Manhattan Project faces backlash over nuclear weapons-themed beers

Yes, the kamikaze drink has absolutely been pointed out as being insensitive - as have sexually objectifying or provocative labels, Black and Tans, Irish Car Bombs, etc. More importantly, however: it doesn't matter if other things exist that may also be offensive. How in the actual fuck does that justify something else being offensive? To wit: if you are robbed, beaten, or *****, are you not allowed to complain about it, simply because plenty of other crime also exists?

This is the laziest, most intellectually dishonest dismissal of a possible concern. Your other points (e.g. if you're offended, don't buy the beer; people can be offended by theoretically anything) are perfectly valid, but they do nothing to offset the complaint of the residents of the Marshall Islands.

Saying that you did not bother to read the complaint speaks volumes of your ability to weigh in here with an opinion that should be taken seriously. I've found the most reasonable, rational voices tend to be those who completely ignore the source material, but yet feel the need to loudly proclaim their opinion on that exact same source material (/sarcasm). I suppose it is easy to not be offended if you choose to remain ignorant, instead.

These are some incredibly ill-informed posts. First off, no one is talking about death threats. Second, the "complainers" are those whose families have been directly and dramatically impacted by nuclear testing - something none of us can remotely claim, or begin to understand. They are well within their rights to object to a name that seemingly makes light of their ongoing suffering.

Invoking "political correctness run amok" or declaring that people are complaining simply for the sake of complaining shows that you did not read the actual complaint from the Marshall Islands, nor do you have an understanding of the suffering both endured and still ongoing. That's OK: that's not evil, it's simply ignorance. Hopefully you have had the chance to go back through this thread a bit, and realize that this is not some group of PC-minded SJWs on a crusade: these are the victims, who do not appreciate their plight being trivialized without a second thought.

And the suggestion that the brewers send the Marshall Islands some beer? Holy. Hell. I can only hope that was made in jest, without a shred of "this is a good idea!" behind it. Go ahead and send a few cases of Auschwitz Amber Ale to Israel, 9/11 Twin Tower Rauchbier to NYC, or Harbor Kamikaze Bomber! Sake Lager to Hawaii, and see how that goes. If you fail to see how that juuuuuuust might be perceived as offensive, then I don't think there's any more of a conversation to be had here, and I salute your stoic Spartan immunity to taking offense.

 

You are redirecting and moving the goalposts. No one has said that in 5 pages in this thread, not once (I know; I read it!).

You stated the beer labeling was not offensive. Now that it has been highlighted that, yes, residents of the Marshall Islands are the ones who were offended, and for understandable reasons (with which one may still disagree, if so inclined), you have decided what you are really disagreeing with is other people telling you that you shouldn't drink their beer - which no one has done.

The most vocal folks on this thread in support of the "PC GONE AMOK!" vein are clearly @drtth and myself. Neither of us have ever suggested, much less stated, that you should personally be offended by the beer, or that you should refrain from drinking it. I have gone so far as to state that I don't necessarily think that you should be offended by it - that such is a personal choice, and I don't claim to be an arbiter of social morality.

Just don't claim that no one should be offended by it. And if you've changed your mind on that topic - that now you recognize that some folk may well be reasonably offended - then good!

 

Also very true. But it's also no secret that obtaining alcohol in Saudi Arabia - without crossing borders - is not some impossible task.

Legislating morality is one thing, but money is another - and money usually wins.

 

That really didn't address anything at all - and as someone professionally involved in the nuclear industry for 20 years (engineering and operations, not protesting ), you've picked the wrong bluff to call, my friend.

You dodged my main criticism (that the existence of other offensive things does not mean that one cannot complain of another offense). In fact, you double down, reiterating that there are other things that may be offensive (which, again, I highlighted the fact that people do, indeed, complain about the kamikaze cocktail, among others, so your entire argument there is irrelevant).

You attempted to undermine my position by personal attack, stating I have a problem with nuclear power, which is not only intellectually dishonest, but hilariously opposite of real life. Additionally, the "I'm not lazy - you're lazy!" tactic is .... amusingly juvenile. Had you provided any evidence to support that argument, I'd be intrigued, because I certainly did not write my post (nor this rebuttal) out of intellectual dishonesty or laziness, and if I missed the mark, it would benefit me from learning my missteps. Alas, you did nothing of the sort; your argument quite literally is your hypothesis: "You're lazy, because you're lazy. I'm calling your bluff on selective logic, without providing a single example or argument." Consider me unswayed at this point.

Finally, you moved the goalposts Now you are stating that people are claiming that a brewery "can't market beer under a name they've chosen." I invite you to find where anyone has staked out that claim. What you were called out on was that you clearly stated that the labels can not be offensive - and explicitly because other things in the world may also be offensive. In case you have forgotten:

(Emphasis mine.)

There's nothing selective about my employed logic. I called you out on your stance, directly, and laid out my case clearly and precisely. You responded by asserting I am wrong, but without actually addressing a single point I made.

If you choose not to acknowledge those points, very well - that's certainly your right. You are free to decide that the Marshall Islanders are just being silly for being offended by what is, at the end of the day, just a label on a can of beer that no one is forcing them to buy.

But kindly, make that case, then. Your original objection was weak and unsupported by any logical argument, and if you feel I have improperly characterized your point, I'm not opposed to you demonstrating how I have misread your statement. But if you insist that your post was not intellectually lazy, you're not doing a good job of defending it by being even lazier in your response.