It might seem like a silly question, as we already known that “going viral” is largely a planned and calculated event, designed by firms to generate followers and purchases. That’s old news. The real query relates to whether these “outrage activist” movements are not aligned with the same interests.
Think about it for a second: at the beginning of December, Peloton’s cute holiday mom ad began to generate substantial controversy for its depiction of a woman working out.
Fat activists were furious at the misogyny and sexism, because the husband is not shown working out, and his wife already happens to be slim. Those who thought the fury was silly probably pointed out that exercising is not just about losing weight, but also remaining healthy.
Now, I will not pretend the Denny’s Division was not at some level legitimate; after all, we are well aware of the Trigglypuff saga.
But what was the broader objective? Let’s take a look at Peloton’s stock price right before this controversy blew up around December 2nd:
And now December 5th:
As you can see, Peloton suffers a nearly six-dollar drop over the course of a few days, the perfect opportunity for someone SHORTING the stock. In the event they chose to wait a bit longer, Peloton actually hit $27.00 per share on December 26th.
So, is Wall Street paying for SJW campaigns in order to rig speculative bets on stocks?
I’d lean yes, but no one is really paying attention.
I’m kind of curious where “outrage” originates. Not the general term, but our modern manifestation of it on the internet dot com, where only a sliver of a tweet can send thousands into heroic action, ready to destroy evil.
When I saw this commercial for the first time, the main thing I noticed was the woman’s personality: award and anxious, but with a determined spirit. She wants to keep up with her workouts throughout the new year.
I barely noticed the husband’s character, which seemed to exist only as a stepping stone for the narrative: she’s a busy mom, but she wants to stay fit and healthy. Hence the “selfie discipline” videos she takes throughout that journey. A criminal matter? Hardly.
But this is today, and we have surface level activists in tow. The ad is apparently promoting sexism, because the husband wants her to lose weight. As if that’s a bad thing.
Sure, she’s already slim and attractive, but gymcel life is not only about losing flab – it also concerns keeping yourself healthy – and cardio certainly won’t hurt. Most of us could use more exercise, regardless of gender.
While I am hesitant to assume, my natural conclusion is that the shrieking rage-casters probably look something like this:
Is that a horrendous strawman? The answer is clearly No. More like a Hostess-fed Cake Beef.
Folks, if you find yourself talking to a man or woman angry about this treadmill ad, look at their waistline. The proof is in the Chaps belt.