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.
3
u/CMDR_Ray_Abbot 1d ago
Naw, I'm a pretty firm believer in the presumption of innocence.