Quote by Ironic
If that theory's true, it seems to have worked. Billboard has it tagged as #1 “Re entry”, and People posts “Try That in a Small Town” is the second song in history to re-enter the Hot Country Songs chart at No 1”
So, write a crap song and make a controversial video, and you'll still strike gold because of Conservative outrage. Sounds about right.
Try that in a small town. If it flies, try it in a big town. If they don't like it, edit it.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/jason-aldean-music-video-sneakily-192224812.html
Quote by Magical_felix
lol
So whenever there is a black person in a movie it must be some kind of affirmative action thing to make black people feel better about themselves? Because movie studios aren't in the business of making money they are in the business of forcing diversity? How many black people is the max that can be in a movie so it's not "political"?
Doesn't the story take place in the Caribbean anyway? In the original story the mermaid doesn't even have a name..
When they cast and an Irish guy as Alexander the great was that to make Irish people feel included? Or is that different?
What about Thor? The actor is Australian but the character is supposed from Scandinavian mythology.
The Little Mermaid is a Dutch story and in the original version, she is described as having a "rose-leaf complexion" and blue eyes. Disney decided to go with a white Aerial in the 80's despite setting it in the Caribbean, then changed the ethnicity for the live action version. Do think they did that because they thought they were going to make more money?
Why did Mel Gibson play William Wallace? Because he had box office draw at the time. I would imagine Colin Ferrell and Chris Hemsworth were cast for the same reasons.
Quote by Magical_felix
I don't think you understand... Why is it "political" to you that they made the little mermaid black?
This is my reasoning: it's political because the decision wasn't made based on what was going to make them the most money. It was either based on (cynically) making them look like they care about diversity or (non-cynically) that they really want black and brown children see themselves represented in these classic stories. Would those children watch a movie with a white Ariel? They already have. Are they expanding who they are selling tickets to by doing this? I doubt it. That's what makes it political to me.
Do you think I'm wrong to think so?
Quote by Ironic
A recent (July 1-5) poll, taken after the Affirmative Action verdict was announced, shows that by race, sex, or age, more Americans agree with the Court’s decision than disagree. Sometimes it’s most, but it’s always more.
It's really amusing to me that they didn't ask Asians, the group represented by the plaintiff in the SCOTUS decision.
Quote by Magical_felix
Just odd, like I never think "wow this is political" when I see a black person or a woman on screen.
I hope humanity is moving towards having having more people with your mindset and fewer with Kid Rock's.
Political isn't always bad, either. I think that the choice to have the Little Mermaid represented by a black actor was both political and a good choice.
Quote by Magical_felix
Political for who?
Too political for the people he was hoping would buy tickets to his movie. He was worried about limiting the success of his own product. There's nothing controversial about hating an Imperialist regime that sprung out of a Republic (at least in 1977) but putting a white Leia and a black Han in a romantic situation was.
Quote by Magical_felix
lol "they made it political" by including a person.
You Do know that Han Solo was nearly black in 1977, but George Lucas thought that would be... too political, right?
Quote by ElCoco
There's hope for them yet.
I have to believe that a company as large as this isn't going to collapse over Dylan Mulvaney. The article raises a good question, though. This beer is typically apolitical. It has, until now, branded itself as the beer of sports and country music concerts. Why choose to wade into politics, particularly something a hot-button as this, if you don't need to?
The footnote in question is on page 30 and is really interesting.
The minority opinion questioned this carve-out for military academies. The justification was that an amicus brief was filed talking about how diversity improved National Security in the military. Students at military academies get room, board, and tuition free in exchange for 5 years of military service as a commissioned officer. That accounts for about 25% of the military but it's all leadership. They talk about how diverse enlisted personnel don't deal well with homogeneously white leadership.
This IS a version of Affirmative Action that they've exempted from their ruling. All it needs is a challenge to see if SCOTUS would be consistent on this, but my guess is that they wouldn't hear such a challenge.
Quote by Magical_felix
Pennsylvania (😭)
My state. On Twitter, Europeans really do hold Hershey against us. 🤣
Quote by Ironic
Read the ruling.
It's 234 pages. What page is your footnote on?
Quote by ElCoco
Here's the 14th Amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xiv
Which part of it is the part saying that racial discrimination is a constitutional right?
If you were a Constitutional Origionalist, as these five justices claim to be, you would know that the reason the Amendment was put into place was to make illegal all of the things done legally under slavery. That's why SCOTUS challenges to Affirmative Action in 1978 and 2003 failed, and Affirmative action was upheld.
What is it that you imagine 70 years of justices missed that this, uniquely unqualified bench, discovered?
Quote by Ironic
I wonder how this will play out.
Indigenous tribe wants Ben & Jerry's to return 'stolen' land their HQ is built on
It's already played out. Someone called B&J out on their "virtue signaling". I mean, I'm willing to take a bet that B&J isn't going to be handing over their headquarters any time soon, but I doubt anyone would bet against me.
Quote by ElCoco
You'll be surprised who thinks Affirmative Action is a Constitutional Right. I was.
"Now you fast-forward to what we saw last week, affirmative action. Again, taking away important constitutional rights that have been in place for a long time."
The 14th Amendment, and it's historical goal of reducing or eliminating oppression, was the Constitutional basis for Affirmative Action. The Amendment was passed just after slavery was abolished on paper; AA was created by executive order in 1961. A couple of SCOTUS decisions confirmed it was Constitutional, so she's correct. It was considered a Constitutional right under the 14th Amendment, for 70 years, until this SCOTUS.
It's exactly what happened to abortion. Women's right to medical privacy was protected under the 14th amendment for 49 years until this SCOTUS and their unique reading and interpretation of that Amendment.
Quote by Magical_felix
I don't think their goal was to make conservatives cheer. They wouldn't have made a trans person a can to begin with if that was the case. I think the goal was to support a marginalized community. Bud Light's decision has had absolutely zero impact on my life outside of a few laughs I have had at how triggered conservatives get. Not sure what impact it has had on conservatives either besides them now having the need to drink a beer they like less than what was their beer of choice. It's just weird.
I think their goal was to get free advertising by jumping on in the Dylan train. Mulvaney had been at the White House, hosted 365 days of being a girl at Rockefeller Center, and was on the runway for New York fashion week. They sent a picture-can and waited for it to appear on TikTok.
I do agree that Conservatives losing their minds over this was ridiculous. Nike didn't face anything like this backlash for making Mulvaney a sports bra model at about the same time. There probably isn't anyone less equipped to demonstrate how supportive a Nike sports bra is, but we all just rolled our eyes and moved forward.
Quote by Magical_felix
Bud Light has been sponsoring LGBTQIA+ events for decades.
The difference now is that the conservative mouth-piece industry amplifies every grievance for clicks, likes, donations and subscriptions. Conservatives are easy to rage bait with culture war nonsense.
They wouldn't even know Bud Light made one can for a trans influencer if some conservative wasn't sitting on the trans person's social media refreshing every two seconds, probably jerking off at the same time.
That's an image.
That's also fair. They've been a sponsor at Pride for ages.
Though, Dylan Mulvaney was already controversial, and not just because of conservatives. A lot of left leaning women, myself included, didn't like the way Mulvaney represented "girlhood" or talked about women. I still think this would have been a whole lotta nothing if they had sent this beer to Buck Angel, rather than Dylan Mulvaney.
In all seriousness, Naive Peoples aren't asking for land, or at least that's not what Native American rights groups are raising money for. Their long-standing requests are managing their own children's education, preventing commercial dumping in water that serves Native American Reservations, and their missing women and children. Up until 1978 it was legal to take a Native American family's children and send them to a boarding school for the purpose of civilizing them. 1978.
It's such a pat answer to say "Give 'em back their land" but when the land was taken from them, so was their culture and civilization. They had cities with populations in the thousands. Now, most reservations don't even have internet.
It's also fun when you're local to a Native American named feature and get to hear everyone trying to pronounce it. When I lived in Florida, the pronunciation of Kissimmee and Lake Okeechobee were always amusing. You'd think everyone would know Kissimmee by now.
Some businesses set themselves up so they can make these political statements and not have to worry, like Hobby Lobby and Chik-Fil-A. The former had five shareholders who don't have an issue with illegally smuggling Christian artifacts to the US. The latter kept it a private company so he could give profits to groups sponsoring gay conversion therapy. I don't think either company really took a hit for their public views or actions because they were on-brand.
The problem with Anheuser-Busch is that they aren't set up to make this kind of political statement. If they want to cheer-lead about the troops, or America being the greatest nation on the planet, or how farmers are the salt of the earth and the moral compass of this country, they wouldn't lose a penny. If they wanted to dip their toe into the LGBTQIA+ they needed to be much more careful about it.
Quote by Magical_felix
Because he was called an idiot - repeatedly - by left leaning posters in the Think Tank so now he posts in a way to try and piss those same people off.
It's his villain origin story.
False Dichotomy Man.
Quote by ElCoco
You can see what hasn't happened! Even though some voters won't think twice about cocaine snorting in the White House, some will.
"Cocaine snorting in the White House". 🤣
Quote by Just_A_Guy_You_Know
Good question. AOC still seems a little young, but definitely has the ability to generate excitement. Newsom would be good too. Extreme is maybe what's needed now to break voters out of complacency. That's what the Republicans have done with Trump (and arguably since Reagan). If they want to be serious contenders, Democrats should follow suit (but would it be too much to ask for a candidate who's also actually capable of the job as well?).
I don't think Republicans meant to break anyone out of complacency. I think they were as shocked as anyone by how well Trump was polling in 2016 and grabbed on to the caboose of that train before it left without them.
I'm an old school Democrat and AOC/Newsome might lose my vote. That being said, you might just very well pick up a lot of young people that makes it worth your while to lose people like me. I think you could get away with those two if Republicans run someone like Ron DeSantis. Then, people like me either won't vote for either or will bite the bullet (probably) and vote Newsome. If they ran someone more centrist, you may run into more trouble.
Quote by ElCoco
It doesn't have to be any of the Biden family. You've said there are any number of people who could be suspects, and we agree about that, “where, for example, the vice president’s vehicle is parked.”
It's the fact a baggie of cocaine was found in the White House that has political consequences - at least with some voters.
See, I sincerely doubt that. The "some voters" you're talking about wouldn't have voted for him anyway.
(PS.... (Not for you, ElCoco, though I used this post) I ran out of DMs yesterday! If I just stopped talking to someone yesterday, that's why!)
Quote by PrincessC
My toxic trait is definitely voting for the person who did that in the White House if I could vote.
To be fair I don’t care if Biden is snorting mounds of coke he’s just not all there anymore from what I have seen online. He comes across as senile in the foreign press.
In the domestic press as well, even those news agencies leaning towards Democrats. I voted for him and I can't defend the vacant expression and strange things he says. I wish he would gracefully say that he was what the country needed after Trump but one term is all he's willing to do. That way, it's not a loss; it's a choice.
Quote by ElCoco
MSNBC has an update on the location of the cocaine baggie found in the White House. “Multiple officials” are now claiming the cocaine was found near the West Executive entrance “in a much more secure place … near the Situation Room” and next to “where, for example, the vice president’s vehicle is parked.”
.
The list of possible perpetrators has narrowed, but I'll bet the case will prove to be beyond the capacity of the Secret Service to solve.
The sources maintain that the area is highly trafficked, in keeping with Jean-Pierre's characterization Wednesday. The area is transited by VIPs, visitors, tourists, staff members, military officials and facilities operations employees.
Why do you need this to be a Biden family problem so badly?
Quote by ElCoco
If the administration thought finding cocaine in the White House wasn't a big deal, it would treat it like it wasn't a big deal. But it's gone to some effort to give everybody the impression it was somebody else.
.
Do you think that's true, or afraid it would?
By pointing out the cocaine was found in a public place?
Quote by ElCoco
So people will vote for the other guy.
Do you think that's true or hope it is?
Presidents have problematic family members all the time. Ronald Reagan daughter posed in Playboy and opposed nuclear proliferation. George HW Bush had this embarrassing son that did cocaine and slept around a lot.....
If Joe isn't reelected, Hunter isn't going to have anything to do with it.
I do things that are discriminatory. I preferentially choose black and women run businesses when I want to spend money, for example and I think that's acceptable.
