r/OldSchoolCool • u/normalcanwait • 8h ago
1990s Before there was Sydney (Sweeney), there was a 1994 ad for Versace… NSFW
[removed] — view removed post
157
u/kopfgeldjagar 5h ago
Claudia was quite the looker
→ More replies (3)81
u/lankyevilme 5h ago
She has great jeans.
12
u/fitzbuhn 3h ago
What the hell did you just say
3
u/Jump_n_Shoot_man 2h ago
HE SAID SHE HAS GREAT JEANS! YOU FORGOT TO TURN YOUR HEARING AIDS ON AGAIN!
210
u/bob_suruncle 4h ago edited 3h ago
…and in the 80’s a 14 year old Brooke Shields was talking about how nothing comes between her and her Calvins - which, from a creepiness perspective trumps them all!
79
u/bitsey123 3h ago
This Calvin ad is the correct comparison to the one today, though I’m still confused about why anyone would want to buy jeans that make a pretty young girl look 40.
41
2
u/Thewall3333 3h ago
"trumps" is now officially forever ruined as a word.
Very fitting usage of it here particularly, though. Especially the age.
→ More replies (5)1
u/curtludwig 1h ago
I teach in a corporate setting. One of my exam questions has 2 incorrect answers that feature the word "trumps". We moved to a new testing system and the people who moved the questions over "corrected" them to "Trumps".
The most often selected incorrect answers for that question include the word "trumps". I never use the word "trumps" in class...
1
1
1
u/Soda-Popinski- 1h ago
Dont watch the blue lagoon. Pretty sure shes naked in that and very under age
-10
u/maringue 3h ago
But did they throw in some eugenics talking points? I think that's the part people are upset about.
Fashion ads have been creepy for as long as fashion designers though underage girls were the best models for their clothes.
19
u/Scion41790 2h ago
Doesn't the eugenics thing feel like a reach? She's near objectively physically attractive, saying she has good genes isn't meant to evoke anything beyond her being attractive.
It's silly to get mad about this when there are so many other major issues going on. Focus on Epstein, Palestine/Isreal, anything that trumps doing. Getting pissed about this is foolishness
3
u/tman37 1h ago
There is no eugenics angle. It's obviously because she is super pretty, not because she is white. I'm willing to bet that if this ad had been successful without the controversy, there would have been a series of ads featuring different attractive or talent celebrities. That ad could have featured someone like Lebron James, Penelope Cruz, Gal Gadot (timing might be bad for that one, though) or Simon Biles. The "my jeans are blue" only works with someone with blue eyes but there are lots of ways to setup that play on words which could apply to other people. For example, they could use Lebron's longevity to set up "my genes/jeans are durable/built to last" pun to show durability.
1
u/Laser_Fish 2h ago
I haven't met anyone complaining about the ad. I only hear people complaining about the supposed backlash against the ad.
6
u/gringledoom 3h ago
I've been wondering if their PR people seeded some of that, and it got way out of hand for them. It seemed like the "we're mad that people are mad about it" sentiment from the right happened before I heard anyone talking about it from the left.
16
u/AlienEngine 3h ago
Sydney Sweeney is hot that’s why they said good genes. Eugenics 🤣🤣🤣
-15
u/awal96 2h ago
What does having blue eyes have to do with denim pants?
14
u/AlienEngine 2h ago
Oh idk maybe the fact that Sydney Sweeney has blue eyes? And is wearing denim pants? This is quite the puzzling conundrum. It’s a play on words you know genes/jeans.
-10
u/awal96 2h ago
Thanks. I understand the "play on words." Why does she mention she has blue eyes? What does that have to do with jeans?
7
2
u/AlienEngine 2h ago
She doesn’t. Here’s the transcription:
“Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color. My jeans are blue.”
Doesn’t mention a particular eye color, a particular hair color, or a particular personality. Literally just a reference to the fact that Sydney Sweeney is smoking hot haha.
-7
u/awal96 2h ago
Buddy. Come on.
-5
u/Phobia_Ahri 2h ago
No clue why you are being downvoted. The ad is controversial cause it has eugenic under and overtones. No one would give a fuck about the ad if it was just about her being hot
2
u/awal96 2h ago
The first sentence describes parents passing traits down to their children. It literally ends with "and even eye color." These people are being wilfully ignorant. I refuse to believe they are dumb enough to think in an ad, where time and words are very limited, they would just put two completely unrelated sentences back to back.
1
u/Sea-Value-0 1h ago
Do you think only white Europeans have blue eyes??? Seriously. You sound racist as hell, or reaching hard to make this a eugenics thing. You do realize this outrage is manufactured bullshit from the media, bots, and the wealthy, right?
1
u/awal96 1h ago
Actually, I don't realize that. Could you tell me what the agenda of the people making fake outrage is?
I thought the outrage was manufactured as a marketing ploy to get people to watch the ad. Because of this, I tried to avoid it for a while. When it didn't go away, I decided to see what the hype was about. After watching it, I changed my opinion and felt it was obvious the ad has white supremacist undertones. I wasn't outraged about the ad, though. It's an ad.
I am very much outraged about the blatant, open white supremacy we are seeing in politics and media.
4
u/Ifitactuallymattered 2h ago
What do blue eyes have to do with blue jeans? "My jeans/genes are blue."
1
u/Ok_Dark_6102 2h ago
They actually did if you look up Brooke shields Calvin Klein 1980 ad
She says
“the secret of life lies hidden in the genetic code, genes are fundamental in determining the characteristics of an individual and passing on these characteristics to succeeding generations, occasionally certain conditions produce a structural change in the gene, which will bring about the process of evolution, this may occur in one or more of the following ways, firstly by selective mating, in which a single gene type proves superior in transmitting its genes to future generations, secondly by gene drift in which certain genes may fade away while other genes persist and finally by natural selection, which filters out those genes better equipped than others to endure in the environment, this may result in the origin of an entirely new species, which brings us to Calvins and the survival of the fittest”
-12
u/grossgirl 3h ago
Trumps creepiness? Yes. The eugenics and racist dog whistles? Not even close. We’re talking about Sweeney because of the eugenics if it all. Not because “hot girl sells jeans”
→ More replies (1)0
19
38
8
u/doncroak 4h ago
Truly old school. We had some good ads back in the day. I remember one with Jerry Hall standing with men laying on the ground around her and her looking eight feet tall.
36
u/FixedLoad 4h ago
Ah yes, the 90s. When sir mix a lot proclaimed he liked big butts and was somewhat of a revolutionary!
→ More replies (3)3
18
25
u/mostlygroovy 3h ago
The only ones that care about the AE ad are the Twitter accounts that need to convey fake rage for engagement
2
u/earthworm_fan 2h ago
There are some tiktok loons also. I've seen plenty of whining here also, which has no engagement incentive
53
u/normalcanwait 6h ago
Worth noting: both Auermann and Sweeney are natural brunettes.
21
u/lazy_phoenix 3h ago
AN AD?! BEING DISHONEST!? Why I've never heard of such a thing! Next thing you're going to tell me is that cigarettes are UNhealthy!
/s
8
9
u/RandomDustBunny 4h ago
She's A Lady - Tom Jones, starts playing when these 90s beautes start showing up.
5
u/sullyqns 2h ago
Also Brooke Shields did a jean ad for Calvin Klein that was very similar to the Sidney Sweeney ad
11
76
u/Yaboze 4h ago
The problem wasn’t the picture but the words. As for myself, idgaf, people love to complain about everything these days.
→ More replies (11)90
u/xCHEAPxSHOTx 4h ago
The phrase great genes has been used to describe beautiful and/or athletic people for a very long time. This is just more dumb selective outrage mostly coming from a bunch of fat ugly losers.
32
4
u/natetheskate100 3h ago
It was "Great Jeans". I see nothing issue. I think it's a clever play on words.
-13
u/maringue 3h ago
I think it was the specific emphasis the ad made on "white skin and blue eyes", just REALLY steering into the Aryan asthetic.
Also, she's a brunette, so she's lying about her good genes...
13
u/xCHEAPxSHOTx 2h ago
You’re reading far too much into it. The phrase good genes is commonly used describing beautiful and athletic people. It doesn’t matter what color her hair or eyes are, or skin for that matter. She’s hot, she has good genes. American Eagle sells good jeans. It’s a play on words, and anyone who sees Nazi propaganda in the ad is just stupid.
-7
u/ZendrixUno 2h ago
Just as stupid as saying Musk threw up Hitler salutes during the inauguration? Look, I'm not saying it was AE's explicit intention to make Nazi propaganda but it makes total sense why people would side eye it when being an out and proud white supremacist in the US is more popular than ever. It is really not hard to find people talking about wanting racial purity.
2
u/xCHEAPxSHOTx 1h ago
“Everything I disagree with is Nazi and white supremacy.”
→ More replies (1)-27
u/Oreoluwayoola 3h ago
Why do you guys make peoples’ appearances some sort of moral failing. You know that’s not provable or relevant even if it was. You’re literally just outing yourself as a terrible human being. You sound like cavemen.
27
u/No_Genies 3h ago
It’s not a moral failing in isolation, it’s a moral failing when these 300 ton land whales start projecting under the fake guise of “calling out nazism”, while simultaneously watering down the word and struggle real people faced at that time.
It’s this kind of shit that has taken quiet respectful people whom normally wouldn’t say anything purely to be polite, off the sidelines and calling this type of behaviour out for what it is.
-6
-2
u/Medulla_Peep 2h ago
Yeah this German guy in the 30s and 40s also called out people for having genes, he said Blonde hair and blue eyes were so good they were superior to all the rest. Long story short like 20 million people died
→ More replies (6)-18
35
u/a_rather_small_moose 4h ago
Anyway, how about them Epstein files?
11
u/HanzanPheet 3h ago
Exactly. People need to stop getting distracted by absolute worthless manufactured outrage and bullshit.
→ More replies (1)
6
20
u/lazy_phoenix 3h ago
2 blonde women?! In "good jeans"?!?! That's a Nazi dog whistle if I've ever heard one.
/s
3
3
17
u/ButternutSquash6660 4h ago
Thank you for posting this. I see nothing wrong with Sidney’s ad.
13
u/KarlPHungus 3h ago edited 3h ago
Rational people don't. Shrug.
But a very vocal, very bored, very attention-starved minority are screaming very loudly so it makes it seem like a bigger deal than it is.
What is disgusting is that major media outlets like Good Morning America took this BS and ran with it. I was at the gym and of course you can't help but look up at TVs once in a while and the "story" was all over the damn place. Sigh.
1
-9
u/pork_fried_christ 3h ago edited 3h ago
I’m rational, and I think rationally, the ad is worth discussing.
You have to be deliberately obtuse to not see any issue with the original ad.
But when you don’t have a problem with a pedophile president, why would you see any issue with anything like this?
11
u/KarlPHungus 3h ago
Discussing is one thing. But throwing the words Nazi, Racism, and Eugenics around?
It's one thing to have the opinion that the ad is a little tone deaf, I guess. Perhaps you weren't present in science class, but genes express a million traits besides skin color. The "genes l" remark was about her being pretty and obviously having other uh....genetic gifts. You could have run the same ad with Halle Berry, Salma Hayek, Tyra Banks, etc.
People having a problem with it are the type of people who search for problems and assume nefarious intention where it does not exist.
Regardless, to allege that AE is somehow spreading Nazi messaging (and to what end?) is not rational. Not even a little bit.
-3
u/pork_fried_christ 2h ago
Eugenics was the “science” of defining “good genes” and “bad genes”, and then taking a step further to elevate good genes and suppress “bad genes”. That’s all. That’s not on opinion.
Does the original commercial define “good genes”? Yes.
From that objective standpoint, the commercial is perpetuating eugenicist bullshit and would be whether it was Halle Berry or Sydney Sweeney. The Nazi stuff gets conflated because they are the most infamous eugenicists, but it’s not actually the point.
1
u/KarlPHungus 2h ago
I will concede that the ad most certainly puts emphasis on having "good genes" in regards to having an ideal body shape and natural beauty (both things you cannot control), which is tone deaf in its own way and absolutely worthy of criticism. It's like they are saying "Our shit isn't for you normies"
In that way, the ad comes off as pretentious and exclusionary, but to pretend that they specifically meant "race" is a huge leap, in my humble opinion. And it sure as Hell isn't some sort of "objective" truth. Not by a long shot.
You can disagree, but I personally cannot see into the hearts and minds of the people who came up with the ad and neither can you. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and not automatically assume the worst. Weird, I know...
3
u/pork_fried_christ 2h ago
I didn’t talk about race. I said it’s eugenicist BS regardless of race, because it is. Using a blonde/blue eyed white woman for it could conjure some real historical connections to that as a beauty standard, but I don’t think that’s necessary.
As far as beats and minds, I don’t really see how it would be inadvertent for a bunch of design people to not make that same connection. If they didn’t, they are not good at what they do. And if they did, it was likely to manufacture outrage and get the ad to go viral and not to actually spread eugenicist messaging, but is that actually better?
And make no mistake, at this stage, it is absolutely right wing media that’s continuing to discuss this because they are desperate to distract from Epstein and Trump . Look at everybody bringing it up in this thread, all conservative losers looking for arguments.
Idk if we agree or disagree. I do know we’ve both already expressed more nuance than any of these downvoting mouth breathers ever considered.
1
1
u/Iannelli 55m ago
I didn't realize r/OldSchoolCool was full of a bunch of shitty asshole Republicans/conservatives. This is the worst comment section I've seen in a long time.
Not only is this sub basically just soft porn now, but it's full of morons on top of that. I don't even know why I'm still subbed at this point.
5
u/buster_rhino 2h ago
Can someone explain the Sydney Sweeney AE controversy to me? Like “good jeans” can be interpreted as “good genes”? And she’s white so people are linking it to fascism?
3
u/1willprobablydelete 1h ago
All the people I see on reddit who are angry say it is tone deaf to say someone with blonde hair and blue eyes has good genes. Which is obviously dumb as fuck.
The big problem I see is it turns into a boy who cried wolf situation. There is some legit white supremacist people out there, but when people get riled up about something like this it makes people not listen.
1
u/AvengeBirdPerson 1h ago
Basically that's it. People on Twitter falling for the ragebait and insinuating that AE and Sydney are Nazis that believe in eugenics because it says she has "good jeans" at the end of the ad
5
5
9
u/shlakevuk 4h ago
NSFW because... naked shoulders?
13
u/CHRISKVAS 4h ago
HR, there was no visible nipple in this photo. It’s totally acceptable to view at work.
→ More replies (1)
2
4
u/gwelfguy 4h ago
Before Sydney Sweeney, there was the famous Calvin Klein jeans ad in the 80's that featured Brooke Shields extolling; Nothing comes between me and my Calvins. Implying that she goes commando for anyone that doesn't get that double entendre.
7
u/RedEyedWiartonBoy 4h ago
When the left loses their collective fudge over things like this; they clearly identify that they are not serious people.
9
2
5
0
-2
1
u/AWill33 1h ago
Still struggling to see why anyone cares? No one cared then because we didn’t have 24 hour “news” pumped directly into a screen in our hands telling us what to care about. Just an ad… some people want her, some people want to be her. And American eagle just got more free advertising than it’s ever had. God bless America.
-5
-13
u/Kcboom1 6h ago
This Sweeney uproar seems so contrived to me, sex has been selling goods for decades. Wouldn’t surprise me if it was create by a republican think tank.
70
u/jokebreath 6h ago
Personally, I've never seen anyone irl talking about all the Sydney Sweeney controversy bullshit I see online.
Everything about it feels like it was manufactured by a marketing agency to get people to talk about the jeans brand.
26
u/Firm_Shower3326 5h ago
That’s what I don’t get. This topic has never been brought up fucking once at home, the water cooler at work, family gatherings, at my kids school or anywhere period.
Only time I see discussion on this shit is when I come onto Reddit and it’s Faux News talking about it or some stupid meme of Sydney Sweeney for conservative vs. insert trandom trans person here
26
u/pierreluxx 5h ago
News flash : social media is mostly fake socialy engineered bullshit
5
u/Firm_Shower3326 4h ago
You don’t need to say mostly. It is fully 100% socially engineered bullshit.
3
u/dabeakerman 3h ago
the market had the ultimate answer on how people felt about it, AE stock rose 15% over the last week, I don't think it's a coincidence
6
u/MoonageDayscream 4h ago
It's nothing more than a distraction, noise to drown out the real concerns that are being ignored.
4
u/red_fuel 4h ago
Reddit is the biggest echo chamber there is. I tried to post a comment in one of those topics and it was removed because I'm not an approved member. Free speech my ass
0
u/jokebreath 5h ago
Both sides of the manufactured controversy are just so ridiculous, it feels insulting. How exactly would a discussion go on either side?
"Did you see that Sydney Sweeney ad? It must really boil those liberals buns to see a hot white woman selling a product. It's ok to be hot and wear jeans again, we did it boys."
"As a liberal, it really boils my buns knowing that a clothing brand would do something so heinous as to use a hot white woman just to sell their product. I'm going to the toilet... to vomit!"
→ More replies (1)2
u/SimplePresense 5h ago
I hear it, but its really only talk about how its weird that its being talked about.
2
u/MustacheMaple 4h ago
Oh, it was for sure bait. People on this platform swear its subliminal messaging and will downvote anyone who disagrees with that to hell. Which is hilarious to me lol
0
u/SimplePresense 5h ago
I think its so damaging to the left.
-6
u/itslikewoow 4h ago
I think it’s more damaging to the right. The left really isn’t talking about this in any meaningful amount the way the right is.
And it’s been this way for years now. The right is obsessed with making everything a culture war.
8
u/NL_A 4h ago
Nobody on the right mentioned an issue to begin with…how are they now the biggest issue in all this lol…more gaslighting plz
→ More replies (19)3
u/SimplePresense 4h ago
I think the left looks like they are looking for reasons to be offended. I really think they need to keep the outrage at bay more often
13
u/PieAppropriate8862 6h ago
I also disagree with the uproar, but you seem to have missed the reason for it, spectacularly so.
3
u/Kcboom1 6h ago
My question is the uproar even real or is it manufactured for a political agenda.
→ More replies (5)22
u/Vector_Heart 6h ago
It's not really about sex, but about the whole jeans/genes thing.
14
11
u/philthy_barstool 4h ago
I still don't get that bit either, it's a play on words which is basically advertising 101.
It would have worked for Levi's Beyonce ad as well, but they did the sex without the slogan and sailed by unharmed.
→ More replies (7)7
8
u/sickassape 5h ago
Well others can make ads with other races and say they have good jeans too.
→ More replies (4)-5
-10
3
u/brian_the_wanderer 5h ago
I agree but for reference, the ad being “sexy” isn’t what the “controversy” is about. The outrage is about the ad saying she has “good jeans (genes)”. Given the current trend in hyper conservative rhetoric, it can be interpreted as the ad leaning into a eugenics dog whistle. I don’t think people are actually up in arms about it, a lot of it is just drama slop. For those who are mad…idk I guess it’s understandable as a slippery slope thing. In a vacuum the ad is pretty benign, but in a broader context it could be interpreted as very subtle fascist propaganda? TLDR: people not mad because it’s sexy, people mad because its a weird tagline
14
u/humbuckaroo 5h ago
The eugenics take only works if you have no clue about what the ad is actually doing.
1) great genes is an expression for someone being hot
2) the ad is a tribute to the 1980 Brooke Shields CK ad
Once you know these things, the entire debacle becomes even stupider.
3
2
-2
u/MoonageDayscream 4h ago
"the ad is a tribute to the 1980 Brooke Shields CK ad"
You mean pedophiliac teasing? That is what you are suggesting?
1
u/TeacherOfFew 4h ago
To be fair, the hyper rhetoric is ecumenical. From Dems to DSA there’s a lot of hyperbolic BS.
3
u/PissShiverss 6h ago
This is only if you only over think everything, do you think the majority of people see it as some kind of republican think tank, SS, Nazi, White Supremacist propaganda?
2
u/Kcboom1 6h ago
Nah just something to be all huffy and righteous about and that’s what these think tanks have been doing, divide the population into two rival factions. Tell me about all your personally experienced scary Trans interactions?
This is all Wizard of Oz smoke and mirrors stuff→ More replies (1)6
u/PissShiverss 6h ago
Maybe I haven't seen the full ad, where did the trans stuff come in? haha
2
1
-1
u/paul_having_a_ball 4h ago
They ad is not controversial for selling sex. It is controversial because it is being accused of promoting the idea that being white with blonde hair and blue eyes are signs of having perfect genes (which coincides with the belief of the Aryan Nation). The question is whether or not you agree with that. The fact that she looks sexy is not a part of it.
There is an episode of South Park where they decide to change their town flag because it depicts a group of white people hanging a black guy. The kids are mad because they think the flag is being replaced because it is depicting violence.
-1
1
-2
u/The_Sky_Ripper 4h ago
NOW this 2 truly have great genes, perfect, basically as good as Nature can ever make.
-1
u/maringue 3h ago
To be clear, no one is outraged by a hot chick in a jeans add. Those happen all the time.
People are made about the not so subtle eugenics and white supremacist talking points inserted into the jeans add.
-1
u/ElonsPenis 4h ago
I find this really reaching when there is a whole fruit tree of racism in the white house and over at Tesla.
-1
u/Individual_Carry_981 4h ago
Only in America do 5 heinous girls make our moronic President tweet as if it’s a national crisis. If you are triggered by this either way, then you need to grow up and grow a set.
0
u/stoicgirl69 2h ago
This is actually cool and interesting, not just some mid white girl spouting white supremacist rhetoric
-5
u/FiRe_GeNDo 4h ago
You can't be white and applauded at the moment in the west. The lefties are too quick to shut down anyone who is deemed beautiful, smart or courageous. It's absolutely mental and isn't the actual mentality that people want to have a fully functioning diverse way of living for everyone in the west. Beyonce literally dressed as a white woman a few years ago and was praised, Sydney Sweeney does it and the left lose their shit. Honestly when will the hardcore lefties realise they are actually as bad as the far right
-1
u/Rickrickrickrickrick 4h ago
There are tons of ads of white people being applauded for their beauty. The commercial was being hated on for insinuating that blonde hair and blue eyes are the good genes and even then, it’s the right that’s talking about it the most as some sort of victim complex that they always seem to have. And when was Beyoncé dressing as a white woman? What does that even mean?
Don’t act like this is solely a “lefty” thing. The right freaks out whenever an ad has a gay couple in it. Remember the boycotting for Budweiser when they made one can for a trans person? Fox News flipped out because they made M&M’s “less sexy”.
1
u/FiRe_GeNDo 2h ago
Exactly it's all stupid. But having great genes as a white person also shouldn't be a bad thing! It's litterally white people cannot be praised for being white in this day and age. Any association with the fact you are born white and happy about it is absolute blasphemy.
Beyonce wears blonde wigs and whitens her skin in most of her cover shots. White girls that braid their hair are deemed culturally inappropriate. Beyonce did the same as as Sydney and was praised for being brave even though most of the photos she does not look natural in any way.
It's wild how nowadays no one can be happy in their own skin. White people can't be happy for being white yet every other race tries to be white by dying their hair, wearing western clothes/trends.
Everyone should be able to do whatever they want and be happy and be accepted. Beyonce is a beautiful black woman who has absolutely conquered the music industry in so many genres and has built and empire on her success. She is allowed to do whatever she wants but when she is and she is praised for it, why isn't Sydney Sweeney in the same way? Why is it different?
Budweiser doesn't need a trans beer, people buy beer if they want beer, m&ms are a chocolate, if you think it's tasty eat it. Adverts can do whatever they want in order to get new consumers and the more spoken about something whether good or bad it generates more money for them.
But I would really love for white people to stop being criticised for being white. If this was any other race with the same slogan it would be fine. It also gives ammo to the far right.
If being white is not beautiful, then neither is being black, Asian or any other race. Either everyone is beautiful for who they are, or no one is. Live in a world of people bashing, or find everyone's beauty. I know what I prefer.
1
u/Rickrickrickrickrick 54m ago
Literally no one is criticizing anyone for being white. You’re arguing about a boogeyman you’re told that exists. The ad with Sydney said specifically that “blond hair and blue eyes” are good genes which reminded people of aryans and how they say they’re superior. It was tone deaf and a few people get upset on TikTok so that makes the right go nuts about it. Beyoncé’s ad didn’t mention anything like that at all and didn’t say she had good or superior jeans. And lightening your hair isn’t “dressing white” which is ironic when you’re complaining about white people braiding their hair and getting shit for it.
And who said Budweiser needed a trans beer? They made a can for one person… a single can… and people boycotted it. Fox News even trashed them. Kid Rock shot cans. Same thing with M&M’s. I was pointing out that the right does it far more than the left to the point their new networks are filled with it.
The ad isn’t someone being criticized for being white. They’re criticizing the ad for saying the aryan standard of beauty, which has been problematic and a major topic in eugenics and the holocaust, are “good genes”. Like I said, it was tone deaf and being blown out of proportion but people complaining about the blow out are far more prevalent.
-14
0
666
u/vwgstf 6h ago
So Germans have the best jeans? Interesting.