People have been obsessed for a very long time with the idea that this particular woman's attractiveness disproves the entire progressive project. I don't really get it personally. But it seems like these media outlets knew this was an angle that gets clicks and had the story already written, and then just went out and found some random comments to fill in the blanks.
The explosion of this (historically meaningless) tantrum amidst the unrelenting ecogenocidal horrors of zero-tolerance Christonazification proves beyond refutation the accuracy of H.L. Mencken's view of the U.S. as the dystopia I oft label Moron Nation.
It is as if -- in the midst of the Battle of Stalingrad -- Josef Gobbels were to persuade the soldiers of the Red Army to stop fighting the Nazi invaders and instead turn on one another fiercely debating the color of their gymnasterkas. And it is precisely why, as I wrote on Heather Cox Richardson's site a moment ago, I dismiss as delusion any and all hope of liberation; also why I will continue to do so unless We the Remaining Humans evolve the discipline and solidarity for effective resistance -- which the timing, context and intensity of the Sweeny jeaney squabble indicates will never happen.
Besides which -- because I recognize our enemies' diabolical skill at managing the psychological rat maze in which patriarchy and its weaponized capitalism imprison us -- it would not surprise me if this kerfuffle were but a clever means of monitoring public opinion; at the very least a cunningly manufactured distraction to avert our alleged minds from Trump's efforts to suppress the Epstein controversy and vindictively impose University-of-Chicago neoliberalism in the form of Pinochet-caliber "economic shock therapy" -- this deadly atrocity disguised as (intentionally inflationary) tariffs.
I don’t know how conscious of this you were in the writing (I presume 100% and decided not to phrase it in these terms), but this feels to me like a complaint that “Democrat” has become a marked category — that Republicans are “normal” and Democrats are “other”. That probably describes a lot of spaces and points to a literature that has thought about this a ton. Particularly the idea that arbitrary individuals are representative/not representative (vis a vis the response to like three random lefties raising a complaint versus members of congress doing white nationalist things) is very much a marked/unmarked category thing.
Good observation, I think it's related to the idea that White people who live in rural places are REAL Americans or NORMAL Americans. What does that make the rest of us? The actual majority of Americans? Dangerous freaks.
The question i keep coming back to is how do we break the wheel? How do we stop this cycle of stupidity and ignorance in a way that breaks through, with humor and dripping sarcasm that is also sustainable and scalable?
I don't have much hope except from knowing that any population, exposed to any stimulus over time, eventually develops a resistance to the stimulus. That's why Parker's article here is so necessary. We want to get to the point where people just say, "Oh, it's more of that manufactured bullshit again" without needing to be prompted.
As someone who believes in progressive politics, I found the Sydney Sweeney ad distasteful, if not unsettling. The allusion to genes would've been passable, albeit problematic because of the association with eugenics, but bringing in her eye and hair color put it over the top. It also evokes a Brooke Shields ad from when she was a teen, and because of the exploitative legacy of her stardom at a young age on top of Sydney Sweeney being in Euphoria, a show that traffics in vivid depictions of teen sexuality, in all, it feels icky.
All of this aside, the political right is definitely manufacturing a controversy about the ad and deliberately and recklessly conflating Democrats with a few leftist objectors. This is nowhere near as important as Gaza or climate change or the economy or federal funding cuts. And it's also a very convenient diversion away from talking about Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
"convenient diversion away from talking about Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein."
Over four days, Fox News mentioned Sweeney's name 181 times, Epstein's name 18 times.
And just look at that first part. Does anyone watching Fox News have a moment where they think, "Hey, they're sure talkin' a lot about this Sweeney woman I've never heard of, I wonder if I'm being manipulated for some purpose?" No, not a single one.
Thanks for an excellent article. I've been staying away on purpose from whatever the thing was with Sydney Sweeney because who has the time? I guess the answer is Fox News. What you say about making the Democratic Party responsible for anything an idiot who sounds mildly left might say hits home. I've been fighting the idea that "all Democrats" want to "cancel" conservative professors--the dreaded cancel culture--for a very long time. It is a bunch of late teens, for heaven's sake. But now it has ballooned into the "indoctrination at Universities" myth and resulted in the actual attacks on academic freedom that have fueled the crackdown on funding and the capitulation that actually gives government control to what colleges can teach, all wrapped up in the idea that anyone with sympathy for Palestinians is "antisemitic."
And these myths are taking on a "trooth" right up there with the Gospel: not to be questioned.
Seems like this is sorta about people mistaking not-real things for real things, which makes me wonder about the entire industry built on pundits telling the Democrats they're doing it ALL WRONG, always from a conservative perspective. MSNBC has a four-hour show every morning that's mostly this. So how real is it? Do these people represent very many actual voters? Or are all these hacks, every one of them making a very nice living off this schtick, the equals of all the well-paid consultants for the Bloomberg campaign?
I live in Stanstead Township on the Quebec side just North of Vermont and home to the Haskell Library where Canada and the United side of the Divided States of America and Canada are of one accord. Kristi the Nome visited our library and I may be 77 and almost blind but she is one hot chickee for a 54 year four year old grandmother. She may be an ignorant piece of crap, an amoral unfeeling vicious nasty goddamned worthless whore but I wouldn't dismiss her functionality in the Lincoln bedroom.
Mainstream political discourse is now 95% right ring reactionaries inventing a liberal to be mad at.
People have been obsessed for a very long time with the idea that this particular woman's attractiveness disproves the entire progressive project. I don't really get it personally. But it seems like these media outlets knew this was an angle that gets clicks and had the story already written, and then just went out and found some random comments to fill in the blanks.
The explosion of this (historically meaningless) tantrum amidst the unrelenting ecogenocidal horrors of zero-tolerance Christonazification proves beyond refutation the accuracy of H.L. Mencken's view of the U.S. as the dystopia I oft label Moron Nation.
It is as if -- in the midst of the Battle of Stalingrad -- Josef Gobbels were to persuade the soldiers of the Red Army to stop fighting the Nazi invaders and instead turn on one another fiercely debating the color of their gymnasterkas. And it is precisely why, as I wrote on Heather Cox Richardson's site a moment ago, I dismiss as delusion any and all hope of liberation; also why I will continue to do so unless We the Remaining Humans evolve the discipline and solidarity for effective resistance -- which the timing, context and intensity of the Sweeny jeaney squabble indicates will never happen.
Besides which -- because I recognize our enemies' diabolical skill at managing the psychological rat maze in which patriarchy and its weaponized capitalism imprison us -- it would not surprise me if this kerfuffle were but a clever means of monitoring public opinion; at the very least a cunningly manufactured distraction to avert our alleged minds from Trump's efforts to suppress the Epstein controversy and vindictively impose University-of-Chicago neoliberalism in the form of Pinochet-caliber "economic shock therapy" -- this deadly atrocity disguised as (intentionally inflationary) tariffs.
Yeah definitely feels constructed to manipulate public sentiment, I agree
This article is SO spot on. Also ...
The good thing about the internet: everybody has a voice.
The bad thing about the internet: everybody has a voice.
I don’t know how conscious of this you were in the writing (I presume 100% and decided not to phrase it in these terms), but this feels to me like a complaint that “Democrat” has become a marked category — that Republicans are “normal” and Democrats are “other”. That probably describes a lot of spaces and points to a literature that has thought about this a ton. Particularly the idea that arbitrary individuals are representative/not representative (vis a vis the response to like three random lefties raising a complaint versus members of congress doing white nationalist things) is very much a marked/unmarked category thing.
Good observation, I think it's related to the idea that White people who live in rural places are REAL Americans or NORMAL Americans. What does that make the rest of us? The actual majority of Americans? Dangerous freaks.
The question i keep coming back to is how do we break the wheel? How do we stop this cycle of stupidity and ignorance in a way that breaks through, with humor and dripping sarcasm that is also sustainable and scalable?
I don't have much hope except from knowing that any population, exposed to any stimulus over time, eventually develops a resistance to the stimulus. That's why Parker's article here is so necessary. We want to get to the point where people just say, "Oh, it's more of that manufactured bullshit again" without needing to be prompted.
As someone who believes in progressive politics, I found the Sydney Sweeney ad distasteful, if not unsettling. The allusion to genes would've been passable, albeit problematic because of the association with eugenics, but bringing in her eye and hair color put it over the top. It also evokes a Brooke Shields ad from when she was a teen, and because of the exploitative legacy of her stardom at a young age on top of Sydney Sweeney being in Euphoria, a show that traffics in vivid depictions of teen sexuality, in all, it feels icky.
All of this aside, the political right is definitely manufacturing a controversy about the ad and deliberately and recklessly conflating Democrats with a few leftist objectors. This is nowhere near as important as Gaza or climate change or the economy or federal funding cuts. And it's also a very convenient diversion away from talking about Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
"convenient diversion away from talking about Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein."
Over four days, Fox News mentioned Sweeney's name 181 times, Epstein's name 18 times.
And just look at that first part. Does anyone watching Fox News have a moment where they think, "Hey, they're sure talkin' a lot about this Sweeney woman I've never heard of, I wonder if I'm being manipulated for some purpose?" No, not a single one.
Two words, Bud Light
A few "influencers" and a propaganda machine looking for new material to gin up a non-existent controversy.
Thanks for an excellent article. I've been staying away on purpose from whatever the thing was with Sydney Sweeney because who has the time? I guess the answer is Fox News. What you say about making the Democratic Party responsible for anything an idiot who sounds mildly left might say hits home. I've been fighting the idea that "all Democrats" want to "cancel" conservative professors--the dreaded cancel culture--for a very long time. It is a bunch of late teens, for heaven's sake. But now it has ballooned into the "indoctrination at Universities" myth and resulted in the actual attacks on academic freedom that have fueled the crackdown on funding and the capitulation that actually gives government control to what colleges can teach, all wrapped up in the idea that anyone with sympathy for Palestinians is "antisemitic."
And these myths are taking on a "trooth" right up there with the Gospel: not to be questioned.
Seems like this is sorta about people mistaking not-real things for real things, which makes me wonder about the entire industry built on pundits telling the Democrats they're doing it ALL WRONG, always from a conservative perspective. MSNBC has a four-hour show every morning that's mostly this. So how real is it? Do these people represent very many actual voters? Or are all these hacks, every one of them making a very nice living off this schtick, the equals of all the well-paid consultants for the Bloomberg campaign?
Thank you Parker,
I live in Stanstead Township on the Quebec side just North of Vermont and home to the Haskell Library where Canada and the United side of the Divided States of America and Canada are of one accord. Kristi the Nome visited our library and I may be 77 and almost blind but she is one hot chickee for a 54 year four year old grandmother. She may be an ignorant piece of crap, an amoral unfeeling vicious nasty goddamned worthless whore but I wouldn't dismiss her functionality in the Lincoln bedroom.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nome
https://www.montrealgazette.com/news/provincial-news/article794964.html