We are not talking about the tactics, we are discussing motivation.
Boycotting by customers, in MAGA's BL case, was based on, using homophobia and discrimination by those customers.
For years on end, AHB pitching one carefully curated brand image, building brand loyalty on that carefully curated brand image, and you are surprised as to the existing customer base response when some 'woke' idiot in AHB marketing turns all of that carefully curated brand image on it's head and inside out?
Those carefully curated customers all suffered from whiplash, and let AHB know they didn't like it.
Here you are salving your own ego and virtue signaling by calling those who responded to this brand whiplash names.
Do you actually participate in real life and interact with real people? Or are you some basement keyboard warrior living in isolation separate from the real world?
Blacks and liberals objecting to the companies using racist imagery is an action against discrimination.
Specific to the brand icons cited, no, they are not.
Anyone can point to a tiny minority and then claim they represent the whole, thats a fallacy of composition.
What is it then, exactly, when the left accuses everyone on the right, or anyone who disagrees with them as being racist? As being homophobic? As being <insert smear here>?
It'd be that same fallacy then, wouldn't it?
I get it, being able to discriminate against gays and blacks is a legit behavior.
'Non Sequitur. Your facts are confused.'
I didn't see any of the brand icons mentioned as being discrimination nor as being discriminatory.
I think the left's busy bodies invented those controversies for their own ego stroking via vacuous virtue signaling, and without even checking with those who were claimed to be 'offended', which, as it turns out, they weren't.