Morgan Bettinger's Accuser Has a Deal With Dove. That's No Reason To Boycott.
Reason broke the story of activist Zyahna Bryant baselessly accusing a fellow student of racism. It's still wrong to cancel her.

University of Virginia (UVA) student activist Zyahna Bryant is back in the news again, after facing backlash over a partnership with Dove. The 22-year-old announced in August that she was working with the soap company to promote "fat liberation."
Following coverage from the New York Post, the Daily Mail, and even a comment from Elon Musk, calls to boycott the company have been growing, and "#BoycottDove" was trending on Twitter as of Friday afternoon.
It's not surprising that Bryant would be an online target. As Reason revealed in an April investigation, she made serious accusations that ruined a young woman's life without sufficient evidence. But canceling her is still both wrong and unhelpful—as are nearly all instances of cancel culture in action.
In 2020, Bryant publicly accused fellow student Morgan Bettinger of telling a group of Black Lives Matter protesters that they would "make good speedbumps"—sparking a social media firestorm that resulted in widespread calls for the university to expel Bettinger.
For her own part, Bettinger has consistently claimed that she never spoke to protestors, instead saying that a truck driver who had been sent to block the road during the protest had begun a casual conversation with her, during which she quipped something to the effect of "it's a good thing that you are here, because otherwise, these people would have been speed bumps."
A university investigation later found "insufficient evidence" for Byrant's claims, even concluding that it was "more likely than not" that Byrant never even heard Bettinger make a "speed bumps" remark at all. Despite the inquiry's results, the university allowed Bettinger to be punished anyway, holding to the results of an earlier student-run tribunal which expelled Bettinger in abeyance and forced her to complete a litany of other sanctions. The previous student tribunal found Bettinger guilty of "threatening" UVA students, despite appearing to agree with Bettinger's facially nonthreatening version of events.
Last month, Bettinger filed a formal lawsuit against the university, claiming that school officials violated her First Amendment rights and that administrators "purposefully tampered" with the numerous investigations into Bettinger's conduct to ensure she would be punished for obviously protected speech.
"Despite their personal knowledge that multiple University investigators had concluded that Morgan was innocent of the charges against her," the lawsuit reads, "[University officials] persecuted, prosecuted, and punished Morgan Bettinger."
Now that Bryant has received a Dove sponsorship, those outraged by her baseless accusations against Bettinger have been fomenting an internet firestorm by attempting a Bud Light–style boycott of the company's products.
Reason has consistently argued that internet mobs are a terrible way to find the truth and get justice for those who have been wronged. What's happening here is blatant cancel culture—a concerted effort to destroy someone's personal and professional prospects over a single past incident or comment without any capacity for forgiveness.
Witnessing how an internet pile-on utterly shredded a young woman's life and reputation offers little evidence that these kinds of outrage campaigns can do any good. If anything, this mob will only leave Bryant feeling justifiably aggrieved. While Bryant did far more than mere political wrongthink—she actively lobbied for another student's expulsion and displayed little remorse once the reality of the situation emerged—viciously attacking her (or mounting a boycott of a soap company) won't help Bettinger repair her tarnished reputation.
In fact, if attempts to boycott Dove work, they will distract from what actually happened to Bettinger. They turn her story into a culture-war meltdown and lump her in with online trolls who consider attacking someone's physical appearance a key component of political discourse.
Yes, Zyahna Bryant thoughtlessly ruined Morgan Bettinger's life by slinging baseless allegations in the public square. But getting to the truth of what happened that day in July 2020—and getting justice for Bettinger—won't be accomplished by a nasty, tribalistic internet mob.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“Reason broke the story of activist Zyahna Bryant baselessly accusing a fellow student of racism. It’s still wrong to cancel her.”
So … WHAT THE FUCK WOULD BE THE RIGHT REASON???
This actually seems like the perfect reason to cancel someone. For one thing, there's no question that she actually did the thing she's accused of, hell, she's fucking bragged about doing it.
Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas, Dove.
Great
This is what we’ve devolved into when our society refuses to make and enforce laws that represent justice and apply equally to all - vigilantism.
All this fuss over who should cancel whom and how.
Criminalize lying, the bitch becomes a criminal along with the university officials who lied, dove drops her like a potato as does the university with criminal officials.
Nobody has to cancel anything.
If it was only that easy - media, politicians, scientist , hell lawyers. It would be never ending court case. Remember Biden has the disinformation czar ...
You’re confusing truth with politics because you can.
When lying is criminalized it will necessarily separate the two.
If crimes were determined by political partisanship, people would be incarcerated or not depending on the outcome of any election.
It doesn’t work that way now, so it won’t when lying is criminalized.
Do you know when you can prove what you claim or not?
Free speech is fundamental to criminalizing lying. People need to be able to prove what they claim and refute what they deny with correctly applied logic and science. Truth can’t be refuted. If the correctness of their logic and science can’t be refuted with correctly applied logic or science, rational beings must recognize it as truth.
Easy.
"If crimes were determined by political partisanship, people would be incarcerated or not depending on the outcome of any election."
You mean, like now?
Are you that dense?
Then you should have no trouble specifically identifying any crime that either ceased or was created for admittedly purely political reasons.
Instead I think in all cases law changes are credited to logic and science even when they aren’t. People lie.
Criminalizing lying will put a stop to that.
Criminalizing lying will necessarily generally violate the First Amendment and those statutes will be struck down. Creating consequences for supporting it–like boycotting–is the way to create the pinch that gets felt. A financial bite hurts the company in a number of ways. The goal is to make these people radioactive.
Look at what happened to Nike when they got in bed with Kapernick. And Bud Light with you know who. Think these actions exactly pleased the shareholders?
On the other hand, look at what happened to Chik-Fil-A every time they stood up for their beliefs and refused to knuckle under to the SJ nazis: their lines got longer.
This isn’t a tough one to figure out.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
Bitch tried to cancel someone thru lies. She has it coming.
Let her burn.
Fat nigger burning? Thats got to smell gross as hell!! They stink when they aren't burning! Black Lives Dont Matter to Me at all.
Fuck outta here with that racist crap.
Fuck off with that racist crap, she's got enough on her plate already.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Which is paraphrasing of what Jesus told Peter after Peter struck the ear from one of the guards sent to arrest Jesus. This comes after his turn the other cheek by the way. In other words, you will be judged and punished in accordance with your sins. Those who set out to hurt others will in turn be hurt.
>she made serious accusations that ruined a young woman's life without sufficient evidence.
Fuxk her. Fuck dove. Fuck UVA for letting students expel each other.
Fuck this garbage magazine for defending fake hate.
And fuck Emma Camp too. No Goddamn drink for you, Bitch!
Fuck Dove for thinking that it should pick this fat lying bitch for a "fat is beautiful" campaign. It's bad enough that we have to suffer these "fat is beautiful" BS campaigns. At least find one that isn't already politically nuclear. Poor Emma, trying so desperately to seem cool.
Now how would I cancel her, we don't run in the same circles.
Dove? Well I'm not going to cancel them either, but I've been conditioned to be highly sensitive to marketing campaigns. I'm highly susceptible to buying soap pushed by sexy models laciviously slathering on soap suds.
But alas their new spokeswoman doesn't appeal to me at all, their brand just doesn't mesh with my self image anymore.
Damn straight. Boycott Dove. But just like Bud Light, I am not a consumer. But I will take note.
This is the perfect chance to give the Libs/BLM/Antifa terrorists a dose of their own. No one buys Dove or any product from their holding company, Unilever, regardless of whether or not they fire this woman. We don’t buy until she admits in PUBLIC what she did and commits to make right what she did. Making right means the victim either gets her law school admittance reinstated and full financial compensation with interest from the school that screwed her and this woman who lied through her teeth about her. When we finish with Dove and Unilever, we move on to the next Company, school district, etc who thinks wokeness is a good idea. We keep going until every victim of wokeness is made whole no matter how long ago it happened.
Your comment overlooks the controlling point that conservatives will soon be in no position to accomplish much of anything in America. That is among the consequences of losing at the modern American marketplace of ideas, as various right-wingers -- gun nuts, anti-abortion absolutists, superstitious gay-bashers, half-educated immigrant-haters. slack-jawed religious kooks -- will continue to learn the hard way.
A culture war's winners -- the liberal-libertarian mainstream, which has shaped our national progress against the wishes and works of right-wingers for so long as any of us has been alive, with more progress to come -- call the shots. America's remaining bigoted, superstitious, belligerently ignorant, obsolete culture war roadkill -- Republicans, conservatives, faux libertarians -- will continue to comply with the preferences of better Americans.
Clingers will still be entitled to whine about all of this damned progress, reason, modernity, science, education, and inclusiveness as much as they like, of course. They can pray on it a spell, too, if they wish. Until replacement.
I recall seeing your handle on VC probably twenty years ago. I see it pop up here still.
How is it that you've managed to maintain such consistently delusional hot-takes this whole time?
Oh, the rev's predictions are gonna come true any time now. Just after he finally gets that court packing thing to happen.
It's not a racist thing but a right and wrong thing. Did your divinity school teach the sixth commandment "Thou shalt not lie." ?
She lied. Everyone knows she lied. Dove hired her. Now they can pay the price for hiring a liar.
Any faint whisper that she had voted for Trump would be sufficient reason.
To some. This really cracked me up.
"Reason has consistently argued that internet mobs are a terrible way to find the truth and get justice for those who have been wronged."
Yet Reason goes out of it's way to smear Trump, while propping up Joe and Hunter Biden.
Too True
I have to agree. This isn't a mean thing said a decade ago. False accusations intended to ruin a person's life are the perfect reason to demand people no longer get their money.
And this isn't an attempt to stop her from getting honest employment, but an advertising deal where she is held up as an example.
She can have honest employment once she makes amends for her dishonest acts.
But there's a big difference in between saying people should not get advertising deals compared to trying to say they aren't allowed to work in a warehouse or be an accountant. We should distinguish glamour professions and endorsements from normal work. Saying people should not be allowed to work is the same as saying that they are not allowed to live.
It is absoutely a great reason to cancel her. She is a lying piece of crap and everything she does or supports should be fought to the mat. And this magazine should be canceled for supporting this POS.
The author's objection to cancelling both Bryant and Dove smells like pandering to potential corporate sponsors.
It would be difficult to imagine a more appropriate situation for a boycott: Bryant us a terrible person, chosen by Dove for cynical reasons to be the worst possible role model.
BOTCOTT DOVE and cancel Bryant.
What I don't understand is what this woman did to be chosen as a soap spokesman in the first place?
"accuser" lol
You think you despise joUrNaLisTs but you dont despise them enough.
No possible way you could despise Camp as much as she despises the likes of you.
Difference is leftist cunts like Emma prove daily why there isn't enough hate and disrespect thrown their way.
Here she argues that maliciously trying to destroy a person's life isn't worth any consequences at all.
Depends on if she labels it Resist! or Sedition!
I don't have to cancel her, but I don't have to buy any Dove products either.
Corporations need to learn that the public can vote with their dollars when they pull stupid shit like this.
Exactly.
Why should I give my money to a private entity that very clearly things I'm beyond contempt? We have the government for that.
Lauding a BLM grifter is a remarkably stupid thing to do. But, whatever. Dove can be the soap of fat black racists if that's the market they want to go after. But they obviously don't want my business, so I'll chose a different brand.
I prefer Suave and Irish Spring anyways.
Suave is good. I kind of alternate between Dove Men's Care and Neutrogena for face soap, so now I'll be looking for a different '2nd' face soap.
Their parent company has a lot of brands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unilever_brands#Beauty,_well-being_and_personal_care
Nobody needs that many brands of soap.
Is "face soap" soap that's made from the tallow of faces or is it the fancy soap that no one's allowed to touch because it makes the whole bathroom look fancy?
No, it's the bar that you don't rub on your pubes so it doesn't have curly hairs to rub on your face.
If this answer is satirical; well done.
If the answer is legit; do you have trouble washing the rest of your car after you've stuffed the washrag up the tailpipe too?
You stick your washrag up your tailpipe?
I said "the" tailpipe, and ask E-bHS, he's the one grinding pubes into his own "not face" soap for reasons unelucidated.
That's...actually true.
I could switch from Hellman's Mayonnaise to Heinz. And I already have switched from Radox to SebaMed because their shower gel is better. And I never used Unilever Shampoo. I would use SebaMed, but my parents say it's too expensive so I use Head and Shoulders (owned by Procter and Gamble). However, I won't stop eating Marmite. Also, I rarely eat ice cream, but when I do, I eat Ben and Jerry's, because their ice cream is better than most alternatives. And Haagen-Dazs ice cream isn't available in most cinemas, theme parks, and other tourist attractions. Neither is Mr Whippy (which is also owned by Unilever, although it is a genericised trademark in the UK).
And I will continue using Vaseline when my lips get sore. I don't know of any alternatives, but even if I did, they probably wouldn't work as well.
Duke's FTW on Mayo.
Indeed! We used to razz a Yankee New York guy at work because he thought Hellmann's was better. That poor deprived urchin!
🙂
😉
Use generic or store brands of everything where possible when name brands support shitty causes. Generic and store brands are typically made in the same factories as name brands, but your money doesn't go to the name brands.
Or have things homemade. Air fryers have a dehydrator function, rice cookers have a yogurt maker function, and ice cream churns are motorized for convenience. There are craft supplies and recipes for soapmaking and cologne-making. Using these products feels better knowing that you're not supporting assholes.
The thing most people don't realize is that those generic and store brands more often than not are made by the same companies as the brand names, and often the manufacturing isn't any different other than the label they put on the container.
Good list. Thanks!
Dawn dish soap is now sun-downed.
It's a shame, Dawn is the best for a lot of non-dish purposes. We use it as a mixing agent in drywall mud.
Plus, if anyone likes the particular scents or texture of Dove, Walmart has their own generic version, anyway.
You let Soave wash your hair? Isn't that dangerous? He might abscond with it!
All hair aspires to the god-like magnificence of Robby's fabulous follicles.
Its how he maintains his gorgeous mane - he bewitches other men and steals their vitality! He's a hair-vampire.
If your hair leaves you for The Hair was it ever yours?
If Robby came out with a hair-care product line, would you not buy it?
I would.
If letting him wash my hair gets me those fabulous locks, it’s worth the risk he might take what little is left of mine.
Apparently the market they’re after is fat ugly liars.
Please, enough about my dating life!
I quit buying Dove products ages ago.Their ads seem to be targeting a "person of color" or fat white chick with tattoos demographic.Too bad as I did like the soap.
Just like Nike targets young Black Men as it's demographic. When you see people kill each other over shoes and Nike just brushes it off.
Especially one celebrating morbid obesity, which is the leading cause of health problems in the US, and costing us hundreds of millions in heroic medical care to keep these landwhales functioning.
I dunno. If they die a lot earlier, it might be a net win in end-of-life costs.
Actually, it is.
The NHS did cost studies on those things. Turns out smokers and obese people were less expensive over their lifetimes.
You use most of your lifetime health care dollars in the last year of life, whenever that is, whether you die at 50 or 90.
So, smokers and obese people tended to die earlier, saving the NHS the cost of elder care in addition to many years of normal health care costs.
Here is the study: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029
The summary for anyone who doesn’t want to read it:
In sensitivity analyses the effects of epidemiologic parameters and cost definitions were assessed. Until age 56 y, annual health expenditure was highest for obese people. At older ages, smokers incurred higher costs. Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers. Obese individuals held an intermediate position. Alternative values of epidemiologic parameters and cost definitions did not alter these conclusions.
Conclusions
Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures.
This means prohibiting dangerous activities to reduce healthcare costs is no longer justified.
Exactly.
We need to get rid of OSHA because stupid people shouldn't live long enough to breed.
Physiology is racist!
Speed bumps are underrepresented in bath product advertisements.
Reason seems to misunderstand (or at least Camp) that part of the free market dealing with social issues is the idea that customers can and will boycott products if they disagree with their politics. The libertarian argument against public accommodations laws is that free market forces, e.g. boycotts etc, can and would do a better job than the government to create change in behavior by businesses. This goes completely out the window when Camp cries about people boycotting companies for their political actions.
Right. The WHOLE POINT of endorsements is to associate yourself with a “famous” person in order to influence sales.
It’s perfectly reasonable for that to be a negative association.
And associating yourself with anyone, described as an "activist", is a good reason for a negative reaction.
Been a few years since I bought anything Nike.
Again, why the fuck do I want to support a company that associates themselves with people who call me racist and hate my country? Lots of other sportswear manufacturers to choose from.
Same. Also been a few years since I bought anything from Gillette. Call me a rapist, will you? I think not. Same for Dick’s Sporting Goods because of their anti-gun stance.
When a corporate entity fails to stay in their lane and ventures into activist politics, the only way they learn is to lose money for it.
At least I didn’t have to join the Bud Light boycott. Was never drinking that swill anyway. Was lucky, apparently and so far, that my everyday beer is Yeungling and has been for decades.
Plus, I've made purchasing decisions on other reasons too. I stopped buying Maker's Mark years ago when they wanted to dilute the product. Even after they decided (due to the outcry and sales slump) to not do that, they had burned the bridge with me a lot of others.
I merely continued my Bud Light boycott of the previous 20+ years.
The only bud product I ever bought was their premixed red beers (I love red beer in the summer). But buying a six pack of Coors and clamato juice is cheaper anyhow.
Same. Also been a few years since I bought anything from Gillette
I actually bought a Merkur about 3 years before that whole controversy just because the blades for the Machs had gotten so fucking expensive. I loved the two-blade Sensor Excels, but having to spend over $20 for a month's worth of blades was just too much.
With my Merkur, I can get a box of Astra blades that last nearly 2 years for about $10, and a tub of shaving soap that costs $15 and lasts a year.
I will have to check that out. I tried to boycott Gillette years back, and I found out no one else knows how to make a razor that works with the barbed wire that grows out of my face. Bic, Harry’s, Jerry’s, dollar shave, a zillion generics and off brands. They’re all essentially women’s razors in shape and utility. So I Went crawling back to the disposable Mach 3s and Sensors. I just shave way less now. So I’m only buying a pack every couple of months.
If you go the double blade safety razor route, it takes a bit of experimentation to find what works for you. Buy a sampler pack of different blades from Amazon, and buy whatever works. Try to stay away from really aggressive blades like Feathers at first until you get the feel for it, because shaving with a safety razor is a bit different than shaving with a Mach. They aren't as forgiving of mistakes as the Machs are, but you'll get a shave that's just as good or better in the end.
And there are a lot of videos on YouTube that feature different shaving soaps so you can research something that will work for you as well. I use Taylor of Old Bond and Proraso, but my father-in-law uses soap pucks in a mug, for instance.
You may have the type of beard that requires you to dump the blade after 1-2 shaves, but since the blades are so dirt-cheap, it probably doesn't matter.
I buy Defender razors. They work great and are an Israeli company. That'll get the wokesters panties in a bunch.
Been a few years since I bought anything Nike.
I honestly haven't bought anything from them in 20 years. They used to make great cross-training shoes when that was a thing in the 90s, and the last pair I bought from them were legitimately the best I've ever had in my life. No one makes shoes like that anymore and it really sucks.
Why would reason understand the libritarian side of things?
Camp also doesn't understand the difference between a boycott and canceled.
People aren't boycotting Bud light, they just said I'll drink something else and never looked back. Same will be with Dove.
I quit buying any Dove products a while ago-they seem to be targeting an a "person of color" demographic,or fat whites with tattoos.Too bad as I did like the soap.
It’s all right. Dove products are under lock and key in my store because of Zyana Bryant’s Burn Loot Murder allies. Maybe the mob will get desperate enough to render Bryant’s “fat liberated” ass into soap.
🙂
It is absoutely a great reason to cancel her. She is a lying piece of crap and everything she does or supports should be fought to the mat. And this magazine should be canceled for supporting this POS. Join BLDM! Vigilante Justice is the only real justice we have left!
The point for some is retribution, but for most I think they just want this to stop.
Maybe there is a net gain for corporations to partner with divisive influencers. There didn't seem to be one yet for Bud Lite. But the more they stack up losses, the more corporate America will learn the disadvantage of entering the culture war fray.
If anything, this mob will only leave Bryant feeling justifiably aggrieved. . Miss Bryant is clearly beyond help. Let her be aggrieved. Nothing can fix that.
But getting to the truth of what happened that day in July 2020—and getting justice for Bettinger—won't be accomplished by a nasty, tribalistic internet mob.
Are you sure?
and furthermore what is "nasty" about calling out this lying grifting low-class scumbag for what she is?
You left out “disgustingly obese”.
I too have no problem with holding this jackass blimp accountable for her horrible record. She hasn’t apologized or anything.
I keep hearing that obesity is an epidemic. A health emergency. Shouldn't this woman be quarantined? She's obviously encouraging people to be fat disgusting pigs. And doesn't Dove have some liability here for all of the fat disgusting pigs dying prematurely and creating health risks to the medical professionals who have to drag their fat disgusting corpses out of their penthouse apartments? Do I know the answer to these questions? No. I don't. But Emma has certainly opened the door here.
Except "the truth of what happened" is pretty godsdamned obvious. And if Bryant wants to live by the mob-rule, cancel culture sword, why should she not also die by it?
Because diabetes and heart failure want their turn?
Strange how Camp cant bring herself to oppose the nasty tribalistic perpetrator or the soap business throwing money at her.
Does faux libertarian Camp realize she just completely objected to the libertarian argument against public accommodations laws?
How could she, lacking comprehension of the base principles by which she might judge?
How is it not a good thing to push back against bullshit activism? In her specific circumstance I absolutely do not want to see her cash in on the evil actions that gained her notoriety. If you don't push back against this stuff then corporations will keep pushing it down our throats and shitbags like this bitch will profit from it. It is absolutely responsible to let activists and businesses know this shit isn't welcome and that there will be consequences.
I also want to point out that her contention that Reason is consistent about being anti-boycott is absolute bullshit. They only oppose this use of free speech when the right engages in some small measure of it. They have otherwise been supportive of left-wing efforts to pressure companies through boycotts and all manner of threats.
Didn't she show that there is no need for her to have any justification to feel aggrieved?
Meh, she played with fire, getting burnt is a logical outcome.
Would you write the same story if Dove hired a fat white women who called black people....you know the word?
Loud?
"People who annoy you"?
Sassy?
Uppity?
Nigglet?
Dinger?
Nagger?
Sorry, but the people who definitely deserve cancelling are those that seek to destroy an open, free society. It might sound like a libertarian contradiction, but perhaps only freedom supporters deserve freedom. As a variation of the Golden Rule says, "Treat others like they treat you."
Amen.
Dont start none, wont be none.
Do unto others before they do it to you.
Don't start a fight, but goddam be ready to finish one.
If we can't let capitalism play out by choosing different products because these corporations keep picking THE most toxic spokespeople, then what in holy hell are we doing here?
Voting with your dollars for icky reasons is bad, mmkay?
sin,
Emma Camp
No defender ever won a war by being a doormat.
Sorry, there will be time to talk about returning to civility once the fascists are crushed, and that doesn't happen by playing nice.
If we shouldn't cancel or boycott lying racist (or the companies that prop up and promote them), who the hell should we boycott? It seems to me the NAP isn't a pacifist ideal, and thus allows for defensive action.
Choosing which businesses you support, and deciding the criteria for why is not in any way an aggression.
Jack Philips is back in court for not baking the fucking cake like the state of Colorado (home of Gov. Jared Polis who claims Democrats are ‘More Pro-Freedom Than Republicans’) demands.
Philips was punished by Colorado for refusing to create a custom cake celebrating a same-sex wedding.
But, after two wins, including one win at the U.S. Supreme Court, attacks on Jack still didn’t stop. He continues to be harassed.
A Colorado trial court punished him for not designing a custom cake that would celebrate a gender “transition.” Then, earlier this year, an appeals court affirmed that decision. ADF attorneys are appealing this decision to the Colorado Supreme Court.
The request Jack is being targeted for right now came from an activist attorney who said, under oath, the attorney wanted to “[c]orrect the errors of [Jack’s] thinking.”
State of Colorado is now literally “thought police”.
The name of the activist attorney is "Autumn" Scardina, who needs to be shoved feet-first into a woodchipper.
None of these activist requests are made in good faith. That reason alone should be why these suits get tossed.
She's not just a crook, she is a worthless vile self-centered bag who cares nothing for anything but her own slimy thoughts. She is one of those ingnoramuses who has no reasoning capabilities, just shouts, threatens, screams, glories in her inability to see anything but what she wants. A thoroughly nasty blob who throws tantrums like a child. She was never required to grow up, and should be treated as such. It will be much harder on her now. Good. If she was beaten to a pulp tomorrow I would contribute to the attacker's legal defense fund. I have had it with people who throw their weight around. Figuratively or physically.
But enough about Emma Camp, what about Bryant?
I tried to use grif ter instead of crook but spell correct wouldn't let me.
Do you think I reward Burger King with business after they saturated the airwaves with their obnoxious singing commercials? How is this different?
Lol. I told directv “loyalty department” that I was dropping them because I didn’t have to sit through those obnoxious BK commercials with streaming.
Well, that and they are overpriced.
Whopper, Whopper, Whopper, Whopper...
I have not followed the story whatsoever, but am outraged none-the-less. If I used Dove, which I would never regardless, I would be boycotting because she is a 500lbs, disgusting slob. I would never take advice or recommendations from someone who can’t stop shoveling food down their gullet. I would boycott because this blatant virtue-signaling by Dove. They otherwise would NEVER sign her as a spokesperson or whatever she is. I purchase merchandise because it improves my life, never because of political views they are trying to push onto me. Unilever (Dove) can go down the drain along with other woke brands like Bud Light and others too lengthy to list.
"Innocent? Is that supposed to be funny? An obese woman... a disgusting woman who could barely stand up; a woman who if you saw her on the street, you'd point her out to your friends so that they could join you in mocking her; a woman, who if you saw her while you were eating, you wouldn't be able to finish your meal."
Do you want her fatter? Letting her eat your unfinished food is how she gets fatter.
Took me a minute... 😀
Took me a google.
Nice referen7e
love it.
The killer from the movie Seven?
(thank you, internet)
I hesitate to endorse that particular citation. That was a gross and shocking movie even in an era of gross and shocking movies.
what's. in. the. box.
Gwenth Paltrow head
Spoiler alert
Ha, that movie's been out for nearly 30 years, there ain't no spoilers there anymore.
Also, for anyone who doesn't know, Bruce Willis was dead all along in The Sixth Sense.
You monster!
Wait until I tell you about the Village. *
* I called that twist, the first time I watched it, during the first twenty minutes.
Honestly, it’s one of my favorites, and not necessarily because I think it’s a great piece of cinema, but because it really does epitomize how hard-edged and nihilistic the mid-90s were, better than any movie from that era.
Gen X. We remain extremely cynical and pessimistic. But we produced/consumed some of the best cinema and music. Also, I shake my head that I had to explain to a coworker that Pearl Jam is just generic version of Nirvana and that Cobain didn't commit suicide but that Courtney Love had him murdered. Look at the evidence, while circumstantial it does support homicide over suicide.
RIP Shannon Hoon, a little known musical genius. (No Rain wasn’t even in their top ten)
Call me a snob or suchlike, but non Seattle Grunge is imitation. Some of it like Blind Melon or surfer grunge/alternative like Weezer was good but the real stuff comes from Seattle, and Portland and Spokane to a lesser extent. But that could be personal local prejudice on my part, seeing as I grew up in the PNW during the 80s and 90s.
Which may also explain why every year I swear I won't let the Mariners get my hopes up, because I know they'll just break my heart again, but once again I was excited at the end of August and start of September.
I don’t consider Blind Melon grunge.
Popped that album in a ways back for the first time since ‘92. It struck me that they sounded like a way more hippified and jammy version of Janes Addiction. That isn’t a bad thing, there’s still some good stuff on that album.
Their second album, Soup, was better than their first. I can see that comparison.
Eh, while it wouldn't surprise me if she offed him, after reading "Heavier Than Heaven," I don't have any doubts that he ate a breakfast of buckshot of his own accord. The guy was a massive drug addict and alcoholic, manic-depressive, and had those physical issues with his gut that probably were astoundingly painful.
If he hadn't killed himself, he'd have dropped dead from a drug overdose at some point like a bunch of his contemporaries eventually did.
Oh, is she a great big fat person?
Now that one I got.
Boycotting Dove is not “cancelling” Bryant. Bryant only has notoriety as a spokesperson because of her accusations – accusations since shown to be fraudulent. Taking away the ability to exploit her own misdeeds for profit is simple justice.
“Cancelling” is bad. But that isn’t “cancelling” in the first place.
Yeah, I thought everyone figured out this boycotting=/=cancelling thing after Bud Light. "Cancelling" happens to people, not companies.
I'm probably not going to stop using a product I like because of something like this. But I can't really blame people who do. If you want to use a vile, nasty person who is happy to destroy another's reputation over some nonsense for your advertising, that's what you get.
I liked Black Rifle Company coffee but after they caved on gun control, but claim to be pro-constitution veteran ran, I won't buy their product again and avoid coffee shops that feature their product. Fuck those bro-vet hypocrites.
Yeah, they threw Rittenhouse under the bus based on the say so of an NYT reporter. Fuck those guys.
That's how I feel. I get that it encourages the company to keep doing stuff I disagree with, but if I like a product I'll keep buying it until there is one I prefer.
A local brewery puts on a lot of events and messages that I personally disagree with. I like their beer. We are casual acquaintances/friends with the owner though our politics are in direct opposition. I'll support the brewery because I like the person and beer, but I won't go to those events or buy the products virtue signaling
Dove wants the fat person market because they use more soap than regularly sized people.
That was my thought too.
Are you sure about that? Seems like an awful lot of effort to wash all of that.
Lots of surface area to cover.
Do fat people even shower?
Haven’t you ever seen video of a Jeffy…., I mean hippo?
Depends on how fat. At a certain point normal bathing becomes impossible.
“I wash muhself with a rag on a stick…”
“I wash muhself with a rag on a stick…”
(you forgot the link)
Damn, ninja'd lol.
That's why sumo wrestlers need apprentices, to wash the areas they can't reach themselves.
And it seems to me that a lot of people that fat give up on basic hygiene, too.
Are you sure about that? Seems like an awful lot of effort to wash all of that.
" Ah wash mahself with a raaag on stick...Huh huh huh huh."
"Yes ... but"
If there was ever a nastier combination of two words, that would be it. I reluctantly have to cite false equivalency here: canceling a totally innocent person and ruining her life is NOT the same thing as canceling the person who canceled her and ruined her life! Companies that foolishly establish a "relationship" with controversial people in a cynical attempt to boost sales with a certain demographic deserve to be boycotted as a result. I am no kind of expert on "marketing" but if an expert in marketing recommended this arrangement, then I have to question the value of expertise in marketing! Providers of goods and services should concentrate on providing the best goods and services they can at the best price they can and limit their advertising to letting the public know what's available (in my opinion) and, if not, then maybe they can learn the hard way - like the rest of us - from their mistakes.
“canceling a totally innocent person and ruining her life is NOT the same thing as canceling the person who canceled her and ruined her life!”
Exactly!
It's such an obvious point and it's sad that Emma doesn't immediately grasp it.
I don't care if this woman delves deeper into her lunatic ideology because people pushed against her. I want her to face harsh consequences for her shitty actions and to see her have no power or influence. The fact that Emma empathizes with the villain here just goes to show her ideological framework
"limit their advertising to letting the public know what’s available (in my opinion) "
This is the importance of the First Amendment ... so we know who the fucking idiots are ...
First amendment has nothing to do with what Master Thief wrote.
My reply, perhaps you can recognize this from the quote, was supposed to be to MWAocdoc.
And it was written nearly a day before MasterThief even posted.
Ergo, no one has any idea of what the fuck you are going on about.
Well excuuuuse me! First amendment has nothing to do with what MWAmocdoc wrote.
No one still has any idea of what the fuck you are going on about.
If a company hires people that hate me, that is definitely a reason to boycott. Stop defending this shit.
That’s all pops and buzzes to little Emma.
"Bryant did far more than mere political wrongthink—she actively lobbied for another student's expulsion and displayed little remorse once the reality of the situation emerged"
Excellent reasons to cancel her and Dove.
>>won't be accomplished by a nasty, tribalistic internet mob.
Romney announces he's finished & next day he's writing for Reason whaddya know?
Now if we could get Mitch and Graham to do the same...
as long as there is profiteering there will be Mitch & Lindsey
Live by the shitty-ever-changing-leisure-class-politically-correct's unwritten rules, die by the shitty-ever-changing-leisure-class-politically-correct's unwritten rules.
She seems to be the type that will be aggrieved no matter what happens to her. A personality flaw. Yet false accusations should have consequences or we will be overwhelmed with people making false charges to get their own way. The same with supporting and enriching someone who made false accusations. Her best bet would to have found a good quiet job with no publicity, and just to live and enjoy life. To put herrself back in the spotlight was going to cause problems. There are lots of other overweight women for Dove to pick from to push their fat agenda. Picking her was an in you face to the wrongly accused. They deserve what they get.
Yet false accusations should have consequences or we will be overwhelmed with people making false charges to get their own way.
The most appropriate punishment would be to make her run laps until her heart burst. I figure 10 around a standard track would probably do the trick.
I mean, for fuck's sake, look at her face. Her goddamn fat rolls have fat rolls.
I propose we reinitiate Code duello. With this fat fuck choose sabres, because sword play is extremely energy intensive. Pistols leave to much to luck.
Plus, if it's a public figure such as Olberman, Schiff, Maddow, Behar, Polesi, Trump etc, we can make it pay per view with the money going to pay down the debt. I'd pay to watch Pelosi v Trump at 20 paces.
Hannity vs Maddow with sabres at dawn. Must see TV.
Hannity is a legit black belt in some kind of martial arts. He purports to train several times a week.
I’m failing to see a downside to this. Either Hannity isn’t as well trained as he claims, and, thus Maddow might have a chance, thus it might be a slightly entertaining viewing experience. Or he is, in which case would anyone really miss Maddow?
Certainly not the television viewing public based on MSNBc's ratings.
Well, 20 to 30 people might.
I looked for footage of Hannity sparring or training. All I found were a bunch of clips of faggot leftists, who probably can’t fight their way out of a wet paper sack, mocking him.
Seriously, anyone like Cenk Ugyuar or Stephen Colbert have no business calling out anyone for their fighting skills.
I'd pay for mud wrestling to the death.
When she sits around the house she really sits around the house.
She's got more chins than a Chinese phonebook
When she goes to get the mail it measures on the rictor scale.
Her belt size is "Equator."
How to destroy a national brand in one easy step! Written by Bud Wiser.
Really, 10 laps? I'd take the under on that prop.
This kind of behavior never hurt Al Sharpton.
So, we are all misogynist now?
But resist we much. We must, and we will much- about that- be committed.
Sober this article isnt.
Guess she finally got her drink
Is she getting sued for defamation? If so I'd want her to as rich as possible so she can pay the damages.
I've seen some shit crazy hot takes from the Reason Staff but this one might deserve a leg lamp for Emma's living room window.
She appears to be fitting in with the likes of Sullum, Boehm, and ENB quite well.
That isn’t a good thing.
Last I checked, being rewarded for ruining people's lives for literally no reason is hardly appropriate. She will be PAID by the company specifically for ruining someone's life.
Rewarding that kind of behavior is how you get more of that kind of behavior. The very idea that this is a 'cancel mob' is belied by the facts surrounding her rise to notoriety.
You might as well hire O.J. Simpson to simp for Sunny Delight. At least he was famous for something other than murder at one point, which makes that a more sane advertising choice than this piece of crap human who is only famous for being a piece of crap human.
This is such laughable nonsenses, and I don't think Robby is actually convinced of anything he wrote.
According to the logic here, if I boycotted a business of someone who falsely accused a family member of rape, that's tantamount to "cancel culture" and morally wrong. LOL, what?
If a private business refused to hire Bryant because they didn't want to associate their brand with a known liar, Reason would simply call that a private business exercising their rights. But if I as a consumer decide not to purchase Dove for hiring a known liar, that's wrong? Again, what?
If the mob doxxed her home, threatened her, or even demanded she get fired for every job she lands, yes, that would be wrong. But boycotting isn't cancel culture. That's consumer choice, no one can be forced to buy anything. And Bryant isn't in hot waters over something like Twitter jokes and unproven allegations. She DEFAMED a woman and led a mob of her own against her.
The left will conflate boycotts with cancel culture to accuse anti cancel culture group of double standard. "Gee you're ok with cancel in THIS instance?" I don't know why Robby is playing that game.
It's not the Hair who wrote this. It's millennial faux libertarian Emma Camp.
My mistake, I thought Robby wrote this for some reason.
Robby the hair, is the closest thing to a true libertarian still on staff at Reason. True libertarians such as Stossel are only guest writers. Emma and her ilk just wear libertarian skin suits. That's why Sarc and Mikey defend them, because they are compatriots.
How is Stossel a true libertarian? Among other things he opposes tariffs and wants to make immigration easier. According to people like you in the comments, true libertarian means Trump supporter. Since Stossel supports things that Trump opposes he can’t possibly be a libertarian, let alone a true libertarian.
How is it possible that you’re getting worse at this?
A good troll should at least be interesting. Try harder.
That would require a level of competency and intellect that is beyond his natural abilities. He simply is capable of anything more intellectually texting by than Sixth grade level repertoire. Used to be 7th grade but he's destroyed to many brain cells with his constant benders, in addition to the pernicious anemia caused by chronic alcoholism robbing his central nervous system of the oxygen necessary to maintain aerobic metabolism. Resulting on his cellular metabolism relying on ketogenesis and lactic acid pathways, which have long been associated with diminished cognitive abilities.
Also, as hepatic and renal functions decrease due to chronic elevated alcohol consumption, toxins build up further reducing cognitive abilities. Undoubtedly, at this point the damage is beyond repair. And he's likely already into the early stages of small vessel dementia. The best he can hope for is to arrest temporarily the inevitable decline. Sooner, rather than later, he's going to be the shuffling, demented, angry resident that nurses and aides hate to care for and whose family, if they visit at all, limit their visits to an hour on holidays and look forward secretly to the 2 am phone call from the long term care facility.
Sorry to hear about your dad.
Gee did that sound clever in your head? Maybe you ought to talk to you doctor about any of the new dementia drugs to help stave off the inevitable decline as long as possible. I also suggested increasing you cyanocobalamin intake. Probably niacin and thiamine would also benefit you. It would cure you but will allow you to function longer (to a certain degree of function).
*Wouldn't cure you
I’m just going off of what you and your girlfriends say. If you want me to be more interesting, you need to give me more interesting material to work with.
Again, proving my point about your level (rather your lack of) intellectual ability. I stated you can't function beyond sixty grade level reportoire and to disprove me, you go to sophomoric insults about girlfriends and parents. Thank you for proving my point. But I am betting you can't comprehend that you just reinforced my thesis. Which is rather sad for you. I would off myself if I ever declined to what appears to be your baseline cognitive abilities.
*sixth grade.
Show when I've ever supported Trump? Just one statement. I have defended Trump when it's appropriate. Also, I'm not a communist but I can still recognize a true communist even while disagreeing with them. As for tariffs and open borders, I see you've actually completely ignored my actual arguments I've made multiple times on these subjects in order to try and extremely puerile attempt at derision. Your problem is that you can't grasp the concept that one doesn't have to agree with someone in order to respect their convictions. I don't agree with Truman but can respect him for being one of the most honest politicians of the 20th century. I can disagree with Adams' administration while also applauding Adams' actions in defending the Boston Massacre suspects.
Damn straight, well said.
IMO, the crux of the issue is Emma's bastardization of the notion of "Cancel Culture". It used to contain a distinct connotation of pulling something relatively innocent out of the far-flung past, judging it by today's standards (or one particular view of them) and calling for the person to be deplatformed in a manner completely dissociated from all notion of causality, i.e. unconscionably or unusually.
For instance, people are right to hassle Trudeau for the hypocrisy of dressing in blackface, but it was a long time ago, he didn't hurt anyone, and it's not really a crime even today so he shouldn't lose his job over it. That would be "cancelling" him. If he did it today, OTOH, especially combined with all the other actual bullshit he's done, it would just be the bridge too far or the straw that broke the camel's back.
It’s fair game to cancel wokies. They’ve brought it on themselves.
I wouldn’t boycott Dove for hiring this blob to stuff bars of soap into paper wrappers. But to hire someone notorious only for making false accusations and trying to ruin someone’s life is nuts. Or a statement that they see themselves as in a war and chose the side of the lying cancel-culture nutcase leftists.
So I only regret that I’ve bought just one package of Dove soap in the last 40 years and found it did not clean my greasy skin at all well, so I doubt they’ll notice that I’ll never buy another one.
I have used Dove soap before because I have eczema but found that Kirk’s is even better so I highly recommend it for sensitive skin. Plus, you won’t be supporting fat ugly SJW liars.
That just shows the role suggestion plays in all this. Kirk's, as pure, unstripped coconut soap, objectively should be much worse for eczema than any other soap. It's more grease-cutting, plus it contains the very short-chain soaps that don't even contribute to detergency but do irritate. But if it makes you feel better, that's all that counts.
Maybe not, but it just might help Bryant understand how karma works.
No it won’t. This fat ugly bitch got paid for no other reason than the notoriety from this incident.
What was dove thinking? This is peak 2023.
I entirely agree that the absence of the role of forgiveness in cancel culture is abhorrent. But, there has been no apology made here, no repentance, no request for forgiveness. Thus, this is a moot point – at least for now.
As others have said, this isn’t about “cancel culture” per se, but consumer preferences and how marketing campaigns affect them. People like to “feel good” about their purchase, which means that there are more to consumer preferences than cost and quality. Perhaps, this will be a marketing “win”, where Dove attracts more consumers who are or like morbidly obese, left-wing totalitarians, who foam at the mouth thinking about cancelling the next “subversive”.
Or, for the rest of us, the Dove marketing campaign makes us feel sick and pissed off, and the value of buying Dove soap diminishes, especially knowing that your purchase puts dollars directly into the pocket of this evil, horrible, disgusting world-champion of cancel culture.
I entirely agree that the absence of the role of forgiveness in cancel culture is abhorrent. But, there has been no apology made here, no repentance, no request for forgiveness. Thus, this is a moot point – at least for now.
Right. If she made some acknowledgement about being wrong, apologized, and then said she had realized her error and is in favor of free speech, the online backlash against her would be disgusting. But she's made no apologies and has suffered no consequences, and is only famous BECAUSE she tried to ruin an innocent person. Perhaps people are right to say she makes a very poor product spokesbumb.
"But getting to the truth of what happened that day in July 2020—and getting justice for Bettinger—won't be accomplished by a nasty, tribalistic internet mob...."
I don't ever buy soap on the internet, so I'll participate in the boycott at the grocery store.
And by the way, Dove is owned by Unilever, which also owns Ben and Jerry's, making this a boycott with a bonus!
Thanks for reminding me! That makes me even less likely to buy either of these products.
"Yes, Zyahna Bryant thoughtlessly ruined Morgan Bettinger's life by slinging baseless allegations in the public square."
Thoughtlessly? Do you own a dictionary?
Maliciously is more like it. It was a thought out, self serving campaign. When corporations decide that they prefer certain portions of the marketplace, those of us in the other portions should assist by withdrawing our patronage.
Also, when did refusing to do business with someone for pulling malicious shenanigans in real time get lumped in with the pulling of innocent shenanigans from the far-flung past and calling for punishment today?
Bryant should feel justifiably aggrieved, right now. That's the whole point. Right now it's all justified by her behavior. 10 yrs. down the road and the grief would be dissociated from her actions and unjustified. This is Pavlovian-level psychology.
Indeed, it wasn't "thoughtlessly", it was intentional and with malice aforethought.
Following coverage from the New York Post, the Daily Mail, and even a comment from Elon Musk, calls to boycott the company have been growing
If this Bryant woman got her Dove deal because she’s some social influencer, with this Bettinger accusation being the example of how she gets attention, then there is nothing wrong at all with holding Dove accountable for their decisions to put her as a focus of their marketing.
That said – there is no question who is really to blame for cancel culture. It ain’t the mob of howling idiots. It’s the Elon Musks, NY Post, Daily Mail, etc. The people who know that its the university/tribunal – not Bryant – that screwed up Bettinger’s life. Who instead are ok saying that it was Bryant (and you yourself said that). The people who themselves have the power to destroy someone else’s life. The people who knowingly set that into motion. And who have the sociopathic evil in their own souls that gives them great pleasure at seeing a mob they riled up destroy someone else.
Those are the people who should be canceled and where justice would be for a mob riled up against them to cancel them. But that will never happen will it.
Just reading the comments here. Whew the hatred and bootlicking and easy manipulation is strong in you folks. The necessary components for a willing obedient lynch mob.
We're pointing out that she looks as repulsive as she is. What's the problem? Jabba the Hutt was more svelte.
She eats Jabba the Hutt for breakfast. Hater
Bryant's not going to sleep with you.
I didn’t see puritanical neo-commie ideologues purposely creating a culture of fear on there. Was that the “ University/tribunal” part?
Sure, I guess that makes sense from a certain point of view.
That point of view being that people aren't responsible for their own actions and are simply bags of meat that are available to be used by anyone and everyone that happens to be nearby. Hell, perhaps even objects can influence these meat sacks into doing their bidding!
Sure, the university did a bad thing by listening to her but do you seriously believe the university would have gone after this victim sans a minority woman screaming about how she needs to be removed 'or else'?
To quote As Good As It Gets:
Woman Fan: "How do you write women so well?"
Nicholson: "I think of a man then take away reason and accountability."
That point of view being that people aren’t responsible for their own actions and are simply bags of meat
To be fair, Bryant isn't just a bag of meat, she's the whole fucking cattle factory.
Bryant was the one who lied about what Bettinger said. Made some shit up whole cloth so she could be at the center of a controversy for attention and clicks. How is she not culpable for that action?
The people who themselves have the power to destroy someone else’s life. The people who knowingly set that into motion. And who have the sociopathic evil in their own souls that gives them great pleasure at seeing a mob they riled up destroy someone else.
This describes Bryant. How do you not see that?
There is little/no evidence that she knowingly lied. The far more likely explanation is that it was an emotional crowd at a location where a protestor had been recently killed by car - that heard/repeated two words 'speed bump' and that filled in the rest.
What was missing that day and in the early days following was an adult anywhere in the vicinity who understood either responsibility or how to calm excess emotion when it risks getting out of hand.
That is still missing - three years later - with the media/Musk/etc riling up the lynch mob here.
Far more likely: Bryant is a clout chasing cunt who chose to create/extend the situation because she's a racist sow with no moral compass or integrity.
There is little/no evidence that she knowingly lied.
This seems to be contradicted by the investigation itself.
A university investigation later found "insufficient evidence" for Byrant's claims, even concluding that it was "more likely than not" that Byrant never even heard Bettinger make a "speed bumps" remark at all.
If it's more likely than not that Bryant never heard the original speed bump comment, it seems more likely than not that the accusation is an intentional lie.
Bettinger admits she used the term 'speed bumps' in reference to the protestors. That's never been in dispute. So the question is what other words are in dispute and is someone culpable of twisting them around to the extent of saying they are lying about them. Bettinger doesn't remember the exact words she used. And what the investigation showed is the moment on video when Bryant may have first heard it - and what she heard would legally be called hearsay. So IF someone lied, it was the anonymous person who turned it around a bit into hearsay and then repeated it. And Bryant admits that she may have misheard things.
The university/tribunal is 100% at fault for failing to soundly establish the facts so that they could move their community beyond the heat/emotion of that moment.
FAR FAR worse is the culpability of Elon Musk, NY Post, Daily Mail (the media does this shit all the fucking time because they are full of sociopaths in search of clicks) which - three years later and thus quite deliberately - creates their own lies to rile up the mob. And the mob, commenters here, which is perfectly happy looting/burning/lynching. Even without the excuse of heat/emotion on a day where conflict is present and facts are not yet known.
So IF someone lied, it was the anonymous person who turned it around a bit into hearsay and then repeated it. And Bryant admits that she may have misheard things.
Nice use of the passive voice there by her, long after she put someone through hell.
And the mob, commenters here, which is perfectly happy looting/burning/lynching.
The fuck you going on about? You got some kind of feeder fetish that demands you white knight for this morbidly obese, grifting hog?
So you and your ilk are the be nice police? You people are foul miserable humans and proud of it. Being offensive is part of your shtick and probably part of your political philosophy. And now you're offended by someone else?
I know it's pointless to ask a mob its reasons for doing something. But - what really is your reason for piling on to what is clearly some orchestrated political manipulation?
Is it because she's BLM? Because she's fat? Because it's Saturday? Because libertarianism requires private media-stoked mobs to control behavior in the absence of the state? Because she's black?
So many valid reasons eh? Even if you folks are boycotting Dove, that isn't the conversation here is it. It never is among your ilk. You never go after the powerful or those who make the decisions.
Oh, fuck off, Jfear. The “mob” is clearly behind (heh heh) and in service to this fat pig, and were none too shy to fuck up this bettinger chicks life, truth be damned.
So a few people snicker because her attempt to cash in on her own hatred may have hit a snag, and that just sticks in your virtue signaling craw. Boo fucking hoo bitch.
What an asshole.
That’s a whole army of strawmen. The article even mentions the real reason.
Stop drunk-posting, you sound like a hysteric here.
And what the investigation showed is the moment on video when Bryant may have first heard it
The moment when Bettinger was speaking to the truck driver and not to the protestors calling them speed bumps as Bryant claimed in her initial complaint to the university?
If you want to read about the investigation, follow the links in the article
How many of these retarded articles do you write?
The investigation was launched because Bryant claimed Bettinger told the protestors directly that they’d make good speed bumps, yet it showed Bettinger made the speed bump comment to the truck driver AND that it wasn’t a threat AND that Bryant never heard the original remark nor saw to whom it was spoken. So Bryant’s claim was intentionally false in at least one sense, if not more. Despite that the university punished Bettinger as if Bryant’s claim were true.
Yet you’re the one indicating Bryant may have tried to ruin Bettinger’s academic career and future employment prospects in good faith, while simultaneously trying to lay blame for the current backlash against Bryant and Dove on a mob of lynching racists.
In short, fuck off.
And if this activist made an honest mistake, I'd love to hear her apology. "I misheard and I'm sorry, I shouldn't have been oversensitive." If there's any evidence at all that she made any gesture of contrition, I'd be happy to see it.
If it was a good faith mistake like that, she really should have backed off at some point.
Im not saying she did a damn thing 'in good faith' or 'in bad faith'. There was no purpose or intent in what she did that day. No critical faculty or individual self-awareness as part of a group that day - BLM. Because individuals who identify with a group - and especially a group that seeks to divide/conflict with other groups - subordinate all that to maintaining group interest and cohesion. Bryant certainly far less purpose/intent/self-awareness/ or critical faculty than YOU have in choosing to join a mob - and identify with it as 'anti-BLM' for lack of a better word - three years later.
You have zero interest in even reading what I wrote. Only in translating it into something that you view as threatening to your groups cohesion. Somehow she is supposed to have done what you are incapable of doing.
You won't 'change your mind' re what you believe about Bryant's responsibility that day even if -eg Emma Camp quite deliberately (she is conscious of what she writes) overcentralizes that narrative around Bryant and thus deliberately demonizes her. I wouldn't call that 'good faith' or 'bad faith' on your part. I would call that bad faith on Emma Camp's part - but only for what she did do not for what you all are trying to do re the consequences of that demonization. And yet Bryant is supposed to have gone through some sort of struggle session - done by whom? The university which failed in everything they did?
Both groups - the BLM folks that day and you commenters here - are a perfect case study of how crowd psychology works - in destroying the individual. All the journalists here (+ Elon Musk) are a perfect case study of how mass manipulation works. The lessons of Lippmann, Bernays, LeBon, and Machiavelli.
Im not saying she did a damn thing ‘in good faith’ or ‘in bad faith’. There was no purpose or intent in what she did that day.
You think there was no purpose or intent for Bryant to complain to the university about her claim as to Bettinger's comment? Because that's exactly what everyone her has been talking about. You're either an idiot or a liar.
Or he's saying that she's such a mindless mob-follower that she can't be accused of ever independently forming any intent. BUT that's a reason she should never be a spokesperson, and anyone hiring her as such deserves to be canceled just like her mob has done to the undeserving.
Oh she certainly intended to file the ‘complaint’. But that means everything from there on is on the university not her. They failed.
And yes that day she was little more than a mindless mob follower. Just like everyone here. So where does the cancelling stop?
As I said I have no prob at all challenging Doves decision to hire her if it has something to do with that day. But superficially, she was hired as a Fat Acceptance Ambassador because she’s – drumroll – fat and happy with that.
And no one here is even talking about Dove.
Oh she certainly intended to file the ‘complaint’. But that means everything from there on is on the university not her. They failed.
I agree that the university should face consequences for their poor decision. But that does not absolve Bryant of being intentionally dishonest (she claimed to have been witness to the ‘speed bump’ comment and claimed that it was said to the protestors) and of having the intent to get Bettinger expelled from campus, thus damaging any future career prospects.
Bryant now having her own career prospects harmed due not to false accusations but true ones, is poetic justice.
nd yes that day she was little more than a mindless mob follower. Just like everyone here. So where does the cancelling stop?
Bryant was spearheading the mob, not a follower. She initiated the complaint to the university.
As I said I have no prob at all challenging Doves decision to hire her if it has something to do with that day. But superficially, she was hired as a Fat Acceptance Ambassador because she’s – drumroll – fat and happy with that.
Well then we agree. Dove can hire whomever they want, but they are facing consequences for their decision to hire Bryant specifically, given her past actions.
Well the problem as far as I'm concerned is that if she'd said exactly what she's been accused of saying, and shouted it directly at the protestors, it still is protected free speech and not even remotely a threat. She could have said much worse, like, "I hope someone DOES turn you all into speed bumps" and it would be free speech.
Your right to protest is not a right to have everyone agree with what you're doing and be polite to you while you do it.
I dunno. Maybe Hertz isn't ready to hire him back as their pitchman, but maybe Ford could use him in commercials for the Bronco.
And to think Chevrolet once used O.J. Simpson for a commercial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBgTvR3xygA
Btw, someone should hire Morgan Bettinger as a spokeperson, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Hertz, too, from what I recall, about two years before the murders.
Juice running through an airport is all I recall from the commercial.
How about Ford broncos
I hear Jared is still available if anyone needs a spokesman to sell sandwiches.
OMG, I rented a car from Hertz at the start of the summer, and it was nothing but a sequence of one service failure followed by another. The days when Hertz billed themselves as #1 and backed it up with quality are long gone.
OJ might be the perfect spokesman.
The 22-year-old announced in August that she was working with the soap company to promote "fat liberation."
Oh good! She looks like she could stand to "liberate" some fat from her waistline. I ho... one second... [touches earpiece] What?... But that's the opposite of liberation!
Ah, my mistake, Reason, once again and as usual, championing the literal and definitive deconstruction of liberty in favor of, uh, [flips notes] ...um... [flips more notes] ... aw fuck it, being fat and black.
Being fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life...for a son anyway.
Speed bump? I don't think so. She would total your car.
I’m not canceling anybody. But we have hundreds of interchangeable soap brands. Our choice of products in such a market is driven by the images and associations of the brand, not the quality of the soap. I’m simply choosing not to buy from a brand that is associated with butt-ugly, fat, racist psychopaths. If that’s the kind of brand you want to associate yourself with, knock yourself out!
Again, at one point, cancel culture had the distinct connotation of violating ex post facto, unconscionable actions, and/or cruel and unusual punishment. Specifically, the canceller reached back into history, judged something by the current context, and rendered judgement far in excess of any considerable harm then or even now.
Saying a fat, ugly, unrepentant liar, who tried to get someone else kicked out of their University just a couple years ago, isn't a spokesperson anyone should give patronage to right now isn't cancel culture.
That's ridiculous! Of course we buy soap based on quality. The idea that all soaps on the market are exactly the same and that we only buy based on image is what drives this silliness in the first place. If you disagree, just try using some lye soap and you won't ever try it again. Every major brand of soap I know of has different fragrances, extra ingredients (like lotion in Dove) and deodorants for example.
I can't quite tell whether you are trying to be sarcastic or whether you are actually serious.
But Dove's fragrance is part of the brand, which is precisely why brand matters. It's the smell of fat, racist chicks now.
Though, to be fair, you are right to a certain degree: Dove isn't actually even a soap; it's an artificial concoction of surfactants. So that's another reason to avoid it, just like you should avoid deodorant soaps. In fact, avoiding any Unilever products is probably a good idea.
I used to buy whatever soap was cheapest until my wife left a bar of Dove in the shower. My scrotum looks 20 years younger!
You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers.
The problems with this article are numerous, but let's start with a couple of things:
1) On what libertarian principles do Free Minds and Free Markets suddenly become something that is wrong, wrong, wrong? How can a "mob" of people deciding they don't like a product or a marketing message cross the lines into being bad? Ms Camp gives us no clue into that- only that for some reason because people on the internet are working together, it is something to be lamented.
2) The lack of any basic principles here leaves us with no mechanism of judging what is an appropriate market reaction versus the kind Ms Camp finds icky. If a tweet storm informed me that a certain company was exploiting minors, is it suddenly wrong for me to boycott that company, just because the manner of my discovery?
3) Indeed, Ms Camp's sole attempt to describe what is objectionable is...kind of terrible. "What's happening here is blatant cancel culture—a concerted effort to destroy someone's personal and professional prospects over a single past incident or comment without any capacity for forgiveness."
In fact, that is not what is happening here. Let's remember that when Cancel Culture began, it was about random, private individuals being persecuted and fired from their jobs for political gaffes that had NOTHING to do with their jobs. The first high profile case in the modern world was the story of Justine Sacco, who made a silly little tweet that ended up getting her fired from a marketing agency.
Being a spokesperson is not the same as being some random employee. Bryant's job is literally to represent the values of her employer. She didn't make a single tweet, she has continued to double down on this attack on innocent people. And the fact that she is an unrepentant and vindictive bitch who tries to ruin the lives of people she targets should absolutely be considered by any company that considers her as their spokeshole. I can't believe that this is even a question.
Let's be clear: Firing a person because they are incompetent at their job is not the same as firing someone for unrelated reasons. Twitter mobs- even amplified by Reason's own reporting- regularly fight tooth and nail to get cops FIRED from their jobs for abusing their station, or failing to act during school shootings. Does the existence of a twitter mob suddenly make this wrong?
It is noteworthy that Ms Camp gives us no reason why we should give the horrible Ms Bryant a pass for her behavior. No, all Ms Camp can do is condemn the process. It's wrong because it doesn't "seek truth"?
People buy a product or don't buy a product because they want that product. Truth has nothing to do with it, and Ms Camp needs to spend a few more days thinking about her emotions and then rewrite this article with a little, ehem, Reason.
She also talks about 'forgiveness' which in context is pretty rich since this woman has never sought out any forgiveness.
So, basically turn the other cheek knowing full well this woman is going to slap it too. Probably harder than the first time.
That might be an admirable trait, but notably no Christian institutions or individuals are mentioned so I'm not sure why the author would bring that up. It's shows that the author seems to have their own biases against Islam, right? They certainly would not turn the other cheek, but that is neither here nor there.
It has little to do with forgiveness not being offered and a lot to do with the individual never seeking any forgiveness and in fact not seeing what they did was wrong in any way.
This is hardly the first time a 'spokesperson' has done something incredibly stupid or off brand and been fired for it. The difference here seems to be that she was hired after doing the thing that would normally get such a person fired. No shocker that this has a negative market reaction. In fact, they literally teach this in public relations degree programs. Or, at least, they used to. God knows what they teach now.
I can rattle off perhaps half a dozen spokespeople or advertising actors who have been shitcanned for a lot less. I have no idea what makes this person special, but I'd guess it has something to do with her intersectionality score. If she's a lesbian on top of the rest she may be eligible to be on the Supreme Court.
Maybe Jimmy John's should hire Jared.
Shoot. I didn't scroll down far enough before I made a similar comment above.
"If she’s a lesbian on top of the rest"
I hope she's not on top of anyone or anything.
I'm now recalling the episode of _CSI_ where a fat woman preferred to be thought a murderer rather than admit suffocating her partner with her weight was an accident. But this sociopathic liar's inner ugliness would show through no matter how much weight she lost.
"people deciding they don’t like a product or a marketing message cross the lines into being bad?"
I don't disagree but I think you took that out of context. The point being made here is that canceling Dove and a controversial influencer won't achieve the goal. Of course, it begs the question: what IS the goal? If the goal is to end the cancel culture then, of course, it's probably correct. But if the goal is something different, like cancelling people who actually deserve to be cancelled instead of innocent random victims who did nothing worse than disagree with you, then the point is wrong.
The objective is not to "cancel" anybody.
I'm simply not going to give money to a company that promotes hate against me.
Neither am I going to want the smell of a product on me that is associated with fat, ugly, racist psychopaths.
I don't see why you have a problem with that, but that problem is yours. You spend your money the way you like, and I spend money the way I like.
Cancelling the cancellers may actually work to reduce cancels culture, as making them live by their own rules could make them rethink their strategy. It's like treatment of EPW (at least in regards to western countries). I'll treat your prisoners good as long as you treat mine well. Of course this only works if you are willing to go tit for tat.
Hanging people by their own petard may also convince fence sitters because it exposes their hypocrisy when they whine about being held to the same rules.
Finally, any former enlisted person will tell you one of the most effective ways to rebel against tyrannical, useless rules is to follow them to the tee. That really pisses off the tyrants.
The least effective way to achieve your goals when dealing with tyrants And irrational people is to try and rise above them. Since they refuse to see that they are the problem, they will see your actions as submission and feel justified that their actions are warranted, rather than you trying to take the upper road.
One has to wonder what Emma's advice would have been to the Sons of Liberty when protesting the stamp and sugar acts? That their boycotts (and the other boycotts voluntarily enacted by the other colonies) were a form of cancel culture that only hurt the English merchants who lost sales?
If course the SoL and their compatriots got a bit more boisterous than people not buying Dove and saying so online. I don't see anyone tarring and feathering this racist Jabba wannabe or the executives at Unilever.
There are no libertarians at Reason anymore. They all disappeared a few years ago. Since then Reason has become a supporter of the STATE and SOCIALISM.
As soon as you understand that you understand their articles.
While I disagree with Camp’s take, it is based in libertarianism. In fact, it takes the tolerance for individual liberty aspect of libertarianism too far, not taking personal responsibility into consideration at all.
Not really it's trying to enforce some sort of central moral standard to the natural actions of people. The boycott isn't centrally enforced in any way it's organic from people disgusted by this woman's actions and want to see her face deserved consequences for them. The only libertarian aspect of this is pointing out the college administration is the most at fault and deserving of punishment in this situation as they were the authority most responsible for what happened.
I look forward to Dee’s response to this comment.
She was merely opining what moral standard she thinks everyone should adopt. No talk on her part about enforcing her moral views via government, just trying to use persuasion. That’s within the realm of libertarianism.
Remember, a riot is an ugly thing...
Und I think it is just about time that ve had one!
"Kill the monster!"
Relevant clarity –
Cancel Culture: Twitter mobs and historically ignorant morons canceling Snow White because of a "non-consensual" kiss depicted 85 yrs. ago (and written even further back).
Market Correction: Disney execs cancel Snow White in the modern day because, in the modern day, the actress “portraying” her is stupid enough to, uh, promote the film by, repeatedly and again in the modern day, talking about how she hates the movie, the franchise, and all the products and is glad that all the remnants of the story that all the fans of the last 86 yrs. have known and loved have been removed.
They still have a movie called Snow *White*?
I’d boycott Dove, but, honestly, their products are so crappy that I already never buy them.
22-year-old
Ooooh! I *get* it now! The 22-yr.-old large, angry, black woman is able to buy drinks wherever she goes! It all makes sense!
OK, so... question, if we regard everyone including Bryant as beautiful, then when we need someone to actually look... Shrek-like... whether because they actually are trolls on the inside or because we want to convey the age-old "Don't judge a book by its cover." message, what are we supposed to do?
Lots and lots of art is going to get pretty fucking boring pretty fucking quickly if the only conceivable depiction of evil and ugliness is Trump's mugshot.
If you’re asking for personal opinions, here’s mine: There’s a difference between beauty and attractiveness. Both are individual preferences, not subject to analysis objectively, although some scientists have tried to “normalize” traits such as facial symmetry and, perhaps, evolved genetic tendencies like big eyes (nurturing newborns) and narrow waists (fertility). Lots of people are attracted to women shaped like the subject of this rant. Some people prefer blondes, some people don’t. Discussing cancel culture in the context of shaming because you don’t happen to be attracted to that person seems wrong to me on several different levels. A person can be beautiful based on personality regardless of outward features.
This is objectively false. Her BMI is way above 35, which means that the vast majority of men rate her as highly unattractive.
Dove is a beauty product. You buy it to look and feel more beautiful, and the image their marketing projects is closely related to that. If your standard of beauty matches their marketing, by all means, buy their products.
That is possible. However, we know something about this woman's personality, and most people find it as reprehensible as they are put off by her outward appearance. But, again, if you like her personality, by all means, buy the products she sells.
Just don't tell others that they have an obligation to disregard their standards of beauty and decent behavior.
Lots of people are attracted to women shaped like the subject of this rant.
The only people attracted to women this massive are feeders, like what you see on "My 600-lb Life."
Nice. I didn't mention shame and, in dodging my point you reinforce it.
A person can be beautiful based on personality regardless of outward features.
Yup. In order for such a person to exist, they would have to be outwardly ugly, correct? Further, just because you think someone should feel shame because they themselves, as well as others, can objectively recognize that they aren't as beautiful as someone else doesn't mean they actually do or should.
So, back to my question, if beauty is all encompassing what does ugliness look like? If people can't look at Bryant and say "She's ugly." because it's wrong and makes her feel bad, then, presumably, they can't look at Gal Gadot and say the same thing for the same reason. And the notion that "You can't say someone's ugly because it causes them shame and hurts their feelings." actually obliterates the possibility of the "Beautiful on the inside" notion you're advancing. So, either the argument is fundamentally retarded and retarding, "nothing means anything" nihilism, or you're rather specifically trying to tell people like Gal Gadot they should feel more shame for the way they look.
There’s a difference between beauty and attractiveness.
I mean seriously, are you homeschooled 6 yr. old? You sound like a retarded 50s era After School Special or PSA short. My 10 yr. old is more adult than this.
A wise man once said, "Beauty is skin deep, but ugly goes clear to the bone".
-jcr
Flip Wilson said that as part of his Reverend Leroy routines.
"When everyone is special, no one will be."
But then they get mad when right-wing memes depict them as NPCs.
I purchase Dove products. Thank you, Reason, for bringing Dove's association with a grifter to my attention. My money will now be spent elsewhere.
"Fat Liberation"
Is that like, an INCEL thing? Because it sounds like an INCEL thing...
Nah. There’s dudes that’ll still hit it. A dazzling urbanite fella I worked with was all about the “biddies”. I normally wouldn’t judge except the asshole constantly used to try and show us the videos of it he made on his phone.
In the latest news from The Peoples Republic of New Mexico:
“I didn’t have time in a crisis to seek a consensus,” Lujan Grisham said, referring to the fact that multiple law enforcement leaders and members of her own party spoke out against the order, including Attorney General Raul Torrez, who sent her a letter saying he would not represent her office in legal challenges to the order.
I guess she also did not have time to read and understand the Bill of Rights.
“If I have to be the only one in the country to stand up for families, for children, so be it,” she said.
Remember, only narcissistic Republicans claim to be histrionic saviors that can face down existential threats.
That was a spicy hot take, Emma. Here’s to hoping you can get a beer tonight to wash that down.
Sorry, but canceling someone is sorta the other side of the 1st Amendment. You can say anything about a person (excluding provable liable and slander) and you can not say or repeat anything about someone you want to be ignored.
Who?
This article brought to you by Unilever.
I've used Dove all my life, any recommendations on an alternative bar and liquid soap?
Dove is artificial chemicals. Try something natural with few ingredients instead: actual soap. Dr Bronner, Toms of Maine, Crate 61, etc. Lots of small brands too.
August that she was working with the soap company to promote "fat liberation."
First thing to pop into my mind is Fight Club. Liberate some of that fat and make soap!
My brain went here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmtkNrufSwQ
Mine went here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spDiEh9P6P8
This is different. Dove went and *got* her; this wasn't some preexisting contract. Why did they choose her, of all people?
Those virtues aren't going to signal themselves, Davy.
I was planning on boycotting her just for the race pimping and "fat positivity."
"We should be centering the voices and experiences of the most marginalized people and communities at all times."
That. I'm boycotting that.
Emma is advocating against cancel culture, but this lisping cow's first sentence as a Dove Partner is straight up Animal Farm: "All Animals Are Equal but Some ["Marginalized"] Animals Are More Equal Than Others." At all times.
Hell with her. It's not "a concerted effort to destroy someone's personal and professional prospects over a single past incident." It's a concerted effort to destroy someone's personal and professional prospects over what she's doing/saying RIGHT NOW. TODAY.
She's clearly just parroting the dumb shit she read in college by Kimberle Crenshaw. "Mapping the Margins" is all about that dumb "centering the marginalized" belief.
Nah, fuck her. Live by the sword, die by the sword. This is the world she wanted to live in, now she can live in it
So, if a business in Libertopia chooses to discriminate against customers based on race - we should also no boycott them if we disagree with their policy?
We're shoulding now?
How good are these cocktail parties?
I'm kind of ambivalent on this one. While it looks like the university is at fault for finishing what shouldn't have been started, Bryant did start it. And while mob justice isn't justice, sometimes people do need a taste of their own medicine.
Agreed.
The term "mob justice" is misleading. It suggests justice system like punishments, punishments that violate the NAP.
Large numbers of people voluntarily coordinating to ostracize and boycott is not a violation of the NAP. In fact, such voluntary action is the way free societies reduce the size and power of government. If you don't like that, you don't like libertarianism.
Whenever someone says “If you don’t like xyz, you don’t like abc” I can say for certain that that person is so full of shit that it drips out of their ears.
Then again you like to call anyone who disagrees with you a liar, so I already know you're full of shit.
That is the kind of superficial reasoning we have come to expect from you.
Your are full of shit sarcasmic, and a liar.
Reason has consistently argued that internet mobs are a terrible way to find the truth and get justice for those who have been wronged. What's happening here is blatant cancel culture—a concerted effort to destroy someone's personal and professional prospects over a single past incident or comment without any capacity for forgiveness.
I'm sorry, has this person ever faced any consequences for her actions at all and, in fact, ever apologized to the person SHE tried to destroy? Absolution can never come before atonement. There needs to be a recognition of wrongs done before forgiveness can be given.
Until that happens, it seems perfectly acceptable for people to continue to brand her as an awful person because she took awful actions.
And continues to.
Discover the pinnacle of e-commerce design with the best premium Shopify theme on TemplateTrip. Elevate your online store's aesthetics and functionality with our meticulously crafted theme. With stunning visuals, seamless navigation, and powerful features, this theme ensures an unparalleled shopping experience for your customers. visit : https://www.templatetrip.com/best-shopify-themes/
There's a pretty big difference between someone simply holding a belief and someone actively trying to ruin someone's life. Especially as that person was just some fairly random person.
I'm not crazy about people being canceled for their beliefs, but it happening for their actions are certainly fair game.
For instance, if J.K. Rowling went around kicking transgender women in their balls, that would be bad. But just pointing out they aren't women if they have balls, is not.
Or more controversially here, Elon Musk sucking up to Russia and China. He can do it if he wants as long as it's words. But actively sabotaging Ukraine? That's something he should be held accountable for, especially when it comes to military contracts.
He didn't "actively sabotage" Ukraine, and if you read somewhere that he did, the source was lying to you.
He did refuse a request from Ukraine to extend the reach of Starlink service to make it useful as a component of an offensive weapon. Given Russia's recently-demonstrated anti-satellite capability, that's entirely reasonable and prudent, and anyone who hasn't personally volunteered their own ass to be shot at by the Russians can shut their pie hole about how Musk should risk his business's assets on making Ukraine's military marginally more effective.
Fortunately, J.K. Rowling and a few others are wealthy enough that efforts to cancel them fail. The average guy with a mortgage has to watch what he says at work.
There's a reason why, when Reason served me a survey, I specifically named the morally and intellectually obtuse Emma Camp as one of my objections to the magazine.
Well, I've never bought that greasy soap substitute in the first place because the one time I happened to use it, I found it difficult to rinse off. Not sure why they think hiring a guilt-peddling harridan to endorse it would change my mind.
-jcr
It could make you look just like her! Doesn't that change your mind?
I guess I'll just have to forego the benefits of resembling a Sumotori, since I'd like to live as long as possible.
-jcr
I honestly cannot see - nor does this article present an argument I can discern - why I should buy one among many second rate soaps merely because their new spokesperson is a thoroughly repellant individual.
The situation involving University of Virginia student activist Zyahna Bryant's partnership with Dove and the subsequent calls to boycott the company is an example of cancel culture in action. Bryant previously made serious accusations against a fellow student, Morgan Bettinger, which were later found to lack sufficient evidence. While Bryant's actions were wrong, engaging in a boycott or attacking her online won't help repair Bettinger's reputation or get to the truth of what happened.
Internet mobs and cancel culture campaigns often do more harm than good, distracting from the real issues and preventing constructive resolution. Finding a fair and just resolution should be the goal, rather than perpetuating a cycle of online outrage.
Pesona Epoxy adalah perusahaan yang menyediakan jasa epoxy lantai yang terpercaya. Kami mengerti betapa pentingnya penggunaan epoxy pada lantai untuk mencapai keindahan, ketahanan, dan kebersihan yang optimal. https://pesonaepoxy.id/jasa-epoxy-lantai/
I am still trying to understand why a soap company feels the need to go down this road, regardless of the spokesperson. What the hell does fat liberation have to do with a bar of soap.
What the hell does fat liberation have to do with a bar of soap.
Tell me you didn't live through 1999 without saying, "I didn't live through 1999."
The first rule of associating fat liberation with soap is that you don't talk about why fat liberation is associated with soap.
Soap was made from animal fat. Bryant should be careful if Dove offers here a tour of their plant.
That would be a LOT of bars of Dove.
Pretty much everything on the body wash/shampoo shelves in the supermarket is sodium laureth sulfate plus some random perfumes and stuff. There’s no reason to skip right past all the name brands and fancy bottles and buy the cheapo generic product.
Didn’t the Bud Light marketing person end up out of a job? Maybe Dove hired her.
Because if you haven't been paying attention for the last CENTURY, advertising for all products showed beautiful thin (usually white) people using their products. It's long past time for products to admit, through their advertising, that people of all shapes, sizes, colors and persuasions use their product
By purposely using racist activists and portraying all whites, especially males, in a poor light?
When was the last time you saw a white, heterosexual couple portrayed in commercials? Or a white male who is competent? If you see a white person as a member of a couple it is invariably a mixed race couple or homosexual (but you'll see plenty of biopic same race couples in the same commercial). It's overcorrection at best, at worst, blatant bigotry towards whites. Better answer is to not choose spokespeople solely due to race, etc. But that's to hard for idiots like Anastasia to understand.
It’s long past time for products to admit, through their advertising, that people of all shapes, sizes, colors and persuasions use their product
That wasn't an issue until America's obesity rate went through the roof, and fatties were told by their mentally ill professors that society was "marginalizing" them by not making everything super-sized.
Advertising with physically repulsive people is anti-advertising.
Indeed. People of my shape, size, and color are not using Dove products.
Wow. Emma, this is not cancel culture. The Dove woman ruined another person's life. Why would Dove want to associate with her, and why would people pay good money for Dove products when Dove obviously doesn't care a whit about what Dove's activist buddy did to another human being?
Emma, are you saying that a company could have David Duke on its payroll, and we should just be ok?
Emma, are you saying that a company could have David Duke on its payroll, and we should just be ok?
I mean, technically, David Duke didn't actually get anyone kicked out of school directly, did go to prison for his crimes and serve his time, and, AFAIK, isn't up for any soap or commercial spokesman deals.
Not to equivocate or "BOAF SIDEZ" the issue, rather the opposite, even false equivalence would be giving Bryant Hunter-Biden-levels of White Privilege.
Look up "equivocation"...
While the activists out there are actively practicing repressive tolerance, the left-leaning libertarians (spoiler: not libertarians) are here to supplement that by appropriately acting as a doormat or abused spouse to the aforementioned activists.
I wonder if this "ah hell, no big deal!" attitude and forgiveness would ever be given to a proven, out and proud white racist who purposefully lied and ruined a black persons life.
This shit always goes in one direction, and so called 'libertarians' are helping the activists snuff out freedom by "just letting it go" when far left activists openly practice their authoritarianism.
Emma can't articulate any libertarian principle that would be an argument against "cancelling" this woman or choosing not to buy the product of the company she represents. In fact, voluntary private economic choices, ostracism, and free speech are the primary mechanisms for punishing misconduct in a free society.
But that's par for the course for Reason: authors misrepresent anti-authority leftism and support for its followers as "libertarianism", probably because they don't know any better.
There is absolutely nothing anti-authoritarian about the left. The so called anti-authority left just is upset about who the authorities are. But they are just as authoritarian. The problem is that so many see Libertarians as the cool kids and try to be them, when most libertarians are actually the kids founding D&D clubs, with glasses held together by tape, pocket protectors and bragging about their new graphing calculators. True libertarianism is not about the drug wars or buttsex that attract so many to the cause, it's about a deeper intellectual pursuit of liberty, the descendent of humanism, classical liberalism, free market capitalism, and individualism. Nine out ten times the people claiming to be the true Scotsman, ehr libertarians, really aren't even close. They have one or two issues that coincide with libertarianism (generally anti police, pro drugs, pro buttsex or pro abortion) without comprehending why libertarians support these positions. I, myself will admit that I went through this phase myself, only to realize that many of my stances overlap with libertarianism but that I'm not a true libertarian, but rather a small r Republican in the mold of Madison and Jefferson or a classical liberal in the mold of Henry, Franklin etc. While also recognizing that they often failed to live up to their own standards (Jefferson, Henry and Madison on slavery for example, Jefferson and Madison's administrations' actions, especially in regards to state enforced boycotts of England, for another).
That's about where I am philosophically, too. I use libertarianism as more of a guiding principal when evaluating policy, rather than an end unto itself.
'Which one of these outcomes allows for the greatest individual liberty for the most people?'
'Which of these proposals is the least intrusive to people's lives?'
Then why did you capitalize... never mind.
That is what anti-authoritarian means: rejection of bourgeois authority, not rejection of all authority.
I never boycott anything. I just don t spend my money on companies that I don't like.
Dove should be boycotted for its really stupid decision to hire a severely obese and ugly woman to advertise a health and beauty product.
If anything, this mob will only leave Bryant feeling justifiably aggrieved.
I can't imagine too many are concerned with her feelings at this point. Nor can I imagine she'd have a change of heart one way or the other. The type to feel the power rush of marshaling an institutional mob against randos usually doesn't learn the error of her ways whether or not a mob is sent to her own doorstep.
"this mob will only leave Bryant feeling justifiably aggrieved."
She's a BLM fat, entitled black woman. Feeling "justifiably aggrieved" is her state of mind 24/7, 365 and nothing will change that.
All true, there are lots of people on the left who are walking grievance collectors. And … same with a lot of people on the right, many of whom feel justified in whatever atrocious behavior they want to engage in because they have a list of grievances against the left.
[Disclaimer: This comment is a bothsides, not a whatabout.]
Make them live by their own rules.
Using their own rules against them is racist.
Saul Alinsky hardest hit.
Why does Reason attract the absolute dullest of thinkers and writers?
It wasn't always but then they moved to DC, became beltway and NYC centered and started hiring J school graduates. I really am convinced that J school students and graduates are actually dumber than education majors, which takes a hell of a lot of doing.
I have been using Dove soap for years. This article made me decide to stock up on anything but Dove next time I go to the store.
But Winston, using the tiny bit of market authority that you possess is so terrible and wrong!
Publicly ostracizing those that knowingly make false allegations has been the norm for about 10,000 years. That ain't cancel culture baby, that's just basic violation of social contracts at work.
Why can't both be done Reason? No it's not canceling. Same as Bud light. It wasn't canceling. It just not buying there products. There isn't anyone saying bud couldn't put what they want on cans, it's that people don't have to buy them.
2) Fat liberation? There is fat and there is obese. Why should everyone pay for obese health issues?
This person wrecked someone's life but she gets off scott free? Nice Reason. Same as illegal immigrants.
This bitch wants fame and fortune for what? Being a lying and lazy stinky fatass? Also, "fat liberation"? What does obesity liberate you from? Living longer? Fitting comfortable into clothing? Getting thru doors?
I'm really not sure what it means for me to "cancel" someone I didn't like or support before shilling for a company I didn't patronize.
I don't advocate doxxing anyone or sending hate mail/comments to them.
Dove already has a gross image AFAIC. Unhealthy, overweight people and closeups of skin conditions, as well as overtly politicized content are all things that completely put me off buying their products. Hiring this morally repugnant spokesperson is just the cherry on the disgusting sundae.
I hope Bettinger wins her suit and is able to find a university with more integrity where she can continue her education.
Normally I would agree with an argument against cancel culture. But in this case, it seems that a boycott would serve to publicize the unjust treatment of Morgan Bettinger, and thereby help to vindicate her, as well as pressuring Bryant to come to terms, publicly -- and not a minute too soon -- with her past and continuing (because of her silence) unjust and destructive behavior.
Reason/Emma Camp (whom I consistently enjoy reading) get this one wrong … if Bryant showed remorse for being obviously wrong, the argument not to cancel would be strong - but the lack of contrition or acknowledgment of wrongdoing is EXACTLY why Bryant should be condemned. Not to “cancel” is to condone her egregious behavior - and Dove should be criticized for their foolish choice of spokesperson.
I don't know about this.
When you target a specific person for harm and "ruin their life" then that is more serious than just saying something stupid.
I think the objection to cancel culture is that people should not be cancelled for their thoughts, because if we start doing that, people won't be able to think freely.
But here, we don't just have stray thoughts. We actually have an active pursuit of another person over a significant period of time.
The one thing that gives me pause is that it seems like the person admitted that they weren't sure about their memory of what they said. Well, we would never want to discourage people from telling the truth by punishing them later. But also, telling the truth also can't be a "get out of jail" card.
There is also the idea of "live by the sword, die by the sword." A person who tries to cancel others being themselves canceled seems fair and doesn't seem like it creates a risk of a wider cancellation campaign. It is more giving someone a taste of their own medicine.
Telling the truth isn’t just a “get out of jail card”, it’s a “prevent the crime before it’s committed card”.
When people readily admit that they can’t prove their belief, how could anyone be justifiably punished based on an unproven belief?
These are private consumers. They can buy what they want.