Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

I think this angle to Bud Lite and Target should be highlighted. The fact that they have, in a sense, had a gun to their heads, and were pretty much being bullied into these disastrous campaigns.


The ESG Empire Strikes Back Following Bud Light Boycott​

One can almost feel bad for Bud Light. The brand is caught in the middle of a larger war being fought by global anti-capitalists and the bosses of capitalism: consumers.

Wednesday, May 31, 2023​

bud-light_esg.jpg

Image Credit: iStock
Jon Miltimore

Jon Miltimore

EconomicsWokeBud LightESGStakeholder CapitalismLudwig von Mises


The Wall Street Journal ran a deep dive article last week exploring “how Bud Light blew it,” but it somehow missed the most important part of the story.
As most people already know, the world’s most popular light lager has seen a collapse in sales following a boycott prompted by a March Madness ad campaign featuring transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. The Journal’s chart depicting the fall in Bud Light sales speaks for itself, and the company’s delayed and tepid response to the uproar only seemed to make matters worse.


This isn’t Anheuser-Busch’s first foray into controversial social issues.
The Journal’s Jennifer Maloney points out that the company has been engaging in social equity-themed advertising for years, including a 2021 Michelob Ultra ad featuring transgender track star Cecé Telfer and a 2022 Bud Light Canada campaign for Pride Month displaying various pronouns .
What Maloney fails to mention in her article is why beer companies — not just Bud Light — are suddenly courting controversial social issues such as nonbinary gender, transgenderism, and third-wave feminism.
The answer is simple: The rise of environmental, social, and corporate governance as the dominant strain of “stakeholder capitalism” has incentivized corporations to curry favor with ESG rating firms , even if it means alienating their consumers.
Unlike traditional capitalism, which seeks to maximize profits by serving consumers, the ESG model seeks to “improve” capitalism by considering other stakeholders besides investors and consumers. Publicly traded corporations are graded on how well they achieve socially desirable metrics, such as combating climate change, advancing diversity and inclusion, and creating a more “equitable” society.
What was intended to be a kinder, gentler form of capitalism has morphed into a kind of economic fascism that places the arbitrary interests of a small cabal of people — asset managers, bureaucrats, global financiers — ahead of consumers.
As the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises pointed out , consumers are the true bosses in a capitalist system. They ultimately decide what products are created and purchased, who becomes wealthy, and who becomes poor.
As the Bud Light fiasco shows, ESG places consumers in the back seat. The social equity campaigns are not designed to appeal to Bud Light consumers, but to the ESG rating agencies, which have the power to downgrade companies that fail to dance to their tune.


This is a great deal for the ESG puppeteers. They can make multi-billion corporations move by the mere threat of a bad score, which gives them immense economic and political power.
Elon Musk found this out when Tesla was kicked off the S&P 500 ESG Index in May 2022, even though Tesla is an icon of sustainability. By January, Tesla’s stock, which had been trading at $248 a share, had fallen by roughly 55%.
To what extent Tesla’s collapse in share price stemmed from the company getting booted from the index is unclear, but the point is mostly moot. What matters is the threat of being singled out for an ESG transgression.
What few people seem to realize is that Bud Light’s collapse in sales is not just a threat to Anheuser-Busch. It’s a threat to the entire ESG model.
Up until this point, ESG has thrived because the perceived costs of not participating outweighed the costs of participating. Bud Light’s implosion stands to change that perception, which is precisely why the ESG overlords are striking back.
On Friday, USA Today published a leaked letter showing the Human Rights Campaign had informed Anheuser-Busch “that it has suspended its Corporate Equality Index score — a tool that scores companies on their policies for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer employees.”
“Anheuser-Busch had a key moment to really stand up and demonstrate the importance of their values of diversity, equity, and inclusion and their response really fell short,” said Eric Bloem, HRC’s senior director.
One can almost feel bad for Bud Light. The brand is caught in the middle of a larger war being fought by global anti-capitalists and the bosses of capitalism: consumers. Publicly traded companies should be allowed to go back to serving their real bosses — consumers — which is why the rotten ESG model should be dismantled.
This article originally appeared on The Washington Examiner.
 
Jordan Peteson meet Matt Walsh.

Dark Parody and Villainous Clowns | Matt Walsh | EP 362: link
This was a good and interesting discussion. While listening, I picked up something that JBP said that, although it may be obvious, I found helpful. He said (paraphrasing) that constant monitoring of how one feels increases your anxiety and will maybe also increase your depression. Why I thought it was interesting is because I thought of the distinction between 'obsessive monitoring of my feelings' and self scrutiny à la Gurdjieff. In the latter case, I think, it's scrutinizing/monitoring your feelings so that they will not run wild and dominate your decision making and behavior (with bad consequences). In the first case, as Jordan points out, it's an 'radical left' ideology, in which you're entitled to do whatever you want based on how you feel, to make you feel better, but paradoxically it will increase your anxiety.

I have to say that sometimes I catch myself monitoring my mental status and well-being too much, which in light of what JBP said, does often appear to darken my thoughts and produce negative thought-loops. So, I guess it's a fine line and somewhat tricky to 'do the Work' without increasing your anxiety.
 
I think this angle to Bud Lite and Target should be highlighted. The fact that they have, in a sense, had a gun to their heads, and were pretty much being bullied into these disastrous campaigns.


The ESG Empire Strikes Back Following Bud Light Boycott​

One can almost feel bad for Bud Light. The brand is caught in the middle of a larger war being fought by global anti-capitalists and the bosses of capitalism: consumers.

Wednesday, May 31, 2023​

bud-light_esg.jpg

Image Credit: iStock
Jon Miltimore

Jon Miltimore

EconomicsWokeBud LightESGStakeholder CapitalismLudwig von Mises


The Wall Street Journal ran a deep dive article last week exploring “how Bud Light blew it,” but it somehow missed the most important part of the story.
As most people already know, the world’s most popular light lager has seen a collapse in sales following a boycott prompted by a March Madness ad campaign featuring transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. The Journal’s chart depicting the fall in Bud Light sales speaks for itself, and the company’s delayed and tepid response to the uproar only seemed to make matters worse.


This isn’t Anheuser-Busch’s first foray into controversial social issues.
The Journal’s Jennifer Maloney points out that the company has been engaging in social equity-themed advertising for years, including a 2021 Michelob Ultra ad featuring transgender track star Cecé Telfer and a 2022 Bud Light Canada campaign for Pride Month displaying various pronouns .
What Maloney fails to mention in her article is why beer companies — not just Bud Light — are suddenly courting controversial social issues such as nonbinary gender, transgenderism, and third-wave feminism.
The answer is simple: The rise of environmental, social, and corporate governance as the dominant strain of “stakeholder capitalism” has incentivized corporations to curry favor with ESG rating firms , even if it means alienating their consumers.
Unlike traditional capitalism, which seeks to maximize profits by serving consumers, the ESG model seeks to “improve” capitalism by considering other stakeholders besides investors and consumers. Publicly traded corporations are graded on how well they achieve socially desirable metrics, such as combating climate change, advancing diversity and inclusion, and creating a more “equitable” society.
What was intended to be a kinder, gentler form of capitalism has morphed into a kind of economic fascism that places the arbitrary interests of a small cabal of people — asset managers, bureaucrats, global financiers — ahead of consumers.
As the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises pointed out , consumers are the true bosses in a capitalist system. They ultimately decide what products are created and purchased, who becomes wealthy, and who becomes poor.
As the Bud Light fiasco shows, ESG places consumers in the back seat. The social equity campaigns are not designed to appeal to Bud Light consumers, but to the ESG rating agencies, which have the power to downgrade companies that fail to dance to their tune.


This is a great deal for the ESG puppeteers. They can make multi-billion corporations move by the mere threat of a bad score, which gives them immense economic and political power.
Elon Musk found this out when Tesla was kicked off the S&P 500 ESG Index in May 2022, even though Tesla is an icon of sustainability. By January, Tesla’s stock, which had been trading at $248 a share, had fallen by roughly 55%.
To what extent Tesla’s collapse in share price stemmed from the company getting booted from the index is unclear, but the point is mostly moot. What matters is the threat of being singled out for an ESG transgression.
What few people seem to realize is that Bud Light’s collapse in sales is not just a threat to Anheuser-Busch. It’s a threat to the entire ESG model.
Up until this point, ESG has thrived because the perceived costs of not participating outweighed the costs of participating. Bud Light’s implosion stands to change that perception, which is precisely why the ESG overlords are striking back.
On Friday, USA Today published a leaked letter showing the Human Rights Campaign had informed Anheuser-Busch “that it has suspended its Corporate Equality Index score — a tool that scores companies on their policies for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer employees.”
“Anheuser-Busch had a key moment to really stand up and demonstrate the importance of their values of diversity, equity, and inclusion and their response really fell short,” said Eric Bloem, HRC’s senior director.
One can almost feel bad for Bud Light. The brand is caught in the middle of a larger war being fought by global anti-capitalists and the bosses of capitalism: consumers. Publicly traded companies should be allowed to go back to serving their real bosses — consumers — which is why the rotten ESG model should be dismantled.
This article originally appeared on The Washington Examiner.
I disagree. I don't believe for a moment they were bullied into their trans advertisements.
 

YT trailer, wherein the message is that 'maybe we can find a way to end wokeism' - it reminded me of what the C's had said concerning Canadian's living under the Ottawa lockdown/mask/vaccine yoke:

Q: (Toronto group) Canada is still punishing the unvaxxed with unemployment, travel bans, even denying medical transplants. Why is Canada the outlier compared to the other countries, and will this end soon?

A: It will end when Canadians say so.

Q: (L) Well, why is Canada doing this?

A: Experiment on "tough" people.

Q: (L) So they're trying to see how far they can push people who are reputed to be tough and not pushable.

When 'enough' people say enough, many things can happen. In this woke case with all its variants, it does not seem to be all that different, they are simply pushing people and even doubling down. It is an experiment?

Unwoke Inc. (Official Trailer)​

 
When 'enough' people say enough, many things can happen. In this woke case with all its variants, it does not seem to be all that different, they are simply pushing people and even doubling down. It is an experiment?

Just think of a pressure cooker... I worry that when the thing explodes it will definitely become a "them or us". In that context someone will intervene. And I think it won't be the good guys...
 
This was a good and interesting discussion. While listening, I picked up something that JBP said that, although it may be obvious, I found helpful. He said (paraphrasing) that constant monitoring of how one feels increases your anxiety and will maybe also increase your depression. Why I thought it was interesting is because I thought of the distinction between 'obsessive monitoring of my feelings' and self scrutiny à la Gurdjieff. In the latter case, I think, it's scrutinizing/monitoring your feelings so that they will not run wild and dominate your decision making and behavior (with bad consequences). In the first case, as Jordan points out, it's an 'radical left' ideology, in which you're entitled to do whatever you want based on how you feel, to make you feel better, but paradoxically it will increase your anxiety.

I have to say that sometimes I catch myself monitoring my mental status and well-being too much, which in light of what JBP said, does often appear to darken my thoughts and produce negative thought-loops. So, I guess it's a fine line and somewhat tricky to 'do the Work' without increasing your anxiety.

I call it "impersonal" (gentle) observer, when motoring my inner feelings (like a radar echo, making sweeps across my inner state and see what "pings back"), kind of like a third eye observer hovering and observing, impersonal, yet connected to the wisdom of the heart.

And when i say heart; i mean the essence / wisdom that dwells within the center of a heart. It never speaks of doom, does not charm nor accuse nor yell - ever. It is gentle, honest, discerning; with a sharp eye cutting through all BS; it watches, observes and tells honestly what is - and what is not. It appears to me, that this is entirely based on Free Will. The hearts wisdom is there, always, but only heard, when one chooses to listen deeper.

If I listen to my louder ego - which symbolizes a lasting stream of a river inconstant movement - I get to hear a "voice", too yeah, but it ain't my heart's wisdom, and most often it does not speak the truth. The ego's resonance is quite different, too. However it can be cunning in its way to deceive "pretending to be something/someone else based on wishful thinking, and by easily adapting to the "listeners (one's) expectations".

I suspect that when people monitor their feelings, it mostly happens through the channels of ego; it's interpretations they listen to, which can lead into depressions via negative feedback loops and obsessive thoughts.
 

Rekindling the Spirit of the Classic Democrat | Robert F. Kennedy Jr. | EP 363


"Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. discuss his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election, his thoughts on key issues such as climate change, woke ideological capture, Big Pharma’s stranglehold on Democrat campaign funding and the le…"
 
Funding of movies in Germany...
- only if you accept wokism demands


Some time ago, while listening to German Nuoviso/Nuoflix.de alternative channels, during on of their "Home Office" sessions. There, they often discuss the insanity of woke agenda. One thing that caught my ear was, that if you as a producer of movies in Germany wish to get funding, you must accept and fulfill a whole bunch woke demands. Like diversity, color, LGBTQ+ and that kind of stuff.

Otherwise - no funding.
 
I disagree. I don't believe for a moment they were bullied into their trans advertisements.
Check this out. They even admit it in the video that change is forced on these companies. Shouldn't really be too much of a surprise.

 
Last edited:
Check this out. They even admit it in the video that change is forced on these companies. Shouldn't really be too much of a surprise.

I still don't believe companies are forced into their trans advertisements. Just because it appears in mainstream media doesn't make it true for me.
 
Funding of movies in Germany...
- only if you accept wokism demands


Some time ago, while listening to German Nuoviso/Nuoflix.de alternative channels, during on of their "Home Office" sessions. There, they often discuss the insanity of woke agenda. One thing that caught my ear was, that if you as a producer of movies in Germany wish to get funding, you must accept and fulfill a whole bunch woke demands. Like diversity, color, LGBTQ+ and that kind of stuff.

Otherwise - no funding.
It's been the same in Hollywood for some time. If you want an Oscar nomination or similar, your work and crew must include certain criteria:

In a bid to boost representation and inclusion at the Oscars — the only two buzzwords that matter in the 21st century — the Academy says that only movies that include a desirable number of people from various ethnic and social groups will be considered for the film of the year award. The ‘diverse’ groups that must be included are women, people of colour, LGBTQ people and people with disabilities.

It gets even more complex, as you would expect from what amounts to a borderline Stalinist decree about what movies must represent and how they must be made. To meet the criteria for the ‘on-screen acting and storylines’ category of the Oscars’ identitarian decree, the movie must have at least one lead character or a meaningful supporting character from an underrepresented racial group, or 30 per cent of its secondary roles must be made up of people from two such groups, or the main storyline must be focused on the lives and needs of such groups.

As usual, doesn't matter if your story doesn't include such characters or that you may want the best/most appropriate actors and crew to make the film - just hire and cast based on race, sexuality, disability etc... Otherwise, no matter how good your film is, no awards for you. Probably consigning you to cult obscurity
 

Rekindling the Spirit of the Classic Democrat | Robert F. Kennedy Jr. | EP 363


"Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. discuss his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election, his thoughts on key issues such as climate change, woke ideological capture, Big Pharma’s stranglehold on Democrat campaign funding and the le…"
I just finished listening to this. It gave a sobering account on where RFK Jr. stands with certain issues. One thing that became clear is that he believes in global warming and the causative role of human produced CO2. There are nuances in his thinking about climate change, and with some environmental issues I agree with him but still, there it is, he thinks CO2 is to blame.

Then, regarding the Ukraine topic he called Putin a 'homicidal tyrant' and Russia's attack a 'brutal invasion', and I got the impression that he thought that degrading Russia's military by an attricion war isn't a bad idea per se, but that the problem as he sees it is the collateral damage and destruction, money laundering (by e.g. MIC), and human suffering. On the other hand, he agrees that NATO shouldn't have expanded, and that we need understanding and dialogue with Russia. So I'm not sure where exactly he stands with the whole thing, it's a mixed bag.

Could be that because of his candidacy he's tip-toeing around some topics, and tries to appeal to all sides of voters. At one point JBP tried to get him list the things in which RFK Jr. thought that the Left was going too far but Robert declined to do that, saying that he rather focus on the postive things that will bridge people together.

All in all, this interview gave me the impression that RFK Jr. has some blind spots that somewhat surprised me. On the plus side he has many opinions and views that are way healthier and sound than most of the US politicians.
 
Back
Top Bottom