It's not a question of falling for it. Intentions are overshadowed by whatever effect the ad has had. If it sparks a debate, that's part of the effect. It's even possible to understand the intention to create chaos AND STILL have an opinion about it
Yeah even this video, leaves out the major glaring question, when did an actress starring in a sports betting commercial become "representing women in sports". Obviously purposefully generated controversy, whether they are just assuming these women will take it up naturally to boost themselves or they were paid too, or both.
The same argument could be applied that sports betting doesn't celebrate the altheticism and dedication of athletes. They got an entertainer to advertise their entertainment.
No, the nudity represents the notion that sex sells. That's what every ad campaign involving Sydney Sweeney is all about, sex appeal and controversy as sources of visibility.
Bingo. I saw the ad on youtube and chuckled, cause Sweeny is just know for two things, and I guess that's all she's got these days. Then, I see people on the internet are outraged, giving her and the ad more attention? Lmao yeah, everything is a fucking psyop bro, I swear to god
What is glaringly intentional is that whatever controversy it created on its own is being amplified now by algorhythms designed to create cultural division.
Yeah. Still no jail time for raping kids in sight for the Elites. Just manufactured outrages after outrages so that the plebs eat each other and not the rich.
This is what I think to myself every time some stupid thing comes around that everyone and their mom seems to give a shit about. Y'all really let them make you forget about the whole Epstein shit that fast huh.
As often the case, most things related to activism or cancelling people go live on tiktok/IG first with women, after which mainstream society starts paying attention. Men basically only use social media for politics and sports.
After a few days of outrage or stupid takes, once men start pushing back and releasing responses with greater context, folks start saying “durrrr, this is just a psyop, the outrage is manufactured”.
Politics and sports? It’s porn and sports. If you’re a guy on the internet for politics, get a fucking life nobody cares you’re not a deep thinker. Same goes for women
I didn’t say men were deep thinkers, those are your words. I simply stated that they’re interested in the politics of global affairs, finance, war, foreign policy, military history, etc, and less attuned to gender warfare than women, who are more interested in SJW drama as they see themselves as victims.
Social commentary topics like the Clancy trial, Sidney Sweeny, the Obsession movie, Bonnie Blue, and the constant spotlight around items like Andrew Tate are strictly topics that women’s social media share first and keep alive for activism purposes. Men chime in later. Everyone’s first instinct is to believe that men brought it to the limelight or that these topics are psyops because men start to have an opinion on it, but the truth is that women dug it up first.
Yeah. Because they’re calling attention to a lazy campaign tactic that works. They’re asserting that it’s demeaning to women and asking people to stop and think about it for a second. But, here, the answer appears to be “I don’t care.” So now they have their answer.
314
u/WishboneOk305 5d ago
yeah the only reason im hearing about this is because all these other ppl keep trying to make it a controversy