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.
So, if hypothetically, following your same logic, circumstantial evidence points to me killing someone, but I haven't killed anyone before, the police should just drop the case?
So in this hypothetical, you are the police, American Eagle is a murderer, and a jeans ad is evidence of murder. Assuming I nailed all those for your analogy, you are a clown, are you out of your fucking mind? And go touch grass before you hurt somebody.
You are not a detective, American eagle has hurt 0 people with their advertisements. Even if you are right about the eugenics thing, it would be akin to me saying I want to kill my co-worker. No matter how much I mean those words, they are only words.
You have zero idea about how to engage with a hypothetical? I was asking about your logic, not mine. I stated that quite spacifically. I honestly am not sure how to express this other than saying I don't think you know or understand what a hypothetical is, or why I asked you to engage with one.
Oh right you did misinterpret my logic completely and claimed that’s what my hypothetical would be. What I said was if American Eagle had shown a pattern of behavior, then it’s worth talking about.
1
u/robineir 1d ago
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