Books are being banned, speech is being censored, and whole swaths of the American public are being made afraid to speak a certain opinion for fear of a very real retaliation. This is all happening here, now, in the USA. But why? Why such an assault on not just the right to bear arms, but effective free speech as well?
Because 1A and 2A rights are key, they mutually support each other, because one can be used to defend the other. Likewise loosing one can cause you to loose the other, as is historically the result, and often the intent. Both are needed for a free people to remain free, and both must be eliminated if you wish to master a people.
It is the truth however, that is what is most preciously protected by those rights, and, our ability to insist upon the truth. The ability to speak the truth, use the truth, have the truth, and defend the truth are all given a meaningful and effective defense so long as we retain those first and second amendment rights. The minute we loose them though, we loose all ability to demand the truth, and very quickly, loose all independent ability to know the truth.
I would argue that it is the truth that is what is most in contention in the world today. Exemplified here with this thread where it seemed to me that the regular plain truth was plainly evident in the Rittenhouse situation, as it is with BRCC as well, itâs not complicated or difficult so far as I could tell. Unless of course, you want a different truth about things than the one that simply is. It is then, when you find yourself in need of an alternate truth, that the afore mentioned rights become a real problem, even a threat.
Technically, BRCC is exercising their free speech by informing the public that they arenât associated with Kyle RittenhouseâŠ
Not going to derail this convo into being about the incident, but I will say that several lawyers have videos that cast haze on his actionsâŠthe actual lawyers on the case will do the same⊠and until that haze is cleared up, itâs a good practice to stay neutralâŠfor exactly the reason you highlighted⊠nobody knows the full truth yet⊠Itâs just a good practice to let things work out before sharing your companyâs position on the matter.
Also, Kyle is on video fist fighting a girlâŠthatâs going to make the rounds when the trial starts⊠Itâs just not wise to dig in on this⊠lots of riskâŠno reward
For a lot of people, company heads included, itâs not so easy to take a stand when doing so could cost not only you, but people who look to you for jobs, or security at home. I canât blame BRCC for doing what they did if it was being made to look as if there was a relationship, or if they were being retaliated against. No doubt there are a lot of families involved who stand to be impacted.
One has to choose oneâs battles as best they can.
The headline at revolver.news was that they threw him under the bus. I am disappointed in them, but I donât see how they threw him under the bus. It turns out that they did not stop sponsoring the show that posted the picture, and I understand a business not wanting to be associated with someone who may be found guilty of murder, but given the corporate persona they have built, I would have expected them to stand up for him.
Well, I like their coffee too. Iâm even finishing off a pot this morning. But I wonât be buying any more.
I wonder how much their business will now be jeopardized by having taken the âneutralâ path?
BRCC are the ones who clearly use the appearance of a strong pro-2A attitude and support for veterans to sell their brand and bring in profits. So if you had a business that is NOT in any way related to those, then sure, donât take a stand. But with the clear threats to 2A that may soon be upon us, and a generally positive opinion of Rittenhouse by the pro-2A crowd (exactly the crowd BRCC sells to), what did Evan Hafer expect the overall reaction to be?
It may have been a âno winâ either way. But my suspicion is the path he took is going to hurt more.
It is a no win either way. Personally Iâm glad they took a neutral route. Itâs just coffee. I dont want or need every company to chose a political side. And if they do I dont need to agree with every position they take. If we dig deep enough weâll find a reason not to like anything.
To each their own on whether or not they support BRCC.
And to be 100% honest I donât understand what they did that was so wrong. They didnât say anything negative about the kid. They didnât do anything to harm his case or his character. Lastly they didnât come out on their own, they were pushed to have to say something and I take zero issue in what was said.
Interesting. I canât say it would surprise me at all if it were true though. Itâs becoming a common occurrence to discover that someone posing as conservative, or pro rights, is in fact a fake, using their false credibility to do things they could not do if they were open about who they are.
Not that I have been asked but I believe corporations , Sports Clubs, Entertainers would be best be served by staying out of politically divisive debates. Yes they can take a stand if the wish but they risk offending half of their customer base, either way. The NBA is learning a hard lesson with viewership way off and profits dropping. The playoffs were down 27 percent from last year and 40 percent from two years ago. I am not debating the cause only that the results show cause and effect. The NFL was down this year as well. Forbes predicts they will lose 5.5 billion in Stadium revenue from 2018. People donât want to be lectured to by the people we are paying money to support. No that doesnât include everyone but by taking sides you are going against part of the buying public.
Every company has the right to take sides. But they also risk losing customers. It is just how life works. Not a source I use for wisdom often but, Gene Simmons told his fellow celebrities, âShut your pie hole.â and do what they do best, sing, dance, act.
Ok so how does this play out. Do they back vets more so than 2a? Truth is he can spend his money any way he wants on who he wants. Donât ever think some company is standing next to you just because of what they advertise. This is just business. Money talks.
Anything most people use, say, signal, sing, share, show, etc. is now a symbol for something. It is far past ridiculous.
And even if it wasnâtâŠpeople can do as they wish. Others donât have to like. Isnât that the whole American gig? Running around trying to get others to do everything someone wants them to do seems like an awful waste of life.