1. Am I still allowed to eat them? So Mars has decided to rebrand the M&M candy mascots to create a “sense of belonging and community.” The green lady M&M will be less defined by her sexuality (a phrase I can’t believe I just typed). The orange M&M will embrace his anxiety; he will also tie his shoelaces now. And the red M&M will bully less. They will also, generally, be defined by “personalities, rather than their gender.” (I’m sorry, I just noticed myself writing the phrase “the mascots for M&Ms, lentil-shaped chocolate candies, will be less defined by their gender” and it is all I can do not to jump into the sea.) But they are still for eating, though? They are more accepting of one another and their own issues, but at the end of the day, they are still for eating, right? I can still eat them?
2. Who wanted this? Who, looking at the troubles that beset us in the Year of Our Lord 2022, said, “What needs to be fixed is that the M&M candy mascots are not well-rounded enough, except in the strictest, most literal sense. I demand that someone fix this, or I will never … eat them again?" What life is this person leading? Can I have this person’s life?
3. Are they still cannibals, though? I thought one of the traits of the M&Ms was that they ate other M&Ms. Is this still a trait, or now that they are “throwing shine” rather than “shade,” is that gone, too? On the one hand, cannibalism doesn’t seem like a very “throwing shine” thing to do, but on the other hand, I don’t understand any of this.
4. Do they not want me to eat them?
5. Sorry to keep harping on this, but usually when you’re about to eat someone, and then that someone interrupts to tell you a detailed backstory about himself and how he’s finally coming to terms with his anxiety or he’s realizing the impact his bullying had on other people, it’s not so that you still feel good about your decision to eat him. I think the response that usually evokes is “No, no, you are way too anthropomorphic now, and I could not possibly eat you any longer.” But then again, I do not even like reading the tag on the free-range turkey explaining how nice his life was before he was handed to me, and that is supposed to make me feel better about eating him.
6. There is always something suspicious about mascots who are the very thing they are trying to convince you to eat. What special dispensation have they received? What hideous sacrifice have they made in order to be spared?
7. Do these personalities still apply when they have peanuts inside them?
8. How is designing M&Ms that better reflect the world before I eat them supposed to be a sign of progress? Isn’t there something kind of quietly devastating about the fact that the anthropomorphic chocolate I just devoured had a rich inner life and feelings and was the sort of entity a corporation thought might relate to Gen Z? Is it good that, before I devoured them, I knew that they had made huge strides toward self-acceptance? Does it improve the flavor?
9. But they are still for eating, though?