In a recent controversy that has sent shockwaves through the nation, Ben and Jerry’s, the renowned ice cream company, has found itself in hot water following a provocative tweet attacking America on the sacred day of July 4th.
This ice cream giant seems to have failed to learn from the cautionary tales of Bud Light, Kohl, and Target, who have all experienced the detrimental consequences of embracing woke activism.
As a result, Ben & Jerry’s parent company, has incurred massive financial losses totaling billions of dollars in market capitalization.
A Tweet That Stirred Up Trouble
While many businesses choose to express their patriotic spirit by sharing celebratory messages on social media during Independence Day, Ben and Jerry’s took their virtue signaling to a whole new level by launching a scathing attack on the very foundations of the United States.
Their tweet featured a graphic proclaiming, “The United States was founded on Stolen Indigenous Land. This Fourth of July, Let’s Commit to Returning It.”
The tweet, however, conveniently neglected to outline any concrete plans for how the ice cream company intended to “return” the land. Instead, it included a caption urging followers to “learn more and take action now.”
Unsurprisingly, this brazen display of woke ideology did not sit well with social media users, who wasted no time expressing their disdain for Ben and Jerry’s antics.
Backlash and Demands of Accountability
Numerous individuals called out the ice cream company, challenging them to lead by example and transfer ownership of their factories and stores to Native American tribes.
Even country music star John Rich chimed in, urging Ben and Jerry’s to hand over their establishments to the Native American tribes that originally inhabited those lands. His tweet gained significant support from users, echoing their agreement.
One commenter in the post’s comment section concurred with Rich, demanding that Ben and Jerry’s dismantle their factories and distribution warehouses across the United States to avoid being perceived as hypocrites. They expressed their disappointment: “How about YOU take action now! Otherwise, like most Leftists, you are hypocrites.”
The Financial Consequences
Furthermore, some users pointed out the complexities of “returning” allegedly stolen land. One user from Texas raised a valid question, asking, “Please help me learn more & take action.
So, who gets the land?” They highlighted the intricate history of land transfers and questioned the practicality of Ben and Jerry’s oversimplified proposal.
The intensity of the public backlash against Ben and Jerry’s has led to calls for a boycott of the company on social media platforms.
Consumers are rallying together, determined to give the ice cream brand the “Bud Light Treatment,” a reference to the successful boycott campaign against Bud Light and other Anheuser-Busch brands.
Moreover, users have taken it upon themselves to research and identify all the brands owned by Unilever, encouraging broader boycotts against these associated companies.
This wave of consumer activism mirrors the backlash experienced by other corporations that have embraced leftist propaganda, providing conservatives with a glimmer of hope that their collective voice and purchasing power can make a difference.
Whether Ben and Jerry’s will become the latest casualty of the “go woke, go broke” phenomenon remains to be seen.
Holding Companies Accountable
While Ben and Jerry’s has a long-standing history of indulging in woke virtue signaling, conservative consumers find solace in the growing number of powerful backlashes against corporations peddling leftist ideologies.
They stand united to hold companies accountable and send a resounding message that attacking America’s values and heritage will not be tolerated.
As this controversy unfolds, it serves as a potent reminder that even renowned brands are not immune to the consequences of alienating a significant portion of their customer base. Ben and Jerry’s is now grappling with the fallout of their ill-conceived tweet, facing severe financial repercussions and an uncertain future.
The ice cream giant’s fate hangs in the balance, serving as a cautionary tale for other companies considering venturing into the treacherous waters of woke activism.
