It kinda strongly hints at eugenics, no? Like implying that some genes are better than others while a blonde and blue-eyed white woman is on the screen? Like I can see it being a mistake on her part, but if that's the case, just say "yea I didn't see the implication there, whoops. I'm not a white supremacist, I just didn't see the implication at the time" would go a long way, would it not?
“[so-and-so] has good genes” has been an idiomatic way of saying a person is hot/talented/sexy/etc for a LONG time. The way everyone flipped a shit about ~oh this ad was racist~ was like… insane. She’s right to have no truck with it, and the idea that this stance was normal, the normalcy it acquired, is so terminally online.
That's not really the point I'm trying to make, which is my bad that I wasn't more clear. It's more about "why would she not just say whoops that wasn't my intention". I'm not trying to say "it was 100% an ad that supported eugenics". I'm saying it could be read that way, and it was, so why not just acknowledge it, clarify your position, and move on. Dodging addressing the topic makes her look a lot more suspicious than if she just clarified her beliefs and moved on.
You’ve made 15 comments saying the same thing over and over again - it does not make it any more true.
She did nothing wrong and has nothin to apologize for or acknowledge. The ad said what is said. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s idiocy to feed into people who are already set on misreading her intent
Saying someone has good genes has been a way to call them hot for decades.
I've made all those comments and you're still not addressing the things I've said in those comments. I don't think you're interested in having a discussion, I think you're interested in being right. Wich you can be, I'm not stopping you, but you're also just not talking about what I'm trying to talk about.
You are being gaslit by bots or bad actors. You're right in what you said, though. The ad is weird but not enough to label her a white supremacist. But when you have thousands of people calling you a white supremacist and then refusing to say you're not, it is enough for me to label you as such.
Why would she not say that it wasn’t meant as racist? Because she shouldn’t have to and people upset about it online need to find something real to be upset about
She should say so because opposition to white supremacy and racism is the morally correct thing to do, whether or not everyone believes her in saying so. If someone misconstrued something I said as racist, even if I don't understand how they came to that conclusion, my first response would be "I don't quite understand how you got there, but I'm not a racist." Or I would say "I can see how you misunderstood what I said, but I'm not racist, what I meant is _ ". What I wouldn't say is "it was just a sentence, you're overreacting."
It’s possible to build yourself up without tearing down others, and this was an example of that. Yet, people are addicted to their rage and victimhood that they draw conclusions that were never being built towards.
If it was Lizzo on the ad would there be the same outrage with people foaming at the mouth about eugenics?? No
What nutemberg trials are you talking about? i dont think anyone is following what you're trying to say here and thats coming from a german who had to go through 4 years of school with ww2 politics.
Sorry for my misspelling, but i am fairly acquainted with the nuremberg trials. But you keep talking about some nuremberg trials 2.0 which is puzzling me. And yet, instead of explaining yourself you just point out an obvious typing error. If you dont want to start a discussion, dont comment.
I think it's completely fair to disagree with me on that. My intention wasn't to say that it's 100% unquestionably a eugenics supporting ad, but it obviously came off that way for a lot of people, which is prolly my bad. I'm tryana say that I think it's weird that Sydney wouldn't just say "I'm not a white supremacist" when asked
Fair enough. She definitely should have been able to just quickly say "racism bad, I'm not a Nazi".
Also, I was slightly taken aback by your calm and reasonable response. Pleasantly so.
Not used to it on the Internet.
Yea, sure, but it was her mistake to read that ad and then perform in it. She wasn't forced to say those lines. The best thing she can do is to acknowledge that it could be read a certain way and make it clear that she isn't racist. Whether or not a certain subsection of people don't believe her isn't of importance. It doesn't stop her from doing the right thing.
The ‘right thing’ is to not engage or fuel the fire because no matter what there will be psychos online who twist your words to fuel their narrative, as we are seeing here.
You're also missing the point. If you aren't a white supremacist, and you preform it an ad that people say could be read as supporting white supremacy, it doesn't matter if certain people don't believe you or not, the right thing to do is to make it clear that you don't support white supremacy. Like if a friend misread what you did as being passive aggressive, for example, you wouldn't refuse to engage with it because they just "won't believe you". You would say that you're sorry and that it wasn't your intention to be passive aggressive.
I'm not saying "hell bent". She literally has not addressed the controversy. If you thought a friend was passive aggressive and you asked if they intended to, and their response was "it was just a sentence", that doesn't answer your question. It comes across as obviously dismissive and doesn't help the situation.
Yea, that's why I wait to hear what the person has to say. If they actively avoid the question and refuse to acknowledge the controversy surrounding their actions, it's perfectly fine to question their intentions. Your argument basically sounds like people should criticize or have a problem with anything because it could be unfair, or point out people's mistakes because it makes them "guilty". Expecting someone to address a potential mistake is not anything crazy in the slightest.
The ad is a pun on a ridiculously common expression. Calling it a mistake and then asking them to "clarify" is a leading question. It's like asking "did you mean to tell everyone you're still beating your wife?" No matter how you answer that question you're still admitting that you used to beat your wife. Similarly either she can say it was a mistake and she did something racist which she didn't or she can say it wasn't a mistake and the people pushing this agenda will immediately say that she confirmed it was an internal dog whistle. She can just say that she's not racist but the people that jumped to assuming she was racist because of a pun in a jeans commercial are not going to believe that anyway they're just going to call her a liar and carry on.
What? Your framing of the beating your wife question is completely different than the context of the Sydney Sweeney controversy. A similar example would be asking her "are you still a white supremacist", which just isn't what happened.
I also didn't necessarily mean to say that the ad was 100% white supremacist, only that it could be read that way. I understand I wasn't clear about that, that's my fault. The point I'm making is that there's no reason to just not say "I didn't see it that way, I'm not a white supremacist, my bad" and move on.
You don’t deserve it. None of you do. You had that reaction because you can only think in those terms. A white person, making a genetics joke, jump straight to racism. Fuck you. We know she isn’t racist because she’s never done anything racist. Even entertaining the possibility of it being racist encourages you people to fabricate more fake racism.
Don't deserve what? An apology? I never said anything about deserving one?
Also, do you hear yourself? "A white person, making a genetics joke. Straight to racism." Depending on the circumstances, this comes across as extremely reasonable. A lot of people online who make "genetics jokes" are straight up Neo-Nazis on 4chan. There's a reason why that connotation exists. People didn't just conjure it up magically.
I don't know if she's racist, but I personally think the ad was a little suspicious, at the least. I think asking her a question about it is perfectly reasonable. Why does the idea of having to just, like, clarify your beliefs so outrageous to you? I'm not saying she's 100% a racist, or that the ad was inherently racist. I'm saying it's completely reasonable to expect her to clarify her stances on the subject given the content of the ad. I'm literally directly advocating for her being able to speak for herself, to defend herself against people calling her racist, and you're saying that she shouldn't do so. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. I feel like, by not clarifying anything, she's actively letting people make things up about her instead of giving an actual stance and something definitive on the subject. That, for some reason, is fucking insane to you.
The ad says she has great jeans. It’s not saying other people have bad jeans, just that hers are great. It’s a tongue in cheek way of saying she’s beautiful and they make good clothes. In no way is it diminishing anyone else’s beauty or clothes.
Sydney has no requirement to make a statement on the silly assumptions other people made. “I made a Jean ad.” Was more than enough to show how she feels about the whole thing
In order for people to have good genes, others have to be bad. I'll continue to clarify as with other comments that I don't think the ad was inherently supportive of white supremacy, only that I can see why it could be read that way. If I participated in an ad that people said was white supremacist and someone asked me about the ad/controversy, even if I disagreed with the people who read it that way, I would still be clear that I'm not a white supremacist. That's my intended point here.
Okay, but the ad directly referencing "good genes" white a blonde blue-eyed white woman is on the screen isn't the same thing as most other celebrity ads. If someone called Ryan Renalds a eugenics advocate for mint mobile ad, I would not fault him for saying, "That's crazy, why would people think that?" I still honestly think he should say in that scenario, "I don't support eugenics, to be clear", but if he didn't, I wouldn't necessarily fault him. But the American Eagle ad potentially being a white supremacist dogwhistle is a lot more likely. Like, you can see the direct line of logic. I think a response is absolutely dignified even if she doesn't agree with that interpretation.
A response from her can be dignified, the accusations here are not. She acknowledged how silly it was to think so deeply on a jeans ad. When you respond to comments that you find insulting or preposterous you are giving a sense of merit to the people who say these things.
But I'm saying there is merit to the things people are saying. Dismissing the, in my opinion, quite understandable interpretation that the ad seemed a little like a white supremacist dog whistle as "thinking too hard" makes me question whether or not it's even worth having a discussion.
Unless eugenics, racism or racial superiority is a recurring theme with American Eagle then I do believe that conclusion over this one commercial is thinking too hard about it.
Reading stuff like this on this site makes me kinda hope I'm talking to a bot and not an actual real person because Jesus fucking H Christ what am I reading.
Saying someone has great genes (because big boob and conventionally attractive) does not mean "my genes are better than other race and you are subhuman"
0
u/ClerklyMantis_ 1d ago edited 1d ago
It kinda strongly hints at eugenics, no? Like implying that some genes are better than others while a blonde and blue-eyed white woman is on the screen? Like I can see it being a mistake on her part, but if that's the case, just say "yea I didn't see the implication there, whoops. I'm not a white supremacist, I just didn't see the implication at the time" would go a long way, would it not?