I sort of pity her. Her life must be so carefully managed and organized. Even if she can handle it, still not easy.
AFAIK, it means that (((they))) are going to have her replace Biden as the Democratic nominee at the last minute so that her fans will vote her into office, where she will sign an executive order declaring whiteness illegal, making gay marriage mandatory, and requiring all gas stoves and pickup trucks to be turned into plant-based meat grown in a peach tree dish.
I’m listening…
While he was typing that, he was furiously licking his eyeball.
Just let them clean the hairs off while she’s wearing it and she could find people to pay her.
Now that I think about it, there would probably be takers for cleaning the empty outfit, too.
It doesn’t contain carbon.
In pop culture parlance, organic popularity is something that comes from the mass of people themselves. In other words, when something is popular because a lot of people really like it. As opposed to inorganic popularity, when some people on top, e.g. influencers, make something popular, but it’s not really that well liked among the masses.
To be honest, I don’t really believe that inorganic popularity exists, but if you look at message boards devoted to pop music, say, they’re always accusing some artist or another of having inorganic popularity.
Now, I still don’t understand what Stephen Miller meant in this case.
“Every accusation is a confession” – every “popular” ultraright trend is astroturfed, engineered to succeed via straw sales (Sound of Freedom) or planting ideological activists as if they were concerned citizens (Moms for Liberty). Therefore anything popular not on the ultraright approved list, has got to have been fabricated and planted by “THEM” to ruin American Values: it’s the Big Media trying to shove TayTay down our throats to corrupt our children, becoming the Time POTY is “proof” of that.
You can feign popularity, such as organizations buying up a bunch of copies of a book to push it onto the best seller list or stories about people buying multiple tickets for “Sound of Freedom” to make it a box office “hit”, playing to nearly empty theaters. You could do the same for music sales, I’m sure. Plus your payola style scandals or Evil Corporate Manipulation of Top 40 charts and who gets played on the radio.
But it’s a lot harder to fake a horde of people camping out to fill a stadium and ticket resale values in the thousands of dollars for the ‘cheap seats’ if no one actually wanted to be there and you only knew the songs because Soulless Music Corp forced you to listen to them.
That wasn’t what my comment meant.
Any time I’ve seen that comment, it was a mocking bit about men deriding an attractive celebrity woman they’d never stand a chance with for minor/imaginary flaws. A sour grapes, “She has sharp knees anyway, what an uggo” type of thing. That usage isn’t really appropriate when people are commenting on the photography itself, not the subject of the photo.
If you were using it in some other way, I’ll admit it went past me.
Please. They’re not commenting about the exposure levels or the depth of field.
They’re commenting about the real human being in the photo and implying she’s been photoshopped. That her actual, very normal, shape is somehow wrong akin to one of those actually grotesque “Photoshop failure” pics… See also the absurd “no neck” comment that started it all.
It’s very much a comment about the subject. You got exactly the right reference - I was about to link it myself.
And before you claim this isn’t about Taylor herself, read the same poster’s subsequent comments about removing cat hair…
Eh, I ain’t gonna spend time arguing by proxy for anyone else but I personally think that’s a photo that does Ms. Swift, a woman who I assume has perfectly lovely knees, no favors based entirely on the composition.
(Looking at the article, the B&W photo does sort of do away with her neck with the baggy jacket coming up to her jawline making her head appear to come out of her shoulders. It’s better in the color photo further down both because her head is tilted different and because the color changes how I see it. The other photos in the article look fine enough to me)
There’s “that’s a poor photo to choose”, and then there’s " I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time". You have just done the former (and I don’t agree, I think those are great photos - the one with the tux is especially good), but others have done the latter. And I don’t think their interest is 100% academic given their subsequent post.
She’s also wearing a turtleneck.
They’ve invented new memes since 2004, you know 
If people (not you) are going to post about a woman like it’s still 2004-era Dope, I’m going to reference appropriate memes.
I figured it fit well with the board’s artistic stagnation. “Everyone knows that music stopped being good in 1988 and the last meme worth repeating involved charging muh lasers! Harumph!”
That stings, man! (given that I’ve been deliberately doing the opposite in the “Favourite song starting with …” threads)
It also isn’t about me, even though you are trying to imply otherwise.
This photo
Makes her neck look like this.
