Sports Illustrated Puts Another Mentally Ill Dude In a Bikini On the Cover

Pretty soon Brazzers will start only showing us tranny porn. I wonder that will go over with its subscribers.
 
You can't use the cleaned up version and pretend the earlier ones didn't exist.



No one begrudges her the ability to make a living.

They once asked black actress Hattie McDaniel (who played Mammy in Gone with the Wind, about her playing subservient roles, and she said, "I could make $700 a week playing a maid or $7 a day being one."

But the roles were demeaning because they perpetuated racist stereotypes. If all little black girls saw were women being mammies when they grew up, they'd have no further ambitions to be something... more.


Yes, it explains why advertising is an intellectual crap stream. It all makes sense now.



Um, sorry, he only got $50.00 and the company made millions using his image of "a guy you can trust".
But the roles were demeaning because they perpetuated racist stereotypes. If all little black girls saw were women being mammies when they grew up, they'd have no further ambitions to be something... more.

So it’s NOT ok to perpetuate racist stereotypes if you’re white, but perfectly acceptable for male drag queens to perpetrate sexist stereotypes?

Nothing more clearly shows a cult mentality than Joe’s rambling.
 
Shush, the grownups are talking.

The only people upset about transgenders are all the supposedly straight guys who are afraid of picking one up at the bar.
Joe, don’t deflect. You stated, in one case stereotyping is inappropriate for public consumption but the other is fine.

Is it because of your hatred toward women?
 
Shush, the grownups are talking.

The only people upset about transgenders are all the supposedly straight guys who are afraid of picking one up at the bar.
/——-/ Those freaks don’t fool anyone. Well, this beauty Queen may fool JoeB in low light after a few Bud Lights.
1684756047648.png
 
True.

But not all bigots are equal.

One can be a bigot when it comes to black people and someone else can be a bigot when it comes to child rapist.

Both are technically bigots, but they are not equal

So you are equating people on the right with child rapists now?

And it's not bigoted with regards to the child rapist, that person is an actual criminal, and thus worthy of scorn and punishment.
 
Not with in virto and who cares. You make it seem as if passing on genes is the purpose. If you want to argue that then have at it.

Being a bigot is to have an irrational dislike of others. Having a dislike of homophobes is rational.

That's the purpose of every biological organism.

rationality is an opinion, and your opinions are worth about as much as a lump of dirt.
 
Um, no, they aren't being woke. They are putting someone on the cover that you got uspet about when you found out she was Trans.

My problem with the SI is that it's not Woke enough. They have tops maybe one of two models who are WOC.


Nobody is doing that with LGBTQ+, either.

Figures you would bring race into it, it's your only other card besides bitching about privilege.
 
Nothing to walk back. Your lack of reading comprehension is not on me

Your transparent usual SJW tactic to add child rapists into the conversation as an association ploy is called out.

Just like the usual SJW trope of calling anyone to the right of Mitt Romney a Nazi.
 
I think so much of the backlash and reaction from conservatives is rooted in the desire to simply buy products and participate in society without being virtue signaled at 24/7 around every corner by an overall niche, radical ideology that happens to have massive influence in HR departments and the MSM.

Like, I’m a Christian and I wouldn’t want Jesus loudly portrayed and forced onto the public all the time, constantly suggesting that if you oppose the brash movement that you’re wrong.

Products need to go back to selling their products, not virtue signaling their social causes, with full ads that have nothing to do with the subject.

Leftists are so angry they think people enjoying life away from angry rebelliousness is supporting the status quo. They think all people should be attacked by their angry political social stances non stop.
 
That's the purpose of every biological organism.
It's not. Biology has no more of an objective purpose than a planet orbiting a sun has purpose. It's an emergent feature of physics and interactions of energy and matter.
rationality is an opinion, and your opinions are worth about as much as a lump of dirt.
No. Rationality is not opinion. It's the opposite of opinion.
 
I think so much of the backlash and reaction from conservatives is rooted in the desire to simply buy products and participate in society without being virtue signaled at 24/7 around every corner by an overall niche, radical ideology that happens to have massive influence in HR departments and the MSM.

Like, I’m a Christian and I wouldn’t want Jesus loudly portrayed and forced onto the public all the time, constantly suggesting that if you oppose the brash movement that you’re wrong.

Products need to go back to selling their products, not virtue signaling their social causes, with full ads that have nothing to do with the subject.

Leftists are so angry they think people enjoying life away from angry rebelliousness is supporting the status quo. They think all people should be attacked by their angry political social stances non stop.

Si gave people 4 choices for covers for their latest swimsuit issue. One movie star with big fake boobs, one supermodel, one 80 year old famous person and one trans person.

If you do not like the one with the trans person there are 3 other choices for you.

Why does this piss you all off so very much?
 
Si gave people 4 choices for covers for their latest swimsuit issue. One movie star with big fake boobs, one supermodel, one 80 year old famous person and one trans person.

If you do not like the one with the trans person there are 3 other choices for you.

Why does this piss you all off so very much?

I’ll pass on all three. If the magazine finds it acceptable to call a man a woman, then, no matter who is on the other covers, I can’t trust them to report anything factual.
 
I’ll pass on all three. If the magazine finds it acceptable to call a man a woman, then, no matter who is on the other covers, I can’t trust them to report anything factual.
Because you're the arbiter of biological facts? 😄
 
I’ll pass on all three. If the magazine finds it acceptable to call a man a woman, then, no matter who is on the other covers, I can’t trust them to report anything factual.

It is a swimsuit issue, people are not buying for the factual reporting.

Are you really this stupid.
 

Forum List

Back
Top