Title : "No. You can not base your life on frowning and glaring at others literally behind your shades and think you are making a positive impact on lives."
link : "No. You can not base your life on frowning and glaring at others literally behind your shades and think you are making a positive impact on lives."
"No. You can not base your life on frowning and glaring at others literally behind your shades and think you are making a positive impact on lives."
"Just like the met gala is a ridiculous, outdated event that does no good except for advancing privilege. I hope we begin to understand how many generous, kind people there are in the world and that those are the individuals we should be celebrating."The second-highest-rated comment on "Can Anna Wintour Survive the Social Justice Movement?/A reckoning has come to Bon Appétit and the other magazines of Condé Nast. Can a culture built on elitism and exclusion possibly change?" by Ginia Bellafante (NYT).
The first-highest-rated comment: "It's kind of rich when a newspaper that oozes white privilege and credential worship, prints endless real-estate stories about zillion-dolllar properties, and covers celebrities endlessly in its style magazine and arts pages goes after Anna Wintour."
The NYT is going after Anna Wintour — not because she said anything arguably racist or got caught in blackface or anything like that, but simply because she is powerful and imperious and because, apparently, Vogue is a fashion magazine.
They also have this quote from André Leon Talley, "a black man and longtime former editor at Vogue": "I wanna say one thing, Dame Anna Wintour is a colonial broad; she’s a colonial dame. I do not think she will ever let anything get in the way of her white privilege."
A colonial broad, whatever "colonial" is supposed to me. As for "broad"... it's a blatantly sexist word, but sexism was last year's concern. This year it's race, and for some perverted reason, we can't concern ourselves with both at the same time.
She is literally a "Dame" — I'm reading that at Wikipedia, where I also learn that she lives in Greenwich Village, rises before 6 a.m., "rarely stays at parties for more than 20 minutes at a time and goes to bed by 10:15 every night." For lunch she eats "a steak (or bunless hamburger)" but years ago it was "smoked salmon and scrambled eggs every single day." She wears sunglasses all the time because they are "actually corrective lenses" but also (as one acquaintance says) "you know, really, armour."
Politically, she's a big supporter of Democrats. They say if Hillary Clinton had won, Anna Wintour would have become the U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom. And now, look what she gets. The NYT coming after her for nothing. You can't devote your life to fashion for the sake of fashion in the Social Justice Regime.
Thus articles "No. You can not base your life on frowning and glaring at others literally behind your shades and think you are making a positive impact on lives."
that is all articles "No. You can not base your life on frowning and glaring at others literally behind your shades and think you are making a positive impact on lives." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article "No. You can not base your life on frowning and glaring at others literally behind your shades and think you are making a positive impact on lives." with the link address https://usainnew.blogspot.com/2020/06/no-you-can-not-base-your-life-on.html
0 Response to ""No. You can not base your life on frowning and glaring at others literally behind your shades and think you are making a positive impact on lives.""
Post a Comment