You probably saw on Monday that M&Ms announced a big shift in their advertising strategy:
A message from M&M'S. pic.twitter.com/EMucEBTd9o
— M&M'S (@mmschocolate) January 23, 2023
In case you’re not familiar with how M&Ms are polarizing, I’ll let Tucker Carlson fill you in:
Tucker: Mars made their m&m characters as unattractive as possible.. The green m&m lost her sexy boots, the brown m&m her stiletto heels.. The company added obese and distinctly frumpy lesbian M&M’s.. pic.twitter.com/qIiAXtwCMQ
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 24, 2023
and
The most powerful figure in right-wing news on anthropomorphic chocolate in a candy shell: "Mars set about making its M&M characters as unattractive as possible because when you're intentionally repulsive, it's clear you've got the right politics." pic.twitter.com/U2BT4tiz0u
— Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) January 24, 2023
I was really struck by his saying “intentionally repulsive”. Evidently not only did Tucker find the earlier version of Ms. Green attractive, but he took the redesign of her character into a form he could no longer jerk off to as a personal insult from her. Wingers are weird, man.
Most of the rest of the world reacted with a shrug, and maybe some disappointment that M&Ms would cave to right wing nonsense. Mainstream media took the news at face value and published it. I have 2 questions about it: (1) why did the whole redesign of the female M&Ms bother him so much, and (2) why did M&Ms do this?
First, the redesign of the female characters was a response to the concerns and requests of actual women who asked that the female M&Ms be less stereotypical and insulting. But American women are supposed to beaten down and demoralized now that Roe has been overturned and they’re not supposed to be demanding change, even if it’s just from a candy company, so the right wing is back on the outrage circuit.
Second, after an election where it was clear that American voters weren’t interested in MAGA, why would M&Ms give into the worst people? It makes no sense from a financial viewpoint, either. First, the company just introduced a new character—the purple candy—in September 2022 and now it’s going to be jettisoned after a few months? I doubt it.
In addition, the company puts out all kinds of merchandise with the characters on it that sells well at the various M&Ms stores around the world. The company would have to redo all of that and get it out for sale in only a few weeks. New merchandise and a new spokesperson take more than a few weeks to crowd test. None of this makes sense.
What does make sense as an explanation? That this is part of M&Ms’ Super Bowl ad buy. It’s the only logical explanation, and I look forward to be proven right in a couple of weeks.
More importantly, this is another example of entities misleading us for a desired emotional result. You have to question everything—the gaslighting didn’t stop after the last election. In fact, the narrative for the 2024 election is already being created by the same bad actors who lied to us about polling at the end of October:
Presidential Polling:
Trump (R): 44%
Biden (D): 41%Biden (D): 40%
DeSantis (R): 39%Emerson / Jan 21, 2023 / n=1015https://t.co/eRlPfJaakg
— Polling USA (@USA_Polling) January 24, 2023
Remember the awful Emerson polls at the end of last October? Well, they’re back. The crosstabs of this poll are just wrong:
I'll be less diplomatic than John. This is the Emerson Poll that claims Trump is beating Biden by 3 pts. And it's nonsense. Biden is not at 34% with voters under 35. And no, that is not even close to within the margin of error for that subgroup. It's just a bad poll. https://t.co/yOo3sVsucv
— Tom Bonier (@tbonier) January 24, 2023
Whether it’s about candy or polling, critical thinking matters.
Here’s a song about questions:
Taste the Rainbow, Tucker.