"With the kind of culture that we’re in now it doesn’t shock me that it happened, but I think it's a little much that people are like fighting over it … like they changed shoes, it’s not that big of a detail,” preveterinary junior Emilie Bird said.

The controversy was not only that the shoes were changed, but that the company was seemingly trying to strip the infamously sexual feminine M&M of her old brand. While some were unhappy with the shoe change, other social media users, like Bird, were sneakerheads and excited to see the change, maybe just wanting her in more of a luxury brand like Nike instead of boring tennis shoes.

The internet feud instead revolves solely around one question: why does the public care if they are attracted to a candy?

“I find it a little disgusting … it's an M&M. The fact that it's even gendered and over sexualized … is a little ridiculous," education freshman Tessa VanderHeuvel said.

While VanderHeuvel was admittedly sad about the loss of the iconic boots, she understood that the company might be uncomfortable with the sexualization of their candy. And that with the progress we've made as a society, we should not look at a cartoon like that.

“I don’t know how you can sexualize it no matter how high the heels are," journalism freshman Nicoline Bradford said.

However, large names in news media have been doing exactly what random Twitter users have been doing in their dramatic threads: throwing a fit in public over her.

Tucker Carlson of Fox News seemed to be a crusader for the bring her boots back agenda, calling out the chocolate company for making the character "less sexy" and criticizing them for wanting to make them "totally androgynous." The most dramatic confessional he made was a comment alluding to the fact that he would want to take the green M&M out for a drink.

“I think he’ll just talk about anything to make people mad," Bradford said on Carlson's behavior.

The public seems to be criticizing Carlson for turning this PR event into a political phenomenon, only adding fuel to the social media fire.

“For the people who are angry, I’m just like ‘let’s take a step back and take perspective here,’” VanderHeuvel said.

Although, people are not just angry about the shoes; they are angry about the nuances that may have created this stunt.

Shoe gate is rumored to be a coverup for the Mars company, which oversees M&M, that is currently in a lawsuit over the use of child labor and child slavery to produce their chocolate products. This PR stunt is now being seen as a ruse or conspiracy theory trying to shield the public from their nefarious side of business.

“I didn’t really think about it much before I started reading about the case that is … on child slavery like maybe that’s a bit more important. Maybe we should be talking about that instead of a candy getting new boots," Bradford said.

Bradford also explained the concept of getting clicks. If you look up M&M right now, you would only see the high heel replacement and not the lawsuit being on the forefront of people's opinions. She believes that the company succeeded if this was the plan because its all the news can speak about.

“It can definitely draw attention away from … the lawsuit,” Bird said.

On one hand, the company is seemingly trying to be more socially aware by desexualizing their character, but are also in a suit for something much more serious such as human rights. The discourse in the mismatching morals was prevalent to many following the feud.

“Some companies claim to be woke or try to rebrand themselves, but they’re still doing very not okay things including child labor,” VanderHeuvel said.

However, other people believe that this PR stunt holds multiple purposes. Bradford said that the loop of people reacting to the M&M, then people reacting to the others reacting, and so forth, just creates more attention and business for the company.

“I think they’re doing it because it will make certain people mad and get people to talk about it,” Bradford said.

Whatever the purpose of the campaign was, it made people talk, creating a buzz like none other because it messed with something the public holds sacred: familiarity.

“It's a mascot for a brand. Its anything like Tony the Tiger or Ronald McDonald and we grew up with it, so it's a little weird that they changed it,” Bird said.

This changing of characters is also happening to Minnie Mouse in the same week with Disneyland Paris releasing her new style: a pantsuit, different from her usual skirt. This could be possibly following suit with the candy company, realizing it worked with one \, and why would it not work again for another beloved character?

Whichever path people take to be angry at things like shoes or the coverage of the legs of an M&M, it will always end up on social media, finding some comfort in the familiarity of furious people on the internet.