Anonymous #1 1d

Enlightenment of your superior take

0

Anonymous #2 1d

That being said sports betting is ew but that’s a different hill for a different day.

14

Anonymous #2 1d

So I would mostly just consider that one in particular to be intentionally provocative in general, rather than a direct attack on female athletes or something as some people have taken it. But seeing as it came after the jeans controversy I think it was clearly meant to make people mad and cement Sydney Sweeney as a regressive/male-centered/MAGA sex symbol

16

Anonymous OP 1d

She’s hot and has tits. No one but god and her parents made her a sex symbol.

-8

Anonymous #3 21h

dumbass take

19

Anonymous #4 21h

Recognizing reality is a “dumbass take” Lol ok.

-4

Anonymous #3 20h

also weird ass take. plenty of hot celebs with nice tits who aren't sex symbols. that is a very intentionally (and very clearly) manufactured aesthetic. you see a hot woman with nice tits and automatically file her in the "sex symbol" category in your brain just like the MAGAt men they were appealing to, which is a reflection of your mindset, not the broader context

1

Anonymous OP 20h

Sex sells, everyone knows this. It’s not just one side that participates in these kind of ads. The Jean ad was just a play on words but idiots thought errrm eugenics? Get a grip dude

-1

Anonymous #3 20h

god and her parents had nothing to do with the social aesthetic she, her managers, and her team intentionally manufactured for years buddy. that's not "reality" it's just a lazy ass take, which is dumbassery

11

Anonymous #4 20h

Its her genetics and what talents she does have. She’s now in the entertainment industry. It’s the law of nature. She is head and shoulders above so many in her arena in terms of conventional attractiveness. So she was bound to become a sex symbol. It’s absolutely retsrddd to think it’s some grand manufactured conspiracy

0

Anonymous #4 20h

Non-celebrities. Sure they’re not national sex symbols, but pretty sure in their group of friends, at their workplace they are sexualized. It’s human nature.

-2

Anonymous #5 20h

Acknowledging parental contributions to the genetic make up, along with how someone is raised (nature and nurture) contributing to someone’s overall attractiveness is NOT “eugenics” you fucking idiot. Cool you heard “eugenics” in class one time and now you wanna sound enlightened so you try and fit in these terms where they don’t apply to sound smart. Loser.

4

Anonymous #3 20h

Let’s look at what you said. “God and her parents made her a sex symbol…” God, parents and sex should not be in the same sentence. Also her eyes are slightly lopsided if you really look at them.

6

Anonymous #3 20h

dawg... manufactured conspiracy? are you hearing voices again? it's called fucking marketing you absolute braindead dunce. there are celebs who are MILES beyond her in terms of conventional attractiveness who aren't sex symbols; because their teams manufactured a different aesthetic and guided their careers differently. why is this so hard for you to grasp? it's not innate and written into the universe. it's marketing, and you are the gullible target audience!

9

Anonymous #3 20h

Hey dumbass read what I said a bit slower before making such a stupid ass comment. “Idiots thought errm eugenics?” I’m not saying it’s eugenics it’s the idiots who think it is.

5

Anonymous #5 20h

You’re talking to me, not to someone else out there in the ether who’s advocating for eugenics.

-1

Anonymous #3 20h

like holy fucking shit if it was that simple and innate then literally every hot celeb with tits would be getting similar treatment, especially those who are similarly/more conventionally attractive. i promise you if she wore nothing but baggy, unflattering clothes and didn't lean into it she would've never become a sex symbol. it's not magic dude it's marketing

10

Anonymous #3 20h

if she never tried you would never know she was hot and she wouldn't become a sex symbol. this necessarily means it's not innate, which necessarily means it has nothing to do with god or her parents. similarly, conventionally unattractive people can also become conventionally attractive with the right stylists/team. it's MARKETING. get that through your thick ass skull

8

Anonymous OP 20h

Fair. It’s definitely intentionally provocative especially with the product.

8

Anonymous #6 20h

Omg shut up

0

Anonymous #3 20h

My comment was towards OP then you made a stupid ass comment to me thinking I was saying the ad is about eugenics. There are people who believe that ad is about eugenics. I never made a comment towards you till your stupid ass comment.

1

Anonymous #4 20h

She’s still beautiful without all the crazy make up or being all done up, she can cover up those mommy milkers and still it would be clear she’s a quality candidate for sexualization by whatever industry or environment she finds herself in.

-4

Anonymous #3 20h

oh my fucking god your skull must be made of steel with how dense you are. are you doing this on purpose? are you really that incapable of basic comprehension? ts is embarrassing dude

6

Anonymous #3 20h

lmao you have never seen her without makeup buddy. you have no clue what she looks like. she could be a troll. you also have no clue what work she's had done. you also have no clue what medicines she takes. you're making lot of bold assumptions my guy

4

Anonymous #3 20h

Bros fucking stupid :,)

1

Anonymous #3 20h

"if i couldn't tell she was hot i could still tell she was hot and prime for me to sexualize" you're fucking braindead dude. just saying anything atp. if you didn't know she was hot you wouldn't know she was hot. it is that simple

6

Anonymous #6 20h

Exactly- I think this guys wife is his sister or something

5

Anonymous #10 16h

A converse ad. The light is a star and the light shines down on the girls skirt. People claim the light creates a kkk hood and the shoes represent a black man hanging.

1

Anonymous #12 16h

ok ty bc i was getting the white sheet vibes from it but didn’t know if i was interpreting it wrong or smt

1

Anonymous #10 16h

You are misinterpreting it because that’s not the purpose of the ad. You’re inserting your own woke bullshit into something completely unrelated

1

Anonymous #3 16h

no i meant the reason why it was up there with the others. even then, its not “woke bullshit” when you can actually see the impact trump has made in the us and society in general. we are quite literally moving backwards, i guarantee you it would’ve been different if harris won.

1

Anonymous #8 15h

I never said Trump made it lmao, just that Crumble Cookies wouldn't put a swastika on an ad if the country weren't where it's at now. But if you want to go there then the White House account uses the lightning bolt emoji quite often. And of course it's ironic that we're living in a reality where a lot of the right loves Israel and they get compared to the Nazis all the time but we already know that's the case.

1

Anonymous #3 15h

Did no one but God put her in controversial ads? Lmao

1

Anonymous #1 13h

Or don't I guess

2

Anonymous OP 11h

Making mountains out of molehills and claiming innocuous things as dog whistles doesn’t make you smart or enlightened; it just comes across as delusional and desperate

1

Anonymous #1 10h

Well I didn't post this to make you think I'm a genius. I posted it because I believe it is the case. A lot of intentionality goes into marketing, down to the finer design details. I'm not scrutinizing these ads any more than I would with a piece of art in a museum. Plausible deniability is a huge part of Trump/MAGA's game plan and I don't think it's that big of a stretch to think that some companies might want to see if they can get away with it too. There is a market to appeal to there.

5

Anonymous #1 10h

And when it comes to the jeans ad I really don't even think there's any debating that the political topics it evoked were intentional. I think the real question is whether the creators of the ad wanted to directly push a white supremacist message themselves or merely put it on display to get people talking. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a satirical aspect to it.

6

Anonymous OP 6h

How is it white supremacist? The ad doesn’t claim that Sydney’s “jeans” are better than anyone else’s, just that they’re great. You know, because she’s hot. White people should be allowed to be unashamedly and authentically themselves.

3