At least conservatives don't harass Anheuser-Busch employees or lash out at people for drinking Bud Light

So then why was Uncle Ben taken off of the box of rice or what about Aunt Jemima? What was harmful or exclusionary about them? So you are allowed to protest a brand but we aren't? So then you would be ok with a brand you like having a spokesman who's really into guns?

they were harmful caricatures of black people that the people they affected felt were harmful. Anyone's allowed to protest anything, but saying the above situation is hypocritical is extremely misleading. The reasoning behind any leftist boycott of a product is always to stand against something harmful. The boycotting of bud light is to stand against tolerance. The gun example you used -- if I were to protest a brand because of that, it would be because I believe unrestricted gun access harms people. Not because I hate people that are into guns. See the difference?

typical right wing L comment. no sources sited whatsoever, just feelings. Where are the allegations against dylan mulvaney, the bud light spokesperson? Any evidence? of course not. Your opinion is hate, the opposite opinion is not hating people for their identities.

Did a boycott do that? Did a boycott kill aunt Jemima? Did a boycott stop printing dr suess? No.

The company made decisions to do that on their own.

The company did that because of cancel culture and didn't have the guts to stand up to people and tell them know.

Nancy Green (March 4, 1834 – August 30, 1923) was an American former enslaved woman, who, as "Aunt Jemima", was one of the first African-American models hired to promote a corporate trademark. The famous Aunt Jemima recipe was not her recipe, but she became the advertising world's first living trademark.

And. That means...what?

That the white guys hired an actress to play a part. Specifically, the Mammy caricature.

I'm glad she profited from the role.

But that doesn't make it less racist.

If you'd like to do some reading on how it's a racist stereotype, I can get those links for you.

By that logic, Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods on a box of Wheaties are playing racist caricatures of basketball and golf players, respectively.

Woods and Jordan are the face of their own individual brands, brands built by them based on their physical abilities at specific sports.

If Jordan and Woods had been created by Wheaties as mascots based on stereotypes, and then 2 men hired to play that part, yes. Yes, it would be the same thing.

But they're real people.

Who built their own brands.

Brand identity based on them.

So it's not the same thing at all.

What about Land O Lakes? That was done by an actual Native American.

The 3rd iteration of Mia, the land o lakes mascot, was created by Patrick DesJarlait, the artist you reference.

It was orignated by a white dude in 1928. And remade by another white dude a few years later in the 30s.

In my view, here's the problem with Mia. She's a mascot intended to sell butter for the profit of a company owned & operated by white people.

Not the Ojibwe people. Other than the artist, did any of the tribe see money from that usage?

Now, if the Tribe had started and grown the business, and made the decision to have Mia created for the brand- go for it. Make all the money.

But that's not what happened. Some white dudes used the popularity of Native Americans in popular culture to make people think their butter was 'pure and natural.' And that's just more racist stereotyping. Subtle, sure, but it's still there.

What did Chic fil A do to harm someone.

donate tons of money to organizations that were fighting against the Equality Act and supported conversion therapy

Harassing people just for eating lunch isn't 'fighting bigotry'.

What did Chic fil A do to harm someone.

Since 2003, Chic Fil A has donated more than $5 million to anti-gay groups that engage in forced conversion "therapy".

you know. Torture until they say they're not gay anymore.

You are delusional.

The whole flap was over the CEO saying he believed Marriage was between one man and one woman.

The rest is trumped up BS.

I will bet you that if Chic Fil A had been owned by someone other than someone who is Christian the far left would have said nothing.

Yeah, that's why in they cut funding to all organizations with anti-LGBTQ ties, including the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. They have refocused their corporate giving on organizations that support education, ending youth homelessness and fighting hunger.

'cause it was made up BS. https://www.chick-fil-a.com/stories/news/chick-fil-a-foundation-announces-2020-priorities

Why should it be your business on how a company spends it's money. If you don't like it then don't eat there.

Yes. Exactly.

I didn't like them using the profits of their business to fund hate groups.

I stopped going there.

How did that boycott work out for you then.

https://www.chick-fil-a.com/stories/news/chick-fil-a-foundation-announces-2020-priorities

Pretty good, actually.

They cut funding to all organizations with anti-LGBTQ ties, including the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. They have refocused their corporate giving on organizations that support education, ending youth homelessness and fighting hunger.

Well that is because the original owner died and hence why the funding changed. So basically the way you on the left work is if someone doesn't agree with you your course of action is to bully them until they do.

No.

There is a significant and real difference between disagreeing with someone, and funding hate groups.

Disagreeing is something like:
Me: we should tax the rich.
you: No, we shouldn't.

that's a disagreement.

Chick-fil-a giving money to groups that target gay people that use that money to try to force them to not be gay is not a disagreement.

That's funding hate and bigotry.

Then you would have no issues with people boycotting companies who have donated money to domestic terrorist hate groups like blm.