this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2025
223 points (99.1% liked)

Boycott US

1740 readers
590 users here now

Overview:

The community dedicated to boycotting the US until they stop fascism, restore full democracy and start following international law.

Americans have a moral obligation to resist Donald Trump and project 2025 at every turn.

America is a flawed democracy currently being ruled by oligarchs. Stop the backslide! Dont let America become the next Hungary.

America needs to challenge the court rulings of citizens united v. fec and shelby county v. holder, protect the media, implement independent district drawing, and the single transferable vote so they don't end up having people stay home in life-changing elections because they cannot vote for their favourite candidate.

Join 50501.chat to fight back!


Related communities:

Boycott:!buycanadian@lemmy.ca

!buyeuropean@feddit.uk

!boycott@lemmy.sdf.org

!boycottchina@sopuli.xyz

Activism:!antitrumpalliance@lemmy.world

!petitions@lemmy.ca

!palestine@lemmy.dbzer0.com

!protest@lemmy.world

!israelicrimes@lemmy.world

!patriotsforprogress@lemmy.ca

!goodsuniteus@lemmy.ca


founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What's appropriation there? The locals just brought the whiskey recipe with them when they hopped the pond.

And then made legislation that it can only be made across the pond and no longer where the recipes originated from.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They distinctly changed the recipe. It's no different than Champagne and Prosecco and Sparkling Wine. You can make the stuff, it just isn't called Bourbon. Why is it appropriation to use the same damn rules here that you already had in Europe?

[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

They didn’t change the recipe in a sense, they took the process of making rye and used “local” and government subsidized ingredients in a higher percentage to cut costs. Which was corn. It was already being made elsewhere.

In the case of champagne, that’s a little more involved, there is actually a distinct difference from the soil in the area that make it. So to make it elsewhere WON’T be the same. And the legislation was to protect a unique process from starting to be used elsewhere, not to strip other places of what they were doing.

The information coming from a bourbon distillery is gonna be HEAVILY biased to making them look like not the villain.