Are we ready to admit that Woke & DEI and woke wasn’t what was holding you back from success?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know, OP, I'm mostly just happy that I don't have to look at ads with ugly people, spend every day of pride month being re-educated, or explain why I won't announce my pronouns at the start of a meeting.

Stock market is doing awesome. Everything is great. No complaints.

In other words, you think black people are ugly, you’re happy inside your bubble, and you work for a fictional company where everyone is required to recite their pronouns at the start of each and every meeting. I’m fascinated, which company is this? And why are black people ugly?

The stock market’s performance has nothing to do with DEI.

I'm pretty sure he's mostly talking about fat people. But it's interesting you immediately thought he was talking about black people.

Lol! I wrote that bit about ugly people and just saw this thing where a liberal immediately interpreted that to mean "black people." Wtf! Man, that's really gross to think black = ugly. The left is crazy racist.

That’s because the comment was made within the context of a discussion of race and DEI (reminder: this is a thread about DEI, which does not include fat people or ugly people), so it came across as “so glad I no longer have to look at black people in ads”.

The right loves to say vague shit like this, then try to weasel their way out by claiming “oh no, that’s not what I meant”. God forbid you ever actually say what you mean.

It would never have even occurred to me that people would equate black with ugly. We live in an age where Beyonce and Zendaya are A listers. It is just not a natural conclusion, even in the context of DEI.

DEI in ads was absolutely all about an androgynous aesthetic in which body hair was prominently featured and other items, like colostomy bags, were front and center. Look at Ella Emhoff's modeling work. Half the time she had visible, pus filled zits, usually had her eyebrows grown together like Frida, and wore her hair in an unfeminine way. This is all unnecessary. Normally people would do something about the giant zits before the photo shoot. But the woke agenda is to make us pretend this is the preferred, most attractive look. It's not.

It's not making fun of people with disabilities to say you dont want to look at colostomy bags while shopping for jeans. In normal life, I've never seen someone just letting it all hang out there. This "look at my armpit hair" "look at my poop bag" "it's all as beautiful as Sydney Sweeney" is just gas lighting and gross.

And maybe some of us don’t want to look at airbrushed, underweight models and be gaslit into thinking we’re inadequate because we don’t measure up to a fake ideal of Photoshopped perfection.

I don't understand why seeing beauty makes you feel inadequate.

The purpose of ads is to sell products. It’s not an art museum. They’re not showing us these images for our aesthetic viewing pleasure. Advertisers feed on people’s insecurities to make money.

Personally, I get tired of the same old cookie cutter look being held up as the only beauty standard. I like seeing a variety of real, unretouched people using the products. I relate better to an ad that says “hey look, everyday people enjoy this” than something that says “this product is for glamorous, wealthy supermodels”. That doesn’t mean I don’t know or appreciate physical beauty, it just means I interact differently with ads and am less susceptible to being sold jeans by a pair of cheekbones.

Okay. I'm not talking about normal people. I'm talking about having to look at close ups of pus filled zits and armpit hair that looks like it hasn't seen a shower in weeks. Nobody wants to look at that. But they kept pumping it out and insisting it's beautiful- no. Its. Not.

What were the pus filled zits selling? Was it an ad for zit cream? Genuinely curious.

I hate the Taboola ads that show toenail fungus and such, but those are utilitarian ads that claim to be solving a particular problem rather than peddling glamor.

This article covers Acne Positivity in ads: https://slate.com/technology/2020/08/acne-positivity-campaigns-influencers.html

This gets right to the point: a clear beautiful face is out while a congested acne filled face is in. Note that Moto Guo actually used makeup to create more acne on models on the Milan runway: https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/beauty-hair/skincare/a44197/models-with-acne-milan-fashion-week/

American Eagle really leaned into the ugly, here's a bikini model showing off backne: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.today.com/today/amp/tdna121302

Many such cases. As I noted earlier, Ella Emhoff doesn't let a photoshoot go by without sporting a massive pussy sore on her face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

PhD in victimization

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has been able to list a single thing that the elimination of DEI and woke has benefited them personally. Not talking about owning the libs or feeling smug about the country in general. Have you been promoted at work now that the pesky females and black folk are out of the way? Has your child decided they are in fact not gay now that they aren’t being “programmed” at school? Has your business thrived more now that there are no migrants? I want real examples.

You didn't seem to appreciate how important owning the libs was in all of this. How much the rest of the country wanted you to just shut up.

And even after all this you can't shut your mouth. Not a hint of self reflection. Not a whiff of humility in your loss. Well, I guess we'll have to do it again in 2028 until you're fellow travelers are the ones screaming at you to just shut the fook up.

It just feels so good to own the libs.

We’re not owned yet. Maybe if you close some more rural hospitals and teach your kids more fake history and shoot yourselves in the foot a few more times.

We will continue to own you by winning election after election after election.

VA SD-32 1/7/2025: Democrats win
VA HD-32 1/7/2025: Democrats win
IA SD-35 1/28/25: Democrats win
MN SD-60 1/28/25: Democrats win
DE SD-1 2/15/25: Democrats win
DE SD-5 2/15/25: Democrats win
PA SD-36 3/25/25: Democrats win
SC HD-113 3/25/25: Democrats win
IA HD-78 4/29/25: Democrats win
LA HD-67 5/3/25: Democrats win
OK HD-71 6/10/25: Democrats win
Wisconsin Supreme Court: Democrats win
FL-1 and FL-6 (Matt Gaetz’ district): 15+ point D swing
Australia: center-left Labor Party wins in a landslide in 2025
Germany: far right AfD grossly underperforms in 2025 elections
Canada: Mark Carney wins, Liberal party maintains power in upset victory
Mexico: elects climate scientist and leftist Claudia Sheinbaum

Here’s some salt to go with your crow

SP. I believe the PP was referring to control of Congress and the White House.

Sorry, you don’t get to move the goalposts and retroactively insert your own qualifiers. PP only said elections. They have been proven wrong.

The fact that the Democrat left has now been reduced to bragging about winning the Mexican election is laughable.

The entire world thinks Trump is a pathetic loser.

Thankfully for us the whole world doesn’t vote in our elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how people immediately shifted the racism from the person making the gross comment to the person who called out the gross comment. MAGA are masters of projection.

Because my original comment wasnt about race. It was about ugly people. If you think black people are ugly that's on you, and IS racist, because black people as a category are objectively not ugly. You'd have to be uncomfortable with and judgemental of black people to think that.

Also you don't get to say that black people are ugly and then claim that's what I really meant. Okay? All flavors welcome here.

And now you’re putting words in my mouth. I never, ever, not once, claimed that black people were ugly. I interpreted YOU as saying that, because my MAGA relatives have said on several occasions they find black people objectively less attractive than white people, and I was concerned that you might be expressing a similar sentiment. Since DEI includes black people and race was mainly what was being discussed at that point, saying “thank God I no longer have to look at ugly people (thanks to DEI)” implies that the category “ugly” includes black people. It’s a reasonable interpretation. That’s why I called it out.

All you had to do was say “no, that’s not what I meant” and explain what you actually meant. By trying to twist it around and accuse me of racism for questioning what I saw as racism, you’re doing the same thing. Questioning a thing isn’t the same as doing the thing.

Let’s agree that there are extremely attractive black people and they should be in ads.

It sounds like you grew up around a lot of racist messages and you may want to examine what that's done to your view of black people. Nothing in my statement, or the context, would have pointed to black people. I could have meant trans, enbies, fat people- literally any category, and you went immediately to black, which isn't a logical progression at all. What I meant was ugly people. Ugly ones. I shouldn't need to further clarify because we all understand what's attractive and what's repulsive. But if I were a black person reading this, I'd be horrified that someone immediately equated black with ugly, and you should really think about that. In your quest to demonize maga, you said something UGLY.

Demonizing ugly and disabled people and saying they don’t belong in ads is equally gross, and doesn’t exactly help with your case for being superior and enlightened. You need to examine why you have these attitudes, and why people might be quick to see racism in MAGA comments about DEI. For example, Pete Hegseth’s DoD scrubbed all mention of black, female, and Latino servicepeople’s contributions from the Arlington Cemetary website, but left white male content in place. Care to explain that?

I never said I had an issue with disabled people. I said I don't want to look at colostomy bags. FWIW, I don't want to see Sydney Sweeney taking a crap either, but still think she's a good model.

You're illustrating exactly why wokeness is dying. It should go without saying that people don't want to look at poop bags while shopping for jeans. They could have done the NORMAL thing and hidden the bag behind the model or edited it out. It's this- the insistence that to accept people we must also look at photos of their poop, their cellulite, their unflattering angles-- and pretend that its just like Kendall Jenner. GTFO, no its not. And you try to bully people into submission with this crap.

Didn’t you just tell me a few posts ago not to look at it if I don’t like it?

Nobody is insisting that you find poop and cellulite beautiful. The point is representation. The ad maker’s intent was to raise awareness and to inspire other ostomy patients to envision a life lived with joy and no fear. The poop isn’t even visible, just the empty bag, and the model is stunning (if you’re talking about the Aerie lingerie campaign).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how people immediately shifted the racism from the person making the gross comment to the person who called out the gross comment. MAGA are masters of projection.

Because my original comment wasnt about race. It was about ugly people. If you think black people are ugly that's on you, and IS racist, because black people as a category are objectively not ugly. You'd have to be uncomfortable with and judgemental of black people to think that.

Also you don't get to say that black people are ugly and then claim that's what I really meant. Okay? All flavors welcome here.

And now you’re putting words in my mouth. I never, ever, not once, claimed that black people were ugly. I interpreted YOU as saying that, because my MAGA relatives have said on several occasions they find black people objectively less attractive than white people, and I was concerned that you might be expressing a similar sentiment. Since DEI includes black people and race was mainly what was being discussed at that point, saying “thank God I no longer have to look at ugly people (thanks to DEI)” implies that the category “ugly” includes black people. It’s a reasonable interpretation. That’s why I called it out.

All you had to do was say “no, that’s not what I meant” and explain what you actually meant. By trying to twist it around and accuse me of racism for questioning what I saw as racism, you’re doing the same thing. Questioning a thing isn’t the same as doing the thing.

Let’s agree that there are extremely attractive black people and they should be in ads.

And THAT is called projection

Actually, it’s called “lie down with dogs, get up with fleas”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how people immediately shifted the racism from the person making the gross comment to the person who called out the gross comment. MAGA are masters of projection.

Because my original comment wasnt about race. It was about ugly people. If you think black people are ugly that's on you, and IS racist, because black people as a category are objectively not ugly. You'd have to be uncomfortable with and judgemental of black people to think that.

Also you don't get to say that black people are ugly and then claim that's what I really meant. Okay? All flavors welcome here.

And now you’re putting words in my mouth. I never, ever, not once, claimed that black people were ugly. I interpreted YOU as saying that, because my MAGA relatives have said on several occasions they find black people objectively less attractive than white people, and I was concerned that you might be expressing a similar sentiment. Since DEI includes black people and race was mainly what was being discussed at that point, saying “thank God I no longer have to look at ugly people (thanks to DEI)” implies that the category “ugly” includes black people. It’s a reasonable interpretation. That’s why I called it out.

All you had to do was say “no, that’s not what I meant” and explain what you actually meant. By trying to twist it around and accuse me of racism for questioning what I saw as racism, you’re doing the same thing. Questioning a thing isn’t the same as doing the thing.

Let’s agree that there are extremely attractive black people and they should be in ads.

It sounds like you grew up around a lot of racist messages and you may want to examine what that's done to your view of black people. Nothing in my statement, or the context, would have pointed to black people. I could have meant trans, enbies, fat people- literally any category, and you went immediately to black, which isn't a logical progression at all. What I meant was ugly people. Ugly ones. I shouldn't need to further clarify because we all understand what's attractive and what's repulsive. But if I were a black person reading this, I'd be horrified that someone immediately equated black with ugly, and you should really think about that. In your quest to demonize maga, you said something UGLY.

Demonizing ugly and disabled people and saying they don’t belong in ads is equally gross, and doesn’t exactly help with your case for being superior and enlightened. You need to examine why you have these attitudes, and why people might be quick to see racism in MAGA comments about DEI. For example, Pete Hegseth’s DoD scrubbed all mention of black, female, and Latino servicepeople’s contributions from the Arlington Cemetary website, but left white male content in place. Care to explain that?

I never said I had an issue with disabled people. I said I don't want to look at colostomy bags. FWIW, I don't want to see Sydney Sweeney taking a crap either, but still think she's a good model.

You're illustrating exactly why wokeness is dying. It should go without saying that people don't want to look at poop bags while shopping for jeans. They could have done the NORMAL thing and hidden the bag behind the model or edited it out. It's this- the insistence that to accept people we must also look at photos of their poop, their cellulite, their unflattering angles-- and pretend that its just like Kendall Jenner. GTFO, no its not. And you try to bully people into submission with this crap.

Didn’t you just tell me a few posts ago not to look at it if I don’t like it?

Nobody is insisting that you find poop and cellulite beautiful. The point is representation. The ad maker’s intent was to raise awareness and to inspire other ostomy patients to envision a life lived with joy and no fear. The poop isn’t even visible, just the empty bag, and the model is stunning (if you’re talking about the Aerie lingerie campaign).

No, that wasn't me. And yes, the colostomy model was stunning and there was no reason to show her colostomy bag. They didnt make Sweeney pose with her toilet. You're being intentionally obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has been able to list a single thing that the elimination of DEI and woke has benefited them personally. Not talking about owning the libs or feeling smug about the country in general. Have you been promoted at work now that the pesky females and black folk are out of the way? Has your child decided they are in fact not gay now that they aren’t being “programmed” at school? Has your business thrived more now that there are no migrants? I want real examples.

You didn't seem to appreciate how important owning the libs was in all of this. How much the rest of the country wanted you to just shut up.

And even after all this you can't shut your mouth. Not a hint of self reflection. Not a whiff of humility in your loss. Well, I guess we'll have to do it again in 2028 until you're fellow travelers are the ones screaming at you to just shut the fook up.

It just feels so good to own the libs.

We’re not owned yet. Maybe if you close some more rural hospitals and teach your kids more fake history and shoot yourselves in the foot a few more times.

We will continue to own you by winning election after election after election.

VA SD-32 1/7/2025: Democrats win
VA HD-32 1/7/2025: Democrats win
IA SD-35 1/28/25: Democrats win
MN SD-60 1/28/25: Democrats win
DE SD-1 2/15/25: Democrats win
DE SD-5 2/15/25: Democrats win
PA SD-36 3/25/25: Democrats win
SC HD-113 3/25/25: Democrats win
IA HD-78 4/29/25: Democrats win
LA HD-67 5/3/25: Democrats win
OK HD-71 6/10/25: Democrats win
Wisconsin Supreme Court: Democrats win
FL-1 and FL-6 (Matt Gaetz’ district): 15+ point D swing
Australia: center-left Labor Party wins in a landslide in 2025
Germany: far right AfD grossly underperforms in 2025 elections
Canada: Mark Carney wins, Liberal party maintains power in upset victory
Mexico: elects climate scientist and leftist Claudia Sheinbaum

Here’s some salt to go with your crow

SP. I believe the PP was referring to control of Congress and the White House.

Sorry, you don’t get to move the goalposts and retroactively insert your own qualifiers. PP only said elections. They have been proven wrong.

The fact that the Democrat left has now been reduced to bragging about winning the Mexican election is laughable.

The entire world thinks Trump is a pathetic loser.

Thankfully for us the whole world doesn’t vote in our elections.

I’m not the one who bragged that Democrats keep losing elections, and then got schooled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how people immediately shifted the racism from the person making the gross comment to the person who called out the gross comment. MAGA are masters of projection.

Because my original comment wasnt about race. It was about ugly people. If you think black people are ugly that's on you, and IS racist, because black people as a category are objectively not ugly. You'd have to be uncomfortable with and judgemental of black people to think that.

Also you don't get to say that black people are ugly and then claim that's what I really meant. Okay? All flavors welcome here.

And now you’re putting words in my mouth. I never, ever, not once, claimed that black people were ugly. I interpreted YOU as saying that, because my MAGA relatives have said on several occasions they find black people objectively less attractive than white people, and I was concerned that you might be expressing a similar sentiment. Since DEI includes black people and race was mainly what was being discussed at that point, saying “thank God I no longer have to look at ugly people (thanks to DEI)” implies that the category “ugly” includes black people. It’s a reasonable interpretation. That’s why I called it out.

All you had to do was say “no, that’s not what I meant” and explain what you actually meant. By trying to twist it around and accuse me of racism for questioning what I saw as racism, you’re doing the same thing. Questioning a thing isn’t the same as doing the thing.

Let’s agree that there are extremely attractive black people and they should be in ads.

It sounds like you grew up around a lot of racist messages and you may want to examine what that's done to your view of black people. Nothing in my statement, or the context, would have pointed to black people. I could have meant trans, enbies, fat people- literally any category, and you went immediately to black, which isn't a logical progression at all. What I meant was ugly people. Ugly ones. I shouldn't need to further clarify because we all understand what's attractive and what's repulsive. But if I were a black person reading this, I'd be horrified that someone immediately equated black with ugly, and you should really think about that. In your quest to demonize maga, you said something UGLY.

Demonizing ugly and disabled people and saying they don’t belong in ads is equally gross, and doesn’t exactly help with your case for being superior and enlightened. You need to examine why you have these attitudes, and why people might be quick to see racism in MAGA comments about DEI. For example, Pete Hegseth’s DoD scrubbed all mention of black, female, and Latino servicepeople’s contributions from the Arlington Cemetary website, but left white male content in place. Care to explain that?

I never said I had an issue with disabled people. I said I don't want to look at colostomy bags. FWIW, I don't want to see Sydney Sweeney taking a crap either, but still think she's a good model.

You're illustrating exactly why wokeness is dying. It should go without saying that people don't want to look at poop bags while shopping for jeans. They could have done the NORMAL thing and hidden the bag behind the model or edited it out. It's this- the insistence that to accept people we must also look at photos of their poop, their cellulite, their unflattering angles-- and pretend that its just like Kendall Jenner. GTFO, no its not. And you try to bully people into submission with this crap.

Didn’t you just tell me a few posts ago not to look at it if I don’t like it?

Nobody is insisting that you find poop and cellulite beautiful. The point is representation. The ad maker’s intent was to raise awareness and to inspire other ostomy patients to envision a life lived with joy and no fear. The poop isn’t even visible, just the empty bag, and the model is stunning (if you’re talking about the Aerie lingerie campaign).

No, that wasn't me. And yes, the colostomy model was stunning and there was no reason to show her colostomy bag. They didnt make Sweeney pose with her toilet. You're being intentionally obtuse.

I just literally explained the ad maker’s intention. You’re the one being obtuse by focusing on poop. Which isn’t even in the ad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how people immediately shifted the racism from the person making the gross comment to the person who called out the gross comment. MAGA are masters of projection.

Because my original comment wasnt about race. It was about ugly people. If you think black people are ugly that's on you, and IS racist, because black people as a category are objectively not ugly. You'd have to be uncomfortable with and judgemental of black people to think that.

Also you don't get to say that black people are ugly and then claim that's what I really meant. Okay? All flavors welcome here.

And now you’re putting words in my mouth. I never, ever, not once, claimed that black people were ugly. I interpreted YOU as saying that, because my MAGA relatives have said on several occasions they find black people objectively less attractive than white people, and I was concerned that you might be expressing a similar sentiment. Since DEI includes black people and race was mainly what was being discussed at that point, saying “thank God I no longer have to look at ugly people (thanks to DEI)” implies that the category “ugly” includes black people. It’s a reasonable interpretation. That’s why I called it out.

All you had to do was say “no, that’s not what I meant” and explain what you actually meant. By trying to twist it around and accuse me of racism for questioning what I saw as racism, you’re doing the same thing. Questioning a thing isn’t the same as doing the thing.

Let’s agree that there are extremely attractive black people and they should be in ads.

And THAT is called projection

Actually, it’s called “lie down with dogs, get up with fleas”.

The only person here calling black people ugly copped to the fact she was patented by racists. Who's got the fleas really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how people immediately shifted the racism from the person making the gross comment to the person who called out the gross comment. MAGA are masters of projection.

Because my original comment wasnt about race. It was about ugly people. If you think black people are ugly that's on you, and IS racist, because black people as a category are objectively not ugly. You'd have to be uncomfortable with and judgemental of black people to think that.

Also you don't get to say that black people are ugly and then claim that's what I really meant. Okay? All flavors welcome here.

And now you’re putting words in my mouth. I never, ever, not once, claimed that black people were ugly. I interpreted YOU as saying that, because my MAGA relatives have said on several occasions they find black people objectively less attractive than white people, and I was concerned that you might be expressing a similar sentiment. Since DEI includes black people and race was mainly what was being discussed at that point, saying “thank God I no longer have to look at ugly people (thanks to DEI)” implies that the category “ugly” includes black people. It’s a reasonable interpretation. That’s why I called it out.

All you had to do was say “no, that’s not what I meant” and explain what you actually meant. By trying to twist it around and accuse me of racism for questioning what I saw as racism, you’re doing the same thing. Questioning a thing isn’t the same as doing the thing.

Let’s agree that there are extremely attractive black people and they should be in ads.

It sounds like you grew up around a lot of racist messages and you may want to examine what that's done to your view of black people. Nothing in my statement, or the context, would have pointed to black people. I could have meant trans, enbies, fat people- literally any category, and you went immediately to black, which isn't a logical progression at all. What I meant was ugly people. Ugly ones. I shouldn't need to further clarify because we all understand what's attractive and what's repulsive. But if I were a black person reading this, I'd be horrified that someone immediately equated black with ugly, and you should really think about that. In your quest to demonize maga, you said something UGLY.

Demonizing ugly and disabled people and saying they don’t belong in ads is equally gross, and doesn’t exactly help with your case for being superior and enlightened. You need to examine why you have these attitudes, and why people might be quick to see racism in MAGA comments about DEI. For example, Pete Hegseth’s DoD scrubbed all mention of black, female, and Latino servicepeople’s contributions from the Arlington Cemetary website, but left white male content in place. Care to explain that?

I never said I had an issue with disabled people. I said I don't want to look at colostomy bags. FWIW, I don't want to see Sydney Sweeney taking a crap either, but still think she's a good model.

You're illustrating exactly why wokeness is dying. It should go without saying that people don't want to look at poop bags while shopping for jeans. They could have done the NORMAL thing and hidden the bag behind the model or edited it out. It's this- the insistence that to accept people we must also look at photos of their poop, their cellulite, their unflattering angles-- and pretend that its just like Kendall Jenner. GTFO, no its not. And you try to bully people into submission with this crap.

Didn’t you just tell me a few posts ago not to look at it if I don’t like it?

Nobody is insisting that you find poop and cellulite beautiful. The point is representation. The ad maker’s intent was to raise awareness and to inspire other ostomy patients to envision a life lived with joy and no fear. The poop isn’t even visible, just the empty bag, and the model is stunning (if you’re talking about the Aerie lingerie campaign).

No, that wasn't me. And yes, the colostomy model was stunning and there was no reason to show her colostomy bag. They didnt make Sweeney pose with her toilet. You're being intentionally obtuse.

I just literally explained the ad maker’s intention. You’re the one being obtuse by focusing on poop. Which isn’t even in the ad.

I am dismissing your analysis about the ad makers intention because you're not a mind reader. My belief is that they want to say and do preposterous things and have a public so cowed into submission that we all pretend its normal and beautiful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how people immediately shifted the racism from the person making the gross comment to the person who called out the gross comment. MAGA are masters of projection.

Because my original comment wasnt about race. It was about ugly people. If you think black people are ugly that's on you, and IS racist, because black people as a category are objectively not ugly. You'd have to be uncomfortable with and judgemental of black people to think that.

Also you don't get to say that black people are ugly and then claim that's what I really meant. Okay? All flavors welcome here.

And now you’re putting words in my mouth. I never, ever, not once, claimed that black people were ugly. I interpreted YOU as saying that, because my MAGA relatives have said on several occasions they find black people objectively less attractive than white people, and I was concerned that you might be expressing a similar sentiment. Since DEI includes black people and race was mainly what was being discussed at that point, saying “thank God I no longer have to look at ugly people (thanks to DEI)” implies that the category “ugly” includes black people. It’s a reasonable interpretation. That’s why I called it out.

All you had to do was say “no, that’s not what I meant” and explain what you actually meant. By trying to twist it around and accuse me of racism for questioning what I saw as racism, you’re doing the same thing. Questioning a thing isn’t the same as doing the thing.

Let’s agree that there are extremely attractive black people and they should be in ads.

And THAT is called projection

Actually, it’s called “lie down with dogs, get up with fleas”.

The only person here calling black people ugly copped to the fact she was patented by racists. Who's got the fleas really?

Where did you get “parented” from? I said MAGA relatives, none of whom I talk to any more BECAUSE OF THEIR RACISM. These are not close relatives and none of them had anything to do with raising me.

You people really are unbelievable, the way you invent stories and put words in people’s mouths.

Oddly enough, the ——-> DISTANT MAGA RELATIVES I NO LONGER TALK TO BECAUSE THEY ARE RACIST <——- used to do the same thing. Another reason I distanced myself from them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how people immediately shifted the racism from the person making the gross comment to the person who called out the gross comment. MAGA are masters of projection.

Because my original comment wasnt about race. It was about ugly people. If you think black people are ugly that's on you, and IS racist, because black people as a category are objectively not ugly. You'd have to be uncomfortable with and judgemental of black people to think that.

Also you don't get to say that black people are ugly and then claim that's what I really meant. Okay? All flavors welcome here.

And now you’re putting words in my mouth. I never, ever, not once, claimed that black people were ugly. I interpreted YOU as saying that, because my MAGA relatives have said on several occasions they find black people objectively less attractive than white people, and I was concerned that you might be expressing a similar sentiment. Since DEI includes black people and race was mainly what was being discussed at that point, saying “thank God I no longer have to look at ugly people (thanks to DEI)” implies that the category “ugly” includes black people. It’s a reasonable interpretation. That’s why I called it out.

All you had to do was say “no, that’s not what I meant” and explain what you actually meant. By trying to twist it around and accuse me of racism for questioning what I saw as racism, you’re doing the same thing. Questioning a thing isn’t the same as doing the thing.

Let’s agree that there are extremely attractive black people and they should be in ads.

It sounds like you grew up around a lot of racist messages and you may want to examine what that's done to your view of black people. Nothing in my statement, or the context, would have pointed to black people. I could have meant trans, enbies, fat people- literally any category, and you went immediately to black, which isn't a logical progression at all. What I meant was ugly people. Ugly ones. I shouldn't need to further clarify because we all understand what's attractive and what's repulsive. But if I were a black person reading this, I'd be horrified that someone immediately equated black with ugly, and you should really think about that. In your quest to demonize maga, you said something UGLY.

Demonizing ugly and disabled people and saying they don’t belong in ads is equally gross, and doesn’t exactly help with your case for being superior and enlightened. You need to examine why you have these attitudes, and why people might be quick to see racism in MAGA comments about DEI. For example, Pete Hegseth’s DoD scrubbed all mention of black, female, and Latino servicepeople’s contributions from the Arlington Cemetary website, but left white male content in place. Care to explain that?

I never said I had an issue with disabled people. I said I don't want to look at colostomy bags. FWIW, I don't want to see Sydney Sweeney taking a crap either, but still think she's a good model.

You're illustrating exactly why wokeness is dying. It should go without saying that people don't want to look at poop bags while shopping for jeans. They could have done the NORMAL thing and hidden the bag behind the model or edited it out. It's this- the insistence that to accept people we must also look at photos of their poop, their cellulite, their unflattering angles-- and pretend that its just like Kendall Jenner. GTFO, no its not. And you try to bully people into submission with this crap.

Didn’t you just tell me a few posts ago not to look at it if I don’t like it?

Nobody is insisting that you find poop and cellulite beautiful. The point is representation. The ad maker’s intent was to raise awareness and to inspire other ostomy patients to envision a life lived with joy and no fear. The poop isn’t even visible, just the empty bag, and the model is stunning (if you’re talking about the Aerie lingerie campaign).

No, that wasn't me. And yes, the colostomy model was stunning and there was no reason to show her colostomy bag. They didnt make Sweeney pose with her toilet. You're being intentionally obtuse.

I just literally explained the ad maker’s intention. You’re the one being obtuse by focusing on poop. Which isn’t even in the ad.

I am dismissing your analysis about the ad makers intention because you're not a mind reader. My belief is that they want to say and do preposterous things and have a public so cowed into submission that we all pretend its normal and beautiful.

I don’t have to read minds. Here, read it for yourself: https://www.ostomy.org/aerie-model-brings-national-attention-to-ostomy-awareness/

[Anonymous]

16 pages in and there's still no meaningful response to the OP about what's changed and is no longer "holding anyone back" professionally now that "woke" and "DEI" are gone.

I'd say that's a fail for the right wing, no matter how much they flail about some random company's ad campaigns or whatever else.

Note also that no Democrat ever mandated ad campaigns featuring acne or ostomy or whatever else. That was entirely a private sector decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how people immediately shifted the racism from the person making the gross comment to the person who called out the gross comment. MAGA are masters of projection.

Because my original comment wasnt about race. It was about ugly people. If you think black people are ugly that's on you, and IS racist, because black people as a category are objectively not ugly. You'd have to be uncomfortable with and judgemental of black people to think that.

Also you don't get to say that black people are ugly and then claim that's what I really meant. Okay? All flavors welcome here.

And now you’re putting words in my mouth. I never, ever, not once, claimed that black people were ugly. I interpreted YOU as saying that, because my MAGA relatives have said on several occasions they find black people objectively less attractive than white people, and I was concerned that you might be expressing a similar sentiment. Since DEI includes black people and race was mainly what was being discussed at that point, saying “thank God I no longer have to look at ugly people (thanks to DEI)” implies that the category “ugly” includes black people. It’s a reasonable interpretation. That’s why I called it out.

All you had to do was say “no, that’s not what I meant” and explain what you actually meant. By trying to twist it around and accuse me of racism for questioning what I saw as racism, you’re doing the same thing. Questioning a thing isn’t the same as doing the thing.

Let’s agree that there are extremely attractive black people and they should be in ads.

And THAT is called projection

Actually, it’s called “lie down with dogs, get up with fleas”.

The only person here calling black people ugly copped to the fact she was patented by racists. Who's got the fleas really?

Where did you get “parented” from? I said MAGA relatives, none of whom I talk to any more BECAUSE OF THEIR RACISM. These are not close relatives and none of them had anything to do with raising me.

You people really are unbelievable, the way you invent stories and put words in people’s mouths.

Oddly enough, the ——-> DISTANT MAGA RELATIVES I NO LONGER TALK TO BECAUSE THEY ARE RACIST <——- used to do the same thing. Another reason I distanced myself from them.

You said you were raised among racists and that's why when you saw the word ugly, you immediately thought black. It’s really disgusting that you jumped to that.

This should go without saying, given that the biggest maga influencer is a black woman, but maga doesnt equate to racist. You seem to have a problem with putting people into broad and unflattering categories so I dont expect this to sink in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know, OP, I'm mostly just happy that I don't have to look at ads with ugly people, spend every day of pride month being re-educated, or explain why I won't announce my pronouns at the start of a meeting.

Stock market is doing awesome. Everything is great. No complaints.

In other words, you think black people are ugly, you’re happy inside your bubble, and you work for a fictional company where everyone is required to recite their pronouns at the start of each and every meeting. I’m fascinated, which company is this? And why are black people ugly?

The stock market’s performance has nothing to do with DEI.

I'm pretty sure he's mostly talking about fat people. But it's interesting you immediately thought he was talking about black people.

Lol! I wrote that bit about ugly people and just saw this thing where a liberal immediately interpreted that to mean "black people." Wtf! Man, that's really gross to think black = ugly. The left is crazy racist.

That’s because the comment was made within the context of a discussion of race and DEI (reminder: this is a thread about DEI, which does not include fat people or ugly people), so it came across as “so glad I no longer have to look at black people in ads”.

The right loves to say vague shit like this, then try to weasel their way out by claiming “oh no, that’s not what I meant”. God forbid you ever actually say what you mean.

It would never have even occurred to me that people would equate black with ugly. We live in an age where Beyonce and Zendaya are A listers. It is just not a natural conclusion, even in the context of DEI.

DEI in ads was absolutely all about an androgynous aesthetic in which body hair was prominently featured and other items, like colostomy bags, were front and center. Look at Ella Emhoff's modeling work. Half the time she had visible, pus filled zits, usually had her eyebrows grown together like Frida, and wore her hair in an unfeminine way. This is all unnecessary. Normally people would do something about the giant zits before the photo shoot. But the woke agenda is to make us pretend this is the preferred, most attractive look. It's not.

It's not making fun of people with disabilities to say you dont want to look at colostomy bags while shopping for jeans. In normal life, I've never seen someone just letting it all hang out there. This "look at my armpit hair" "look at my poop bag" "it's all as beautiful as Sydney Sweeney" is just gas lighting and gross.

And maybe some of us don’t want to look at airbrushed, underweight models and be gaslit into thinking we’re inadequate because we don’t measure up to a fake ideal of Photoshopped perfection.

I don't understand why seeing beauty makes you feel inadequate.

The purpose of ads is to sell products. It’s not an art museum. They’re not showing us these images for our aesthetic viewing pleasure. Advertisers feed on people’s insecurities to make money.

Personally, I get tired of the same old cookie cutter look being held up as the only beauty standard. I like seeing a variety of real, unretouched people using the products. I relate better to an ad that says “hey look, everyday people enjoy this” than something that says “this product is for glamorous, wealthy supermodels”. That doesn’t mean I don’t know or appreciate physical beauty, it just means I interact differently with ads and am less susceptible to being sold jeans by a pair of cheekbones.

Okay. I'm not talking about normal people. I'm talking about having to look at close ups of pus filled zits and armpit hair that looks like it hasn't seen a shower in weeks. Nobody wants to look at that. But they kept pumping it out and insisting it's beautiful- no. Its. Not.

What were the pus filled zits selling? Was it an ad for zit cream? Genuinely curious.

I hate the Taboola ads that show toenail fungus and such, but those are utilitarian ads that claim to be solving a particular problem rather than peddling glamor.

This article covers Acne Positivity in ads: https://slate.com/technology/2020/08/acne-positivity-campaigns-influencers.html

This gets right to the point: a clear beautiful face is out while a congested acne filled face is in. Note that Moto Guo actually used makeup to create more acne on models on the Milan runway: https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/beauty-hair/skincare/a44197/models-with-acne-milan-fashion-week/

American Eagle really leaned into the ugly, here's a bikini model showing off backne: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.today.com/today/amp/tdna121302

Many such cases. As I noted earlier, Ella Emhoff doesn't let a photoshoot go by without sporting a massive pussy sore on her face.

I think there’s an sizeable audience that appreciates body honesty. If it didn’t work, they wouldn’t do it. The IG accounts wouldn’t have so many followers. And as the trolls like to say, it gets the haters talking about it. Clever publicity.