Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Libs did this to themselves by putting up a stink about Sydney Sweeney. The effect of it was to make people think the left hates hot women, which is an unpopular stance. The push to make sororities, especially southern sororities, a culture war issue came immediately after the Sydney Sweeney thing. I do think it's manufactured but I also definitely think the left will take the bait.
People didn't make a stink about Sydney Sweeney, they made a stink about the normalization and glorification of eugenics. Nobody gives a f@ck about Sydney Sweeney or white sorority girls. Get a brain, and a life.
Nothing about that ad was about eugenics and you know that.
Either you didn’t see the ad that had “GENES” crossed out and replaced with the word “JEANS” — or you saw it and didn’t understand the implications. (NP)
I agree it was about genetics because its a fun play on words. I don't see how Sydney talking about her genes is a call to arms to murder all non-blondes.
You know, you never see hot people getting upset about someone being proud of their looks. I'm just saying. You all are telling on yourselves, you got mad that she's hot and now you're pretending she's promoting advocating to abort all black babies or whatever. GTFO.
I’m hot, and I think it’s a terrible ad campaign.
It’s not about beauty. It’s about promoting certain genes as superior, against the current backdrop of Gaza genocide, white anxiety over birth rates, black and brown people being disappeared off the streets and gerrymandered into lack of representation, concentration camps being built, and discussions of sending autistic kids to camps for “reparenting”. White supremacy is on the rise, and this ad feeds right into it. The most charitable interpretation is that it’s tone deaf and in poor taste.
Framing it as “ur just jelly bc ur ugly” is childish.