Has anyone kept up with this? Is this being discussed anywhere else in the RR? The ad in question: My fandom of Sydney Sweeny is well documented over in Media Central. I was made aware of this controversy on social media by someone telling me why I should be offended so has anyone seen this and have an opinion on it? I'm not necessarily offended, but I will say it's a little tone deaf. Sydney has been a weird obsession by a lot of alt-right neo-Nazi types who actually say similar things to the ad and will actually post pictures of Sydney Sweeny while saying that. I'm not sure if she feels the same way as those neo-Nazis but I believe the ad makers and Sydney are aware of that and are playing into that and it's very cringeworthy, IMHO. As a black person, I can't say that I'm surprised but most of the people expressing the most outrage at this seems to be other non-blue-eyed, non-blonde white people.
But simply not buying the product, and getting on with your life isn't the best option, because FEEEELINGS.
Not a dedicated thread, but there's some discussion of it in this one. Personally, I think Sydney Sweeney is hot as the blazing sun, and this is a storm in a teacup, albeit one that may have been calculated by the advertiser - who are now getting better exposure of their products than otherwise.
I am so confused by any controversy. I saw a hit about it on Jon Stewart and I turned it off because it sounded stupid. But I will see if I can find it.
I think the issue is that it's a thinly veiled white supremacist "1488" dog whistle. By definition. if you're not a part of that movement, you're not supposed to see anything. That community has used images of Sydney Sweeny to illustrate their "good genes" for years now. It's possible that Sydney is not aware of that, but I doubt it. I also believe American Eagle has to be aware of that too.
Or maybe you're just squinting too hard through those "how does this oppress me" beer goggles to see something that isn't there.
I have already stated that I'm neither offended or shocked by this ad. When it comes to racism, nothing gets to me anymore. It's totally possible that all of this is an unfortunate coincidence and that would suck for American Eagle and Sydney Sweeny. But white supremacists have totally circulated images of Sydney Sweeny while bragging about the "good genes" that white people have. Are you saying that hasn't happened?
I think it's a marketing campaign, honestly, because the "outrage" doesn't really exist on the level being claimed. No one among my group, and we ARE left wing, are talking about it except to ask "what the fuck is going on?" But marketing execs know that bigots will buy anything that makes "the left" angry, and so if you push the idea that "the left" is frothing at the mouth over a Sydney Sweeney ad using eugenicist language, then you get the rubes to support it with their wallets. This congealed more strongly for me when I saw Dunkin' Donuts doing the same thing. These people are amoral, they'd make ads that would start riots if it meant increased sales.
I'm saying whether it has or has not is inconsequential. Even if the worst possible interpretation here were true, people are allowed to think and say offensive things.
offices? nope. sub committees that meet a couple times a year in fields where such things are relevant to being more effective? well, yeah. Your employer or service provider don't owe you a free speech platform. Think what you want, but either keep a civil tongue in your head when you're in somebody's place of business or be invited to leave.
Of course. And likewise, I'm allowed to associate and discuss things as I see fit. I'm on record as a Sydney Sweeny fan but this ad seems a little tone deaf to me.
Oh, God, we're once again in the merry-go-round loop of... Pseudo-libertarians- "Nazis have free speech! ". The rest of us- "And we have the free speech to call their bullshit out as what it is ". Pseudo-libertarians- "No...free speech means Nazis get unlimited turns, and you shut up and take it. Otherwise you're the Nazi. ".
That's nice. Where have I claimed otherwise? First, you seem to have me confused with someone who thinks his feelings veto private property rights. Second, you seem to be confusing a discussion about an ad campaign with one about private property and the owner's conditions for using it.
Personally, I had no idea this ad even existed. I only found out about it when I pulled up a picture of her today as reference to show my wife who i imagined the psycho killer in my new novel looked like. She had those weird dead eyes the I can easily imagine a killer having. Then we all watched the ad, and even my youngest kids were like, "Who gives a shit?" If American Eagle wants to mitigate this, just make another commercial with, like, Zendaya or someone and say she has great jeans too. Boom, problem solved.
Nobody has to shut up, nobody has to listen, and nobody is a victim for hearing something they don't like.
And nobody of any race or creed is incapable of it. Neither of which are adequate to prove that disparate outcomes indicate unfair practices.
Their campaign prior to this one featured Coco Gauf, so that box is already checked. I think the explanation @Coloratura mentioned is most likely the explanation. I just think it’s tacky and ultimately counterproductive.
LOL, well, as I pay zero fucking attention to jeans commercials, I had no idea. Now the uproar seems even more stupid. I do agree it's tacky, but it's tacky in the same way so many other commercials are also tacky.
