which is employed regularly by both sides of the aisle. And why is this tactic employed regularly by both sides of the aisle? Because in many cases it is effective (and may very well be here).

I love how the Rich Gans guy goes on Twitter and says he'll boycott Jim and buy Jack. Jim Beam is a Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey and Jack Daniels is a Tennessee whiskey. LOL!

---

Pink? Maybe. Maybe not. You decide.

People are stupid. They should boycott Jim Beam because it's Jim Beam.

I'd also like to add this is fake news. Republicans don't resort to this type of behavior. That's strictly a liberal thing.

There is a whole lot of stupid happening on those twitter responses.

Also, I cringe whenever conservatives refer to one another as patriots.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

The boycott is so they fire her. They hired her now they have to deal with the repercussions of her actions. If she hadn't made the donation in Pence's name AND publicized it, would this be an issue?

The boycott is so they fire her.

My point exactly.

If she hadn't made the donation in Pence's name AND publicized it, would this be an issue?

No. If she never exercises her right to free speech and never says anything that someone disagrees with, she wouldn't have people trying to get her fired from her job. Just like the rest of us.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I have no idea other than I wouldn’t mind giving Mila a, umm, donation. Just saying

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

The most bewildering part is that Mila Kunis is a paid spokesperson for Jim Beam.

But there's also the fact that purchasing Jim Beam now means voluntarily funding Planned Parenthood.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Wonder how many pregnancies are attributable to Jim Beam.

---

_________________________________________________
"The will to win means nothing without the will to prepare" - Juma Ikangaa

http://www.litespeed.com

But in this situation who really cares? It's not going to impact her bottom line much as I suspect she generates most of her income / wealth from movies.

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

Why? You don't know any of the people. Such an action has absolutely zero impact on you, and it a basic freedom of expression "thing". Turn it around, if a prominent conservative donated to the NRA in Obama's name, would you care at all? I certainly wouldn't. The only thing more pointless about such as action is that anyone would any emotional energy on it....

BTW, I agree with your larger point. Boycotting is almost always useless, and I oppose calls for it, in the context of almost all free speech against political figures.

The boycott is to create a PR blemish on Jim Beam so they drop her as the face on their commercials. If this works, then we could expect companies to begin adding clauses in the contracts with their 'talent' stating they cannot conduct such behavior or will be subject to return monies paid, etc, etc.

I'm curious to figure out if it actually works.

I also agree with the comments that this tactic is frustrating as hell.

Why do you care?

In this case in particular, her name and face is her brand. She's directly associating her brand with Beam, Planned Parenthood, and a vindictive attack on the Vice President. If people want to give Beam feedback about how they feel about them using her as their public face and spokesperson, more power to them. Beam can do something about it, or not. It's entirely up to them, as is Kunis' decision to continue what she's doing, or associating with Beam.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Define "vindictive" Here is a link at the clip from Conan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4T39EAnS6o


It is a peaceful protest. Calling it vindictive is setting new levels of "snowflakiness".

You are right, freedom of expression can cut both ways. Largely, I believe that almost all speech should be afforded deference AS SPEECH. Boycott calls on the basis of respectful free expression is what any conservative used to despise. Too many folks on the extremes have basically become endlessly self-contradicting caricatures of what they purport to believe.

I'm confused. She is a spokesman for Beam meaning Beam wants people to associate her with the product. She did something they don't agree with so they are not going to purchase the product that is paying her from the association. What is your issue here?

//In this case in particular, her name and face is her brand. She's directly associating her brand with Beam, Planned Parenthood, and a vindictive attack on the Vice President. If people want to give Beam feedback about how they feel about them using her as their public face and spokesperson, more power to them. Beam can do something about it, or not. It's entirely up to them, as is Kunis' decision to continue what she's doing, or associating with Beam. //

Of course. And I don't particularly care, I was commenting on the logic behind the call for a boycott and the potential ramifications. However, I am curious how it plays out, if at all. For the record, I'd be aggravated if someone began donating money in my name to an organization I don't support.

OTOH, I just walked by the lunch room and noticed someone placed a cake for everyone to enjoy so I grabbed a fork (I didn't want to take the time and hassle to get a place and cut the cake with a knife), cut a piece, balanced it on the fork while I walked back to my office then dropped it onto my pants when I sat down and smeared some on the floor. I'd eating the crumbs off my crotch at the moment so perhaps I'm not the person to opine on the complex topic of corporate PR.

The most bewildering part is that Mila Kunis is a paid spokesperson for Jim Beam.

That's true. Mrs. Vitus and I actually saw one of her ads just the other night and agree she was terrible in it. Trying way to hard to come across as sultry, not succeeding.

But there's also the fact that purchasing Jim Beam now means voluntarily funding Planned Parenthood.

Please tell me that was meant to be read in pink.


Why do you care?

About the tactic of sending a donation to an organization someone opposes, in their name?

Because nobody like to have actions performed in their name when they oppose those actions. Duh. It's not the end of the world, but it's childish, it's meant to be annoying, and it is. It's a passive aggressive punk ass move.


In this case in particular, her name and face is her brand. She's directly associating her brand with Beam, Planned Parenthood, and a vindictive attack on the Vice President.

Meh. Nobody thereby associates Planned Parenthood and Jim Beam.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I’m not going to buy Jim Beam.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I'm not going to buy baby parts.

The thighs can be tasty.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

*Pink*?

I'll drop that line of reasoning if and when people who argue that tax dollars pay for PP abortions drop theirs.

Even though it happens to be technically true. It would be condescending to explain how, so I'll leave it at that.



I though the person I was addressing was referring to boycotting companies for who they employ. I get why people would oppose what she's doing with regard to PP and the Vice President--which is why I don't see it as problematic when people organize to tell Jim Beam how they feel about her and what she's doing with their money.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

More stupid coming because now you can use 280 characters. And who is Mila Cunis?

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I'll drop that line of reasoning if and when people who argue that tax dollars pay for PP abortions drop theirs.

There is a world of difference between arguing that my tax money shoudn't be used to fund PP, and arguing that if I buy Jim Beam I'm voluntarily funding PP because one of Jim Beam's employee's donates to Planned Parenthood.

If you don't see that, let's agree to condescend to each other long enough to have the discussion and explain our positions.

I get why people would oppose what she's doing with regard to PP and the Vice President--which is why I don't see it as problematic when people organize to tell Jim Beam how they feel about her and what she's doing with their money.

So, again- if I oppose her expressed opinion, and/or if I find the manner in which she expressed it irritating, it's acceptable to try to get her fired?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Boycott calls on the basis of respectful free expression is what any conservative used to despise.

I don't follow what you mean here. Mind clarifying?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Well, for starters, your tax dollars don't actually fund abortion when they go to PP, whereas there is no prohibition that I'm aware of on Kunis' donations funding abortion, so if there's an objection to be made with regard to how your money is spent by other people, your objection should lay 100% with Jim Beam and Kunis. And by objection, I mean if you feel compelled to abstain from funding abortion, you would be justified in cutting off funds to a company who knowingly steers it to a PP intermediary.

I think you have to at least acknowledge that much if we're to have an honest discussion about it. Right?




I haven't followed that boycott. Are the boycotters demanding her termination as spokesperson?

You haven't answered my hypothetical regarding Papa John's and PP: is it a violation of the principle of free speech for a church to endorse a boycott against an organization that funnels money to an abortion provider?

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I'll echo this question. How does purchasing Jim Beam equal voluntarily funding Planned Parenthood. If that's true, then purchasing Jim Beam also voluntarily funds ever other expense a Jim Beam employee or spokesperson decides on. In other words, by purchasing Jim Beam, I'm also funding employee X's alimony, employee Y's porn subscriptions, and employee Z's meth addiction.

And how is Kunis' donation on behalf of Pence related to that? Presumably, she would have donated on her own. Are we to investigate how employees and spokespeople spend their money when making our purchasing decision, on the off chance that we might otherwise be voluntarily supporting their causes? That's absurd.

This really boils down to how much so many have truly become snowflakes. Because this is not about her having made a donation to Planned Parenthood. It's about her making a lame joke, one that nobody has taken seriously thinking that Pence actually supports Planned Parenthood. Kunis made a lame joke/statement, Pence cried about it like a whiny bitch even though it had no impact on him, and the religious right is now outraged demanding a boycott.

A vindictive attack on the VP? Holy shit. Normally I tend to think that you are one of the sane people on this forum but you need to come down off the ledge.

She’s being a brat. Nobody thinks that Pence is donating to PP.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

No, Jim Beam is really bad. Have you ever drank any?

I'll admit I'm mostly playing devil's advocate arguing a technical point that doesn't hold much real world consequence. I think the real reason people are triggered by her association has everything to do with her perceived pettiness toward Pence, who clearly has deeply held moral objections to abortion. They don't like that she's getting positive attention for it, while collecting a big paycheck as the new face of Jim Beam.

I get that. I also get that Beam terminating her contract won't leave her in a financial predicament, like the firing of the finger flipper had the potential for, and so I think the Pro-Life lynch mob isn't likely to do much damage here one way or the other. Kunis, Beam, and Free Speech will live to see tomorrow.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Oh, I was referring to the second statement.

From a purely corporate PR perspective, I doubt Jim Beam appreciate the politicization of their brand. This, to me, is the only interesting issue involved. If I hired a famous spokesperson for my company/brand and somehow their political views caused customers to view the company as supporting these political views, I would terminate the agreement and find someone else. Not because I agree or disagree with their politics but because customers made or may make the connection.

It's not like Mila is causing the connection as her actions seem completely disconnected but if you hired Michael Moore or Sean Hannity as your spokesperson (or talent for your commercials) you're sending a message to your potential clientele about the political leanings of your company.

Well, for starters, your tax dollars don't actually fund abortion when they go to PP,

So what? We were talking about funding Planned Parenthood, not abortion directly.

But yes, there are no restrictions that say Kunis' donations can't be used for abortion.

so if there's an objection to be made with regard to how your money is spent by other people, your objection should lay 100% with Jim Beam and Kunis.

You're off the rails. The issue is precisely that I don't have an objection to how other people spend their money. The federal government isn't "other people," it's me, and and spends my money in my name. Mila Kunis' money is her money.

I mean if you feel compelled to abstain from funding abortion, you would be justified in cutting off funds to a company who knowingly steers it to a PP intermediary.

I feel compelled to abstain personally from funding the largest abortion provider in the land. I would prefer if my tax dollars did not support that organization, but like everyone else in a diverse society, I live with the fact that I don't agree with everything the government spends tax dollars on, and I'm more or less satisfied with the Hyde amendment as a reasonable compromise.

None of that has anything to do with me buying or not buying Jim Beam because Mila Kunis donates to Planned Parenthood. If I buy a bottle of Jim Beam, I'm not funding Mila Kunis, and I'm certainly not funding every enterprise she might give money to. I'm trading my money for booze. The booze company makes a profit, and trades some money to Kunis for her services. What she does with that money is her business, not mine, and I'm not responsible somehow for how she decides to spend it.

On the understanding that you're trying to advance, commerce would be literally impossible, as every company has employees who we disagree with. We're not funding those opinions just because we do business with the company who employs the opinion holders. Don't even get me started on the implications something like that would have on employers- basically, you wouldn't be able to hire anyone with a different political opinion, or you'd have to keep them from donating to causes you don't like, or else you'd supposedly be funding those causes. Ridiculous.

Maybe if Jim Beam itself, as a company, funded Planned Parenthood, a boycott targeting them would be reasonable. But that's not the case.


You haven't answered my hypothetical regarding Papa John's and PP: is it a violation of the principle of free speech for a church to endorse a boycott against an organization that funnels money to an abortion provider?

Yeah, sorry about that, but I didn't really understand what you were asking. I still don't. Whose free speech is at risk of being curtailed there?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I think you'd have a hard time establishing that any of Pence, Kunis, Jim Beam, or Planned Parenthood have been materially harmed by any of this, though.

Take Beam. Only a infinitesimal fraction of Beam's potential market would announce participation (presumably). Of those a tiny fraction ever had any intention of buying Beam (much less whiskey at all). They're just "status signalling." Of those who actually buy Beam, only a fraction will actually honor their announced boycott (there's a South Park episode on Walmart boycotts where everyone sneaks out to Walmart when they learn of an amazing deal). I'd be surprised if Beam's accountants will be able to discern any measurable effect whatsoever.

A smart tactic with these boycotts would be use them sparingly, so they have larger effect.

Edit: And my reading of the article in the OP included a Beam ad. I don't know if that's intentional by Beam. But it brings up the possibility that Beam could benefit through increased eyeball traffic to their brand. PP is also probably benefiting. There's a possibility of a corollary to the Streisand Effect, where these boycotts could have the opposite of their intended effect.


Edit Edit; The ad was for apple whiskey for $8. WTF. I think if anyone ever find themselves drinking $8 apple-flavored whiskey it's time to seek help. If it's not already too late.

Also, I cringe whenever conservatives refer to one another as patriots.

No kidding.

I remember being at a football game in the U.S and some guy started yelling U-S-A, U-S-A for no particular reason as it was a College game between 2 American College teams. The girl with him asked why he was chanting that and he said, because I'm a patriot...

I must hate my country because I've never waved our flag, painted my face in red and white, joined a gun club or chanted "C-A-N-A-D-A" at a sporting event.

I'm a hater.

I think it's awesome.
Members of the LR: what organization does vitus979 hate that I can make a donation in his/her name?

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

Why do you like it? Why not just donate in your name?

Organisations often send thank yous to donors, so if you do it in someone else's name, they get the reminder that others view that organisation as important to their lives.

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

It’s stupid and childish. Plain and simple. Other than maybe annoying Pence it does nothing.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I disagree. I think it's savvy. In annoying him, he has to recognize that people care about the organization. It's like counter-lobbying. Moreover, it gets money to an organization like planned parenthood - and that is doing something.

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

Purchasing Jim Beam could lead to a trip to Planned Parenthood.

Just sayin'

Brett

---

"Du or Du not-there is no Tri" - Yoda

I think you'd have a hard time establishing that any of Pence, Kunis, Jim Beam, or Planned Parenthood have been materially harmed by any of this, though.

Probably, but that isn't really the problem I have with all of this.

Arguably, the only person who stands to be significantly harmed her is Kunis. It's conceivable that she might actually lose the spokesperson job, though I doubt it. If she does, I doubt it's going to send her to the poorhouse. But even so, that sort of thing is likely to chill her free speech, which is significantly harmful to her, imo.

And that's why I have such a big problem with this type of thing. Yeah, Kunis can probably take the hit. OK. But it just reinforces an ethos contrary to free speech and an open exchange of ideas in society. Again, just about all the arguments in support of a boycott of Jim Beam in order to get at Kunis apply equally to any of us.

It's not even as if anyone has said they'll stop going to Mila Kunis movies. No, they went running to her employer, who doesn't have any reasonable connection to her opinions, as if they're ratting a little girl out to her parents and expecting the employer to discipline her. The fact that people even assume that such a relationship between employer/employee exists is disturbing.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

No he doesn’t. He just gets annoyed that some childish actor is being a stupid childish brat.

She could just donate money. In her own name. It isn’t savvy in any way, shape or form.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Unlikely that Pence even knows. He's got people to open his mail and take care of that sort of thing. The only way he'd find out is if one of his advisors told him that idiots were talking about it on the internets.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

There's this jiu jitsu academy in Hayden, Idaho that is the absolute bane of my existence.

PM me for the address.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You keep saying that. You seem to have some vision of "free speech" as being like some university debate club ideal where everyone should feel free to voice any opinion free from any consequence other than classily-posed opposing viewpoint.

Yes, in a perfect world the battle between differing ideologies would take place entirely within gentlemanly debate along the lines of the Letters of the Royal Society.

That's often not how speech works in the U.S. We've decided to be allow a much wider range of consequence to speech. That's a freedom. Just about anything is fair game short of things like threats of physical harm, slander/libel, harassment...I'm probably missing a few of the exceptions we've carved out. You could maybe try to argue that something like the social media-born boycott of something like Jim Beam is civil or criminal harassment. But I think you'd have a really hard time doing that.

We have a lot of freedom. That's the downside to freedom. Our Founding Fathers basically said, "Here's a lot of rope, everyone. A shit-ton of rope. You can use that rope to do great things. Or you can use it to hang yourselves by being toxic social media douchebags."

But starting to reel that rope back in is a really dangerous thing. If you start allowing people to sue each other for a relaxed definition of harassment, or you start allowing the government broad leeway to prosecute harassment, then free speech starts really being eroded. That's why free speech is usually defined in terms of government involvement. Because we have the freedom to intimidate or even coerce each other short of the "carveouts" I mentioned above. That's life. Democracies with broad civil rights are the worst, except every other alternative.

We have a lot of freedom. That's the downside to freedom. Our Founding Fathers basically said, "Here's a lot of rope, everyone. A shit-ton of rope. You can use that rope to do great things. Or you can use it to hang yourselves by being toxic social media douchebags."

Yes. The thing is, we don't have to use it to hang ourselves. We can just as easily decide to give each other a little slack to operate freely with.

But starting to reel that rope back in is a really dangerous thing. If you start allowing people to sue each other for harassment, or you start allowing the government broad leeway to prosecute harassment, then free speech starts really being eroded.

As I keep saying, I am not advocating for restricting anyone's freedom, or for more government involvement. Like, at all. I'm saying people need to start exercising their rights more responsibly- and that definitely includes refraining from the full use of one's free speech at times in order to afford others the right to speech. Yes, you have a right to campaign to have someone fired for disagreeing with you. Free speech, sure. Exercising free speech in that way is a cancer, and it will lead to freedom cannibalizing itself.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

OK, I'm on board with that. I just wouldn't use the term "free speech" when referring to it.

Your response assumes a position that vitus never takes. He's not saying that we need to change the Constitution. He's just suggesting that our culture is veering towards excessive political purges of minor "speech" infractions that are mostly just vendettas between warring tribes.

He's against that culture. Me too.

Edit: I started this before 9pm. =)

Yeah, I'm kind of with him. I just get distracted by the term "free speech." That's a loaded term with some very specific definitions.

But I don't think our time is all that special in this regard. There are periods of time in our history where people's "free speech" (ug) was far more corrosively restrained by social pressure between ideological factions than these modern-day social media tantrums. E.g. McCarthyism, when a lot of people lost their jobs with no transparent display of evidence or due process whatsoever.

Before this thread, I had not realized how many people want the term "free speech" to only apply to constitutionally protected free speech. I think this is unnecessarily US-centric. Frankly I'm surprised that some of you otherwise mostly reasonable folks are getting high-centered on this.

What term would you prefer vitus use?

I think you're mistaken to object to me framing it in terms of "free speech." I am talking about free speech, which can be threatened or suppressed by a variety of factors or entities, not simply the government. It's possible that the government doesn't suppress free speech in society, but some other force does, in which case, free speech is still suppressed, and society still does not reap the benefits that we believe arise from free speech.

What you're talking about is the First Amendment and the protections it provides. I'm speaking of free speech more generally.

If large numbers of people wouldn't even think of posting a partisan thought publicly on social media for fear of losing their jobs, I submit that freedom of speech has already taken a hit. No, nobody's Constitutional rights have been violated. But it's hardly the height of freedom, either.

And yeah, I get that there are consequences to free speech, and there should be. But the consequences should be organic and proportional to the speech. Simply saying that "you're free to speech, you just have to deal with the consequence of losing your ability to support yourself" is sort of ridiculous. I might just as well say that we'd be equally free of government oppression even if we repealed the First Amendment. After all, you'd still be free to speak- you just might have to face the consequence of going to jail.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I don't think it's U.S.-centric. The origins are Greek/Roman, and the primary definition has long been centered on being a legal right. What vitus is talking about is rather "freedom from societal sanction" (stealing from Wikipedia entry). That's different than legality. Legality always carries the baggage of the government weighing in.

I'd prefer vitus use the term "can't-everyone-just-get-along-and-stop-being-douche-bags-for-fucks-sake-because-damn."

Yeah, I hear you. I just read the word "right" and I think "legal right." You're thinking "natural right." Personally I think the only things worth calling a "right" are the ones legally enforced. Everything else is just wishful thinking - hoping people act decently.

But legal vs. natural is a whole other debate thread.

We agree with each other on the fundamental issue, so let's just end it there.

Um okay

So cute you think a) the vice president opens his mail b) he gives a flying fuck

I'm against killing babies but the real reason I boycott Jim Beam is because it tastes horrible.

They should fire her and hire that FBI agent as spokesperson.

---

“Read the transcript.”

Now this Hannity Keurig-smashing thing is just idiotic, and encouraged by Hannity himself. Seemingly bad business by Hannity anyway. If you're a potential new Hannity advertiser - even one with corprorate ideology consistent with Hannity - wouldn't you now think twice about signing that advertising contract if you think that Hannity is going to throw your company under the bus if something goes south?

Hannity really is bad for America.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I'm just now reading about the Hannity Keureg dustup for the first time. Wow.

The internet taketh away, but it sure does giveth.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

“Sorry, I was off Twitter for a while,” wrote the author Geraldine DeRuiter. “It appears that people are destroying coffee machines to show their support of child molesters?”

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?