Anonymous #6 3w

I feel like the fact that she's a a registered Republican had more to do with it than the ad lol

472

Anonymous #6 3w

She can’t really chose who claims onto her. And she said this

42

Anonymous #4 3w

I just want to make sure everyone’s on the same page. Does she understand exactly which views have been aligned with her?

79

Anonymous #5 3w

Both

126

Dude you are such a pick me lmao why are you defending her under every comment

67

Anonymous #11 3w

I’d say ppl are busy, and she said that she doesn’t like to interact with this stuff but maybe to many people started being annoyed by it so she had to say something

-20

To clarify what she meant. You may think she didn’t do anything wrong but four months is a LONG time to let conspiracies based on your media presence brew, especially ones that got as much coverage as this.

2415

Anonymous #7 3w

She doesn’t want you bro

71

Anonymous #10 3w

Ik twn. Ppl are a bunch of snowflakes nowadays

-13

Anonymous #7 3w

Which goes back to what was the final straw lol. People have been annoyed since the ad came out four months ago.

53

Anonymous #7 3w

Huge news for the unemployed

17

Anonymous #7 3w

Says the guy who’s defending some celebrity like she’s your mother just bc people think she’s stupid

38

Anonymous #7 3w

You’ve replied to almost everyone who’s made a comment on this page in less than 30 minutes. She’s not gonna see this. It seems like it’s bothering you a lot more than it should?

33

It’s not the Jean commercial, it’s the stuff that was assumed about her and how she chose to respond to it. Due to her, not responding or debunking any allegations . It caused people to create their own negative narratives about her. She let the damage go too far and now , it’s ruined her career.

97

Anonymous #11 3w

I’m thinking it’s the box office flops. Reputation is bad right now and maybe it’s causing casting directors to not wanna hire her due to her controversies . Maybe they just wanna avoid the drama🤷‍♀️

52

Anonymous #11 3w

It doesn’t really bother me, it’s just odd seeing these reactions from people

-3

It may not be every single person, but it’s enough people to truly ruin her career and blacklist her. The amount of people that hate her outweighs the amount of people that love her right now. And the people that love her aren’t really supporting her that well since all of her movies are flopping.

74

Anonymous #15 3w

Fair. Plus her marketing stunks and partnerships actively clash with the roles she’s playing. The people who like her movies won’t like her stunts and the people who like her stunts won’t like her movies. That’s definitely not helping with the controversy or her reputation.

55

Anonymous #15 3w

I guess, it is a pretty stupid drama though

-23

the ad was talking about hair and eye color. you gotta be either intellectually impaired or intellectually dishonest to not see the clear dog whistle

55

Eh I wouldn’t say it’s stupid. More about reading the room? The initial ad’s controversy is based on if you think it should be taken at face value or if there’s subtext, which ppl have been primed to consider based on other ads (esp in a tense political climate). Based on that if there’s a BIG miscommunication clarifying what you meant isn’t bad. But by being silent it gave people ammunition to dig more into her past to find confirmation about what they suspected.

372

And I watched it and like, she isn’t saying her jeans (or genes) are better, she is saying they are great. God forbid a girl say that they look good

169

Anonymous #14 3w

Please open a textbook

53

Anonymous #7 3w

Based on the fact she mentioned hair & eye color as being genetic traits right before saying she had good genes without clarifying why, the ad can come off as saying HER hair and eye color are why her genes are good. So having blonde hair and blue eyes = good genes. Nothing wrong with either but those traits being the source of good genes has a VERY dark history. So people who picked up on that looked deeper into her and found things that confirmed their suspicions.

603

Anonymous #7 3w

I 100% agree

9

Anonymous #17 3w

So it’s wrong to say you have good genes? If it was another eye/hair color that would be ok??? If she was like “my genes are better than yours” but people of a lot of races say that their genes/someone else’s genes are good. If a black lady was in this ad, no body would be having this shit fit

3

Anonymous #11 3w

There were other ways to do the ad talking about how good she looked and doing that would play on words without eluding to her hair/eye color. Having worked in marketing more of the fault is on AE. EVERY word gets analyzed before launching an ad campaign so even if they just meant it as a fun play on words they KNEW some people would pick up on that. They were operating on any publicity is good publicity and Sweeney may have just gone along with it for the check but it seems to have backfired

265

I think if she didn’t support the views her campaign was being attached to, she would have said so at the many opportunities she was interviewed about it. She dismissed it, hoping it would go away and is only addressing it now because it hasn’t.

324

Anonymous #11 3w

As people dug they found Blue lives matter stuff and that she was a registered Republican, which made trump supporters latch onto her. And since she didn’t deny them people assumed she was aligned with them. MAGA isn’t known for its openness for diversity and inclusion and trump has hesitated to downplay nationalists and supremacists who support him so it’s an ugly spiral to be connected to.

198

Anonymous #15 3w

I beg to differ. Get your head out of the liberal echo chamber, you’d be surprised.

29

Anonymous #7 3w

#7 bro you’ve been trying this argument with multiple diff people and i can’t tell if you’re rage baiting or being dense

55

Anonymous #23 3w

i say dense because i’m optimistic. i’d like to assume you aren’t insensitive and likely racist.

41

Anonymous #7 3w

She’s a registered republican did you not catch that

76

Anonymous #14 3w

You’re trying to act tough. So embarrassing for you 🤣

3

Anonymous #25 3w

Not trying to be anything. Stfu and go complain some more

10

Anonymous #14 3w

So you’re not trying to be perceived as more than a just a pussy?

1

Anonymous #25 3w

You said I was trying to be tough when I’m not bro

1

Anonymous #14 3w

Sure, buddy. Try to improve your plausible deniability next time lmao.

1

Anonymous #25 3w

Yk what bro I just realized I don’t have to sit here and argue with you. I’m a 6,2 white brunette with a hot ass Latino gf and drive a BMW f90 m5. And a conservative. And your some little blue haired bitch. Thank you so much for giving me the ability to see that I don’t have to talk to fucking idiots.

-9

Anonymous #27 3w

100% agree

15

Anonymous #14 3w

I was almost agreeing with you but this last comment you’re actually such a cornball brother take a walk

18

Anonymous #28 3w

Atleast I’m a cornball with a hotass gf and a BMW f90

-6

Anonymous #14 3w

Facts, people with girlfriends and sports cars are definitely the target audience of yikyak 💀 we’re all redditors bro - stop the cap

14

Anonymous #14 3w

Ay what kinda car do you have I lowkey forgot?🤔

19

Anonymous #14 3w

Lmao. You sound like an incredibly boring person who needs to hate and stereotype others (and get a more interesting girlfriend that I pity) in order to give your life meaning.

15

Anonymous #28 3w

BMW f90 I can tell you again if you need me to lil bro

-3

Anonymous #14 3w

Lowkey I might need you too I’m not sure I’m getting it🙏

15

Anonymous #28 3w

To*

6

Anonymous #14 3w

Only fucking morons who haven’t cracked open a textbook, like the other commenter said, care about cars. 😂

-1

Anonymous #25 3w

Tf is wrong with caring abt cars? I think there cool

0

Anonymous #29 3w

If an interviewer asked you if you condemned white supremacy would you condemn it or just laugh it off? She laughed it off. Be so fr rn

10

Anonymous #28 3w

Thanks for correcting your self like a good little blue haired girl.

-1

Anonymous #25 3w

I was agreeing with you about him sounding like a cornball but now you do to. Why you talking about a “textbook” like it’s some holy item you have

6

Anonymous #14 3w

Boring people think cars are cool. You’re stereotypically hyper-masculine

7

Anonymous #21 3w

I personally am a nervous laugher and that probably would catch me so off guard and make me feel uncomfortable and I probably would laugh and not know the proper response (most people/interviewers wouldn’t be satisfied with a simple no)

5

Anonymous #21 3w

Laughing lwk sounds normal cuz that’s a stupid question

7

Anonymous #29 3w

Yeah I just fully disagree. I think like, every interviewer would accept her saying no as an answer. They literally gave her the softest ball question ever and she fumbled it so hard.

9

Anonymous #14 3w

I have blond hair and blue eyes actually. You like me yet? Blue hair is hot, though 🥵

3

Anonymous #25 3w

Im a 6,2 brunnet you like me?

0

Anonymous #25 3w

And no I like latinas

5

Anonymous #14 3w

No…most people have brown hair. Why would that make me like you? I like interesting people

4

Anonymous #25 3w

Bro what are you into?

0

Anonymous #14 3w

Yall both sound like you’re in middle school

13

Wrong person, bro

2

Anonymous #25 3w

Most people have blonde hair lil Bro. And does that mean all people with brown hair are not interesting

-4

Yes that is what I said

-3

Anonymous #14 3w

Why do you keep putting the height in there too😂😂

1

Anonymous #28 3w

Quiet down and be a good little girl

0

Anonymous #14 3w

wtf are you talking about holyyy

6

Anonymous #27 3w

Nope. People who are in middle school likely cannot tell the difference between the two sides of the political spectrum and think both are equally valid or that it is "closed-minded" to discredit stupid beliefs

-1

Anonymous #14 3w

Most people? No, most people do not have blond hair. I bet that upsets you

12

Anonymous #25 3w

I agree people are thinking I’m a big Republican and I absolutely hate Trump never voted for him. All I said was that I’m a conservative

0

Anonymous #25 3w

I’m saying you sound like a middle schooler with your stupid arguing. Both of you guys shut up and go to bed

7

Anonymous #27 3w

Provide evidence that middle schoolers like arguing. If you don’t, you’re a fucking idiot who doesn’t have any leg to stand on. Only say that which is intellectually defensible

-1

Anonymous #14 3w

Idk man you’re trying to enact your homoerotic fantasies out here also I’m lowkey curious what kinda car do you drive? I was also wondering like how tall are you approximately?

10

Anonymous #28 3w

Just scroll up and you’ll see it lil Bro

-3

Anonymous #14 3w

It’s not because you said you’re conservative. It’s because you’re throwing out "liberal" stereotypes that make it painfully obvious that you listen to right-wing propaganda 🤣

5

Anonymous #14 3w

Idk man I don’t think you mentioned it yet need that info asap it’s def relevant and important

6

Anonymous #25 3w

No I think republicans are hillbilly’s I got stereotypes for both

-1

Anonymous #25 3w

That’s stupid. I don’t need to cite sources of how you sound childish. Middle schoolers are typically immature because of their lack of life experience. You sound similar in the way you talk. Need a source for that?

9

Anonymous #27 3w

Ya

1

Anonymous #27 3w

Yes. Elaborate on how I am immature. Go ahead

0

Anonymous #25 3w

You also can’t talk about stereotypes. You’re out here saying every person who leans right is a racist. That’s hypocritical of you

1

Anonymous #27 3w

I never said any such thing

2

Anonymous #25 3w

Me and you need to team up on #27 me and 25 were having a A B conversation and you need to C your way out of it

0

Anonymous #14 3w

Does anyone here own a BMW? Anyone?

12

Anonymous #25 3w

You’re arguing with a guy who is trying to flex his car and height and his supposedly bad girlfriend who is a Latina. It is immature of you to engage in a pointless argument that will not accomplish anything. The way you go about arguing is also childish. If you want to talk more dm me. If not carry on ig

9

Anonymous #27 3w

Your volunteered to join the argument lil bro. Why are you getting on us when you joined in?

1

Anonymous #27 3w

Your premise wrong. It is not immature to engage in pointless arguments.

0

Anonymous #25 3w

I agree

-1

Anonymous #25 3w

How so?

1

Anonymous #27 3w

Bro my point you get on me and 25 and you sit here and join the argument?

-2

Anonymous #24 3w

Oh no she's a registered republican how EVIL

41

Anonymous #15 3w

Yeah no. The amount of people that hate her may be overwhelming on yikyak. Nobody in the real world cares about this bullshit lol

-22

Anonymous #22 3w

Go check the christy box office and get back to me

-4

Anonymous #24 3w

You’re ignorant and childish. “Party of love” btw

0

Anonymous #27 3w

Go the fuck awayyyyy I don’t give a damn. Party of bigots ass

0

Anonymous #24 3w

You replied to me just a second ago and now want me to go away. Funny

1

Anonymous #24 3w

I could say the left is the party of killing children. Is that true?

1

Anonymous #25 3w

I’m saying that these things are not currently true smart guy

1

Anonymous #25 3w

Fascism by definition seeks to exterminate religion read a book

1

Anonymous #25 3w

X= element of fascism not currently seen

1

Anonymous #28 3w

And we aren’t currently analogous to the culmination of other fascist regimes. Your point? And the military hasn’t improved its political power? It was literally deployed to Los Angeles to shut down protests, which was unprecedented.

3

Anonymous #25 3w

It was inherently a socialist party dawg you’re wrong

0

Anonymous #28 3w

And fascism does not seek to exterminate religion. It sounds like you’ve been listening to too much religious propaganda. 🤣 Again, Hitler identified as Christian. He partially appealed to Christianity to justify his authority.

8

Anonymous #27 3w

Which is why I deleted my other comment. And yeah, here you still are following me, getting on my fucking nerves. Obsessed. I’m not changing my mind. All you right wing, racist fucks can go straight to hell with your ancestors. You’re being selective on what issues to insult democrats on because you know your party is known for hate and bigotry. Get a life

5

Anonymous #24 3w

*yet not yeah

7

Anonymous #24 3w

You actually sound like the hateful one believe it or not. Cute how you chose to dodge the question too. Almost like you know it’s true?

1

Anonymous #25 3w

No IT has not. The use of the military by the executive does not equal a growth of political power by military leaders. So no the military elite has not become necessarily more powerful.

1

Anonymous #28 3w

Buddy, the idea that the Nazis were socialist is one of the most common misunderstandings. Again, they are opportunistic, and the people of Germany generally liked socialism. So the Nazis identified as socialist until they didn’t need the support of socialists anymore. I’m not the one who needs to read a book. Look up the Night of Long Knives.

0

Anonymous #25 3w

He appealed to existing culture yes, but again you’re not listening. Fascism, like state communism explicitly states that no other moral or cultural institution such as religious institutions can supersede the moral or cultural authority of the state. This is why you will see violent suppression of religion in both Bolshevik and Nazi history. You can google it.

1

Anonymous #28 3w

I don’t know if military leaders necessarily need to become more powerful, but the military branch of government is expanded, given more authority, and acquires abilities that it did not previously have.

0

Anonymous #25 3w

Do you know what socialism is? It is not inherently good or evil it just means that the state owns the means of production to a large degree. By this definition Nazi germany was socialist since many industries were partially or fully nationalized and the distribution of economic products was administered in large part by the state. It was socialist just not egalitarian which you are confusing

2

Anonymous #28 3w

Fascism doesn’t "state" anything. It’s an opportunistic behavior. Not a static dogma or philosophy. Fascists oppose whichever institution exercises critical thought and contradicts the state, while they support any institution that they believe that they can control toward the end of lending credence to their agenda. It’s like claiming that RFK isn’t anti-science because he funds the CDC when it is literally to just push propaganda.

0

Anonymous #25 3w

Look up in a reliable source whether the Nazis were socialist. I can guarantee what you will find

2

Anonymous #28 3w

Socialist is not the opposite of egalitarianism. It is a means to achieve egalitarianism within the Marxist framework actually. You are correct that fascism is incredibly hierarchical. And the only reason why you can claim that the state controlled the means of the production is because the division between the state and corporations dissolved. That is not socialism.

1

Anonymous #25 3w

Fascism is absolutely a philosophy. It is necessarily a defined political system and philosophy originating in Italy

2

Anonymous #28 3w

Fascism is as fascism does. You should listen to those who study its effects and behavior in history, not the one who coined the terms, much less supported it, especially when fascists are known for propaganda.

0

Anonymous #28 3w

Read up, buddy: https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists

0

Anonymous #25 3w

I never claimed that socialism was the opposite of egalitarianism reread what I wrote. You are again stating that socialism is inherently a path to egalitarianism which it is not, because it is not necessarily equal. The basic definition is as I stated, the state control of resource production and allocation-doesn’t mean that allocation is equal.

2

Anonymous #28 3w

Not when the state is a business lmao.

0

Anonymous #25 3w

https://mises.org/mises-wire/yes-they-were-socialists-how-nazis-waged-war-private-property Read

2

Anonymous #28 3w

Hmm, which is a more unbiased source. An encyclopedia or a "right-wing libertarian" nonprofit? 🤔

3

Anonymous #25 3w

How was the state a “business” in Germany and not the USSR where Marxist thought was in place?

2

Anonymous #25 3w

https://lawliberty.org/book-review/the-socialism-in-nazism/ Go on then

2

Anonymous #28 3w

Dude, that source literally starts by stating how it’s providing a different, even unconventional perspective by a conservative historian who has rejected "left-wing politics." If it is this difficult for you to find an unbiased source, that says a lot about both your intellectual honesty and who is conveying the consensus among academics here.

0

Anonymous #28 3w

And once you acknowledge that you are in the minority position along experts here, you should also recognize how contradicting them when you yourself are not an expert is unjustified.

0

Anonymous #25 3w

Where are you gonna find an unbiased source? Heaven? The context fits the definition

2

Anonymous #28 3w

Britannia is an unbiased source. It is an encyclopedia. Textbooks are unbiased sources. Their goal is to convey consensus, not provide an opinion that contradicts experts (which means it’s probably wrong). Hell, even Wikipedia is a more reliable source if objectivity is what you are actually seeking. All your sources are promoting an actual agenda that is described by themselves as right-wing.

0

Anonymous #25 3w

In glad that you’re an expert. The basic deinfition of the word fits the example provided. As someone who couldn’t define fascism but applied the name liberally that’s an interesting thing to say

2

Anonymous #28 3w

There is no simple definition of socialism, just like there is no simple definition of fascism. The Nazis are not socialist because they did not nationalize industry. They were actively hostile to socialists and completely rejected Marxist thought.

4

Anonymous #28 3w

I’m not an expert. I just listen to the consensus of experts, like you should.

4

Anonymous #28 3w

Defining complicated phenomena is difficult, but here is a definition by an expert:

3

Anonymous #25 3w

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

2

Anonymous #25 3w

If you put party puppets in charge of every major industry and then create a state monopoly then yes you have in effect nationalized the industry

1

Anonymous #28 3w

Dude, you just described how the state merely controlled but didn’t nationalize industry.

5

Anonymous #25 3w

There are simple characteristics of both which define them

1

Anonymous #25 3w

It is state capitalism, not any form of socialism or communism.

4

Anonymous #28 3w

Wrong. Nothing is simple. Socialism is a sophisticated philosophy. Fascism is a complicated sociological phenomenon that causes people to act in irrational and cultish ways.

3

Anonymous #25 3w

Read that back to me slowly: “the state merely controlled but didn’t nationalize industry” Definition of nationalization l: “the transfer of a major branch of industry from private to state ownership or control” So if the state controls the industry and its party members own it then it HAS been nationalized

0

Anonymous #25 3w

Both are political philosophies? They were even born in relatively similar ways for similar purposes in their genesis

1

Anonymous #28 3w

It’s only effective control, not formal control. The control goes the other way. Corporations control government. Government does not control corporations. That is the difference.

3

Anonymous #28 3w

No lmao. They are not analogous to each other at all. Socialism was born decades earlier as a response to capitalism before fascism even technically existed. Fascism is a response to mythical threats to one's own racial and cultural identity as well as fabricated or romanticized history.

1

Anonymous #25 3w

That would be fine and dandy if that was true for this case but it simply wasn’t. Corporate interests at Volkswagen did not supersede the desires of the reich or the dictator, quite the opposite.

1

Anonymous #25 3w

You really have to stop pompously responding to claims that I did not make. I did not say they were analogous I said and I quote “born in relatively similar ways for similar purposes” end quote.

1

Anonymous #28 3w

Yeah, the company arose during the Nazis regime and, of course, it was good business to support the cult when it occupied the minds of so many people I believe.

5

Anonymous #28 3w

And analogies are justified when relevant similarities exist lmao. What do you mean "born in similar ways"? Socialism was born among a heterogeneous group of thinkers who wanted to ease the effects of capitalism by advocating for the rights of the workers.

2

Anonymous #25 3w

So the company, founded by the Nazi party through the DAF, was controlling the Nazi party?

1

Anonymous #25 3w

Socialism was born from a group of relatively privileged men to counter rampant private abuses and consolidation, and corruption of the state at a moment of extreme inequality (late Industrial Revolution Germany and England) fascism was born from a group of relatively privileged men to counter rampant corruption, private abuses and stagnation at a moment of extreme inequality. Not THE SAME but with distinct similarities

1

Anonymous #28 3w

Socialism doesn’t create companies. That is not what it is. It controls the profits of the companies that exist. This is what happens when you’re have such a simplistic view of reality. You don’t understand the concept of generalizations that don’t apply to literally every single company. It isn’t every single business owner today that is involved in the fascist trends either. It is only a select few of multibillion and multitrillion dollar monopolies. Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, etc.

4

Anonymous #28 3w

Socialism was not born to counter corruption of the state. Corruption of the state is a major criticism of socialism. Socialism was born to counteract the abuses of private business owners.

4

Anonymous #25 3w

1. I stated that second part 2. It was most certainly born to counter corruption of the state

1

Anonymous #28 3w

It was born to counter corruption of the state by often giving more power to the state?

1

Anonymous #25 3w

Socialism absolutely does create companies. If you were buying a Lada or a Volkswagen you are buying a communist-socialist car and a fascist car both were allocated resources by the central government, sold to you at a price, and created by an arm of the state

-2

Anonymous #25 3w

Yes? Anti-Corruption does not mean decentralized power man

-2

Anonymous #25 3w

I feel like you’re imposing your own views of the definitions of things rather than referring to the accepted ones

-1

Anonymous #28 3w

Fine. I concede that point with regard to those specific examples. The Nazis operated under a mixed system. Again, that doesn’t undermine how the Nazi Party generally operated, which was by aligning private companies with their agenda.

5

Anonymous #28 3w

Corruption of the government was not the primary concerns of socialist thinkers. The interests of large businesses weren’t exerting such complete control over government as they were in later authoritarian regimes.

0

Anonymous #28 3w

I gave you a definition of fascism that was not by me. Did you read it?

0

We don’t hate white people. We just hate people who love white people.

71

Anonymous #25 3w

“The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie” -Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels- The Communist Manifesto

1

Anonymous #21 3w

Because it’s a ridiculous question and even engaging journos with their bs just gets you in trouble because now the journo scum will start follow up questions and trying to get a sound bite

1

Anonymous #28 3w

Okay, so? Yeah, we both agreed that the definition of socialism was public control of the means of production. Marx only perceived it as a means to an end for abolishing the state entirely, though.

1

Anonymous #25 3w

The interest of large businesses such as the Dutch East India company may have actually reached a height of control over government at the time and since

2

Anonymous #28 3w

Which time? What are you even talking about? Orient me

1

Anonymous #7 3w

It’s wrong to generally say that blond hair and blue eyes are good genes, yes.

8

Anonymous #25 3w

You said that the interest of companies weren’t exerting control over the state as in later regimes and I disagree and gave you that example. They very much were engaged in trying to control state decisions

0

Anonymous #28 3w

Okay, yeah, that’s fine. Money always equates to power, but it certainly wasn’t the manner in which the interests of corporations actively direct the interests of businesses. Remember that we’re comparing the origin of socialism and fascism here.

2

Anonymous #40 3w

Acting like great genes should be passed on to descendants is definitionally eugenics

10

I’m not racist. No one should love people of a particular race. That’s fucking weird and should be condemned. The history behind "loving" the white race and European features just makes it all the worse.

132

Anonymous #34 3w

I mean, they’re literal fascists now so yeah, she is evil.

121

Anonymous #42 3w

Fascism is using violence to silence dissent

37

Anonymous #38 3w

No, that’s not what fascism is

24

Anonymous #25 3w

Read a book

48

Anonymous #38 3w

It was literally the most softball question of all time. If saying “I don’t support white nationalism” loses you fans, i don’t know why you’d be upset.

1

Anonymous #21 3w

except we have all seen how you a-holes play this game. Don’t take the bait

2

Don’t forget that those who can’t defend everything they believe are fucking morons who should be purged from society

24

Anonymous #44 3w

This is why you lost

-6

Anonymous #38 3w

No, it’s because the vast majority of people are idiots.

12

Anonymous #38 3w

Me when I move the goalposts to attempt to prove my point. (Also, for how many late night shows were cancelled/attempted to be cancelled this year for daring to criticize Trump? Yeah, we’re already forcefully silencing opposition.)

101

Anonymous #11 3w

The ad also hinted to sexuality too when she said I like straight “jeans” - it’s a dog whistle it’s not meant to be obvious and yes I agree she’s very beautiful it’s just a reference to eugenics where there are superior “jeans” the ad wouldn’t be so controversial if all “jeans” were included like in GAP

96

The lack of basic media literacy in a grown adult such as yourself is insane

18

Anonymous #14 3w

It’s giving “my three girlfriends… and yes, they all smoke weed” 😶

3

Anonymous #38 3w

I’ve read Robert O. Paxton's "The Anatomy of Fascism." Which books have you read?

31

I don’t think other races think abt y’all enough to hate u bc of ur skin color I think it’s more that we’re disappointed in who some of y’all voted for and continue to support even after being a felon rapist child predator and now with defending someone who agreed to do an ad abt eugenics (it wasn’t meant to be obvious but it’s there) white brown black genes are all good but they chose to focus on ones that are associated with white people to promote the belief that white is the only good genes

64

Anonymous #9 3w

She also said that Trump posting about her was surreal

22

Anonymous #34 3w

It is evil if she voted for a child rapist who used to be friends with Epstein

27

It’s not everyone but her 4 movies did awful in the box office it’s affecting her pay check that’s why she’s “clarifying” that she’s not believe in eugenics but she also shifted blame to the public so she’s not even sorry she could have been like I’m sorry for taking a while to respond to all this and agreeing to do the ad

43

Eugenics - blond hair blue eyes straight are superior genes that’s what she’s been associated with

29

Anonymous #7 3w

They did it in a GAP commercial the only difference is that one included all “jeans” while the other focused on white “jeans” - the ad was meant to cause controversy and the people who wrote the script knew what they were doing Sydney not responding to the backlash until it affected her paycheck is what makes all this suspicious

25

Anonymous #46 3w

Works of art such as advertisement are symbolic, so let me boil it down to what the ad was essentially saying: "Genes/jeans can be passed down from parent to offspring. My genes/jeans are good because I have blond hair, a great ass, and blue eyes. You should buy these genes/jeans so that you can pass them on to your children." In other words, it’s literally eugenics.

23

Anonymous #43 3w

Hair and eye color were explicitly mentioned in the ad. Did you even watch it lmao?

0

Anonymous #25 3w

This is why you lost

-5

Anonymous #38 3w

Because I know how to interpret propaganda? That’s probably why I happen not to be on the winning side, sure

20

Anonymous #45 3w

preface: i don't agree with trump being elected nor most of his views. however, i just wanted to mention the voting trends for the 2024 election. while there were more while people who voted for trump than other races (per usual), there were actually more black people that voted for trump in the 2024 election than the 2020 election. same with those who are asian. also the amount of democratic to republican votes among hispanic people were almost equal. not just more white people voting for him.

26

Anonymous #25 3w

keep it up!

0

Anonymous #45 3w

Keep calling Sweeney a Nazi I’m sure that will win yall elections

13

Anonymous #27 3w

both parties are the parties of killing children if tally up the number of Afgha and Iraqi children murdered by the US military since the first gulf war, but somehow, I feel like that’s not what your dumb ass was talking about

5

Anonymous #38 3w

We would rather be correct than win elections. Keep changing your views to align with the majority like the pathetic sheep you are.

36

Anonymous #42 3w

this isn't really true, that's MAGA not republicans. i know many people that are registered republicans that don't like trump and didn't vote for him. idk a lot about her in general and idk who she voted for. but i'm just saying that i know a lot of people who would consider themselves more traditional republicans and do not like trump

31

Anonymous #48 3w

None of that changes anything lmao.

8

Anonymous #25 3w

mustve missed that part, was too busy looking at her butt

12

Anonymous #43 3w

That’s the tactic. Only fucking idiots fall for it. If you don’t want to be perceived as a fucking idiot, you should pay more attention to detail.

-3

Anonymous #51 3w

She’s already in screwing up by lending legitimacy to your hateful bs

-7

Anonymous #38 3w

Hateful in what way?

10

Anonymous #25 3w

In the way where you are racist bully

-5

Anonymous #38 3w

That’s restating your claim, not defending it. Are you a fucking idiot who can’t defend your position? If so, you should be removed from society.

12

Anonymous #43 3w

Huge ass? She’s not known for a huge ass, it’s huge boobs

-1

Anonymous #52 3w

Which doesn’t really make as much sense for a jeans ad

-1

Anonymous #38 3w

I will! Thanks! You should try to be at least as intelligent as the average person one day, though.

6

Anonymous #53 3w

…it’s a video?

9

Anonymous #14 3w

Weak reply, dude

1

Anonymous #7 3w

you're the only one having a shit fit kid. got your panties in a twist replying to every comment defending the honor of your aryan queen from her own stupid choice to associate herself with eugenics-adjacent language 😂 the imagined hypocrisy isn't doing anything for you or anybody else. it wasn't a black lady. it was a white blonde woman with blue eyes talking about how great those features are in an ad about PANTS. maybe next time get somebody with genes that are relevant to the jeans 🤣

15

Anonymous #42 3w

None

-8

Anonymous #42 3w

Oh look “forcible suppressions of opposition”

-3

Anonymous #25 3w

History books

-4

Anonymous #48 3w

GOP / Right wing / Republican = MAGA - you had every chance to stop him but instead you all went along lock step

3

Anonymous #25 3w

look at who i was replying to? they were saying that they were disappointed that white people were voting for trump, i was just pointing out that more people of all races voted for him in this past election

22

Anonymous #53 3w

did you not read what i said? a vote is a vote. i know people who are registered republicans that did not vote for trump because they don't like him/don't agree with his policies. i'm just an independent that see that everyone is human and a political affiliation doesn't have to define your vote. you don't have to vote within your party.

10

Anonymous #14 3w

Couldn’t agree more!

0

Anonymous #25 3w

Bruh this is LITERALLY racism at its finest 🤣 but hey whatever helps you sleep at night

20

Anonymous #25 3w

She wasn’t saying that they are better than other peoples genes. She said HER genes were good genes. People can have good genes, no matter the race.

-6

Anonymous #25 3w

No? If it was saying that the genes were better than others then yeah but saying that your genes are good isn’t eugenics.

1

Anonymous #25 3w

??? Great genes of any person should objectively try to be passed down? It helps with their survival

4

Anonymous #36 3w

$15-40 mil budget, $1.3 mil opening week, $2 mil gross. yeah that’s what we call a flop in the film industry

12

Anonymous #45 3w

Never apologize to disingenuous scumbags

1

Anonymous #7 3w

Also, isn’t eugenics mainly about REMOVING unwanted genes from passing down.

-1

Anonymous #48 3w

google "closed caucus" lmao. sometimes you literally have to vote within your registered party

0

Anonymous #48 3w

or "closed primary"

0

Anonymous #42 3w

🫩right = fascist, left = communist. You guys are all too far gone.

4

Anonymous #34 3w

"Why are you booing me? I'm right!"

2

Anonymous #45 3w

So fun fact straight jeans are a thing and have nothing to do with being straight. Thanks for coming to my Ted talk!

19

Anonymous #71 3w

This is all very online trolling talk. But we can’t forget these people are extremely dangerous and full of hate. If you see anyone spewing this bs irl make sure you shut them tf up

-5

Anonymous #48 3w

No…? I mean, I don’t see that coming from #45. They were saying that people were disappointed in many Republicans for voting for a child molester and felon.

8

I didn’t say Sweeney was a Nazi. I also didn’t really attribute any problematic aspects of the advertisement to Sweeney initially. That doesn’t mean she didn’t play a small role in supporting the fascist agenda

8

Anonymous pink_okie 3w

Having people who love white people is not hating or discriminating against those of any particular race, so it’s really no lmao. I don’t think you know what racism is. You’re a moron.

6

Anonymous #71 3w

That doesn’t mean that double entendres can’t take advantage of the fact that a homophone of "jeans" is "genes." Y’all failed English class, and it shows. When she says that jeans are inherited and passed on from parent to offspring, she is not just talking about clothes because it is a jeans ad lmao. Advertisements use symbols and language that appeal to the prejudices of our culture. So the eugenics rhetoric is quite concerning.

14

Anonymous #38 3w

Very specific

5

Anonymous #17 3w

i know what it is, but in this case we are talking about the presidential election. in a general election you can vote for any candidate that you would like regardless of the party you registered with

3

Anonymous #32 3w

It was jeans commercial that took advantage of the homophone "genes" to strongly imply eugenics, based on eye and hair color no less.

1

Anonymous #45 3w

So if Sydney Sweeney was black and said she had good jeans/genes you wouldn’t be suspicious??

12

Anonymous #75 3w

It’s not just about her saying she had good jeans/genes. That would be perfectly fine. She’s generally considered an attractive person, and neither race nor eugenics has anything to do with that statement. It’s the fact that she (or the ad) specifically promoted passing on great jeans/genes to offspring as the reason to buy their product while specifically calling attention to eye color and hair color.

12

Anonymous #77 3w

The opposite is true actually. Those who didn’t don’t have good theoretical reasoning skills.

2

Anonymous #25 3w

Or…you’re just chronically online, have a victim mentality, and don’t like white people. Those all seem far more likely than a Hollywood actress promoting “Nazi propaganda” in a jeans ad for a company being run by a literal Jewish guy.😂

2

Anonymous #77 3w

As it pertains to the ad, it’s specifically white supremacist eugenics, not necessarily Nazism. You saw the ad, right?

3

Anonymous #25 3w

“White supremacist eugenics” go ahead and log off for me😂 where in the ad is supremacy implied?

2

Anonymous #77 3w

When it implied that certain genes are better than others. WHITE supremacy was involved when it implied that Sydney Sweeney has great genes because of her eye color and hair color.

0

Anonymous #25 3w

The eugenics and use of the double entendre to prescribe action based on heredity is far more damning and concerning in my opinion.

5

Anonymous #38 3w

yes, and? look at how the police brutalize protesters, how ice is rounding up legal citizens and residents who show dissent, how the trump admin is attempting to control the media… use your brain

1

Anonymous #25 3w

1. The ad never mentioned her hair color specifically (it’s brown so it doesn’t even make sense here) 2. Her skin color was never mentioned either, so it just sounds like you’re mad that she’s white lol 3. She’s an objectively attractive woman. So many take it as fact when she says she has “great genes”. 4. Her “jeans” are literally blue and she was in an all blue fit soooooo… 5. From my pov, it was an attractive white woman saying she’s attractive.😱

2

Anonymous #25 3w

Nowhere in the ad was there a notion of “these genes are better”. Unless you look at it from the clothing perspective then it’s “A hot woman is wearing these jeans, you should buy em too.” lol; thats the whole ad.

4

Anonymous #77 3w

1. Yes. It did. First sentence from the ad: "Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color. 2. Her features are distinctly European. You say that her hair color is brown, but that’s just what blonde hair fades into with age. No black person, Hispanic person, or Asian person has that same natural hair color.

0

Anonymous #77 3w

3. If the ad had stopped when it said that Sydney Sweeney had great jeans/genes, I would have no issue. Like I said, the eugenics are more concerning. The fact that hair color and eye color WERE explicitly mentioned in an ad with eugenics implications makes it very clear about what they were trying to do. 4. Relevance? They were taking advantage of a double entendre with "jeans" and "genes." The fact that her jeans are blue is not relevant to the analogy.

4

Anonymous #77 3w

5. You’re not even coming up with new points at this point. https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1orsk62/the_original_controversial_american_eagle_sydney/ In case you didn’t actually see the correct ad.

5

Anonymous #25 3w

What the ad does say “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring.” What it doesn’t say “Some genes are superior to others.”

0

Anonymous #75 3w

why does media literacy and the ability to read between the lines fucking die the second there’s any sort of gray area or controversy

1

Anonymous #75 3w

There is not a problem with any individual sentence. It is the implications when they are put all together. "Genes determine traits like eye color. My genes are blue. I have great genes." = "I have great genes because I have blue eyes." Add "Genes are passed from parents to offspring" and the knowledge that the ad wants you to buy their product and you have full-blown eugenics.

6

Anonymous #62 3w

Idk you tell me. What if Sydney Sweeney was black?

1

Anonymous #75 3w

She probably wouldn’t be in the same context because Eurocentric features are considered more attractive in our culture such that no one bats an eye when a person says that someone is attractive because they have light hair with blue eyes. It wouldn’t make much sense of Sydney Sweeney was black with black features. But sure, it wouldn’t be problematic if she was black as well.

0

Anonymous #25 3w

*would

0

Anonymous #75 3w

it would be a bad commercial with awkward line delivery and a terrible choice of script that completely misses the target audience, teenage girls and young adult women. just like this commercial. however, sydney sweeney is not black. she is a white woman with blonde hair and blue eyes talking about “great genes” in an ad. context matters. history matters. it’s in poor taste at best, and a dog whistle at worst.

1

Anonymous #25 3w

1. Stating genes are passed down doesn’t automatically make any statement statement a dog whistle for eugenics 2. It’s nit-picky, but yes there actually Africans and Asians that do naturally possess blonde or brown hair, but yeah it is rare. 3. Hair color and eye color are some of the most common physical features people think of when genetic inheritance is mentioned.

2

Anonymous #77 3w

I think it’s becoming pretty obvious that you’re just bending over backwards to defend the ad at this point, chalking up the specific examples to what are most common even thought it directly preceding Sydney saying her genes were blue. You’re still refusing to look at the ad holistically while referring to individual sentences. I’ve said my piece and think I’ve convincingly demonstrated that interpreting the ad in this way is not "stupid," as you previously stated.

5

Anonymous #25 3w

4. Genes and Jeans have the same pronunciation, so saying either one forces listeners to use context clues to discern between em. When she said her “jeans are blue”, I didn’t immediately think of her hair and eye color, cuz her hair obviously isn’t blue. I thought of the JEANS she’s wearing. Y’know? The entire FOCUS OF THE AD??? And I still thought it was a good play on words, cuz even if she was talking about her genetic features, I’d still agree cuz she’s still an attractive woman 😂

1

Anonymous #25 3w

I’m looking at the ad from an objective standpoint. There was no implication of superiority. Nowhere in the ad did it say some genes are better than others. You’re having to do mental gymnastics to even come to your own conclusion You’re reaching like crazyyyy and you don’t even realize it😭

1

Anonymous #77 3w

She’s an attractive woman but not because her eyes are blue. If this was the only thing the ad did, then it would just be reinforcing Eurocentric beauty standards. Advertisements are works of art that appeal to cultural symbolism. This ad appealed to eugenics (using that double entendre) in order to encourage people to buy their jeans. I, for one, am less focused on assigning blame than I am on acknowledging the concerns that this is a reflection of our culture.

1

Anonymous #77 3w

And I don’t know what you’re really trying to get add. Calling attention to the double entendre does not negate its existence.

6

Anonymous #77 3w

It didn’t explicitly said "better." It said "great." Specifically, Sydney Sweeney's genes were great. Not because she’s generally attractive, but because of her eye color, which is blue. And that, like jeans, can be passed on to children, which is why consumers should buy their blue jeans/genes. This is the summary.

0

Anonymous #25 3w

Ik. I never said it did tho?

6

Anonymous #25 3w

You know you can have a double entendres, and refer to one specifically without having to state it right? But sure, let’s assume it was talking about both her jeans and her eyes (and not her hair) at the same time. What would be the issue? All it’s done now is say she has great jeans/genes with no mention of other genes being “less great.” What’s the issue? She has blue eyes, so what? It’s a play on words. lol

3

Anonymous #77 3w

I just told you the problems very plainly lmao. I summarized the entire ad's argument for you while removing most of the mental effort. In double entendres, the goal is usually to conflate the two ideas in as many ways as possible because of cleverness or something. (Idk, I’m not an English major.) But the ad didn’t think it would be obvious if it just said that Sydney had blue jeans, so it explicitly mentioned eye color, which can really only apply to genes. And you’re still missing the point

1

Anonymous #77 3w

Another goal is not to be too on the nose. And as far as symbolism goes, it was pretty explicit, especially since the first sentence can really only be applied to genes, and the double entendre with jeans is sort of a stretch. It didn’t say that certain genes are "better" than others because there is no way to relate that back to jeans. After you understand the ad in terms of very basic literary and artistic techniques, then we can talk about the problems with the implications.

1

Anonymous #11 3w

Oh interesting cuz I always thought when she said that line her boobs we’re showing so I assumed they were talking about her boobs 😭

5

Anonymous #81 3w

Were* damn autocorrect

6

Anonymous #11 3w

i think the important thing was that white suprematists took it as a signal and she didn’t immediately come out and deny it. PR 101

22

Anonymous #86 3w

Thank you exactly this

2

Anonymous #84 3w

Good point!

2

Anonymous #88 3w

The people who would think so really should be the focal point of eugenics.

0

Anonymous #88 3w

I personally wasn’t so fixated on Sydney Sweeney as a person

-1

Anonymous #94 3w

Because there are a bunch of people who when told to be offended by something, get offended by something.

0

She also right by nit feeding into nontroversies.

-7

thank you i worked really hard on it

10

Anonymous #97 3w

she’s so much hotter than you

-6

Anonymous #25 3w

Targeting someone simply for not hating white people is still race-based hostility. That meets the definition of racism whether you want it to or not. You’re the moron.

-11

Anonymous #48 3w

That’s because white people take up the majority of the population per distribution dummy

-1

Anonymous pink_okie 3w

Did I say "not hating" or actively loving to the exclusion of other races? I basically just said that I hate white supremacists, so it is pretty concerning that you disagree with me. No, hating racists is not the same as hating specific races. Of course, those who believe they are superior to a particular race are mostly going to be members of that race. Only morons would think I hate white people simply because all of the white supremacists I hate happen to be white.

17

Anonymous #25 3w

she’s hot asf who cares

-16

Anonymous #95 3w

i swear men see big tits or blonde hair & just go blind to the rest of a woman

33

Anonymous #79 3w

ur mad

-10

Anonymous #95 3w

no i just have better taste in women

20

Anonymous #79 3w

nobody said she was the perfect women she’s just hot enough this bs doesn’t matter

-13

Anonymous #103 3w

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YzVYyDehMUY&t=1s&pp=2AEBkAIB

1

Anonymous #25 3w

Can’t copy the link

1

Anonymous #25 3w

Oh no it’s almost as if everyone has genetic traits!! Whatever will we do bc ppl have different genes?!?!?

1

Anonymous #25 3w

Ig we should just talk about this in effect rather than theory which is what I’m trying to get at. I brought human systems in to compare because these are how these systems exist outside of theory. My claim is that in effect both large scale practices of the two systems have led to the same patterns of kleptocracy. Marxist socialism and fascism are similar in that way. If we really see the unifying of the workers of the world and a dissolution of states I’ll owe you a big apology

3

Anonymous #28 3w

I only really care about theory since theory is what leads to genuine understanding and these are literally ideologies that we are discussing. They are defined by their ideas, and the only way we can actually unify various systems as either "fascist," "socialist," "communist," or "capitalist" is through our theoretical understanding.

0

Anonymous #25 3w

Ok that’s all well and good, but you must understand how theories are actually practiced to understand them otherwise you’re just Engels, son of the factory owner funded by its surplus and yet not confronting the realities as they are. I’m sorry if I micscomunnicated last night but policy is the land of realists. As you’ve stated and I agree; science and info on the ground not theorists in an ivory tower.

1

Anonymous #28 3w

Theory is a necessary aspect of science lmao. I would say it’s the ultimate goal of science. Like I said, it yields understanding. Theorists should consider evidence in reality, but without synthesizing them into a theoretical model, insight is incredibly limited, and no predictions can be made. I don’t know all about Engels' methodology, but I consider him to be a political philosopher who didn’t really need to gather empirical evidence in order to speculate on the ideal society.

0

Anonymous #25 3w

Yo I can’t believe that last one I’m ngl

1

Anonymous #28 3w

❓

0

Anonymous #25 3w

Theory is absolutely necessary I totally agree. But you’re saying that an overall theory that balances society should not be based on empirical evidence? Then you’re not listening to the people! You’re speaking for them without the information.

1

Anonymous #25 3w

We should listen to the people always. This is where Marxist philosophy falls apart and where democratic ideals succeed. Democratic republicanism (state theory, not contemporary political party) is the clear winner. Combine it with accepted state quasi-socialist elements such as combined energy grids, widespread nuclear power supplemented with renewables, New New deal? That’s why I’d like to see

6

Anonymous #28 3w

What*

6

Anonymous #28 3w

Well it’s not a scientific theory. It’s a philosophical one lmao. And a normative one at that. It’s like demanding empirical evidence for an ethical position. Engels and Marx also had sociological and anthropological theories that would be considered the domain of science today, but I’m not so sure modern socialists and communists have really retained all of them. Science has moved on, but socialist values can be retained simply because they are subjective.

0

Anonymous #25 3w

But it is a science. Political science was coined for a reason. Because it values causes and effects rather than virtue through feeling. That’s why Marx and Engels were revolutionaries in part. They defined it into an at least “almost” scientific background-the results would help us draw conclusions. And yes they are subjective it is not one size fits all; but Marxist as well as Leninist theory continuous to treat it as such; this is why it fails. The republic stands, the collective falters.

1

Anonymous #28 3w

I don’t know how this became a conversation about the merits of socialism lmao. I do identify as a socialist (which, as you are probably aware, is an economic philosophy and not incompatible with democracy). Any philosopher (and every individual person has the ability to act as a philosopher) has the right to speculate on what will best suit the needs of the people, e.g., allow them to comfortably live. Of course, each individual has their own opinions.

0

Anonymous #25 3w

So give me your ideal view, and I will give you mine. You seem like you have intelligent things to say. If you’ll let me I’ll give you my perspective afterwards. Agreed?

1

Anonymous #28 3w

Political science is still largely philosophical. Marx and Engels are generally considered those who raised sociology to a scientific status, but again, it’s still largely philosophical as it currently stands. Marx was considered a pseudoscience by Popper due to its lack of falsifiability, and Marxism is really more of a perspective in literature, history, and sociology rather than a scientific theory that can be objectively tested.

1

Anonymous #25 3w

Just because we can view history through the lens of class struggle doesn’t mean that perspective is true to the exclusion of, say, critical race theory that focuses on dynamics between races.

1

Anonymous #28 3w

My ideal view on what lol? I’m not that well educated on economics or political science, and it’s not really what I entered this conversation to talk about.

1

Anonymous #25 3w

When did I contradict that? Race should obviously be considered as it was of utmost importance in past moments. Knowledge of past actions is of course important, we should respect that. I think the worry is that placing larger emphasis on race separation through placing blame gets in the way of even your own proclaimed socialist viewpoint. Tue Socialism is universalizing as you’ve said.

1

Anonymous #25 3w

Your ideal world. In sorry if I came judgmental or even bigoted: I’ve just trying to see what your world would look like

1

Anonymous #28 3w

You didn’t contradict that. I am arguing that Marxist perspectives are not treated as a normal scientific theory in modern sociology because no unity is sought with other perspectives. They are all acknowledged as "lenses" but not objective truth or consensus.

1

Anonymous #28 3w

Yeah, well, idk about my ideal world. I can give you my values and interests, though. I am mostly concerned with science (and its positive public reception) and environmental issues. Relating this back to the present conversation, I suppose I don’t value money so much as knowledge and would be satisfied as long as I make enough to live comfortably.

0

Anonymous #25 3w

Ofc unity is sought through them. They are flexible systems. This is why democratic republicanism works and Marxist vanguard societies fail. You will never find objective truth in anything wise. Science provides objective findings-not objective truths. That’s the strength of science and to some extent governance under this system- they can flex bend even totally remodel themselves without being destroyed

6

Anonymous #25 3w

Well I’m not asking about your own personal garden of Eden necessarily lol although you’re welcome to give it it would be interesting for sure. I was more asking how would your ideal system work? What elements would it have? And then if you’d like I’ll give you mine.

3

Anonymous #28 3w

I don’t understand your distinction between objective findings and objective truths. And I don’t think you understand what I mean by "unity." I mean a theoretical understanding of history and social change that accounts for class struggle, racial dynamics, gender dynamics, intellectual developments, etc., similar to how the Theory of Everything seeks to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics in physics.

0

Anonymous #25 3w

Objective findings= something you can measure. Crime is higher here. Something is wrong with the situational or societal system. Objective truths= F=ma (something that is always true) a rule

5

Anonymous #28 3w

…okay, well, your example of an objective truth is a well-known principle in science when you tried to say that science DOESN’T attain objective truths but only objective findings.

2

Anonymous #25 3w

Unity doesn’t have to have everyone ascribing the same history to themselves that’s what makes universalizing republics great. You don’t have to be any group in a meritocratic system with a social safety net.

6

Anonymous #25 3w

Pump the brakes when did I say that?

5

Anonymous #25 3w

I’m still waiting on your ideal societal view btw. I’ll give mine when you give yours. You’ve said a lot given little in the way of actual proactive thought.

4

Anonymous #28 3w

I still don’t think you understand what I mean by unity because you continue talking about republics and political systems when I am referencing a heated debate within the philosophy of science, which is the unity of science. Basically, the question at hand is whether or not all theories in science need to be compatible with each other. Sociological theories, such as Marxism and feminism, generally don’t need to be.

1

Anonymous #28 3w

"Science provides objective findings-not objective truths."

1

Anonymous #25 3w

Which perfectly matches up with my later statements

1

Anonymous #28 3w

Not your statement that F=ma, a conclusion of science, is an objective truth.

1

Anonymous #25 3w

Well…. Yes it’s an objective truth are you gettin stupid on me?

1

Anonymous #28 3w

"Science doesn’t provide objective truth." "This things that science provided is an objective truth." You really don’t see the contradiction here?

1

Anonymous #25 3w

No I don’t. Science provides objective facts as I’ve said. And if you’ll scroll up you’ll see in saying that science is objective facts in subjective theories.

1

Anonymous #25 3w

But in not letting you get off the hook for saying that you thought that F=ma was not an objective truth

1

Anonymous #28 3w

Either you’re rejecting basic physic or you tried to challenge me on the meaning of a word when you didn’t know it and in truth I was originally just trying to gain more insight on your worldview

1

Anonymous #28 3w

I am referring to explicitly what you said, and now you’re just altering your wording. If you said something you didn’t mean, just say that. Denying the contradiction in the two claims I just restated is sort of insane, though. Anyhow, I do believe that scientific theories are objective truth.

1

Anonymous #25 3w

Bro what’re your taking about😂 you just said that F=ma wasn’t an objective truth

1

Anonymous #28 3w

Dude. There are no objective definitions of these words. YOU defined and used them. And you did so inconsistently. You didn’t initially say "Some things in science are objective truths. Other things are subjective theories." You said "Science only produces objective findings, NOT OBJECTIVE TRUTH." I DO believe that F=ma is objective truth. It’s you who initially implied otherwise.

1

Anonymous #28 3w

When did I say that F=ma is not an objective truth?

1

Anonymous #25 3w

And you are misinterpreting what I’m saying. Objective findings /= (don’t) equal objective truth. For instance if you start a fire in a dry environment it is easier, that’s a data pint which is an objective finding. It is not objectively true that fire is easy to make in a dry environment because multiple factors could make it significant harder such as oxygen availability, wind, etc. Mercury may be hot and dry with no wind but you won’t start a fire there. Objective findings /=objective truth

4

Anonymous #28 3w

Then why did you say that F=ma is an objective truth? You said that science doesn’t provide objective truths.

0

Anonymous #28 3w

Objective truths aren’t necessarily universal lol. This is more so touching in the existence and nature of natural laws.

0

Anonymous #25 3w

When did I directly say that science provides no objective truths categorically

2

Anonymous #25 3w

An objective truth by definition would be universal.

3

Anonymous #25 3w

Still haven’t given me your own ideal societal ideal but you wanna bog down in the definition of objectivity which in science is clearly defined

3

Anonymous #28 3w

I’m quoting you directly for the second time now: "Science provides objective findings-not objective truth." YOU said this…1…2…3…27 comments ago in this thread.

1

Anonymous #28 3w

No…an objective truth is a proposition that corresponds to reality independent of human perception. That is the metaphysical definition. Objectivity is not a scientific term but a philosophical concept. Again, in the philosophy of science, the question you are TRYING to answer does not really align with the objectivity of science but the nature of natural laws. (It has been commonly held that they need to be universal.)

3

Anonymous #25 3w

And an interesting fact, the interpretation of F=ma is slightly more nuanced, as many interpret it as a definition. Ernst Mach held this perspective. In this case, it might not be objective but somewhat arbitrary.

1

Anonymous #25 3w

I stick by that. I’m sorry that I minority contradicted myself. The point was that objective findings lead into a subjective understanding which are built around certain objective laws. An objective truth is once again universally truth as I’ve stated because it would have to be consistent in reality (outside human perception)

1

Anonymous #25 3w

Again if we’re going tit for tat over definitions and minor fallacies we’re at best one for one.

1

Anonymous #25 3w

It’s not very nuanced really I invite you to practice the equations beyond it that predicate themselves off it although I doubt you ever have, or will

1

Anonymous #28 3w

Sure, but objectivity doesn’t say anything about its generalizability. Referring back to your example, one can say that it is objectively true that it is easier to start a fire in a drier environment than in an almost identical environment that is more humid. This is making the claim that each instance in which you observed the length of time it took the fire to start actually happened and that there is some causal relationship between the moisture in the air and the ability of fire to start…

1

Anonymous #25 3w

…because your induced conclusions reflect some truth in reality.

1

Anonymous #28 3w

A requirement of objective truth is not that you ignorantly neglect all other variables and assume that starting a fire is ALWAYS easier in a drier environment under any conditions.

1

Anonymous #25 3w

Yes so it is universally true that in this environment it will happen the same as in it is universally true that within these constraints x will happen-it’s objectively true

1

Anonymous #28 3w

If I recall correctly, you previously implied that it was an objective finding but not an objective truth. You said that an objective truth would be analogous to the claim that starting a fire in a drier environment would always be easier under any conditions, which of course isn’t a conclusion that can really ever be made. I think it’s you who needs to get your terminology straight. You’re being incredibly confusing.

1

Anonymous #25 3w

No. Objective truth only works in simple systems such as “ignorantly” neglecting all other variables because objective truth ONLY works there. That’s why I was saying in the first place dude😭😭

1

Anonymous #28 3w

What*

1

Anonymous #28 3w

Look up the concept of ceteris paribus laws

1

Anonymous #25 3w

Look up the concept of objectivity

5

Anonymous #28 3w

I don’t need to. The two main definitions used in philosophy were discussed in my philosophy of science course, which I have since used quite frequently.

0

Anonymous #28 3w

Does the concern of ceteris paribus laws align with what you consider to be "objective truth," i.e., applying ONLY to certain situations while neglecting other variables?

0

Anonymous #25 3w

You also fully misinterpreted all my claims which by our history you quite literally ALWAYS do. “You said that and objective truth would be anagloous to the claim that starting a fire in a drier environment would always be easier under any conditions”

4

Anonymous #28 3w

An objective finding is saying that a wet environment of the same kind is harder to start a fire than the dry environment that was the implied condition. You continuously put your own precognition on my thoughts and then congratulate yourself on solving your own thoughts

6

Anonymous #28 3w

"Starting a fire in a dry environment is easier" = objective finding, not objective truth because it can’t be generalized. This is according to YOU. I scrolled back up to your comment to make sure I had it right. You are now implying it would be an objective truth because all variables are equal.

0

Anonymous #25 3w

No! I’m not in those comments I claimed the dry fire was an objective finding check again

4

Anonymous #25 3w

You seriously do keep ignoring my prompts

6

Anonymous #28 3w

Why is that not an objective truth? You just said that objective truths are basically all things being equal, which is what would have fo be assumed to claim that drier environments make starting a fire easier than humid environments.

0

Anonymous #25 3w

When did I say that objective truths are all things being equal? That’s not what I said

4

Anonymous #28 3w

And what’s the objective truth?