In an age of constant misinformation and clickbait headlines on the internet (we would never), it’s now more important than ever to stand for truth and accuracy in reporting. Which is why we have to take a stand after Slate.com wrote this bizarre article titled ‘Sydney Sweeney’s Boobs Are Not That Big’, instead arguing that they are ‘average’.
To anyone with a functioning pair of eyes, this is simply not the case. Even the moderators at Twitter took it upon themselves to call out Slate on their own post, sticking a ‘Community Notes’ correction underneath the Tweet that noted the inaccuracy of the headline:
It needs to be said: Sydney Sweeney’s boobs are not that big https://t.co/L4hbmNEs9a
— Slate (@Slate) March 11, 2024
If you’re not willing to take Community Notes’s word for it, how about a more scientific approach? Below you’ll find undeniable, irrefutable, bulletproof evidence that Slate and their writers are categorically wrong about the size of Sydney Sweeney’s boobs:
View this post on Instagram
View this post on Instagram
View this post on Instagram
View this post on Instagram
View this post on Instagram
View this post on Instagram
View this post on Instagram
View this post on Instagram
View this post on Instagram
Doesn’t get much more conclusive than that, does it? Shame on Slate.com for attempting to mislead their audience for clicks. Anything to get a few extra views these days! Thankfully we would never stoop to such lows at Sick Chirpse and that’s why we’re one of the few sites left on the internet with even a modicum of journalistic integrity. Anytime Slate or another website tries to tell you that a big-boobed celebrity’s boobs aren’t that big, we’ll be there to set the record straight. Count on it.
For the man who went viral for claiming that Sydney Sweeney would be a 5.5 in Europe and a 3/10 in Russia, click HERE. Controversial.
