And all I can think of is how wrong everyone gets the response to suggestions that your labels are pushing the boundary. Becoming indignant over someone having an issue with your sense of humor won’t ever win people over to your cause, excepting people who are already in your camp.
Because there are a whole groups of people who have been or are marginalized for one reason or another and maybe, just maybe, they aren’t in on your joke. If they aren’t in on your joke, then it feels like you’re picking on them and I have to ask; how is doing that incorporating those people into your philosophy of sharing the drink you made?
Or from a purely capitalist standpoint; how is that enriching your customer base, beyond short term scandal notes that won’t help your business survive long term?
I don’t think the labels should be changed mostly because I don’t really care. These things aren’t designed to encourage ire from me and as someone who likes beer, not packaging, I tend to ignore such things.
There is something to be said for growing a thicker skin. Absolutely. People should be used to the idea that not everyone thinks or acts the same and I don’t believe that one group having some fun should suddenly be forced to take their ball off the field and sit in the box because some overly sensitive mook cried foul. There is a point where the correct response is; Lighten up, Francis.
But I submit for your consideration that responding with; Hey, we’re just kidding around and here’s the explanation for it, or; Look, it’s a joke and while we admit it’s risque it’s all meant in fun, or even just acknowledging that some people are unfairly pushed aside-usually women, when it comes to beer and brewing-and maybe your joke wasn’t as funny to complete strangers as it is to someone who knows you, is frequently better than “Screw you candy asses who can’t take a joke.”
Not always. Just usually.