Consider it equal time.
The author makes excellent points about the nadir of debate and dialectic, and the tribalism, and the chest-thumping.
Still, my fundamental stance v.v. AB InBev and other manifestations of Monstrous Chainthink remains unchanged, and for reasons that aren’t at all emotional.
Rather, it’s factual. Lots and lots of people with no connection whatever to beer or brewing already have done their homework as it pertains to what independent local business means; where the money goes, and where it stays. Two of them are here:
My rule of thumb: To know these principles is to be able to walk the walk when making beer choices.
Yes, it’s a matter of shift, and no one’s playing to be perfect, because when it comes to philosophical concepts, perfection simply doesn’t exist.
There’ll always be exceptions, but life is about the everyday. In the main, as a consumer, I’d like to know exactly where my money is going. Whenever possible, I’d like to see my money directed to indies.
It’s as simple as that. If I couldn’t get good beer without my money going to multinationals, then I’d either submit or stop drinking. However, this isn’t the case.
Dialectic Lost – We Can’t Talk about Beer Rationally Anymore, by Oliver Gray (Literature & Libation)
… There’s no dialectic where people are trying look at big beer’s practices objectively or taking a real critical eye to the BA, to figure out whos and whys and hows. There’s certainly never any talk of collaboration, because obviously, you never work with an enemy. There’s hardly even any exploration in why a thing deemed so bad is actually bad; I only need two fingers (one and two) to count the number of well written articles directly about AB-InBevs strategy. The rest of the bad will stems for theoreticals and hard headedism.