The article is a vapid juxtaposition of political platitudes and "slay queen!" photos, only proving my point further. I didn't crop the picture to make it look more risque; I cropped it to be centred on her face. Using your beauty to convince people of your worldview is shitty.
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
As much as I love what you post, in this instance I think you're off. It's a women's mag- so of course. This is the 1st real time I've seen her do this. In fact, in a recent periscope she looks like she just got out of bed. Worldview messages don't have to be drab. Too harsh.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @CorrectlyPolite @G_S_Bhogal
I disagree with the point this is a women's magazine, so thus the photo is apropos. Women's magazines can focus on aesthetic, but fashion has choices. There are well polished women who look beautiful while reinforcing their serious message with their fashion choices.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @openunabridged @G_S_Bhogal
The point is that the magazine surely chose the style, not her. But even so, so what? There's nothing remotely distasteful about the pics - not even gratuitous - even if they do focus upon looks; which is to be totally expected. A chance to increase audience arose. No big deal.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CorrectlyPolite @G_S_Bhogal
I wouldn't assume she was a passive recipient of some editor's fashion vision. This is her image; they would have a conversation about what is and is not on the table. Being in the magazine increased the audience; choosing this image may have done more harm than good.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @openunabridged @G_S_Bhogal
The first/main image from the article... Honestly...pic.twitter.com/4N4Jrvhn5O
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CorrectlyPolite @openunabridged
The point is not about how tasteful or distasteful the pics are, but about how weird and silly it is that politics and fashion are being combined like this.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @openunabridged
It's a big stretch to say this one instance constitutes that. And it is nowhere near aggregious enough to warrant juvenile name-calling such as "airhead." If you have an issue with her politics, we'll all be ready listeners. This smacks of attempted use of cheap ammunition.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CorrectlyPolite @openunabridged
Egregious. And I think airhead is quite fair, given how thoughtless she tends to be. Exhibit A:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lD29jqH078 …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @openunabridged
Thank you for the correction. A cherry picked from hours upon hours of online video. If Candace Owens is an airhead, by your standards, then so must be the vast majority of people you encounter. Inarguably, she's been extremely effective.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The whole podcast is torturous. I thought it merciful to link to just a snippet. And I don't consider the vast majority of people I encounter airheads, but there are a lot of airheads out there, which is precisely why Candace is effective; she appeals to their airheadedness.
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @openunabridged
You cannot justify the claim that she's even of below-average intelligence; not to mention her other abilities. Clearly you have larger issue with her, which is fine, of course, but it's disappointing to see someone like you stoop and conflate like this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.