Anonymous #1 7w

Enlightenment of your superior take

4

Anonymous #2 7w

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

14

Anonymous #2 7w

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

18

Anonymous OP 7w

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

-10

Anonymous #3 7w

dumbass take

22

Anonymous #4 7w

Recognizing reality is a “dumbass take” Lol ok.

-7

Anonymous #3 7w

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

2

Anonymous OP 7w

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 7w

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

15

Anonymous #4 7w

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

-2

Anonymous #4 7w

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 7w

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.

3

Anonymous #3 7w

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.

7

Anonymous #3 7w

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!

11

Anonymous #3 7w

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 7w

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

-1

Anonymous #3 7w

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

12

Anonymous #3 7w

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

10

Anonymous OP 7w

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

8

Anonymous #6 7w

Omg shut up

1

Anonymous #3 7w

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 7w

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.

-5

Anonymous #3 7w

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

8

Anonymous #3 7w

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

6

Anonymous #3 7w

"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

7

Anonymous #10 7w

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 7w

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 7w

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 7w

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.

2

Anonymous #8 7w

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 7w

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

0

Anonymous #1 7w

Or don't I guess

8

Anonymous OP 7w

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

-6

Anonymous #1 7w

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.

8

Anonymous #1 7w

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.

8

Anonymous OP 7w

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.

-1

Anonymous #1 7w

Sydney is basically THE white girl these days and the original ad really hammers down that she has blue eyes. It doesn't need to say anything about any other race to be seen as having offensive implications. Would you agree that phrases like "white power" carry a more offensive connotation than their black equivalents due to history?

3

Anonymous #8 7w

Netanyahu isn’t even actually Jewish. He is a European larper as are many other Israelis. -a disgruntled ethnic Jew

6

Anonymous #2 7w

Polish specifically.

4

Anonymous #9 7w

Do you not see anything wrong with the one in the bottom right corner?

-2

Anonymous beaver_19 7w

If you do, you’re inserting your own fucked up brain into something innocuous

3

Anonymous #3 7w

They had to have known what it looked like. A lot of people noticed it immediately

1

Anonymous #3 7w

You don't have to agree that it was the intent but shifting the blame onto the people who saw it that way for having that image in their head or whatever is just stupid. We are all familiar with lynchings because they're part of history. There have been undoubtedly racist ads before. It's not racist to suspect racism even if you're wrong.

1

Anonymous #3 7w

And personally if I put out an ad that a huge percentage of viewers immediately saw as something disturbing, I would think I fucked up for not catching it

1

Anonymous #1 7w

Dog whistles are intentionally innocuous and deniable on the surface. That is literally the definition of a dog whistle

3

Anonymous beaver_19 6w

It looks like someone holding shoes…?

0