this goes both ways.

Referring to "woke" is a sign of this just as if someone argues that some Trump administration policy is "nazi". Or the American Eagle jeans campaign being nazi or whatever.

Try to have a reasonable smart conversation when people are just looking for dog whistles everywhere. It's very hard.

A trans person behaving like that is 'woke'. And specifically, it's 'woke' because it was a cynical attempt at identity politics for sales point percentage by Bud Light. It has (almost) nothing to do with the simple fact that Dylan is trans and advertising beer. I wouldn't be surprised to find out we've been advertised to by trans people for beer in the past. I, and anyone I know, simply don't care about that. Its the surrounding ideological problems. — AmadeusD

Behaving like what? I watched it again to be sure, and she talks about a bunch of things, and if the ad is about anything, it's about March Madness. Yes, she mentions it's a year since she transitioned...is that topic verboten?

It's good to know though that you're big enough to not label things as woke where you unknowingly see someone trans. It will be a big comfort to the community that they don't need to hide necessarily, as long as they can perfectly pass as cisgender.

Saying 'he' instead of 'she' when someone is demonstrably male is a hate crime, if reported as such. Its "woke" writ large. — AmadeusD

In 2023 nearly 97% of these hate crimes were violent (assaults, aggravated assaults, even attempted murder).

Assault in California is legally defined as “an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.” This means three things must be present:

• A willful act that would likely result in the application of force,
• The person acted knowing a reasonable person would realize such force could result, and
• The person had the ability to actually carry out the force at the time.

Verbal abuse doesn’t qualify as assault. You’ll have to try harder to downplay violence against trans people.

Behaving like what? — Mijin

So, you say you've seen the ad. There is nothing normal, whatsoever, about how that person is behaving. Its like a childhood television presented. Its really weird, and absolutely out of hte norm for beer, advertising to adults, advertising to (mainly) men, and completely out of left field. I, personally, don't care - but I can 100% see why having someone prancing about like that out of nowhere is disconcerting, off-turning and feels intrusive. It would be the same if a load of white guys with guns and MAGA caps started appearing in Lululemon adverts.

t's good to know though that you're big enough to not label things as woke where you unknowingly see someone trans. It will be a big comfort to the community that they don't need to hide necessarily, as long as they can perfectly pass as cisgender. — Mijin

Two issues (imo):

1. You're making up a problem, as I've explain: being trans is not the issue, for the most part (this is not to deny bigots their existence, either). It is being intrusive, entitled and hateful (again, not to ignore bigotry where it occurs);
2. Sarcasm isn't helpful. Trans people don't pass, in 99.999999999999999999% of cases. It is a pipedream. Because they are not the sex they want to present as, and humans are evolved to tell sex from visual cues subconsciously, though i recognized a lot of slower people around hte place lol.

Aside from those issues, if you watch the Mulvaney advert and do not see something odd and awkward happening, I think you are lying, or naive. You don't have to talk smack about it to recognize these things.

I don't know what you thought would come of this, buuuuuttt.... the period you're tlaking about includes 65 hate crimes against Trans people. 65. There were 125 anti-Asian hate crimes in that year. There is also significant disagreement between types of data collected.

Crimes with a 'gender bias' totaled 7, a decrease from 15 in 2022. So, are hate crimes against trans people not gender-biased? Or what are we doing here? Additionally 'violent' includes at least 30% crimes against property, and not person. Interestingly, perpetrators are not noted by gender or identification. That is a shame, as I am fairly sure we're looking at much, much higher numbers of violent crimes by trans people based on a few relevant stats (like their socio-economic status, mental health status etc... collectively). Speculation, to be sure - but in the face of 65 (likely more like 40) violent crimes against trans people in a state with a higher proportion of trans people, inter-LGBT violence and 55 million people, I don't need to downplay anything. Its a nothing burger.

it's 'woke' because it was a cynical attempt at identity politics for sales point percentage by Bud Light. It has (almost) nothing to do with the simple fact that Dylan is trans and advertising beer. — AmadeusD

This is the precise fault line between woke and anti-woke.

The woke see that identity politics and victimization of certain classes are everywhere and systemic. And so the woke see advertising beer as a perfectly reasonable place to teach their ideological lessons. Wokeness is top of mind and systemically in front of everyone everywhere anyway. (That’s why they so quickly found issues with the AE ad too.)

The reaction against the Bud Light commercial wasn’t anti-trans. It was a statement against woke preaching being shoved in everyone’s faces from every direction, with every sip of beer. It was anti-woke, not anti-trans, at least primarily.

So there are usually two different conversations going on (which explains this thread). People talking past each other.

:strong: Indeed. And with this knowledge, can we all come to terms? Noting that this doesn't deny either bigotry, or ideological absurdity.

Better, although you were starting from a rather low bar.

You two seem to not be in agreement. AmadeusD claims the campaign was criticized because people believed the company was using Dylan Mulvaney’s trans identity as a marketing gimmick—a calculated play for sales—rather than an authentic show of support. You're claiming it was criticized for being preachy.

using Dylan Mulvaney’s trans identity — praxis

being preachy. — praxis

Same thing.

There is nothing normal, whatsoever, about how that person is behaving. Its like a childhood television presented. Its really weird, and absolutely out of hte norm for beer, advertising to adults, advertising to (mainly) men, and completely out of left field. I, personally, don't care - but I can 100% see why having someone prancing about like that out of nowhere is disconcerting, off-turning and feels intrusive. It would be the same if a load of white guys with guns and MAGA caps started appearing in Lululemon adverts. — AmadeusD

You still have not said what was wrong with her behaviour, or why it is automatically "woke" (and how any trans person can ever appear on TV in a way you wouldn't label "woke").

Your claim now seems to have shifted to just saying it was a bad fit for the brand. Sure. That's irrelevant to the discussion though...lots of ads star people that are a bad fit.

You're making up a problem, as I've explain: being trans is not the issue, for the most part (this is not to deny bigots their existence, either). It is being intrusive, entitled and hateful (again, not to ignore bigotry where it occurs); — AmadeusD

Who is being those things? Do you have an example?

Sarcasm isn't helpful. Trans people don't pass, in 99.999999999999999999% of cases. It is a pipedream. — AmadeusD

You just said you "wouldn't be surprised" if we had been buying beer advertized by trans people without knowing ‍:confused:
If your point was that those people were just behind the camera, out of sight, then you're reinforcing my point, not yours.

The 2016 “Bud Light Party” featured a trans man in the ad campaign. That was before the anti-woke MAGA moment was in full swing however so the ad drew little backlash.

I wonder if @Fire Ologist and others will acknowledge how much they’ve been influenced by the MAGA anti-woke movement.

Perhaps. I also didn't get into that misgendering is considered a discriminatory crime in California, if don't deliberately. That is ridiculous, but I 100% understand I misspoke on that. I do believe it can be considered a hate incident, though, within the California framework.

I'd say they amount to the same. 'preachy' seems like its leaning toward education, which I don't think the point is. It's more like saturation or, at worst, brow-beating. But I think we're talking about either the same or very similar and related phenomena.

You still have not said what was wrong with her behaviour, or why it is automatically "woke" (and how any trans person can ever appear on TV in a way you wouldn't label "woke"). — Mijin

I have. It's overbearing, disingenuous, somewhat indicative of sociopathy (the dead eyes, faked emotions, bad acting and overall bad faith display of 'Look at me be feminine!!!!!!!! WAASDIHGS{NVO'. Its preening, over-wrought, transparent and utterly perplexing. Advertising beer to adult men as though you were presenting sesame street is either extremely sexist, or unbelievably stupid.

Your claim now seems to have shifted to just saying it was a bad fit for the brand. — Mijin

Both. But they actually are the same thing here - the opinions meted out by those critical are what's bad for the brand. These don't come apart, really. Both are bad, by my lights, and to some degree all I am doing is distilling the country-wide reports of opinion. I don't drink Bud and never have.

Who is being those things? Do you have an example? — Mijin

Dylan Mulvaney, trans women in bathrooms, the ubiquity of violent threats and entitlement among trans activists. These are random examples off top of my head, but there are literally thousands. This has been going on quite a long time.

You just said you "wouldn't be surprised" if we had been buying beer advertized by trans people without knowing ‍:confused:
If your point was that those people were just behind the camera, out of sight, then you're reinforcing my point, not yours. — Mijin

I don't watch beer ads. This is not a gotcha. You have overstepped wildly to try to make a point not open to you.

I wouldn't be surprised. That's all I said. Not "I've never noticed, while watching beer ads...". Because I don't watch beer ads.

Alright, I think I'll throw my 2 cents in here. I haven't looked through all the responses to this post just yet, but I think one issue that we are all at fault for is definitions. Whether or not "woke" is bad depends entirely on what your definition of "woke" is. If your definition is equality, social justice, and human rights activism, then yes, I would say woke is good. If your definition of woke is defunding the police, inciting violence, and blatant discrimination, then I agree that woke is bad. It is the same with the term "fascist". "Fascism" is a mix of many ideologies and can take many forms, and has a very loose definition. In this day and age "fascist" is a slur people throw at people who don't share the same political beliefs. "You like trump? fascist" or "You support DEI? fascist" are common enough in the politcal landscape that it makes you wonder which side is actually fascist. The issue is, again, that there is only loose definitions of some words, such as "woke" or "fascist", people will have different definitions of what they mean, making it very hard to say whether or not something is or isn't describable using those terms. This leads to association fallacies, where people say "Fascist A did this, therefore anyone who does this is fascist" which is obviously wrong, just as saying "Woke person A wants this, therefore everyone who wants this is woke" is. Both terms are now just generalized umbrella terms that people use for things they don't like. For example, I support racial equality, gay rights, and freedom of expression. Some would call this woke. But I also support globalism, militarism, and big stick diplomacy. Some would call this fascist. I point this out because I think other's perspectives can be hard to understand, especially when the terms we use to describe said perspectives are loose, undefined umbrella terms. But on the subject of this post, I agree that the far-left swing that Western politics has taken in the last few decades is starting to swing back the other way. The reason for this is simple, people got caught up in their movements and took it too far. Once anti-racism movements started advocating for racial discrimination, lots of people started to question their support for the movement, leading to the swing back we are witnessing in the USA and Europe. I would say it's less society swinging away from the movements, and more the movements swinging away from society. There is of course a worry of counter-woke movements taking it too far in the other direction, but I hope that as they get more and more hypocritical and extreme, they too, lose steam. I'm not really making any claims here, simply stating why this is a hard subject to debate on, and how I interpret "The End of Woke".

I wonder if Fire Ologist and others will acknowledge how much they’ve been influenced by the MAGA anti-woke movement. — praxis

How so? That’s dumb. And unobservant. I don’t really even know what MAGA stands for.

I’ve been annoyed by wokeism since before the term was popularized. Wokeism used to be called political correctness. Started in the 1980s, based on the ‘60s. I am not MAGA, and have learned nothing from them.

Will you acknowledge that you haven’t learned one thing from all that I’ve posted here?

I’ve learned that there are no good defenders of wokism here on TPF. I think that is because, it’s difficult to defend something that is so incoherent and self-defeating.