Doritos sacked a transgender influencer after finding out he had written social media posts threatening to do “thuggish things” to a 12-year-old girl. The Telegraph has more.
The Spanish branch of the snack company had released a video called “Crunch Talks” with the activist but deleted it 24 hours later.
Doritos Spain faced a fierce backlash after featuring the activist, who was called Iván González Ranedo but goes by the stage name Samantha Hudson.
A spokesperson told Rolling Stone magazine that Hudson, 24, a successful singer in Spain, was fired for controversial comments [he] had made online in the past.
“We have ended the relationship and stopped all related campaign activity due to the comments,” the spokesperson said.
“We strongly condemn words or actions that promote violence or sexism of any kind.”
The decision to terminate the relationship came after Right-wing social media accounts in the U.S. called on people to boycott Doritos.
After the 50-second Crunch Talks video was posted, social media users posted screengrabs of Hudson’s old posts.
One, written in Spanish when [he] was 15, said, “I want to do thuggish things” to a 12-year-old girl.
Another read: “In the middle of the street in Mallorca in panties and screaming that I’m a nymphomaniac in front of a super beautiful eight-year-old girl.”
A third declared: “I hate women who are victims of sexual assault and go to self help centres to overcome their trauma. Annoying sl–s.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
There we go again: “right wing social media accounts”. drip.. drip.. drip..
Right wing = has the balls to say what most people are thinking
I haven’t checked and I wouldn’t really want to, but I’d be willing to bet Ranedo has the balls too. I do wonder how many ‘trans’ actually remove theirs.
Yes we’re not told that these days it seems
I take right to mean correct in all these contexts.
Ha. Crunch talks…
Too late to fix it – they should never have had a ‘relationship’ with the guy.
Sure I’ll boycott it. I don’t think they’ll notice it. Come to think of it, neither will I.
Doritos are not food as we should know it – our bodies will thank us for the boycott.
Amen.
Hopefully this will cost the brand a few million dollars. I love a bit of ‘go woke go broke.’
Man pretending to be a woman is actually a deranged freak. What a shock.
Though one thing, I am not a supporter of going back 10 years and looking for ‘offensive’ social media posts. Let’s leave the internet sleuthing to the degenerates.
This guy is a degenerate. In this case, I’m ok with people finding out.
It was offensive stuff aimed at minors, not some opinions later judged to be dodgy by the morality police.
Free speech means he can say whatever without penalty. As per usual, the home of the Free Speech Union is only interested in speech that supports its own values; two cheeks of the same arse.
Getting sexy feelings in front of an eight year old and boasting about it. Suggest on a public forum you want to beat up a twelve year old. That makes him a slug, especially if he’s dumb enough to write it down – more fool him.
Suppose that was your daughter. I guess you’d laugh it off?
Most people would see him as a threat; certainly not someone worthy of celebrity status.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean what you’re saying it does. You’re deliberately misinterpreting.
I could most certainly walk into a rough pub and say “Come on then you f’in Muppets”. I’m free to say it, but I’d very probably end up in hospital. And I’d have asked for it.
Spoken like a truly ”deranged” person. Just saying…
Yeah, and you are a hypocrite who can’t reason past their own biases. Show me where I defended anything he said. You can’t because I didn’t.
Free speech means he can say whatever without penalty.
Consequently, according to you idea of free speech, I’m free to speech “Hand me your purse now or I’ll kill you!” to someone and later on, claim that he handed it to me because of his own, free decision and that it thus rightfully belongs to me.
Complaining that this guy lost a marketing contract¹ ‘just’ because he wrote something about sexually harassing an eight-year-old girl amounts to defending this statement.
¹ Or rather, complaining that some people don’t share your idea that free speech means sexual harassment of minors must be considered ok.
I don’t necessarily connect speech with actions, so yeah, he can say whatever he wants. If he did the things he said he did, then he can be prosecuted under existing laws that govern sexual degeneracy and paedophilia.
Your idea that I think free speech is related to robbery is pretty stupid. I am saying that if a person said that he wanted to take my wallet from me, he shouldn’t expect to be prosecuted for theft. In fact, in this situation, it is more like someone saying it 10 years ago on the internet.
I don’t realy care either way if he has a Doritos contract or whatever. My original post was intended to convey two things: first, that a freak acts like a freak is no surprise. Second, that trawling through social media posts in order to take someone down is a pathetic move, irrespective of what they said.
Robbery means taking something which belongs to someone else by force. I didn’t write anything about that.
Nah. There’s the usual ‘shouting “Fire” in a theatre’ or incitement to riot which are rightly not permitted.
The other thing is: what penalty did he suffer for saying what he said (if true)? His ‘fame’ has increased as a result of the publicity. It’s PepsiCo which is likely to suffer a penalty.
This guy has a certain public persona he intentionally created. And this public persona happens to be a commercially pretty toxic one. Hence, the money he can make from marketing contracts is a bit limited as people won’t usually want their products to be associated with paedophile-leaning public order offences. I can see nothing wrong with that. Persona-based marketing is all about image.
This isn’t about someone expressing his opinions on something but about sexual harassment of minors. Or at least publically phantasizing about that. That’s a qualitative difference.
‘Reality’ TV shows have long researched the background of participants on their shows. Failure to find the statements that this guy is alleged to have made would have got researchers fired if they were found after he appeared on the show.
I’d have thought the marketing people at PepsiCo (who I understand own the company that owns Doritos brand) would be more careful who they get into bed with
What a revolting picture that paints, and I have just eaten my lunch; again.
I could live with this guy fully transitioning to be honest.
I’d prefer it if he could transition into a tree trunk so at least I may chop him into logs for heating my home. Or perhaps he could come pre chopped.
Failing that, a new chain and sprockets for my Kawasaki Versys.
Or a good quality kitchen tap. The old French one we have here is a bit shit.
Endless possibilities.
Off topic, you ride a Kwak too? Mines an z-thou-sx. Good weather is coming soon
Sure do, Hog. Good weather here already, snow high up still. And obscenely beautiful roads. Twisty doesn’t even begin to explain them. Death at every bend tho. You learn how to use and trust your tires and front brake.
1000 huh. 650 is plenty for me!
I had to re-read this a couple of times.
I actually thought, at first, you were suggesting co-habiting with this guy would be tolerable if he fully transitioned!
I’m not surprised as there were, rightly, calls for a boycott.
https://rumble.com/v4h9w23-doritos-destroyed-for-hiring-monster-worse-then-dylan-mulvaney-massive-bud-.html
then
https://rumble.com/v4hglcb-doritos-boycott-goes-nuclear-as-new-details-surface-worst-than-bud-light-an.html
And Jeremy has done an update today that I’ve yet to watch so haven’t listed. N.B. Jeremy does not consider himself right-wing, and he’s been covering Dylan Mulvaney in the past.
I haven’t stopped buying Doritos because of this man’s previous posts.
I have stopped buying Doritos because they decided to use a man dressed as a woman to advertise their products instead of using a real, actual woman, plenty of whom were no doubt available for the job.
No going back for Doritos for me. Same for Adidas, Nike, Calvin Klein, all of whom used men to model women’s clothing. If there are any more I’m not aware of, please post here and I’ll gladly add them to ‘the list.
What about the team sponsors, especially those who back the “women’s” cycling teams?