Chelsea Manning in Swimsuit for Vogue

People have to at least give credit that it's an improvement over this

Chelsea_Manning_with_wig.jpg
 
It's literally a square, skinny male body. He ugly AF, doesn't pass at all.
 
TeTe said:
Guess that's what freedom looks like? To me, it looks like Vogue trying to ram an agenda down everyone's throat. Manning should have the freedom to cross dress or be transgender whatever. More power to him/her. That's freedom. But lets be honest, we see right though Vogue's bullshit.
Click to expand...


Current topic aside, how can a print magazine "ram and agenda down everyone's throat." It is a magazine that is incredibly easy to not see or read. I don't think it is required reading in any educational institution. Honestly, Christians (not saying your are one) say that prayer in schools (before football games for instance) is no big deal because someone can choose not to participate but a magazine that is 100% avoidable by literally not buying it is a bridge too far.
 
woodguyatl said:
Current topic aside, how can a print magazine "ram and agenda down everyone's throat." It is a magazine that is incredibly easy to not see or read. I don't think it is required reading in any educational institution. Honestly, Christians (not saying your are one) say that prayer in schools (before football games for instance) is no big deal because someone can choose not to participate but a magazine that is 100% avoidable by literally not buying it is a bridge too far.
Click to expand...
Except the only reason I found out about this earlier in the day is because two media outlets that I do frequent, reported on it and posted the pics. Not to mention you'd see this magazine cover while waiting in line at the checkout at the grocery store or wherever. You're right, you don't have to read Vogue and I certainly don't, but it doesn't mean that they aren't trying to push an agenda.
 
should still be in prison, instead getting flaunted on magazines as a symbol of pride?

wait, what?

remember, Juwanna Mann and Ladybugs were farcical comedies only 15-20 years ago. Is this real life?
 
TeTe said:
Except the only reason I found out about this earlier in the day is because two media outlets that I do frequent, reported on it and posted the pics. Not to mention you'd see this magazine cover while waiting in line at the checkout at the grocery store or wherever. You're right, you don't have to read Vogue and I certainly don't, but it doesn't mean that they aren't trying to push an agenda.
Click to expand...
Who gives a shit? The first amendment is for expression, which in large part includes sending certain messages. If you disagree with those messages, fine. But promoting an "agenda" isn't the inherently nefarious action being implied here, and to suggest otherwise undermines some fundamental principles of speech.
 
Quipling said:
Who gives a shit? The first amendment is for expression, which in large part includes sending certain messages. If you disagree with those messages, fine. But promoting an "agenda" isn't the inherently nefarious action being implied here, and to suggest otherwise undermines some fundamental principles of speech.
Click to expand...
Nobody said they weren't within their rights to publish it... but lets call a spade a spade here.
 
TeTe said:
Nobody said they weren't within their rights to publish it... but lets call a spade a spade here.
Click to expand...
What's the spade? That they have a message? Why does that matter? If the fact that they have a message is all you wanted to say, that's a truism.

Everyone who says anything has a message. Why is it worth pointing out that one group does?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,082
Messages
55,466,517
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top