Cause we all need a lil' controversy

Yes Steve, I really went there. I was just suggesting that we meet and talk about this if you want me to understand. It is possible that you can make me understand in person. I'm really not getting you in this format. Bring your sweetie, I'm not threatening you in any way!

You implied that I'm not accountable for what I say unless I talk to you in person. I found that to be irritating, especially giving your level of effort in understanding what I said. You may be the life of the party, but this doesn't mean everyone wants to meet you in a bar.

I'm no kind of elitist. I don't care if people like cheap beer or wine. I assumed that the 1/2 price wine list was good wine at a good price. Was I wrong there? I don't drink wine at all. I don't drink cheaply made beer but I have no problem drinking well-made beer at a cheap price. I'm on record here on this forum as having no interest in over-priced beer.

I know many Bud Light drinkers who feel the same way about their beer. A good beer, at a good price.

As far as I can see you haven't actually said what it was that Roger said that was incorrect. Just that it offended you and possibly others who don't read the forum in which he published his opinion. If that is all you are trying to convey then I guess I read you. I just thought you were someone with something interesting to say who would be willing to make the effort to be understood.

Why do you even bother to read my inane ramblings? But if you want understand something I said, you could actually quote my particular passage and ask me what I meant. Calling the entirety of a long reply inane doesn't facilitate conversation, does it?

I can't view the original link right now. But as I recall, in this particular screed, Roger was upset with folks who drink A-B products. He thinks it's impossible that they actually like them. So, they must only drink them for jingoistic reasons. Which he finds funny, because they are to stupid to know that A-B is now owned by an Belgium based international conglomerate. He just can't grok that these folks drink it because they like it. He thinks they are too stupid to know what they like. That is condescending and insulting.

If all you got is that I'm too verbose and Roger's opinons offend you then I guess your right, we don't have anything to talk about. I apologise if I offended you. That was not my intention.

Here's the deal. When you write long posts, I assume you want people to read them and engage with you in conversation. I did that, writing a detailed reply to your first reply. Your response to that was a terse posting, basically saying that my entire response was inane. Which wouldn't be so bad in and of itself. I'm sure I post many inanities. And I usually don't mind having that pointed out.

But, you couldn't even be bothered to point out a single inane example, just the "whole thing" is inane. So, it annoyed me that the only feedback you were willing to give was "the whole thing is inane", and then you come back later with another one of your patented tributes to verbosity. You actually wanted me to read that I suppose?

So, it appears to me, your really don't wish to make the effort to understand what I mean as you really aren't interested in what I have to say and you really like to hear yourself talk.

A conversation is a two-way street.

It's fear of pointless length. Or pointless brevity, for that matter.

Perhaps.

I can't pull up the original link right now, so I can't go bring in more context. But what do you think the purpose would be for these "milder, golden-colored, session-strength alternatives to the mainstream"?

Is it not to appeal to those Bud Light drinkers? I'm willing to entertain alternate explanations. Why do you think Roger mentioned this in an article ridiculing A-B/InBev customers?

It's fairly simple. We make something a shade closer to the mass market's sweetie spot, compromise by doing so, and meet somewhere in the middle. Except one must be willing to nudge toward the middle. I am. So many others are not, and perhaps it's a sign of the times, in the sense of polarization.

At the music fest in question, a clear majority of those willing to venture the act of sampling something different were sufficiently impressed to drink a craft beer. Many of these were women. Most of the ones unwilling to consider something different were white males roughly my own age.

That demographic breakdown probably is another clear sign of the times.

This thread has gone off so many rails, I don't know if many people are still reading, but....

Roger's point about gender demographics/stubbornness is represented on this board. I've tried to make the following point subtly on a number of occasions: the really contentious debates on this forum (including the current ones) are dominated by male voices. It seems at times that Robin is in charge of babysitting a college frat that is comprised of individuals(men) who equally cherish argument, antagonism, and stubbornness. To call it a "testosterone" measuring contest would not sometimes be very far off target.

All the while, there's a wonderfully (mostly) pleasant population of women who contribute the majority of the really meaningful (i.e. helpful) posts. Quality over quantity, perhaps...

I know I am stereotyping. I know I am painting with a broad brush. I know there are (and have been) antagonistic women on the board, just as there are helpful men (including those who posted regarding where to feed the swimming team). But, I don't think I am wrong. Just look back at the really combative threads. Not that any of what I am saying is all that surprising given research on how gender influences online participation/engagement.

And I'm guilty as charged, although I've tried to change that...

I can't pull up the original link right now, so I can't go bring in more context. But what do you think the purpose would be for these "milder, golden-colored, session-strength alternatives to the mainstream"?

Is it not to appeal to those Bud Light drinkers? I'm willing to entertain alternate explanations. Why do you think Roger mentioned this in an article ridiculing A-B/InBev customers?

It's fairly simple. We make something a shade closer to the mass market's sweetie spot, compromise by doing so, and meet somewhere in the middle. Except one must be willing to nudge toward the middle. I am. So many others are not, and perhaps it's a sign of the times, in the sense of polarization.

At the music fest in question, a clear majority of those willing to venture the act of sampling something different were sufficiently impressed to drink a craft beer. Many of these were women. Most of the ones unwilling to consider something different were white males roughly my own age.

That demographic breakdown probably is another clear sign of the times.

I dont even think making some golden colored and session strength is even moving to the middle. But moving to the "middle" by conceding on color and alcohol level doesnt move taste at all.

You used wits as an example. I dont think they, in any way, are a compromise on "taste".

This thread has gone off so many rails, I don't know if many people are still reading, but....

Is it really possible for a thread eliciting controversy to go off the rails?

BTW, I'm not opposed to jumping in and helping with suggestions, etc. It's just that someone invariably beats me to it, with even better suggestions!

I know it doesn't show, but I'm actually more of a lover than a fighter.

This thread has gone off so many rails, I don't know if many people are still reading, but....

Is it really possible for a thread eliciting controversy to go off the rails?

very true. good point. I laughed.

BTW, I'm not opposed to jumping in and helping with suggestions, etc. It's just that someone invariably beats me to it, with even better suggestions!

Controversy helps page views, I'll admit that.

I know it doesn't show, but I'm actually more of a lover than a fighter.



No, I think it does show.

Well, against my better judgement, I clicked through to Roger's latest polemic, and did read the whole thing*. Maybe someone who's unaware of Roger's antics might find it interesting, but it was the usual rerun, all the way down to the sneering at folks who like A-B products. Nothing new there at all. I wish I'd skipped it like Steve P. (maybe he IS smarter than he looks )

Steve – I did read what you wrote and I found it lacking useful analysis and openly insulting. You start by professing reluctance to read “Roger's latest polemic.” Really, why would you bother when you admit that you, unlike some others, are aware of Roger's “antics.” You disparage him in your next sentence by calling it the usual rerun and all you came away with was that Roger was sneering at folks who like A-B products.

I only read the article once but that was not what I got from the article. Perhaps it is a matter of perspective? Since you can't pull up the article for some reason, I decided not to look at it again either.


I remember Roger describing a scene where the generic A-B lover is suffering some angst because he can't reconcile his love for Bud Light with the fact that Bud Light is mass-produced in a factory by a soul-less foreign entity. I chuckled at this but I think it wishful thinking on Roger's part. I doubt that there is any more than a tiny percentage of people who prefer Bud Light and give that issue any thought at all. Why should they? That's for another discussion but I don't believe that the Bud Light drinkers I know suffer any cognitive dissonance because of it.

You end your first paragraph with a back hand complement to Steve P, a well-known Roger baiter. I can't help but wonder why you added this last bit?

It is amusing to observe Roger's Rube Goldberg like constructions to condescendingly deduce why folks would drink Bud Light, instead of accepting that they, well... just like it. The especially funny part is when he explains how micro breweries are starting to make products that taste more like Bud Light in order to woo A-B customers. Ha! Ever think about not insulting them? Cognitive dissonance indeed!**

Maybe you're making this too complicated? I found nothing convoluted about Roger's article and I don't believe that his main point if it was any point all was about “why folks would drink Bud Light.” I'm pretty sure a guy who makes a living selling beer knows why folks drink beer.

The point I took was that people who should know better (event organizers) use the term “domestic” to describe a product that really is no longer so. The gigantic conglomerate that now owns A-B markets the product as a domestic beer and appeals to “folks” patriotic leanings. This is done in ads featuring images of Adolphus Busch on towering Clydesdale horses and other nonsense. I doubt anyone drinks Bud Light because of that. I'm told they drink it because its cheap, has less calories, and they like the taste. It must be swallowed quickly as anything other than ice cold is not so tasty. My Bud Light drinking friends all agree on this.

That is where Roger indicates that many of those same aspects can also be found in beer brewed and sold by locals and made from quality ingredients, many of which are sourced locally. There are craft beers that are light, low alcohol, and mildly flavored.

Now at this point you may have stopped reading this and I am wasting my time. If we were face to face I would know that and wouldn't waste my breath further. We would just talk about something else.

We both read Roger's article and we took away something completely different. Now my interpretation may be different from what Roger intended. I didn't go back to reference Roger's piece and I probably should have. It is however, what I took away from it. I do seem to remember that the title of the piece was something like when “Domestic isn't really Domestic” or something like that.

I will go back and read it again later but first I'd like to ask Roger something and I hope he will respond. You have read Steve's comments and I think it is clear that he believes that you were sneering at and were condescendingly to Bud Light drinkers. He was insulted by this.

I will stipulate that Steve felt insulted and so likely were others who perceived your article in the same way he did. Here are my questions.

Was your intent to insult Bud Light drinkers?

Do you think that Steve and others have reasonable cause to feel insulted by what you wrote?

I'll take the answer off the air.

conversation is a two-way street.

I agree.

Well, I guess Ron (the OP) got what he wanted - just not the topic he expected By the way I hate Bud Light, Miller Lite, Busch Light and any other light you would care to mention!!

Was your intent to insult Bud Light drinkers?

Do you think that Steve and others have reasonable cause to feel insulted by what you wrote?

I cant answer for Roger, but where were Bud Light drinkers insulted in the article?

I see insults aimed at:
1. ABI (or Bud Light itself, whichever)
2. Bud Light drinkers who are unwilling to try something else

I dont see anything insulting Bud Light drinkers.

Analogy time: I eat at McDs on occasion. Had a sausage biscuit this morning, in fact. People say all kinds of bad things about McDonalds Corp. Ive never been offended. People say all kinds of bad things about McDonalds food. Ive never been offended. People even say bad things about people who eat at McDonalds. That hasnt offended me either. Maybe it should, but it hasnt*.

If I was at a music festival with food booths set up to showcase local food, I wouldnt demand that McDonalds be included. If they were there, I would still go to the other booths. I would rather have a better burger, but sometimes I take the cheap/easier option.

While I dont do it, I get the guy who mostly drinks Bud Light but sometimes has a craft beer when out. But in my mind, the Bud Light only guy is the same as the McDonalds only guy. Which is insane**.

*Im nearly impossible to offend, which causes me problems at times, as Im surprised when people get offended by statements I make. But that is their problem, not mine.

**Possibly this, for an example of the first footnote.

Went to Joe's Crab Shack once. The servers did the Macarena on our table with disco lights going off everywhere as my pop and I were trying to enjoy our beers and scrimps. And being that the '96 NY Yankees (I'm probably the biggest anti-NY Yankees fan ever) did the Macarena once on TV and I generally don't like that song AT ALL made it one of the most annoying restaurant experiences ever for me. Never went back.

Well, I guess Ron (the OP) got what he wanted - just not the topic he expected By the way I hate Bud Light, Miller Lite, Busch Light and any other light you would care to mention!!

Amen on both counts above.

Well, against my better judgement, I clicked through to Roger's latest polemic, and did read the whole thing*. Maybe someone who's unaware of Roger's antics might find it interesting, but it was the usual rerun, all the way down to the sneering at folks who like A-B products. Nothing new there at all. I wish I'd skipped it like Steve P. (maybe he IS smarter than he looks )

Steve – I did read what you wrote and I found it lacking useful analysis and openly insulting. You start by professing reluctance to read “Roger's latest polemic.” Really, why would you bother when you admit that you, unlike some others, are aware of Roger's “antics.” You disparage him in your next sentence by calling it the usual rerun and all you came away with was that Roger was sneering at folks who like A-B products.

Well, I don't think it was especially insulting, but shouldn't a polemicist be able to take what he dishes out? And if you don't think it's basically a rerun, then you haven't been reading what Roger's been posting here for a long, long time, years before you even decided to grace our controversial shores. Many of his writings come across as sneers, you disagree. That's perfectly fine, but it is interesting.

Here are some passages that I perceive as sneering or condescending:

Ever since Anheuser-Busch was folded into the international monolith currently known as AB-Inbev, there has been no single polemical activity quite as entertaining as reminding flag-waving, chest-thumping, God-fearing patriots that their carbonated urine of choice no longer emanates from an American-owned brewery.

Here we have learned that A-B customers buy A-B products not because they like them, but because they are "flag-waving, chest-thumping, God-fearing patriots". And further, that they are too stupid to even realize that they drink "carbonated urine".

Rather, it has become the possession of a dastardly multinational conglomerate. That’s right: Controlled by the same overseas shareholders who likely speak vernacular European (where the phrase for unfathomable dishwater is pronounced “Stella Artois”), routinely torture poor geese for use of their fattened livers, and not only know what a bidet is, but also how to use it.

Here the argument is extended to show that these A-B customers, who apparently only consume A-B products for some patriotic reason, would be shocked to learn that their favorite beer is now of European ownership, and should probably switch to a pure American brand regardless of taste. As a bonus we also learn, that A-B customers wouldn't know a bidet from a hole in the ground, or how to use it even if they did.

Incontestable facts have a curious effect on those unaccustomed to examining their guiding premises. Bud Light drinkers look up at the sky, then down at their feet. They fidget and avert their eyes. Raging cognitive dissonance causes them to become completely unmoored, and they suffer from vertigo-induced internal visions of hurtling through space without the umbilical tether of brand-loyal regularity.

Roger is now amused that when he points out to random A-B customers that they are drinking a product owned by a European company, they act, well they apparently don't know how to act. He attributes this to cognitive dissonance introduced into their minds by the fact of having their American beer being owned by a European company.

Might I offer another explanation? Perhaps the A-B customers are either A) embarrassed to be conversing with a raving lunatic or B) confused because they are only drinking a beverage that they enjoy and don't care to trapped in a conversation of corporate restructurings?

Soon they’re pouring gallons of insipid liquid down their throats, evidently intending the act of repetitive swallowing as a mantra, or an antidote to reality, as though sheer speed in consumption might somehow conjure the ghost of Auggie Busch atop a Clydesdale – or at the very least, a computer-generated hologram of the beloved elderly propagandist and robber baron – to coddle them with reassurance that it’s all okay: Eisenhower remains ensconced in the Oval Office, plywood and Formica reign supreme, and intrinsic American goodness, from burgers to cinematic car chases, as yet conquers an eager planet.

Yeah, they probably are drinking more beer, likely to wipe the image of the raving loon out of their minds!

But it is interesting to note another recurrent theme for Roger, that folks drink A-B beverages because they have been brainwashed by marketing and advertising, not because, well, they just like them. So, in Roger's mind A-B customers are to stupid to even know they are being manipulated into drinking this insipid urine swill.

In truth, I feel somewhat badly for them. They work hard at low wage jobs, and don’t even have cash to install mufflers on their Harleys. The thought of all that money flying to tax havens around the globe, even as local government can’t fill potholes, must be unsettling. Far better to ignore what you can’t grasp, suck some more Bud Light Lime through the nearest available teat, and sleep the sleep of the swill-laden.

Ah, so Roger pretends to feel badly for blue collar A-B customers, before letting us know that he is smart enough to understand international beverage finance, but alas, the drunken infantile A-B customers are not.

I reckon that's enough for now. Do you see the sneering and condescension yet? If you don't, maybe you can get some of your Bud Lite drinking buddies to read it and see what they think.

I only read the article once but that was not what I got from the article. Perhaps it is a matter of perspective? Since you can't pull up the article for some reason, I decided not to look at it again either.

This problem has now abated for now, thanks to not being behind a restrictive firewall.

I remember Roger describing a scene where the generic A-B lover is suffering some angst because he can't reconcile his love for Bud Light with the fact that Bud Light is mass-produced in a factory by a soul-less foreign entity. I chuckled at this but I think it wishful thinking on Roger's part. I doubt that there is any more than a tiny percentage of people who prefer Bud Light and give that issue any thought at all. Why should they? That's for another discussion but I don't believe that the Bud Light drinkers I know suffer any cognitive dissonance because of it.

If you've read up till here, then you know we actually agree on this point. I am surprised, frankly.

You end your first paragraph with a back hand complement to Steve P, a well-known Roger baiter. I can't help but wonder why you added this last bit?

Because I was trying to increase the controversy level by baiting Steve P into joining the thread?

It is amusing to observe Roger's Rube Goldberg like constructions to condescendingly deduce why folks would drink Bud Light, instead of accepting that they, well... just like it. The especially funny part is when he explains how micro breweries are starting to make products that taste more like Bud Light in order to woo A-B customers. Ha! Ever think about not insulting them? Cognitive dissonance indeed!**

Now see! If you had quoted this and asked about it before, then I would have happily explained. All you gave me to work with was "the whole thing is inane". So, here's an explanation:

Roger cannot believe that anyone drinks A-B beverages because they like them. In fact, he is constitutionally incapable of believing it. So, since he cannot accept this, he constructs theories as to why folks drink A-B beverages. Like:

1. They are uninformed ignorant Americans who only drink it for patriotic reasons.
2. They are too stupid to think for themselves and so are easily brainwashed by advertising.

So, even after Roger confronts them about why they are "really" drinking A-B products and they drink more A-B products, he assumes they are now victims of cognitive dissonance and are just drinking themselves further into their stupor.

Some part of Roger's Brain (is this a movie?), must know the truth, because he talks about making beers that are closer to A-B products in flavor. Now, why would he do this if taste had nothing to do with why folks drink A-B products? He just spent paragraphs giving us all these other reasons, but taste is never mentioned as a positive reason to drink A-B beverages.

My point is that it is Roger who is suffering from cognitive dissonance. He can't admit some folks prefer the taste of A-B products. He builds up elaborate theories as to why it's about any other reason EXCEPT taste. Then he talks about making products that taste more like A-B products, but he can never admit to himself why. This is classic cognitive dissonance. It's like, straight out of the dictionary classic.

I did pack a lot of stuff into that one paragraph. I wish you had asked me about it originally.

And if you don't mind , I am stopping here and will not address the rest of your post. This is long enough. If there's another point that you'd like me to consider, just let me know in this thread. You could just copy and paste that part into a new post. There's no need to retype anything.

Heavens, that was long-winded.

Some part of Roger's Brain (is this a movie?), must know the truth, because he talks about making beers that are closer to A-B products in flavor. Now, why would he do this if taste had nothing to do with why folks drink A-B products? He just spent paragraphs giving us all these other reasons, but taste is never mentioned as a positive reason to drink A-B beverages.

My point is that it is Roger who is suffering from cognitive dissonance. He can't admit some folks prefer the taste of A-B products. He builds up elaborate theories as to why it's about any other reason EXCEPT taste. Then he talks about making products that taste more like A-B products, but he can never admit to himself why. This is classic cognitive dissonance. It's like, straight out of the dictionary classic.

Actually, no, I wasn't referring to making craft beers taste flavorless like AB Inbev products, as opposed to A-B, which no longer exists -- but that's a relatively minor point, if one worth stressing in a multinational sort of way).

I was referring to every now and then, just for the fun of it, making them golden-colored (they've been conditioned to be terrified of color ... hmm, there's another societal angle), on a milder side in terms of flavor (they've been conditioned to believe that every craft beer is hoppy and strong), and in a broader sense, seeking to neutralize the decades of propaganda borne of saturation advertising, which would have been the envy of Goebbels.

Consider it a controlled experiment of sorts. Those who actually know me, rather than psychoanalyze me on an Internet board, know that I've been pushing the concept of session beer consciousness for a very long time.

Yep. Those who actually know me ... well, they actually know me. I am forever gratified to inspire such verbosity.

Heavens, that was long-winded.

Ha! Let's compare word counts.

Some part of Roger's Brain (is this a movie?), must know the truth, because he talks about making beers that are closer to A-B products in flavor. Now, why would he do this if taste had nothing to do with why folks drink A-B products? He just spent paragraphs giving us all these other reasons, but taste is never mentioned as a positive reason to drink A-B beverages.

My point is that it is Roger who is suffering from cognitive dissonance. He can't admit some folks prefer the taste of A-B products. He builds up elaborate theories as to why it's about any other reason EXCEPT taste. Then he talks about making products that taste more like A-B products, but he can never admit to himself why. This is classic cognitive dissonance. It's like, straight out of the dictionary classic.

Actually, no, I wasn't referring to making craft beers taste flavorless like AB Inbev products, as opposed to A-B, which no longer exists -- but that's a relatively minor point, if one worth stressing in a multinational sort of way).

I was referring to every now and then, just for the fun of it, making them golden-colored (they've been conditioned to be terrified of color ... hmm, there's another societal angle), on a milder side in terms of flavor (they've been conditioned to believe that every craft beer is hoppy and strong), and in a broader sense, seeking to neutralize the decades of propaganda borne of saturation advertising, which would have been the envy of Goebbels

Yeah I know what you mean. None of us are able to decide what tastes good anymore.

Consider it a controlled experiment of sorts. Those who actually know me, rather than psychoanalyze me on an Internet board, know that I've been pushing the concept of session beer consciousness for a very long time.

Yep. Those who actually know me ... well, they actually know me. I am forever gratified to inspire such verbosity.

I'm sorry for the pause. My brains had to be scooped back into my skull due to a spontaneous extreme irony explosion. So, we aren't supposed to psychoanalyze folks we don't know? Is that what you just said? Your self awareness really is nonexistent, isn't it?

I'm sorry for the pause. My brains had to be scooped back into my skull due to a spontaneous extreme irony explosion. So, we aren't supposed to psychoanalyze folks we don't know? Is that what you just said? Your self awareness really is nonexistent, isn't it?

I googled this self-awareness thingy and found this:

Develop Self Awareness ... Self awareness is developed through practices in focusing your attention on the details of your personality and behavior. It isn’t learned from reading a book. When you read a book you are focusing your attention on the conceptual ideas in the book. With your attention in a book you are practicing not paying attention to your own behavior, emotions and personality.

Wow. Steve P was right, after all.