18+

You must be 18+ to view this community

You must be at least eighteen years old to view this. Are you over eighteen and willing to see adult content?

140
Sydney Sweeney at a gala (lemmynsfw.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/celebnsfw@lemmynsfw.com
NSFW 21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

She's a terrible, terrible actress. If she was better at her damn job, she wouldn't be reduced to just her tits. Makes you wonder how she's getting her roles.

You can judge me on my job performance, maybe I need a career change, maybe my dick size is getting me jobs and I'm really bad at my actual job. Never know.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Alternatively if you weren't a misogynist you wouldn't reduce a woman to the feature you like the most.

    We know, or rather you do. You're implying you fucked your way to the top which I doubt and you know to be untrue. Get a life loser.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

    I'm not going to say that the commenter you're replying to has their heart in the right place, but this really isn't an issue of misogyny. Sydney Sweeney is an objectively very bad actor, has a long history of acting out for attention irl, and genuinely only gets roles because of her appearance(and to be fair because she's a good businesswoman, but the casting certainly isn't because of her acting abilities). The mechanisms behind the success of her career are certainly misogynistic, calling them out however, is not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Reducing a woman down to the feature you like the most is quite literally textbook misogyny.

    She could be the worst actress of all time and it would still be misogynist to go "oh she terrible! She only got there because of her tits!" which is objectively untrue, lots of people have great tits and can act, so it quite literally can't be that simple.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Reducing a woman down to the feature you like the most is quite literally textbook misogyny.

    Again, the mechanisms that created the situation are misogynistic; calling them out for what they are, even with as little tact as this commenter has, is not. Simply because in this case she's using it to her advantage doesn't shield her from criticism. If she was any good at her craft, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    lots of people have great tits and can act, so it quite literally can't be that simple.

    Ignoring the fact that your logic here is a bit nonsensical, if you genuinely believe that people aren't cast exclusively for their looks and market appeal then you're simply naive. People are cast who will sell tickets. Sex appeal is something that sells. There is a very very very long list of people, and women specifically, who aged out of the ability to play teenage and young adult characters who suddenly found themselves out of work because their acting abilities didn't quite hold up when their youthful beauty faded away.

    Unless you recognize and place blame in the appropriate places you are misguidedly propping up the exact systems that you're attempting to criticise. It is okay to recognize things simply for what they are and we cannot grow, in fact, if we do not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    She started her career as a child dude was she hired for her boobs then? I kinda doubt it bud.

    For their looks, not a single aspect and even then they can usually act to some degree certainly more than me at the very least.

    It's misogynistic they're a misogynist it's not difficult to parse out.

    No one said the industry isn't misogynistic, it's quite a bit more than that but homie straight up said it was only about her tits which is an idiotic idea.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    What the fuck are you even talking about and how does her having bit parts as a child actor relate to anything in this conversation? I forgot that children aren't cast based on how cute they are for things. The bar is really low for child actors and biased pretty heavily towards their looks and racial demographics. The fact that you seem to believe that the world functions based on people with talent being selected for things just demonstrates how absolutely idealistic and naive you are.

    "Being able to act better than you" is the dumbest bar you could have set. Literally any idiot can stand in front of a camera, take direction, and read lines. The bar is so low that they let people do it every single day based solely on how they look, but it takes skill to actually do it well. Skill that she does not have.

    You genuinely just seem to want to be mad, have a very loose concept of what prejudice is in a real sense in general, and haven't made a single cogent point all while sounding like you're not legally able to be on this instance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

    Read the main comment genius.

    Terrible actress. Only thing she's got going for her is big tits. Gotta love Hollywood.

    She got hired to act at 12 so that logically cannot be the answer. bend and contort your argument however you please but they will still be wrong and unequivocally a misogynist and honestly I have my doubts about you at this point.

    She can or can't act that's the only question, if she can act then their premise is bullshit like I said.

    I'm not mad, I think you're both shitty people but shitty people abound so it's not something I take particularly to heart. You on the other hand are writing paragraphs defending misogyny, that says something about you.

    Ed: just so you remember you actually already agreed with me but seemingly didn't notice.

    Sydney Sweeney is an objectively very bad actor, has a long history of acting out for attention irl, and genuinely only gets roles because of her appearance(and to be fair because she's a good businesswoman, but the casting certainly isn't because of her acting abilities).

    We'll ignore the "objectively" given that isn't a fact nor is it universally agreed on clearly since she has a fan base that thinks she can. That said if its also about her business acumen then it isn't "the only thing going for her" correct?

    So reducing her to her tits and ignoring her intelligence ie business acumen is misogynistic, they're a misogynist and you're a misogynist apologist. Justify being shitty however you'd like, I don't personally care but you're still just as wrong as they are.

    Most casting is because of looks good or bad that's inherent in the system. Joining in and being like "yeah she's just walking tits!" Is misogynist and using the system to try to justify it isn't really an excuse which again is a thing you've already agreed with me on you just aimed out at me not them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    you actually already agreed with me but seemingly didn't notice.

    At no point did I not acknowledge that she's worked hard to get where she is or that she has the connections and industry reach to secure work. That doesn't magically make her not have the acting ability of a paralyzed fish. You can work really hard at something all your life and still be fucking terrible at it.

    so that logically cannot be the answer.

    Hun, you and the word logic should never be paired in the same sentence. This sweeping handwaving rant where you pull weaker conclusions from nothing than I've seen middle schoolers create really demonstrates that.

    You on the other hand are writing paragraphs defending misogyny, that says something about you.

    I'm not defending misogyny because what you're doing isn't calling it out, but is actually reinforcing it. I'm specifically calling out your behavior. I'm done talking to a brick wall though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    Sydney Sweeney is an objectively very bad actor, has a long history of acting out for attention irl, and genuinely only gets roles because of her appearance(and to be fair because she's a good businesswoman, but the casting certainly isn't because of her acting abilities).

    Ya huh. That means you agree it's not just her boobs doing the work, she is also doing the work. Therefore reducing her to just her boobs is misogynistic. You're stuck on she's a bad actor when that isn't the argument, you honestly seem to be going on your own personal tirade.

    Sure, tell me where I'm acting illogically and I'll go ahead and shatter that illusion for you as well.

    You absolutely are, you admit she works for it. Maybe not in ways you agree with but in ways that are definitively not about her tits.

    You agree, you're just stuck in a sunk cost fallacy or you simply didn't understand the argument before interjecting yourself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent