Topic on Talk:Unfortunate Implications
This page shows the changes between two versions of a post by Unfortunate Changes in the topic "Cleaning the Unfortunate Implications pages" on Talk:Unfortunate Implications.
You can see other versions of this post at its history page.
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
EDIT: Ah, now it works. ATT didn't like the version of the page I was trying to reply to, apparently. |
|||
Test (can't post my reply for some reason) |
|||
Anyway, here are the items I've already seen as something that should be pruned so far: |
|||
** And they did it again! American Apparel ran a contest to find plus-sized models for ads, to show that they were totally not fat-shamers guys, for real, why don't you believe me? Only some people felt the way they went about it and the language they used in explaining the contest were sort of degrading, so one of them, a model named Nancy Upton, decided to take a dig at the company by entering the contest with patently ridiculous food-themed AA-style photos. And she won! The voters at home loved her and she ran away with the contest! So American Apparel...chastised her for being offended by their contest, and said that the real winner was someone who had taken the contest "seriously". "We want fat girls, but only ones who don't think for themselves or have opinions of their own", says American Apparel. |
|||
AA outright chastised her for being offended, so "We want fat girls, but only ones who don't have opinions different to ours" is an intended implication, invalidating this example. |
|||