• Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Cool about the union, but wtf has this lady got to do with it? Am I whooshing a porn reference or something?

    EDITING TO CORRECT MYSELF:

    Did some more searching, even going on icky Insta, and her name is Rachel Gilmore. The pun about “huge” is likely intended, because her thing is to grab the attention of people who don’t ordinarily watch news but will watch a pretty woman for a short piece. Good on her for that.

    • Typhoon@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      You see a pretty lady on the internet and your mind instantly jumps to porn? Not a good look.

      • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Well I’m a 65 year old cishet woman and I tried Lens but no name came up, maybe she’s AI (edit , she’s not) or something, but I often miss meme porn references because I haven’t seen the porn being referenced.

        Edit: I’ve edited my original comment, having searched and found her name myself.

    • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Wdym? Why would it be a porn reference?

      Isn’t being Canadian and caring about worker rights enough for having “to do with it?” Does a journalist need any special reason to talk about world events?

      • Grabthar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Her pic in the thumbnail looks likes she is naked. There is a tiny line that looks like it may be a strap for a bikini top or something, but a lot of her body is being shown with no clothing visible. And she’s making over the top acting faces. If you don’t already know who she is, this 100% looks like a porn ad.

        • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          That’s messed up. Perhaps I’ve been living in blissful ignorance of what porn ads look like.

          “A lot of her body is being shown with no clothing visible” doesn’t register as evidence of porn because that’s a normal way to dress oneself. “And she’s making over the top acting faces” just puts her as an average YouTuber/TikToker.

          • Grabthar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            On a small screen while scrolling past, this looks just like the crap banner ads that make it through my ad blocking measures when my blocker list isn’t updated fast enough. Pretty girl, little to no clothes, surprised expresion with mouth agape, some vague words about how huge something is. I recognized Rachel amd am used to seeing her in my feed, so while I didn’t think this myself, I can fully understand how someone would misinterpret this.

        • Evkob (they/them)@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          The fact that a woman wearing a spaghetti-strap tank top and being expressive immediately makes you assume she’s a porn actress says a lot about you.

      • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Is she a journalist? Because I tried to search her face without the rest of the stuff and got nothing. And there’s no source. So I thought, maybe it’s a joke about “huge”?

        If you can give me her name I’ll happily edit my comment.EDIT: found her myself, changed my original comment.

        • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          There’s no joke, the word “huge” is to be interpreted at face value. There’s no pun either.

          Still don’t quite get why would anyone think this could be about porn

    • BussyGyatt@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      You were wrong but you came to a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence you had at the time, and really not even a conclusion but a reasonably suspicious ask on consideration. I further commend you for correcting yourself when confronted with new evidence that challenged your original idea.

    • zurohki@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Everything on the internet is legally required to have a title image of some idiot pulling faces at a camera. Haven’t you noticed? Just look at Youtube.