![davidvolodzko's tweet photo. The banal provocation of Doreen St. Felix's racism
On August 2, New Yorker staff writer Doreen St. Felix wrote an essay, âThe Banal Provocation of Sydney Sweeneyâs Jeans,â criticizing Sweeneyâs recent American Eagle jeans campaign, in which Sweeney wears classic denim and talks about her âgreat jeans.â You can tell many of the folks criticizing the essay never bothered to read it because one of the main attacks is that liberals are hypocrites who had nothing to say when BeyoncĂ© did her denim ads. Except thatâs literally how St. Felix begins:
Two American blondes have recently hawked denim. BeyoncĂ©, an ambassador for Leviâs, dressed in outlaw drag, arrives at a semi-deserted laundromat [âŠ] but what sheâs selling in the commercial is not Leviâs [âŠ] her project, in this âCowboy Carterâ era, has been to cast herself as the real patriot, a protector of this countryâs traditions from the fraudulent claims of white supremacists [âŠ] she is burnishing a heritage brand in her Black-queen image. Americana can be hers, too.
That brings us to [âŠ] Sydney Sweeney, who recently became the face of American Eagle. What is this campaign selling? [âŠ] No doubt the minds behind the Sweeney campaign wanted to stir memories of Brooke Shields, declaring to Richard Avedonâs camera, in 1980: âYou wanna know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing.â [âŠ] The element of perversion, the artistic touch, in that Calvin Klein ad was Shieldsâs age, which was fifteen. Sweeney is twenty-seven. No great artist directed these commercials. The allusion is incoherent, unless, of course, we root around for other meanings, and we donât have to search for long: genes, referring to Sweeneyâs famously large breasts; genes, referring to her whiteness [âŠ] Interestingly, breasts, and the desire for them, are stereotyped as objects of white desire, as opposed to, say, the Black manâs hunger for ass.
This is the kind of undergraduate seminar hermeneutics one is meant to shed by sophomore year, the logic of queering, a method that insists every text encodes its own subversion, if only one teases it out, and which comes from queer theorists like Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick and Judith Butler, who taught queering as a way of reading against the grain to show that what appears normative, be it heterosexuality or whiteness, is actually constructed, performative, and open to subversion. Itâs not that the text actually expresses such things, but whether you can adequately argue that such things are in the text even if they arenât, or even if it expresses the opposite. Butler, unsurprisingly, also famously taught that sex roles are similarly performative and can be subverted, regardless of the facts, or indeed against them, leading the way to the trans movement. One example of queering would be to take Hamlet and argue that instead of a story about family duty and revenge, itâs actually about Hamletâs homoerotic desire to penetrate Horatio. Bonus points if you can tie this into an argument about how Hamletâs gender performance with Ophelia destabilizes masculinity, how âHamletâs delayâ is not a problem of Renaissance psychology but rather the gender performativity of a closeted gay man, or even better, how his cruelty toward Ophelia is not misognyny but the overcompensatory reaction formation of his efforts to pass as ânormalâ when he is, in fact, a trans woman. Itâs all sophistry, of course, but you can certainly see St. Felix playing the game, if poorly.
Applying the gimmick to her own essay and reading St. Felix the way she reads everything else, you might tease out the detail that she calls both Sweeney and BeyoncĂ© âAmerican blondes,â and although both women dye their hair, you simply talk about how blonde hair is white hair, how blonde hair is a symbol of whiteness as much as the afro is of blackness, how thereâs a deliberate racial appropriation by BeyoncĂ©, who not only dons white hair but the stereotypical denim of white western wear. Then you talk about black women and fake hair more generally, the prevalence of black women in weaves and wigs, and maybe even comment on black appropriation of Arabic names such as Jamal, Aaliyah, Rashad, Latifah, and Omar, tying that into the fact that Sweeney goes by her first and last name whereas BeyoncĂ© Giselle Knowles-Carter goes simply by her first name to signal that sheâs a diva like Madonna or Cher, but also, you queeringly conclude, because blackness is inherently thieving in nature. That, roughly speaking, is how itâs done. And if anyone accuses you of racist rhetoric because you referred to blackness as thieving by nature, you simple deploy the motte-and-bailey fallacy and withdraw to claiming that you are only talking about blackness, not black people, which is a refrain that weâve all grown used to hearing whenever anyone pushes back against genocidal talk about âwhiteness.â
Simply put, you extend the symbol or concept far beyond what the text can support, but the creative ability to produce overdetermined deconstructions of this nature is an art form in itself, although even here, St. Felix isnât particularly good at it. The caricature I painted above with Hamlet is already better constructed than what she gives us, and she has New Yorker editors helping her, yet she literally tells the reader, this ainât white people being pedophiles like with Brooke Shields, so why do they like Sydney Sweeney? Because tits and racism. She admits she cannot make sense of the Sweeney ad because it isnât pedophilic, saying, âThe allusion is incoherent, unless, of course, we root around for other meanings.â Youâre not supposed to root around for other meanings, St. Felix. Thatâs what we in the industry call bullshitting. And the bullshit she comes up with is that the ad makes a pun involving the companyâs good jeans and Sweeneyâs good genes, which St. Felix tells us is a reference to âSweeneyâs famously large breasts,â fair enough, and âher whiteness,â where I object. This cascade of semiotic free-associations metastasizes from a pun in a denim ad into a sociology of white existence within several sentences, bearing absolutely none of the shame that a sociologist worth their degree would feel burning their cheeks if they were to base any conclusion on such interpretive strip-mining. Also, can I just say about the phrase âthe Black manâs hunger for ass,â wow. Literally anyone in the world would probably happily agree to have their work published in The New Yorker, yet the best they can curate from the pool of applicants is a filthy little bigot who thinks the Sweeney ad was a hit because of racism and tits? St. Felix adds:
Sweeney, on the precipice of totalizing fame, has an adoring legion, the most extreme of whom want to recruit her as a kind of Aryan princess. To them, she signals, as my colleague Lauren Michele Jackson wrote, a ârejoicing in a perceived return to a bygone beauty standard in the wake of all that overzealous feminism they blame on the left.â
People love Sweeney because she represents anti-woke beauty, or to put it more simply, beauty. Unapologetic beauty. Sweeney is classically pretty and clearly unashamed to show it. And that, sadly, is refreshing. Not because of overzealous feminism alone, but because of overzealous feminism and blacktivism. Itâs the same reason people went gaga for Top Gun: Maverick or The Super Mario Bros Movie. Not because they were propped up by admirers of Aryanism, but merely because they were refreshingly free of what @TheCriticalDri2 calls The Message. Sweeney is not a trans beauty. Nor a morbidly obese beauty. Her beauty doesnât depend on you being politically progressive in order to appreciate it. Sheâs just pretty. And, yes, white. And more than that, pretty in a kind of 1950s classic white American way. Not in a racist sense, but in the sense that there was a time when white Americans were not being so put upon for being white, and could rejoice in their own beauty without having to carry an attendant degree of shame. Sweeney doesnât even bother to reject this. Itâs as if she never even heard The Message. Suffice it to say, it has been exhausting to listen to racist woke activists, and increasingly repulsive as their rhetoric has gone from trying to guilt white people to simply dehumanizing them in increasingly disturbing ways. Sweeney bucks all these trends, exuding a kind of uncancellable confidence in her own beauty, but in a way that comes off as wholesome rather than hateful. St. Felix continues:
The American Eagle campaign, its presentation of Americana as a zombie slop of mustangs, denim, and good genes, is lowest-common-denominator stuff. Decoding Sweeneyâs presumed political affiliationâis she liberal or conservative?âdoesnât give this ad more meaning. It is what it is.
In the end, itâs a dull, but not overly offensive essay. Some of the worst pull quotes, taken out of context, are bad. But not so bad that I would not want to read more of her work or, if I saw her at a cocktail party, walk over and say hello. I would never read this essay alone and conclude that the author is a bad person, and certainly not that they are racist. I would probably just think to myself that theyâre woke. But what has ruined St. Felix in the estimation of many this week is not the essay, which apparently no one read but me. Instead, itâs the fact that, after it came out, the internet did what the internet does, and all her old Twitter posts were unearthed. And damn, itâs not good. Hereâs Ariel Wilber at The New York Post listing some of St. Felixâs greatest hits:
âYou all are the worst. Go nurse your fâking Oedipal complexes and leave the earth to the browns and the women.â
âI hate white men.â
She said she âwrites like no white is watching.â
She said she âwould be heartbroken if I had kids with a white guy.â
She said white peopleâs poor hygiene âliterally started the bubonic plague, lice, syphilis.â
She said âwe lived in perfect harmony w/ the earth pre whitenessâ and blamed environmental destruction on âwhite capitalism.â
And:
And:
Wow okay, so it turns out sheâs about as racist as Robert Mugabe. But look, St. Felix is, at the end of the day, just another black racist writer enjoying a role that is far more prestigious than her âinsightsâ would seem to warrant. More importantly, we know thereâs no way that someone with views like hers would ever get, or keep, a job at The New Yorker if they arenât âdiverse.â Just imagine a white writer, and letâs imagine one of far greater talents and intellect, saying even one of the things she said above, but saying it about black people. Theyâd be fired in an instant. In other words, St. Felix is what we would nowadays call a DEI writer â someone who, given everything we know about them, would never be able to enjoy the level of success they now do if they did not check that box. And no, I am not saying that she should be fired. She's doing what the magazine hired her to do. But I am saying that racists like her are a dime a dozen now, and that black privilege is quite obviously a real phenomenon. Black writers of this persuasion write racists posts like the ones above because they know that, among their woke base, it sells. They may rage when they see Trump throw politically incorrect meat to this MAGA base, but they do the exact same thing on their side. And while I do get the feeling from her social media posts that sheâs genuinely and profoundly racist at heart, for many others who say things like this, itâs merely a cynical provocation for clicks. But this kind of hateful behavior only drives us apart.
Black writers talking trash about white people at every available opportunity is not doing black or white people any service. What we should be aiming for, in my view, is greater appreciation of both white and black beauty. People like St. Felix could be doing the work of cultivating a love for white beauty in the black community, or if she prefers, black beauty in the white community. Lord in the morning, we know both sides could stand to appreciate the beauty of the other far more than they currently do, especially given the current state of our politics. Instead, something has happened to leftist black Americans, similar to what has happened to Palestinians and leftist South Koreans. Namely, they have become so clouded by bitterness that it has become their identity and distorts their reality. Call it VDS, or Victimhood Derangement Syndrome. The sad thing is, when you read St. Felix, despite her poorly constructed queering and the soft racism that gets past her editors, there really is a good writer there. I have this complaint of Ta-Nehisi Coates too, who mightâve been a great writer if his politics had not blunted the force of his prose. And she too could be using her impressive talents to better address racism, or sing black praise, or prove through prose the undeniable beauty of black achievement in this country and, yes, the undeniable beauty of black people, black bodies, black skin. The unapologetic black beauty of someone like BeyoncĂ©, or unapologetic white beauty of someone like Sweeney, does more in this regard than any essay by St. Felix. Meanwhile, all those writers, cynically peddling racist garbage, are following an avenue that would not be open to them in the first place if not for things like the banal provocation of Doreen St. Felixâs racism.
For more, visit The Radicalist: https://t.co/w0nGvuIZ1a](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GyjYoSWWcAIDnH2.jpg)
![davidvolodzko's tweet photo. The banal provocation of Doreen St. Felix's racism
On August 2, New Yorker staff writer Doreen St. Felix wrote an essay, âThe Banal Provocation of Sydney Sweeneyâs Jeans,â criticizing Sweeneyâs recent American Eagle jeans campaign, in which Sweeney wears classic denim and talks about her âgreat jeans.â You can tell many of the folks criticizing the essay never bothered to read it because one of the main attacks is that liberals are hypocrites who had nothing to say when BeyoncĂ© did her denim ads. Except thatâs literally how St. Felix begins:
Two American blondes have recently hawked denim. BeyoncĂ©, an ambassador for Leviâs, dressed in outlaw drag, arrives at a semi-deserted laundromat [âŠ] but what sheâs selling in the commercial is not Leviâs [âŠ] her project, in this âCowboy Carterâ era, has been to cast herself as the real patriot, a protector of this countryâs traditions from the fraudulent claims of white supremacists [âŠ] she is burnishing a heritage brand in her Black-queen image. Americana can be hers, too.
That brings us to [âŠ] Sydney Sweeney, who recently became the face of American Eagle. What is this campaign selling? [âŠ] No doubt the minds behind the Sweeney campaign wanted to stir memories of Brooke Shields, declaring to Richard Avedonâs camera, in 1980: âYou wanna know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing.â [âŠ] The element of perversion, the artistic touch, in that Calvin Klein ad was Shieldsâs age, which was fifteen. Sweeney is twenty-seven. No great artist directed these commercials. The allusion is incoherent, unless, of course, we root around for other meanings, and we donât have to search for long: genes, referring to Sweeneyâs famously large breasts; genes, referring to her whiteness [âŠ] Interestingly, breasts, and the desire for them, are stereotyped as objects of white desire, as opposed to, say, the Black manâs hunger for ass.
This is the kind of undergraduate seminar hermeneutics one is meant to shed by sophomore year, the logic of queering, a method that insists every text encodes its own subversion, if only one teases it out, and which comes from queer theorists like Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick and Judith Butler, who taught queering as a way of reading against the grain to show that what appears normative, be it heterosexuality or whiteness, is actually constructed, performative, and open to subversion. Itâs not that the text actually expresses such things, but whether you can adequately argue that such things are in the text even if they arenât, or even if it expresses the opposite. Butler, unsurprisingly, also famously taught that sex roles are similarly performative and can be subverted, regardless of the facts, or indeed against them, leading the way to the trans movement. One example of queering would be to take Hamlet and argue that instead of a story about family duty and revenge, itâs actually about Hamletâs homoerotic desire to penetrate Horatio. Bonus points if you can tie this into an argument about how Hamletâs gender performance with Ophelia destabilizes masculinity, how âHamletâs delayâ is not a problem of Renaissance psychology but rather the gender performativity of a closeted gay man, or even better, how his cruelty toward Ophelia is not misognyny but the overcompensatory reaction formation of his efforts to pass as ânormalâ when he is, in fact, a trans woman. Itâs all sophistry, of course, but you can certainly see St. Felix playing the game, if poorly.
Applying the gimmick to her own essay and reading St. Felix the way she reads everything else, you might tease out the detail that she calls both Sweeney and BeyoncĂ© âAmerican blondes,â and although both women dye their hair, you simply talk about how blonde hair is white hair, how blonde hair is a symbol of whiteness as much as the afro is of blackness, how thereâs a deliberate racial appropriation by BeyoncĂ©, who not only dons white hair but the stereotypical denim of white western wear. Then you talk about black women and fake hair more generally, the prevalence of black women in weaves and wigs, and maybe even comment on black appropriation of Arabic names such as Jamal, Aaliyah, Rashad, Latifah, and Omar, tying that into the fact that Sweeney goes by her first and last name whereas BeyoncĂ© Giselle Knowles-Carter goes simply by her first name to signal that sheâs a diva like Madonna or Cher, but also, you queeringly conclude, because blackness is inherently thieving in nature. That, roughly speaking, is how itâs done. And if anyone accuses you of racist rhetoric because you referred to blackness as thieving by nature, you simple deploy the motte-and-bailey fallacy and withdraw to claiming that you are only talking about blackness, not black people, which is a refrain that weâve all grown used to hearing whenever anyone pushes back against genocidal talk about âwhiteness.â
Simply put, you extend the symbol or concept far beyond what the text can support, but the creative ability to produce overdetermined deconstructions of this nature is an art form in itself, although even here, St. Felix isnât particularly good at it. The caricature I painted above with Hamlet is already better constructed than what she gives us, and she has New Yorker editors helping her, yet she literally tells the reader, this ainât white people being pedophiles like with Brooke Shields, so why do they like Sydney Sweeney? Because tits and racism. She admits she cannot make sense of the Sweeney ad because it isnât pedophilic, saying, âThe allusion is incoherent, unless, of course, we root around for other meanings.â Youâre not supposed to root around for other meanings, St. Felix. Thatâs what we in the industry call bullshitting. And the bullshit she comes up with is that the ad makes a pun involving the companyâs good jeans and Sweeneyâs good genes, which St. Felix tells us is a reference to âSweeneyâs famously large breasts,â fair enough, and âher whiteness,â where I object. This cascade of semiotic free-associations metastasizes from a pun in a denim ad into a sociology of white existence within several sentences, bearing absolutely none of the shame that a sociologist worth their degree would feel burning their cheeks if they were to base any conclusion on such interpretive strip-mining. Also, can I just say about the phrase âthe Black manâs hunger for ass,â wow. Literally anyone in the world would probably happily agree to have their work published in The New Yorker, yet the best they can curate from the pool of applicants is a filthy little bigot who thinks the Sweeney ad was a hit because of racism and tits? St. Felix adds:
Sweeney, on the precipice of totalizing fame, has an adoring legion, the most extreme of whom want to recruit her as a kind of Aryan princess. To them, she signals, as my colleague Lauren Michele Jackson wrote, a ârejoicing in a perceived return to a bygone beauty standard in the wake of all that overzealous feminism they blame on the left.â
People love Sweeney because she represents anti-woke beauty, or to put it more simply, beauty. Unapologetic beauty. Sweeney is classically pretty and clearly unashamed to show it. And that, sadly, is refreshing. Not because of overzealous feminism alone, but because of overzealous feminism and blacktivism. Itâs the same reason people went gaga for Top Gun: Maverick or The Super Mario Bros Movie. Not because they were propped up by admirers of Aryanism, but merely because they were refreshingly free of what @TheCriticalDri2 calls The Message. Sweeney is not a trans beauty. Nor a morbidly obese beauty. Her beauty doesnât depend on you being politically progressive in order to appreciate it. Sheâs just pretty. And, yes, white. And more than that, pretty in a kind of 1950s classic white American way. Not in a racist sense, but in the sense that there was a time when white Americans were not being so put upon for being white, and could rejoice in their own beauty without having to carry an attendant degree of shame. Sweeney doesnât even bother to reject this. Itâs as if she never even heard The Message. Suffice it to say, it has been exhausting to listen to racist woke activists, and increasingly repulsive as their rhetoric has gone from trying to guilt white people to simply dehumanizing them in increasingly disturbing ways. Sweeney bucks all these trends, exuding a kind of uncancellable confidence in her own beauty, but in a way that comes off as wholesome rather than hateful. St. Felix continues:
The American Eagle campaign, its presentation of Americana as a zombie slop of mustangs, denim, and good genes, is lowest-common-denominator stuff. Decoding Sweeneyâs presumed political affiliationâis she liberal or conservative?âdoesnât give this ad more meaning. It is what it is.
In the end, itâs a dull, but not overly offensive essay. Some of the worst pull quotes, taken out of context, are bad. But not so bad that I would not want to read more of her work or, if I saw her at a cocktail party, walk over and say hello. I would never read this essay alone and conclude that the author is a bad person, and certainly not that they are racist. I would probably just think to myself that theyâre woke. But what has ruined St. Felix in the estimation of many this week is not the essay, which apparently no one read but me. Instead, itâs the fact that, after it came out, the internet did what the internet does, and all her old Twitter posts were unearthed. And damn, itâs not good. Hereâs Ariel Wilber at The New York Post listing some of St. Felixâs greatest hits:
âYou all are the worst. Go nurse your fâking Oedipal complexes and leave the earth to the browns and the women.â
âI hate white men.â
She said she âwrites like no white is watching.â
She said she âwould be heartbroken if I had kids with a white guy.â
She said white peopleâs poor hygiene âliterally started the bubonic plague, lice, syphilis.â
She said âwe lived in perfect harmony w/ the earth pre whitenessâ and blamed environmental destruction on âwhite capitalism.â
And:
And:
Wow okay, so it turns out sheâs about as racist as Robert Mugabe. But look, St. Felix is, at the end of the day, just another black racist writer enjoying a role that is far more prestigious than her âinsightsâ would seem to warrant. More importantly, we know thereâs no way that someone with views like hers would ever get, or keep, a job at The New Yorker if they arenât âdiverse.â Just imagine a white writer, and letâs imagine one of far greater talents and intellect, saying even one of the things she said above, but saying it about black people. Theyâd be fired in an instant. In other words, St. Felix is what we would nowadays call a DEI writer â someone who, given everything we know about them, would never be able to enjoy the level of success they now do if they did not check that box. And no, I am not saying that she should be fired. She's doing what the magazine hired her to do. But I am saying that racists like her are a dime a dozen now, and that black privilege is quite obviously a real phenomenon. Black writers of this persuasion write racists posts like the ones above because they know that, among their woke base, it sells. They may rage when they see Trump throw politically incorrect meat to this MAGA base, but they do the exact same thing on their side. And while I do get the feeling from her social media posts that sheâs genuinely and profoundly racist at heart, for many others who say things like this, itâs merely a cynical provocation for clicks. But this kind of hateful behavior only drives us apart.
Black writers talking trash about white people at every available opportunity is not doing black or white people any service. What we should be aiming for, in my view, is greater appreciation of both white and black beauty. People like St. Felix could be doing the work of cultivating a love for white beauty in the black community, or if she prefers, black beauty in the white community. Lord in the morning, we know both sides could stand to appreciate the beauty of the other far more than they currently do, especially given the current state of our politics. Instead, something has happened to leftist black Americans, similar to what has happened to Palestinians and leftist South Koreans. Namely, they have become so clouded by bitterness that it has become their identity and distorts their reality. Call it VDS, or Victimhood Derangement Syndrome. The sad thing is, when you read St. Felix, despite her poorly constructed queering and the soft racism that gets past her editors, there really is a good writer there. I have this complaint of Ta-Nehisi Coates too, who mightâve been a great writer if his politics had not blunted the force of his prose. And she too could be using her impressive talents to better address racism, or sing black praise, or prove through prose the undeniable beauty of black achievement in this country and, yes, the undeniable beauty of black people, black bodies, black skin. The unapologetic black beauty of someone like BeyoncĂ©, or unapologetic white beauty of someone like Sweeney, does more in this regard than any essay by St. Felix. Meanwhile, all those writers, cynically peddling racist garbage, are following an avenue that would not be open to them in the first place if not for things like the banal provocation of Doreen St. Felixâs racism.
For more, visit The Radicalist: https://t.co/w0nGvuIZ1a](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GyhClYHXoAAJ9TQ.jpg)
Olivia
Online
overđȘtheđȘrainbow
@flyhurter
homosexual male ⣠indigenous Mesopotamian â±
Joined July 2018
42 Following
142 Followers
4.4K Posts
The banal provocation of Doreen St. Felix's racism
On August 2, New Yorker staff writer Doreen St. Felix wrote an essay, âThe Banal Provocation of Sydney Sweeneyâs Jeans,â criticizing Sweeneyâs recent American Eagle jeans campaign, in which Sweeney wears classic denim and talks about her âgreat jeans.â You can tell many of the folks criticizing the essay never bothered to read it because one of the main attacks is that liberals are hypocrites who had nothing to say when BeyoncĂ© did her denim ads. Except thatâs literally how St. Felix begins:
Two American blondes have recently hawked denim. BeyoncĂ©, an ambassador for Leviâs, dressed in outlaw drag, arrives at a semi-deserted laundromat [âŠ] but what sheâs selling in the commercial is not Leviâs [âŠ] her project, in this âCowboy Carterâ era, has been to cast herself as the real patriot, a protector of this countryâs traditions from the fraudulent claims of white supremacists [âŠ] she is burnishing a heritage brand in her Black-queen image. Americana can be hers, too.
That brings us to [âŠ] Sydney Sweeney, who recently became the face of American Eagle. What is this campaign selling? [âŠ] No doubt the minds behind the Sweeney campaign wanted to stir memories of Brooke Shields, declaring to Richard Avedonâs camera, in 1980: âYou wanna know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing.â [âŠ] The element of perversion, the artistic touch, in that Calvin Klein ad was Shieldsâs age, which was fifteen. Sweeney is twenty-seven. No great artist directed these commercials. The allusion is incoherent, unless, of course, we root around for other meanings, and we donât have to search for long: genes, referring to Sweeneyâs famously large breasts; genes, referring to her whiteness [âŠ] Interestingly, breasts, and the desire for them, are stereotyped as objects of white desire, as opposed to, say, the Black manâs hunger for ass.
This is the kind of undergraduate seminar hermeneutics one is meant to shed by sophomore year, the logic of queering, a method that insists every text encodes its own subversion, if only one teases it out, and which comes from queer theorists like Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick and Judith Butler, who taught queering as a way of reading against the grain to show that what appears normative, be it heterosexuality or whiteness, is actually constructed, performative, and open to subversion. Itâs not that the text actually expresses such things, but whether you can adequately argue that such things are in the text even if they arenât, or even if it expresses the opposite. Butler, unsurprisingly, also famously taught that sex roles are similarly performative and can be subverted, regardless of the facts, or indeed against them, leading the way to the trans movement. One example of queering would be to take Hamlet and argue that instead of a story about family duty and revenge, itâs actually about Hamletâs homoerotic desire to penetrate Horatio. Bonus points if you can tie this into an argument about how Hamletâs gender performance with Ophelia destabilizes masculinity, how âHamletâs delayâ is not a problem of Renaissance psychology but rather the gender performativity of a closeted gay man, or even better, how his cruelty toward Ophelia is not misognyny but the overcompensatory reaction formation of his efforts to pass as ânormalâ when he is, in fact, a trans woman. Itâs all sophistry, of course, but you can certainly see St. Felix playing the game, if poorly.
Applying the gimmick to her own essay and reading St. Felix the way she reads everything else, you might tease out the detail that she calls both Sweeney and BeyoncĂ© âAmerican blondes,â and although both women dye their hair, you simply talk about how blonde hair is white hair, how blonde hair is a symbol of whiteness as much as the afro is of blackness, how thereâs a deliberate racial appropriation by BeyoncĂ©, who not only dons white hair but the stereotypical denim of white western wear. Then you talk about black women and fake hair more generally, the prevalence of black women in weaves and wigs, and maybe even comment on black appropriation of Arabic names such as Jamal, Aaliyah, Rashad, Latifah, and Omar, tying that into the fact that Sweeney goes by her first and last name whereas BeyoncĂ© Giselle Knowles-Carter goes simply by her first name to signal that sheâs a diva like Madonna or Cher, but also, you queeringly conclude, because blackness is inherently thieving in nature. That, roughly speaking, is how itâs done. And if anyone accuses you of racist rhetoric because you referred to blackness as thieving by nature, you simple deploy the motte-and-bailey fallacy and withdraw to claiming that you are only talking about blackness, not black people, which is a refrain that weâve all grown used to hearing whenever anyone pushes back against genocidal talk about âwhiteness.â
Simply put, you extend the symbol or concept far beyond what the text can support, but the creative ability to produce overdetermined deconstructions of this nature is an art form in itself, although even here, St. Felix isnât particularly good at it. The caricature I painted above with Hamlet is already better constructed than what she gives us, and she has New Yorker editors helping her, yet she literally tells the reader, this ainât white people being pedophiles like with Brooke Shields, so why do they like Sydney Sweeney? Because tits and racism. She admits she cannot make sense of the Sweeney ad because it isnât pedophilic, saying, âThe allusion is incoherent, unless, of course, we root around for other meanings.â Youâre not supposed to root around for other meanings, St. Felix. Thatâs what we in the industry call bullshitting. And the bullshit she comes up with is that the ad makes a pun involving the companyâs good jeans and Sweeneyâs good genes, which St. Felix tells us is a reference to âSweeneyâs famously large breasts,â fair enough, and âher whiteness,â where I object. This cascade of semiotic free-associations metastasizes from a pun in a denim ad into a sociology of white existence within several sentences, bearing absolutely none of the shame that a sociologist worth their degree would feel burning their cheeks if they were to base any conclusion on such interpretive strip-mining. Also, can I just say about the phrase âthe Black manâs hunger for ass,â wow. Literally anyone in the world would probably happily agree to have their work published in The New Yorker, yet the best they can curate from the pool of applicants is a filthy little bigot who thinks the Sweeney ad was a hit because of racism and tits? St. Felix adds:
Sweeney, on the precipice of totalizing fame, has an adoring legion, the most extreme of whom want to recruit her as a kind of Aryan princess. To them, she signals, as my colleague Lauren Michele Jackson wrote, a ârejoicing in a perceived return to a bygone beauty standard in the wake of all that overzealous feminism they blame on the left.â
People love Sweeney because she represents anti-woke beauty, or to put it more simply, beauty. Unapologetic beauty. Sweeney is classically pretty and clearly unashamed to show it. And that, sadly, is refreshing. Not because of overzealous feminism alone, but because of overzealous feminism and blacktivism. Itâs the same reason people went gaga for Top Gun: Maverick or The Super Mario Bros Movie. Not because they were propped up by admirers of Aryanism, but merely because they were refreshingly free of what @TheCriticalDri2 calls The Message. Sweeney is not a trans beauty. Nor a morbidly obese beauty. Her beauty doesnât depend on you being politically progressive in order to appreciate it. Sheâs just pretty. And, yes, white. And more than that, pretty in a kind of 1950s classic white American way. Not in a racist sense, but in the sense that there was a time when white Americans were not being so put upon for being white, and could rejoice in their own beauty without having to carry an attendant degree of shame. Sweeney doesnât even bother to reject this. Itâs as if she never even heard The Message. Suffice it to say, it has been exhausting to listen to racist woke activists, and increasingly repulsive as their rhetoric has gone from trying to guilt white people to simply dehumanizing them in increasingly disturbing ways. Sweeney bucks all these trends, exuding a kind of uncancellable confidence in her own beauty, but in a way that comes off as wholesome rather than hateful. St. Felix continues:
The American Eagle campaign, its presentation of Americana as a zombie slop of mustangs, denim, and good genes, is lowest-common-denominator stuff. Decoding Sweeneyâs presumed political affiliationâis she liberal or conservative?âdoesnât give this ad more meaning. It is what it is.
In the end, itâs a dull, but not overly offensive essay. Some of the worst pull quotes, taken out of context, are bad. But not so bad that I would not want to read more of her work or, if I saw her at a cocktail party, walk over and say hello. I would never read this essay alone and conclude that the author is a bad person, and certainly not that they are racist. I would probably just think to myself that theyâre woke. But what has ruined St. Felix in the estimation of many this week is not the essay, which apparently no one read but me. Instead, itâs the fact that, after it came out, the internet did what the internet does, and all her old Twitter posts were unearthed. And damn, itâs not good. Hereâs Ariel Wilber at The New York Post listing some of St. Felixâs greatest hits:
âYou all are the worst. Go nurse your fâking Oedipal complexes and leave the earth to the browns and the women.â
âI hate white men.â
She said she âwrites like no white is watching.â
She said she âwould be heartbroken if I had kids with a white guy.â
She said white peopleâs poor hygiene âliterally started the bubonic plague, lice, syphilis.â
She said âwe lived in perfect harmony w/ the earth pre whitenessâ and blamed environmental destruction on âwhite capitalism.â
And:
And:
Wow okay, so it turns out sheâs about as racist as Robert Mugabe. But look, St. Felix is, at the end of the day, just another black racist writer enjoying a role that is far more prestigious than her âinsightsâ would seem to warrant. More importantly, we know thereâs no way that someone with views like hers would ever get, or keep, a job at The New Yorker if they arenât âdiverse.â Just imagine a white writer, and letâs imagine one of far greater talents and intellect, saying even one of the things she said above, but saying it about black people. Theyâd be fired in an instant. In other words, St. Felix is what we would nowadays call a DEI writer â someone who, given everything we know about them, would never be able to enjoy the level of success they now do if they did not check that box. And no, I am not saying that she should be fired. She's doing what the magazine hired her to do. But I am saying that racists like her are a dime a dozen now, and that black privilege is quite obviously a real phenomenon. Black writers of this persuasion write racists posts like the ones above because they know that, among their woke base, it sells. They may rage when they see Trump throw politically incorrect meat to this MAGA base, but they do the exact same thing on their side. And while I do get the feeling from her social media posts that sheâs genuinely and profoundly racist at heart, for many others who say things like this, itâs merely a cynical provocation for clicks. But this kind of hateful behavior only drives us apart.
Black writers talking trash about white people at every available opportunity is not doing black or white people any service. What we should be aiming for, in my view, is greater appreciation of both white and black beauty. People like St. Felix could be doing the work of cultivating a love for white beauty in the black community, or if she prefers, black beauty in the white community. Lord in the morning, we know both sides could stand to appreciate the beauty of the other far more than they currently do, especially given the current state of our politics. Instead, something has happened to leftist black Americans, similar to what has happened to Palestinians and leftist South Koreans. Namely, they have become so clouded by bitterness that it has become their identity and distorts their reality. Call it VDS, or Victimhood Derangement Syndrome. The sad thing is, when you read St. Felix, despite her poorly constructed queering and the soft racism that gets past her editors, there really is a good writer there. I have this complaint of Ta-Nehisi Coates too, who mightâve been a great writer if his politics had not blunted the force of his prose. And she too could be using her impressive talents to better address racism, or sing black praise, or prove through prose the undeniable beauty of black achievement in this country and, yes, the undeniable beauty of black people, black bodies, black skin. The unapologetic black beauty of someone like BeyoncĂ©, or unapologetic white beauty of someone like Sweeney, does more in this regard than any essay by St. Felix. Meanwhile, all those writers, cynically peddling racist garbage, are following an avenue that would not be open to them in the first place if not for things like the banal provocation of Doreen St. Felixâs racism.
For more, visit The Radicalist: https://t.co/w0nGvuIZ1a
![davidvolodzko's tweet photo. The banal provocation of Doreen St. Felix's racism
On August 2, New Yorker staff writer Doreen St. Felix wrote an essay, âThe Banal Provocation of Sydney Sweeneyâs Jeans,â criticizing Sweeneyâs recent American Eagle jeans campaign, in which Sweeney wears classic denim and talks about her âgreat jeans.â You can tell many of the folks criticizing the essay never bothered to read it because one of the main attacks is that liberals are hypocrites who had nothing to say when BeyoncĂ© did her denim ads. Except thatâs literally how St. Felix begins:
Two American blondes have recently hawked denim. BeyoncĂ©, an ambassador for Leviâs, dressed in outlaw drag, arrives at a semi-deserted laundromat [âŠ] but what sheâs selling in the commercial is not Leviâs [âŠ] her project, in this âCowboy Carterâ era, has been to cast herself as the real patriot, a protector of this countryâs traditions from the fraudulent claims of white supremacists [âŠ] she is burnishing a heritage brand in her Black-queen image. Americana can be hers, too.
That brings us to [âŠ] Sydney Sweeney, who recently became the face of American Eagle. What is this campaign selling? [âŠ] No doubt the minds behind the Sweeney campaign wanted to stir memories of Brooke Shields, declaring to Richard Avedonâs camera, in 1980: âYou wanna know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing.â [âŠ] The element of perversion, the artistic touch, in that Calvin Klein ad was Shieldsâs age, which was fifteen. Sweeney is twenty-seven. No great artist directed these commercials. The allusion is incoherent, unless, of course, we root around for other meanings, and we donât have to search for long: genes, referring to Sweeneyâs famously large breasts; genes, referring to her whiteness [âŠ] Interestingly, breasts, and the desire for them, are stereotyped as objects of white desire, as opposed to, say, the Black manâs hunger for ass.
This is the kind of undergraduate seminar hermeneutics one is meant to shed by sophomore year, the logic of queering, a method that insists every text encodes its own subversion, if only one teases it out, and which comes from queer theorists like Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick and Judith Butler, who taught queering as a way of reading against the grain to show that what appears normative, be it heterosexuality or whiteness, is actually constructed, performative, and open to subversion. Itâs not that the text actually expresses such things, but whether you can adequately argue that such things are in the text even if they arenât, or even if it expresses the opposite. Butler, unsurprisingly, also famously taught that sex roles are similarly performative and can be subverted, regardless of the facts, or indeed against them, leading the way to the trans movement. One example of queering would be to take Hamlet and argue that instead of a story about family duty and revenge, itâs actually about Hamletâs homoerotic desire to penetrate Horatio. Bonus points if you can tie this into an argument about how Hamletâs gender performance with Ophelia destabilizes masculinity, how âHamletâs delayâ is not a problem of Renaissance psychology but rather the gender performativity of a closeted gay man, or even better, how his cruelty toward Ophelia is not misognyny but the overcompensatory reaction formation of his efforts to pass as ânormalâ when he is, in fact, a trans woman. Itâs all sophistry, of course, but you can certainly see St. Felix playing the game, if poorly.
Applying the gimmick to her own essay and reading St. Felix the way she reads everything else, you might tease out the detail that she calls both Sweeney and BeyoncĂ© âAmerican blondes,â and although both women dye their hair, you simply talk about how blonde hair is white hair, how blonde hair is a symbol of whiteness as much as the afro is of blackness, how thereâs a deliberate racial appropriation by BeyoncĂ©, who not only dons white hair but the stereotypical denim of white western wear. Then you talk about black women and fake hair more generally, the prevalence of black women in weaves and wigs, and maybe even comment on black appropriation of Arabic names such as Jamal, Aaliyah, Rashad, Latifah, and Omar, tying that into the fact that Sweeney goes by her first and last name whereas BeyoncĂ© Giselle Knowles-Carter goes simply by her first name to signal that sheâs a diva like Madonna or Cher, but also, you queeringly conclude, because blackness is inherently thieving in nature. That, roughly speaking, is how itâs done. And if anyone accuses you of racist rhetoric because you referred to blackness as thieving by nature, you simple deploy the motte-and-bailey fallacy and withdraw to claiming that you are only talking about blackness, not black people, which is a refrain that weâve all grown used to hearing whenever anyone pushes back against genocidal talk about âwhiteness.â
Simply put, you extend the symbol or concept far beyond what the text can support, but the creative ability to produce overdetermined deconstructions of this nature is an art form in itself, although even here, St. Felix isnât particularly good at it. The caricature I painted above with Hamlet is already better constructed than what she gives us, and she has New Yorker editors helping her, yet she literally tells the reader, this ainât white people being pedophiles like with Brooke Shields, so why do they like Sydney Sweeney? Because tits and racism. She admits she cannot make sense of the Sweeney ad because it isnât pedophilic, saying, âThe allusion is incoherent, unless, of course, we root around for other meanings.â Youâre not supposed to root around for other meanings, St. Felix. Thatâs what we in the industry call bullshitting. And the bullshit she comes up with is that the ad makes a pun involving the companyâs good jeans and Sweeneyâs good genes, which St. Felix tells us is a reference to âSweeneyâs famously large breasts,â fair enough, and âher whiteness,â where I object. This cascade of semiotic free-associations metastasizes from a pun in a denim ad into a sociology of white existence within several sentences, bearing absolutely none of the shame that a sociologist worth their degree would feel burning their cheeks if they were to base any conclusion on such interpretive strip-mining. Also, can I just say about the phrase âthe Black manâs hunger for ass,â wow. Literally anyone in the world would probably happily agree to have their work published in The New Yorker, yet the best they can curate from the pool of applicants is a filthy little bigot who thinks the Sweeney ad was a hit because of racism and tits? St. Felix adds:
Sweeney, on the precipice of totalizing fame, has an adoring legion, the most extreme of whom want to recruit her as a kind of Aryan princess. To them, she signals, as my colleague Lauren Michele Jackson wrote, a ârejoicing in a perceived return to a bygone beauty standard in the wake of all that overzealous feminism they blame on the left.â
People love Sweeney because she represents anti-woke beauty, or to put it more simply, beauty. Unapologetic beauty. Sweeney is classically pretty and clearly unashamed to show it. And that, sadly, is refreshing. Not because of overzealous feminism alone, but because of overzealous feminism and blacktivism. Itâs the same reason people went gaga for Top Gun: Maverick or The Super Mario Bros Movie. Not because they were propped up by admirers of Aryanism, but merely because they were refreshingly free of what @TheCriticalDri2 calls The Message. Sweeney is not a trans beauty. Nor a morbidly obese beauty. Her beauty doesnât depend on you being politically progressive in order to appreciate it. Sheâs just pretty. And, yes, white. And more than that, pretty in a kind of 1950s classic white American way. Not in a racist sense, but in the sense that there was a time when white Americans were not being so put upon for being white, and could rejoice in their own beauty without having to carry an attendant degree of shame. Sweeney doesnât even bother to reject this. Itâs as if she never even heard The Message. Suffice it to say, it has been exhausting to listen to racist woke activists, and increasingly repulsive as their rhetoric has gone from trying to guilt white people to simply dehumanizing them in increasingly disturbing ways. Sweeney bucks all these trends, exuding a kind of uncancellable confidence in her own beauty, but in a way that comes off as wholesome rather than hateful. St. Felix continues:
The American Eagle campaign, its presentation of Americana as a zombie slop of mustangs, denim, and good genes, is lowest-common-denominator stuff. Decoding Sweeneyâs presumed political affiliationâis she liberal or conservative?âdoesnât give this ad more meaning. It is what it is.
In the end, itâs a dull, but not overly offensive essay. Some of the worst pull quotes, taken out of context, are bad. But not so bad that I would not want to read more of her work or, if I saw her at a cocktail party, walk over and say hello. I would never read this essay alone and conclude that the author is a bad person, and certainly not that they are racist. I would probably just think to myself that theyâre woke. But what has ruined St. Felix in the estimation of many this week is not the essay, which apparently no one read but me. Instead, itâs the fact that, after it came out, the internet did what the internet does, and all her old Twitter posts were unearthed. And damn, itâs not good. Hereâs Ariel Wilber at The New York Post listing some of St. Felixâs greatest hits:
âYou all are the worst. Go nurse your fâking Oedipal complexes and leave the earth to the browns and the women.â
âI hate white men.â
She said she âwrites like no white is watching.â
She said she âwould be heartbroken if I had kids with a white guy.â
She said white peopleâs poor hygiene âliterally started the bubonic plague, lice, syphilis.â
She said âwe lived in perfect harmony w/ the earth pre whitenessâ and blamed environmental destruction on âwhite capitalism.â
And:
And:
Wow okay, so it turns out sheâs about as racist as Robert Mugabe. But look, St. Felix is, at the end of the day, just another black racist writer enjoying a role that is far more prestigious than her âinsightsâ would seem to warrant. More importantly, we know thereâs no way that someone with views like hers would ever get, or keep, a job at The New Yorker if they arenât âdiverse.â Just imagine a white writer, and letâs imagine one of far greater talents and intellect, saying even one of the things she said above, but saying it about black people. Theyâd be fired in an instant. In other words, St. Felix is what we would nowadays call a DEI writer â someone who, given everything we know about them, would never be able to enjoy the level of success they now do if they did not check that box. And no, I am not saying that she should be fired. She's doing what the magazine hired her to do. But I am saying that racists like her are a dime a dozen now, and that black privilege is quite obviously a real phenomenon. Black writers of this persuasion write racists posts like the ones above because they know that, among their woke base, it sells. They may rage when they see Trump throw politically incorrect meat to this MAGA base, but they do the exact same thing on their side. And while I do get the feeling from her social media posts that sheâs genuinely and profoundly racist at heart, for many others who say things like this, itâs merely a cynical provocation for clicks. But this kind of hateful behavior only drives us apart.
Black writers talking trash about white people at every available opportunity is not doing black or white people any service. What we should be aiming for, in my view, is greater appreciation of both white and black beauty. People like St. Felix could be doing the work of cultivating a love for white beauty in the black community, or if she prefers, black beauty in the white community. Lord in the morning, we know both sides could stand to appreciate the beauty of the other far more than they currently do, especially given the current state of our politics. Instead, something has happened to leftist black Americans, similar to what has happened to Palestinians and leftist South Koreans. Namely, they have become so clouded by bitterness that it has become their identity and distorts their reality. Call it VDS, or Victimhood Derangement Syndrome. The sad thing is, when you read St. Felix, despite her poorly constructed queering and the soft racism that gets past her editors, there really is a good writer there. I have this complaint of Ta-Nehisi Coates too, who mightâve been a great writer if his politics had not blunted the force of his prose. And she too could be using her impressive talents to better address racism, or sing black praise, or prove through prose the undeniable beauty of black achievement in this country and, yes, the undeniable beauty of black people, black bodies, black skin. The unapologetic black beauty of someone like BeyoncĂ©, or unapologetic white beauty of someone like Sweeney, does more in this regard than any essay by St. Felix. Meanwhile, all those writers, cynically peddling racist garbage, are following an avenue that would not be open to them in the first place if not for things like the banal provocation of Doreen St. Felixâs racism.
For more, visit The Radicalist: https://t.co/w0nGvuIZ1a](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GyjYw4gXwAAdbzU.jpg)
@nickgillespie @Kaleidicworld @reason @mercatus @PeterBoettke (Heâd object to being labeled âgayâ BTW.)
@nickgillespie @Kaleidicworld @reason @mercatus @PeterBoettke Itâs only fitting that one of his âsocial constructsâ killed him, though it would have been better for countless gay men had he died earlier. I wonât even get into his self-evidentlyâand unfortunately no less influentialâargument about sexual orientation.
Who to follow
Chris Radcliffe
@chris_not_a_man
I wonât collude in a lie. No-one is born in the wrong body. There are only two sexes. Men can never be womenâŠ.. ever.
Hamish đłđżđČđŽ 
@GayDespiteThem
New Zealander/Kiwi | #GayNotQueer
Matthew 'Call Me Swishmale' Greenfield
@MatthewGreenf11
Homosexual. Reads and has a long memory. "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit"
@Kaleidicworld @SincDavidson Yeah, people are like little kids: theyâd skip school to play with their toys if they had their druthers. But Mommy Mariana knows better. Sheâd tell Daddy Government how to set them straight!
@CydZeigler Heâs gay, not âLGBTQ.â In fact, no one is âLGBTQ.â
This article by @benappel is brilliant and 100% accurate. Gender ideology is homophobic at its core, and transing the gay away is the new conversation therapy. We say it all the time.
https://t.co/YpDx0a4v5r
@OfTheFutureArt @LabelFreeBrands Highly relevant: https://t.co/1ArRcqfr42
I had to look at some of my old papers today, and I came across these paragraphs on the relation between autogynephilia and gender dysphoria. I thought they were worth tweeting. The source is this: https://t.co/xxGvLUSNHj
Non-lesbian Gizmodo staffer @SabinaHasNoR refers to Velmaâs âqueer gloryâ in a January 11 post about the new animated shitshow.
Queer Theory in action.
Will he stop at polygamy? If the youth of his paramour (about the same age as his son IIRC) is any indication, I doubt it; heâs the slippery slope personified.
When @fakedansavage fought for gay marriage, I had assumed that he believed the institution would help normalize homosexuality, not the stereotypical destructive sexual behaviors for which we had beenâin most places still areâpersecuted.
âA relationship is the only thing that we regard as a failure if everyone involved gets out alive,â @fakedansavage tells @EzraKlein on todayâs episode. https://t.co/prw0D5Itr3
Incidentally, in the second quote, the author reveals that a therapist is partly responsible for her transgender identity. Iâm guessing the therapist also helped her invent her unconvincing backstory.
âQueerâ and âqueernessâ in @nytopinion piece by a female who self-identifies as a bisexual man and competes on @YaleSwimDive menâs team.
âLiving in authenticity makes me a stronger, better man. âBeing trans is one of the least interesting things about me,â writes Iszac Henig, a varsity swimmer and senior at Yale University. https://t.co/BapQornVE5
Either way, the message to the general public is the same: homosexuality and transgenderism are politically indistinguishable. Gays are responsible for changing the English language, forcing women to compete against full grown men, and mutilating your childrenâs bodies.
In an @AP article about the record number of âdiverseâ judges nominated by the Biden Administration, @seungminkim and @ctlong describe Charlotte Sweeney as an âLGBT woman.â
Whether AP journalists, Wikipedia editors and the media class in general are uncritically parroting Big LGBT(Q) or serving as their willing foot soldiers is tough to say given the new Social Justice imperative of once liberal institutions.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
aleynađ„
Seen from Turkey
Ú«Ù ŰšÛ ŰšÛ Ú©ÙÙÚÙ
Seen from Germany
Pengagum nenek
Seen from Indonesia
look
Seen from Thailand
dildol123905
Seen from Indonesia
lexy.karma
Seen from France
Indo bokep 18+
Seen from Indonesia
ŰŽÙÙ
Seen from Jordan
lazypiggyXXX
Seen from United States
ïŒĄïŒ„ïŒČïŒŻïŒź
Seen from Vietnam
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
240.7M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.7M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
110.9M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
87.8M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
81.7M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73.2M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
70.2M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
64M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
63M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
60.9M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers