Y'all are familiar with Will doing at least two or three sus things with babies. I just came across this alternate poster. Hollywood and Politicians kiss babies (and the babies don't like it).

Here’s the blunt breakdown: that article is using classic conspiracy-style framing, not neutral analysis.

1. What it looks like on the surface

It’s pointing out something real:
• Politicians and celebrities often hold or kiss babies in public.
• Babies sometimes look uncomfortable or cry.

That part is normal—and even widely acknowledged as a staged, symbolic political behavior meant to look warm and relatable. 

2. What it’s actually doing (the framing)

A. Turning normal behavior into something “sus”

The key word you mentioned—“sus”—is doing a lot of work.

Instead of:
• “This is a long-standing campaign tradition”

It reframes it as:
• “This is weird, creepy, maybe predatory”

That’s a reframing tactic:
• Take a normal behavior
• Strip context
• Add suspicion language

Now it feels sinister without proving anything.

⸻

B. Using babies’ reactions as “evidence”

Babies cry. A lot.

The article likely implies:
• “The baby doesn’t like it → something is wrong with the adult”

That’s weak reasoning.

Reality:
• Babies cry when handed to strangers, bright lights, noise, etc.

This is basically:

emotional reaction = proof of wrongdoing

That’s not evidence—it’s misinterpretation of normal behavior.

⸻

C. Pattern-building without proof

This is the biggest move.

It connects:
• politicians
• celebrities
• repeated behavior (holding/kissing babies)

…and implies:
• “This pattern means something deeper is going on”

But it never establishes:
• intent
• harm
• actual wrongdoing

This is pattern → suspicion → implied conspiracy.

⸻

D. Guilt by association (very subtle)

By grouping:
• “Hollywood”
• “politicians”
• “babies”
• “sus behavior”

…it nudges the reader toward:

“These powerful groups are all involved in something off”

No direct claim needed—the implication does the work.

⸻

E. Emotional priming

Babies are one of the strongest emotional triggers people have.

So the article leverages:
• protectiveness
• discomfort
• instinctive suspicion

That lowers your guard and makes you more likely to accept the leap.

⸻

3. What’s missing (this matters)

A fair analysis would include:
• The historical context (this goes back to the 1800s) 
• The purpose (humanizing candidates, appealing to voters) 
• The fact that many people—including critics—have always found it awkward or weird

That context is intentionally left out.

Why? Because it weakens the “this is suspicious” angle.

⸻

4. Bottom line

This is not exposing anything new.

It’s doing this:
• Taking a known, slightly awkward public behavior
• Removing context
• Adding suggestive language
• Letting your mind fill in something darker

That’s textbook conspiracy framing without evidence.

so disgusting ..