Here is the original Sydney Sweeney “jeans” ad that sparked the controversy. AE took this one down and replaced it with versions that are less overt so that people who hear about the controversy will see those instead and not understand what the fuss is about, even if they are typically more clued in.

And here is the Dunkin donuts ad, which IMO is even more overt with the reference to “color analysis.”

Standing alone these ads have plausible deniability, but they feature attractive white actors bragging about their good genetics in the context of the president surrounding himself with and appealing to white supremacists and RFK Jr re-popularizing eugenics.

Edit: I personally haven’t seen the Arby’s one, and I’m not going to go looking for it. This bullshit has me feeling angry and bitter precisely because it is meant to fly under the radar for most people and make those calling it out sound crazy. I’m going to touch grass instead of further torturing myself.

Seriously, watch the ad we’re talking about before making a fool of yourself.

These aren’t just commercials with “white representation,” they are promoting eugenics. Seriously, go watch them. It’s not even subtle.

Edit: getting downvoted on Lemmy for rightly pointing out that these ads are evoking eugenicist ideas is not what I expected. I thought Lemmy was more tuned in than this. Having white actors bragging about their superior genes goes beyond just being “white representation” and is instead a white supremacist and eugenicist dogwhistle. You guys really think that’s a reach? Have you just not seen the full ads and are only reacting to this image?

The guy denied sexual assault by Hamas during Oct 7, got upset when I called him out for it, and then immediately downvoted a bunch of anti-fascist posts, for which I banned him from the comm that he did it in. In that thread, for that matter, there are all sorts of people falsely calling me a transphobe and saying I refuse to use neopronouns.

They denied “systematic sexual abuse by Hamas,” which is a specific claim in the report made by the Dinah Project, and which the UN has been unable to find evidence for in its own fact-finding missions (partly due to the Israeli government’s obstruction of their investigation). The UN’s own reports find some individual cases of sexual violence committed against Israelis on Oct. 7, not sexual violence committed against Israelis by Hamas as a systematic tool of war. That you refuse to acknowledge these are separate claims is the issue at hand here.

I remember when I had been fooled into believing it was.

They’re not the same, but it’s easy to see how people become too jaded and cynical to vote.

I appreciate the well thought out response. My main point of contention is the enforcement mechanism. I agree with point 3 as a strategy, and I have actually participated in groups that follow this general principle, but I have always had the option to simply leave and find another group or form my own. The problem arises when the group is the only permissible form of organization (such as, for example, if it is the one party in a one-party state). You actually see this problem in China, when the state cracks down on workers who attempt to organize on their own terms by forming independent unions. I see this as an unambiguous moral failing of the Chinese state, and is an issue on which I will not budge. Bureaucracy makes determining the will of the majority complicated (no democracy is perfect), but even if it is indeed the will of the majority, tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

There are things more important than unity. I do not believe that a better world must necessarily come at the cost of individual autonomy.

It’s still a net positive for candidates like Mamdani to achieve electoral victories. Even if you believe that a true socialist can never make it to a high enough office to establish a socialist government (which I agree is likely correct), making the attempt and achieving some reforms in the face of very public resistance from the bourgeoisie is great for class consciousness. It sends the message “hey, it actually is possible to improve your material conditions, and the rich really don’t want it to happen.” Give people a taste and they will want more, which is why the establishment is so terrified of Zohran Mamdani.

Personally, I think that Democratic Centralism is too strict. I understand the idea behind ensuring the subordination of the minority to the majority, but as the party grows and especially after it seizes state power that subordination becomes enforced, and at that point it becomes oppression. It doesn’t get rid of factions either, it just hides them and fosters resentment towards the majority faction.

Just so we’re clear on what we’re talking about, here are the tenets of Democratic Centralism as I understand them:

1. That all directing bodies of the Party, from top to bottom, shall be elected.

2. That Party bodies shall give periodical accounts of their activities to their respective Party organization.

3. That there shall be strict Party discipline and the subordination of the minority to the majority.

4. That all decisions of higher bodies shall be absolutely binding on lower bodies and on all Party members.

I believe that point 3 should be a suggestion, and never enforced. It should be up to the individual whether any given disagreement is enough to warrant going their own way, and an option should be given to “stand aside” in cases where someone would prefer not to participate in an action but otherwise wants to remain with the group.

Point 4 is backwards IMO, and a recipe for authoritarianism. Any sort of elected authority should always be instantly recallable by the electorate, and any “lower” body should always have the autonomy to make their own decisions.

Factionalism is not a bad thing if you embrace it rather than trying to fight it.

Why would Americans care about trains when they’re gonna be a billionaire any day now and have their own private jet?

/s

There is no such thing.

Holy shit you sound like a member of the rich white family from Get Out who were body snatching black people for the “advantages.” Living out in the country I usually only see the loud and ugly kind of racism, but your kind of racism gives me the creeps.

This happens to me just because I’m a man with white skin who dresses country. I do love throwing them for a loop when it happens though.

The communities that incubated this were on reddit. His lemmy.world account only made a few comments and posts 2 years ago and then never again. He created an anti-natalist community on lemmy.world in that time but it never became active.

trekkies and other dubious types

Why, I am a dubious type, thank you for noticing. 😘

It would not bode well for the future of discourse if lemmy.world of all places gets shut down for radicalism. Our instance is significantly more radical than lemmy.world. Can you imagine some ecofascist idiot who posted on slrpnk.net a couple times committing a terror attack and getting the instance taken down? I can, which is why this news should be very concerning.

Edit: Just looked through some of the bomber’s comments and their replies and some users even pointed out that his rhetoric was reminiscent of ecofascism. Anti-natalism and ecofascism are ideological siblings. The backlash to this attack is going to catch environmentalist groups in the crossfire, with many environmental activists being accused of having anti-natalist views. Anyone who’s ever advocated for degrowth might get lumped in with them.

• You can criticize Zionism as an ideology, but you can’t call for its end.

• You can refer to the current Israeli government as “criminal,” but you can’t call for the dissolution of the state of Israel as it currently exists.

You see the problem, surely?

Removed by mod

I’m sure the velociraptors helped you stay focused too.

Yep, and it’s easily memorable because if you learn to count in binary on your fingers 4 is 🖕.