If anybody is refusing to drink it, that’s only because it tastes like somebody else drank it already.
Here’s the phony outrage du jour: Supposedly, some people want to boycott Anheuser-Busch over this Budweiser ad.
(NOTE: The following is an advertisement for a popular American beer. If you buy this product because you watched this ad, it’s not my fault that you’re a dolt.)
Is anybody actually upset that Budweiser is celebrating its founder’s journey to America? Do Trump supporters hate immigrants so much that they’ll boycott a beer company for being founded by a dirty foreigner? Do they really think this ad is somehow a reaction to Trump’s “Muslim ban”?
Some reporters seem to think so, because #boycottbudwiser has been trending on Twitter. But all this tells you is that a lot of people are patting themselves on the back for knowing it’s spelled Budweiser, not “Budwiser.” They got trolled, and they reacted.
That’s how most of these supposed Twitter “boycotts” tend to go. A handful of trolls will get the ball rolling with a dumb hashtag or something — #BoycottBudwiser, #BoycottStarWarsVII, the phony controversy over a black guy playing the Human Torch, etc. — and then the other 99% of the respondents are people congratulating themselves for being smarter than the alleged boycotters.
Nobody is actually boycotting Budweiser, you guys. Not over a stupid Super Bowl ad, or anything else. Anybody who tells you otherwise is a rube.
That rule of thumb extends to pretty much any other Twitter-based boycott or other controversy. It’s all just virtue signalling to make people feel superior. Their lives are so empty and meaningless that they find some sort of victory in defending a beer ad, or a popular movie franchise, or some other entity against a nonexistent threat. It’s just clickbait. This post included.
I’m boycotting boycotts. But that’s still not enough to get me to drink Budweiser.