Re: My son will never embarrass me more than he did today

BTR1701  <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Mar 30, 2025 at 7:48:51 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

On 3/30/2025 7:00 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  On Mar 30, 2025 at 3:19:48 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

  On 3/30/2025 5:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

    On Mar 30, 2025 at 2:05:26 PM PDT, "moviePig"

<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

   

    On 3/30/2025 3:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

      On Mar 30, 2025 at 1:31:02 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net>
  wrote:
     

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tAntcKymE4

            That just screams Bud Light, doesn't it?
     

    I think I'll never understand how anyone could watch that and

argue that

    effeminate homosexuality is a *choice*.

        Making that the face of your brand, however, *is* a choice.
        KNIGHT TEMPLAR: They chose... poorly.

>
  I didn't follow the Bud Light gay saga, but a youTube video suggests
  that the company did no more than express "welcome" to the LGBTQ
  beer-drinking community.  If that's a fair characterization, then their
  subsequent sales-drop seems surprisingly homophobic.

    Or maybe, instead of branding everyone who doesn't like that lifestyle as
  irrationally afraid of it, you could just recognize that people found it
  distasteful and voted with their wallets.
    Contrary to what all the "phobe"-labelers want you to believe, it is
possible
  to merely dislike a thing without being irrationally afraid of that thing.
For
  example, I don't much like broccoli but that doesn't mean I'm afraid of it.
  I'm not broccoli-phobic.

>
I think you'll find that most all definitions of 'phobic' and
'homophobic' denote not only 'fear of' but also 'aversion to'.

>
I think you'll find that they also include 'irrational' in those definitions.

 Definitions? moviePig don't need no steenkin' definitions!