The American Eagle Sydney Sweeney ad (4 Viewers)

[BLOCKED_PUNT]

The only thing we love more than fake outrage is outrage over fake outrage!

I think it's somewhat likely that there is a very very small group that is actually offended. The situation is being enflamed by activistts and the like. The genes/jeans pun was just that and I think (or would hope) most people know that.

really doubt it was bait. WRT to Mookies post

 

[FarFromHome]

Was AE on your radar before the ad? It is now,

It wasn't on my radar before and it still isn't on my radar. This does nothing in regards to getting me to use their product (and that is regardless of the ad campaign being controversial as i don't see it as being controversial).

So while they may be a product I have heard of now in about a day or two I may not remember them and I still haven't/won't buy anything from them.

Got me thinking about something. Have I ever seen a commercial in my entire life where I thought damn I need that product? Some type of food product has to be the only thing I can think of. If I squint my eyes enough I can go back to the first handful of bud bowl commercials during the super bowl. Kinda made drinking Budweiser kinda cool. Kinda. Bottom line, commercials really do nothing for me.

 

[Gally]

Got me thinking about something. Have I ever seen a commercial in my entire life where I thought damn I need that product? Some type of food product has to be the only thing I can think of.

Agreed. Food is really the only time a commercial pushes me in a direction. Maybe cars but that is probably more getting me to look more into a particular vehicle more but not necessarily making me buy for sure.

I don't count movies or TV shows in this category as how else will you even know they exist to go watch them.

 

[WDIK2]

News outlets reporting things like "people on social media are saying..." are ones that I'm probably not all that interested in hearing from. First, I'm guessing like half of these "people" online are bots generating comments. Second, people complaining on social media shouldn't be seen as newsworthy. If someone wants to do an actual scientific poll about how people feel about this ad campaign, then maybe I'll have some interest in discussing whether or not it is racist. As it stands now, I find it hard to believe this is a significantly widespread complaint. I think I'd have a hard time finding anyone IRL that cares about this at all.

I too don't like the reporting where it's "people on social media are saying" and they prove their point posting one tweet from an account wtih 8 followers.

This is not that.

This is ABC News and Good Morning America.

https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1950197691717210397

Are you saying since GMA covered this that there likely is a decent amount of honest backlash out there?

Yes. I would hope ABC News and Good Morning America would not devote time on their marquee program for something that wasn't significant.

The producers of these shows pay very very close attention to what is trending on the internet. The X link you posted above is from a GMA First Look segment called "The Pulse". I don't watch it, but I'm going to assume it could easily be re-titled something like, "What's Trending."

Not sure that qualifies as "real world significant." Did they report on it the next day? Wiki tells me that First Look has a segment on Fridays called of all things, "Friday Funnies".

 

[rockaction]

Bottom commercials really do nothing for me.

What about fat-bottom commercials? I hear they make the rockin’ world go ‘round.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

The scary thing there is always a "Professor" there to be interviewed to justify the outrage. These are the people we're putting in front of young minds.

Most professors (I was one for a bit) are reasonable and level-headed. Some professors, like there are some in every profession, are nutcases.

I really don't find this situation that crazy to grasp. American Eagle put out probably an innocent ad but contained a clear potential for misinterpretation that the ad creators should have caught (unless they decided that outrage was a good thing to get people discussing their ad). Dumb by them and they should have known better. Then, a small percentage of viewers identified the cringe-worthy "joke" and got overly outraged. Dumb by them as well.

Should’ve caught what… That people are idiots and they should cater to them? Would prefer not to.

That the optics of the ad could easily be misconstrued.

If I were their in house counsel and was told to review the ad I would have immediately advised them to never air it even if I knew it was well-intentioned.

ETA: Unless, of course, the plan all along was to drum up controversy.

When I was in advertising, I would joke "We can be as creative as your legal team allows us to be"

Just seems stupid to me to put something out there that could offend a significant portion of your marketing base.

Wait, wut?

 

[rockaction]

Woz, they’ve done nothing but $$$$ off of this. If you’re their counsel then you’re doing it wrong. They’re not getting sued.

 

[FarFromHome]

Bottom commercials really do nothing for me.

What about fat-bottom commercials? I hear they make the rockin’ world go ‘round.

Bwahahahaha. Awesome. And fixed above.

 

[Courtjester]

Was AE on your radar before the ad? It is now,

It wasn't on my radar before and it still isn't on my radar. This does nothing in regards to getting me to use their product (and that is regardless of the ad campaign being controversial as i don't see it as being controversial).

So while they may be a product I have heard of now in about a day or two I may not remember them and I still haven't/won't buy anything from them.

Got me thinking about something. Have I ever seen a commercial in my entire life where I thought damn I need that product? Some type of food product has to be the only thing I can think of. If I squint my eyes enough I can go back to the first handful of bud bowl commercials during the super bowl. Kinda made drinking Budweiser kinda cool. Kinda. Bottom line, commercials really do nothing for me.

I don’t know. I spent a lot of time wanting to be like Mike in my late teens/early 20’s. I bought a ton of shoes because of him

 

[FarFromHome]

Was AE on your radar before the ad? It is now,

It wasn't on my radar before and it still isn't on my radar. This does nothing in regards to getting me to use their product (and that is regardless of the ad campaign being controversial as i don't see it as being controversial).

So while they may be a product I have heard of now in about a day or two I may not remember them and I still haven't/won't buy anything from them.

Got me thinking about something. Have I ever seen a commercial in my entire life where I thought damn I need that product? Some type of food product has to be the only thing I can think of. If I squint my eyes enough I can go back to the first handful of bud bowl commercials during the super bowl. Kinda made drinking Budweiser kinda cool. Kinda. Bottom line, commercials really do nothing for me.

I don’t know. I spent a lot of time wanting to be like Mike in my late teens/early 20’s. I bought a ton of shoes because of him

Awesome example. I was Mike on the court, but was never cool enough to buy Jordans until I was an adult. Great example though..

 

[MAC_32]

This backlash (and the response to it) is why we’re where we are today, a country divided. Where too many people don’t even bother to listen to different perspectives.

We are not a country divided. When you get outside and interact with people, none of this **** ever happens to anyone of us rarely if ever.

We must be seeing very different things. I wish you were right.

He is right

 

[Max Power]

I'd wager most teens wouldn't connect a good genes pun to the Nazis.

 

[TLEF316]

I'd wager most teens wouldn't connect a good genes pun to the Nazis.

Probably depends what Grok says.

 

[FarFromHome]

I'd wager most teens wouldn't connect a good genes pun to the Nazis.

Agreed. If I had just watched Raiders of the Lost Ark and I was really really stoned I might make that connection.

 

[rockaction]

The reaction to this is now insane and all over the news. Ghost Rider, djmich, Jayrod, and Joe B. are right. This is no longer simply a story about outrage to the outrage. It is now about the content of the ad and the loony left is well-represented. WaPo and NPR have think pieces splashed across their sites discussing the merits of the claim.

New strategy by the left-wing media complex. Blueprints away!

—See potentially objectionable thing.
—Play up social media loony left outrage so that everybody notices both outrage and loony argument
—Pretend you’re covering MAGA being outraged over original outrage and get outraged at MAGA or anyone who isn’t MAGA but publicly questions looniness of loony left argument
—get your lackeys in the center-left to distract by saying it’s just hysteria, bots, or sensitive MAGA fools owning the libs, or “why do you care and watch this illegitimately manufactured news?” so then nobody asks or is afraid to wonder aloud, lest they get called MAGA or a dupe, where this loony **** is coming from, so that everybody is silent while the news media then
—Reports “news” with loony left argument as properly substantive and perfectly reasoned or even as the premise, when it’s just loony and deserves no place at the table
—wash their hands of it because MAGA made it a story
—Set loony Lorenz agenda and $$$$
—winner winner chicken dinner

 

[-OZ-]

This backlash (and the response to it) is why we’re where we are today, a country divided. Where too many people don’t even bother to listen to different perspectives.

We are not a country divided. When you get outside and interact with people, none of this **** ever happens to anyone of us rarely if ever.

We must be seeing very different things. I wish you were right.

He is right

If you say so.
Again, we’re seeing very different things. This country hasn’t been as divided in my lifetime.

 

[-OZ-]

AE's marketing department knew what they were doing. They probably considered having a beautiful woman of color or other ethnicity in the shoot, but chose instead to throw bait out and see if some would take it and become outraged. It worked and here we are. Even with middle-aged white men, they have won as 4 pages of comments over whether there is even an issue here demonstrates profound engagement with their brand. Was AE on your radar before the ad? It is now, and that's a huge marketing win. Heck, they even got free plugs on Good Morning America! We're all playing into their hands.

AE was very much on my radar back in the 90s. We did most of our shopping there and my sister worked at our local store. Until now I didn’t even know they still existed and I won’t be shopping there anyway.

 

[Zow]

Woz, they’ve done nothing but $$$$ off of this. If you’re their counsel then you’re doing it wrong. They’re not getting sued.

I didn’t say they get sued and, yeah, if this was a marketing ploy kudos to them I suppose.

My primary point is that somebody at AE had to have known the optics of this.

 

[Zow]

AE's marketing department knew what they were doing. They probably considered having a beautiful woman of color or other ethnicity in the shoot, but chose instead to throw bait out and see if some would take it and become outraged. It worked and here we are. Even with middle-aged white men, they have won as 4 pages of comments over whether there is even an issue here demonstrates profound engagement with their brand. Was AE on your radar before the ad? It is now, and that's a huge marketing win. Heck, they even got free plugs on Good Morning America! We're all playing into their hands.

AE was very much on my radar back in the 90s. We did most of our shopping there and my sister worked at our local store. Until now I didn’t even know they still existed and I won’t be shopping there anyway.

Same. Probably my main clothing brand from 15-20.

 

[rockaction]

Woz, they’ve done nothing but $$$$ off of this. If you’re their counsel then you’re doing it wrong. They’re not getting sued.

I didn’t say they get sued and, yeah, if this was a marketing ploy kudos to them I suppose.

My primary point is that somebody at AE had to have known the optics of this.

If that’s your primary point then that’s about as cynical as all get-out. You’re saying they went with Aryan overtones on purpose? That’s your claim? You can make that claim with certainty?

You’re a trial lawyer and you’re going to easily deniable motive? Did you strenuously object to the Aryan?

 

[-OZ-]

I'd wager most teens wouldn't connect a good genes pun to the Nazis.

Do you really think their point is “kids will think about nazis”? Or is it perhaps that the same message as the Nazis used is being received?
I don’t agree either way, but their point can’t be that “kids will think about mid 20th century History!”.

 

[Zow]

Woz, they’ve done nothing but $$$$ off of this. If you’re their counsel then you’re doing it wrong. They’re not getting sued.

I didn’t say they get sued and, yeah, if this was a marketing ploy kudos to them I suppose.

My primary point is that somebody at AE had to have known the optics of this.

If that’s your primary point then that’s about as cynical as all get-out. You’re saying they went with Aryan overtones on purpose? That’s your claim? You can make that claim with certainty?

You’re a trial lawyer and you’re going to easily deniable motive? Did you strenuously object to the Aryan?

Wow this post is bananas.

 

[rockaction]

I'd wager most teens wouldn't connect a good genes pun to the Nazis.

Do you really think their point is “kids will think about nazis”? Or is it perhaps that the same message as the Nazis used is being received?
I don’t agree either way, but their point can’t be that “kids will think about mid 20th century History!”.

This is not a quote from Team Occam, that’s for sure. This line of thinking pretty much restricts speech to suit the completely eggshell plaintiff, which in this case is the angry McGill professor screaming about beauty standards and Palestinian post-colonial utopias while apologizing for Mohammed Atta and trying to ban American football on the grounds of violence or stuff like that.

Their ultimate goal isn’t caution and discretion, nor is it a tort they’re messing with. This is speech and liberty they’re going after in the name of some amorphous diversity that really is about will, pressure points, and power. It’s transparent.

 

[rockaction]

Woz, they’ve done nothing but $$$$ off of this. If you’re their counsel then you’re doing it wrong. They’re not getting sued.

I didn’t say they get sued and, yeah, if this was a marketing ploy kudos to them I suppose.

My primary point is that somebody at AE had to have known the optics of this.

If that’s your primary point then that’s about as cynical as all get-out. You’re saying they went with Aryan overtones on purpose? That’s your claim? You can make that claim with certainty?

You’re a trial lawyer and you’re going to easily deniable motive? Did you strenuously object to the Aryan?

Wow this post is bananas.

Don’t ever accuse someone of nodding towards Naziism when it’s not there and call me bananas for asking about whose motive you’re sure of with your mediocre intellect in tow, son.

 

[BLOCKED_PUNT]

My primary point is that somebody at AE had to have known the optics of this.

My first reaction is that it was a pun and that good genes are primarily what makes people attractive. The good genes and connecting it to eugenics is a stretch that even Armstrong can't make.

 

[rockaction]

Woz, they’ve done nothing but $$$$ off of this. If you’re their counsel then you’re doing it wrong. They’re not getting sued.

I didn’t say they get sued and, yeah, if this was a marketing ploy kudos to them I suppose.

My primary point is that somebody at AE had to have known the optics of this.

If that’s your primary point then that’s about as cynical as all get-out. You’re saying they went with Aryan overtones on purpose? That’s your claim? You can make that claim with certainty?

You’re a trial lawyer and you’re going to easily deniable motive? Did you strenuously object to the Aryan?

Wow this post is bananas.

Yeah, no. You were playing “counsel” before because you were sure somebody knew what they were appealing to.

I’m laughing because that means you knew their motive, and it was to nod towards Aryan or Nazi overtones, or that they shouldn’t run the ad because somebody might take it that way. . .

You know what? I’m not wasting time. Not another second.

This is moronic and borderline arrogant as I’ve ever seen here.

 

[Zow]

American Eagle put out probably an innocent ad but contained a clear potential for misinterpretation that the ad creators should have caught (unless they decided that outrage was a good thing to get people discussing their ad). Dumb by them and they should have known better.

This shouldn't be considered "dumb by them". They came up with a clever play on words and likely had no intent for it to be nazi propaganda. Because some people are reaching for a negative connotation should be on those people. Not the creator with zero intent for the outrage overstep.

You really believe that? Again, I watched it for the first time looking for the issue, but I thought it was blatantly obvious. Again, to be clear, not worth being outraged about but it was still pretty ****ing dumb even if the joke was innocently clever.

You thought it was blatantly obvious this ad would have nazi undertones?

Not nazi but yeah talking about "good genes" while displaying a white girl with blue eyes and blonde highlights in a country where white colored skin people used to enslave darker color skinned people and consider them literally 3/5s of a person seems pretty dumb and obvious it could appear offensive.

when as a society can we move past this thought process. Yes it happened, yes it was not right, but no one today had anything to do with that mindset and time period. Every time this is said it picks the scab and intentionally doesn't allow it heal. Its 2025, this is no longer an issue and prevents any rational conversation.

Perhaps when we stop making the carve-out for asylum seekers from Africa the white South Africans?

 

[Zow]

Woz, they’ve done nothing but $$$$ off of this. If you’re their counsel then you’re doing it wrong. They’re not getting sued.

I didn’t say they get sued and, yeah, if this was a marketing ploy kudos to them I suppose.

My primary point is that somebody at AE had to have known the optics of this.

If that’s your primary point then that’s about as cynical as all get-out. You’re saying they went with Aryan overtones on purpose? That’s your claim? You can make that claim with certainty?

You’re a trial lawyer and you’re going to easily deniable motive? Did you strenuously object to the Aryan?

Wow this post is bananas.

Yeah, no. You were playing “counsel” before because you were sure somebody knew what they were appealing to.

I’m laughing because that means you knew their motive, and it was to nod towards Aryan or Nazi overtones, or that they shouldn’t run the ad because somebody might take it that way. . .

You know what? I’m not wasting time. Not another second.

This is moronic and borderline arrogant as I’ve ever seen here.

You're twisting my statements. I've repeatedly statement the ad could have been innocent but somebody should have caught how the optics here appeared. I genuinely don't think this sentiment is either moronic or arrogant.

 

[BLOCKED_PUNT]

cool it guys

 

[Ghost Rider]

Woz, they’ve done nothing but $$$$ off of this. If you’re their counsel then you’re doing it wrong. They’re not getting sued.

I didn’t say they get sued and, yeah, if this was a marketing ploy kudos to them I suppose.

My primary point is that somebody at AE had to have known the optics of this.

If that’s your primary point then that’s about as cynical as all get-out. You’re saying they went with Aryan overtones on purpose? That’s your claim? You can make that claim with certainty?

You’re a trial lawyer and you’re going to easily deniable motive? Did you strenuously object to the Aryan?

Wow this post is bananas.

Yeah, no. You were playing “counsel” before because you were sure somebody knew what they were appealing to.

I’m laughing because that means you knew their motive, and it was to nod towards Aryan or Nazi overtones, or that they shouldn’t run the ad because somebody might take it that way. . .

You know what? I’m not wasting time. Not another second.

This is moronic and borderline arrogant as I’ve ever seen here.

You're twisting my statements. I've repeatedly statement the ad could have been innocent but somebody should have caught how the optics here appeared. I genuinely don't think this sentiment is either moronic or arrogant.

There is nothing wrong with the optics, unless one is a loon, someone prone to being outraged, or an ugly person envious about a very attractive woman.

 

[rockaction]

The

Woz, they’ve done nothing but $$$$ off of this. If you’re their counsel then you’re doing it wrong. They’re not getting sued.

I didn’t say they get sued and, yeah, if this was a marketing ploy kudos to them I suppose.

My primary point is that somebody at AE had to have known the optics of this.

If that’s your primary point then that’s about as cynical as all get-out. You’re saying they went with Aryan overtones on purpose? That’s your claim? You can make that claim with certainty?

You’re a trial lawyer and you’re going to easily deniable motive? Did you strenuously object to the Aryan?

Wow this post is bananas.

Yeah, no. You were playing “counsel” before because you were sure somebody knew what they were appealing to.

I’m laughing because that means you knew their motive, and it was to nod towards Aryan or Nazi overtones, or that they shouldn’t run the ad because somebody might take it that way. . .

You know what? I’m not wasting time. Not another second.

This is moronic and borderline arrogant as I’ve ever seen here.

You're twisting my statements. I've repeatedly statement the ad could have been innocent but somebody should have caught how the optics here appeared. I genuinely don't think this sentiment is either moronic or arrogant.

Thats not what you said. You just said somebody at the ad campaign knew and didn’t say anything. That means they knew and let a nod to Aryan supremacy go, or they should have kowtowed to loons. But you said “they knew.”

If they merely should have been sensitive to the optics of loons that means they should be restricting perfectly legitimate speech.

 

[Zow]

Woz, they’ve done nothing but $$$$ off of this. If you’re their counsel then you’re doing it wrong. They’re not getting sued.

I didn’t say they get sued and, yeah, if this was a marketing ploy kudos to them I suppose.

My primary point is that somebody at AE had to have known the optics of this.

If that’s your primary point then that’s about as cynical as all get-out. You’re saying they went with Aryan overtones on purpose? That’s your claim? You can make that claim with certainty?

You’re a trial lawyer and you’re going to easily deniable motive? Did you strenuously object to the Aryan?

Wow this post is bananas.

Don’t ever accuse someone of nodding towards Naziism when it’s not there and call me bananas for asking about whose motive you’re sure of with your mediocre intellect in tow, son.

I didn't call you bananas. I said your post was bananas - mainly because it completely distorted my point. I didn't accuse anybody of making a nod towards Nazism. I'm saying somebody at AE probably knew or should have known that it could be taken in a negative way - because it seems pretty evident to me if one watches the ad with any sort of critical thinking.

 

[-OZ-]

Woz, they’ve done nothing but $$$$ off of this. If you’re their counsel then you’re doing it wrong. They’re not getting sued.

I didn’t say they get sued and, yeah, if this was a marketing ploy kudos to them I suppose.

My primary point is that somebody at AE had to have known the optics of this.

If that’s your primary point then that’s about as cynical as all get-out. You’re saying they went with Aryan overtones on purpose? That’s your claim? You can make that claim with certainty?

You’re a trial lawyer and you’re going to easily deniable motive? Did you strenuously object to the Aryan?

Wow this post is bananas.

Don’t ever accuse someone of nodding towards Naziism when it’s not there and call me bananas for asking about whose motive you’re sure of with your mediocre intellect in tow, son.

I didn't call you bananas. I said your post was bananas - mainly because it completely distorted my point. I didn't accuse anybody of making a nod towards Nazism. I'm saying somebody at AE probably knew or should have known that it could be taken in a negative way - because it seems pretty evident to me if one watches the ad with any sort of critical thinking.

You’re assuming their publicity team is competent. Which is a fair assumption.

 

[Zow]

Woz, they’ve done nothing but $$$$ off of this. If you’re their counsel then you’re doing it wrong. They’re not getting sued.

I didn’t say they get sued and, yeah, if this was a marketing ploy kudos to them I suppose.

My primary point is that somebody at AE had to have known the optics of this.

If that’s your primary point then that’s about as cynical as all get-out. You’re saying they went with Aryan overtones on purpose? That’s your claim? You can make that claim with certainty?

You’re a trial lawyer and you’re going to easily deniable motive? Did you strenuously object to the Aryan?

Wow this post is bananas.

Yeah, no. You were playing “counsel” before because you were sure somebody knew what they were appealing to.

I’m laughing because that means you knew their motive, and it was to nod towards Aryan or Nazi overtones, or that they shouldn’t run the ad because somebody might take it that way. . .

You know what? I’m not wasting time. Not another second.

This is moronic and borderline arrogant as I’ve ever seen here.

You're twisting my statements. I've repeatedly statement the ad could have been innocent but somebody should have caught how the optics here appeared. I genuinely don't think this sentiment is either moronic or arrogant.

There is nothing wrong with the optics, unless one is a loon, someone prone to being outraged, or an ugly person envious about a very attractive woman.

I guess I'm a loon then because I watched it once and went, "oooh yeah, that could be misconstrued... oy."

To be clear, I'm not outraged by the ad. I get the pun and it in of itself is completely innocent. But I'm genuinely surprised at how many in here appear so surprised by the outrage and I'm genuinely surprised somebody who produced the ad didn't catch how it could be viewed and the potential for outrage by social justice warriors or whatever.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Woz, they’ve done nothing but $$$$ off of this. If you’re their counsel then you’re doing it wrong. They’re not getting sued.

I didn’t say they get sued and, yeah, if this was a marketing ploy kudos to them I suppose.

My primary point is that somebody at AE had to have known the optics of this.

If that’s your primary point then that’s about as cynical as all get-out. You’re saying they went with Aryan overtones on purpose? That’s your claim? You can make that claim with certainty?

You’re a trial lawyer and you’re going to easily deniable motive? Did you strenuously object to the Aryan?

Wow this post is bananas.

Yeah, no. You were playing “counsel” before because you were sure somebody knew what they were appealing to.

I’m laughing because that means you knew their motive, and it was to nod towards Aryan or Nazi overtones, or that they shouldn’t run the ad because somebody might take it that way. . .

You know what? I’m not wasting time. Not another second.

This is moronic and borderline arrogant as I’ve ever seen here.

You're twisting my statements. I've repeatedly statement the ad could have been innocent but somebody should have caught how the optics here appeared. I genuinely don't think this sentiment is either moronic or arrogant.

There is nothing wrong with the optics, unless one is a loon, someone prone to being outraged, or an ugly person envious about a very attractive woman.

I guess I'm a loon then because I watched it once and went, "oooh yeah, that could be misconstrued... oy."

To be clear, I'm not outraged by the ad. I get the pun and it in of itself is completely innocent. But I'm genuinely surprised at how many in here appear so surprised by the outrage and I'm genuinely surprised somebody who produced the ad didn't catch how it could be viewed and the potential for outrage by social justice warriors or whatever.

Well done. Admitting it means you are already on the way to recovery. Good luck.

 

[rockaction]

I'd wager most teens wouldn't connect a good genes pun to the Nazis.

Do you really think their point is “kids will think about nazis”? Or is it perhaps that the same message as the Nazis used is being received?
I don’t agree either way, but their point can’t be that “kids will think about mid 20th century History!”.

This is not a quote from Team Occam, that’s for sure. This line of thinking pretty much restricts speech to suit the completely eggshell plaintiff, which in this case is the angry McGill professor screaming about beauty standards and Palestine post-colonial utopias while apologizing for Mohammed Atta and trying to ban American football on the grounds of violence or stuff like that.

Their ultimate goal isn’t caution and discretion, nor is it a tort they’re messing with. This is speech and liberty they’re going after in the name of some amorphous diversity that really is about will, pressure points, and power. It’s transparent.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Wow you’ve also proven that government lawyers are ****ing stupid today.

Done with this ****.

So you get to say that we’re all dumber for what I said and get butthurt when I rebut? Sounds right, King Occam.

 

[Zow]

Woz, they’ve done nothing but $$$$ off of this. If you’re their counsel then you’re doing it wrong. They’re not getting sued.

I didn’t say they get sued and, yeah, if this was a marketing ploy kudos to them I suppose.

My primary point is that somebody at AE had to have known the optics of this.

If that’s your primary point then that’s about as cynical as all get-out. You’re saying they went with Aryan overtones on purpose? That’s your claim? You can make that claim with certainty?

You’re a trial lawyer and you’re going to easily deniable motive? Did you strenuously object to the Aryan?

Wow this post is bananas.

Yeah, no. You were playing “counsel” before because you were sure somebody knew what they were appealing to.

I’m laughing because that means you knew their motive, and it was to nod towards Aryan or Nazi overtones, or that they shouldn’t run the ad because somebody might take it that way. . .

You know what? I’m not wasting time. Not another second.

This is moronic and borderline arrogant as I’ve ever seen here.

You're twisting my statements. I've repeatedly statement the ad could have been innocent but somebody should have caught how the optics here appeared. I genuinely don't think this sentiment is either moronic or arrogant.

There is nothing wrong with the optics, unless one is a loon, someone prone to being outraged, or an ugly person envious about a very attractive woman.

I guess I'm a loon then because I watched it once and went, "oooh yeah, that could be misconstrued... oy."

To be clear, I'm not outraged by the ad. I get the pun and it in of itself is completely innocent. But I'm genuinely surprised at how many in here appear so surprised by the outrage and I'm genuinely surprised somebody who produced the ad didn't catch how it could be viewed and the potential for outrage by social justice warriors or whatever.

Well done. Admitting it means you are already on the way to recovery. Good luck.

I'm content with my plumage.

 

[Jayrod]

Speaking as one of these "children" that are allegedly being looked after all the time, we'd rather you worry about yourselves and focus on you, your actions and what you can control. We're fine. We don't need your "help" or "protection".

There is always someone to be offended. I don't know where this discomfort in disagreement came from, but its pervasive. Grown adults can't handle being in disagreement with each other. They feel the need to shame others into their position. My dad claims these are the same people who grew up with participation trophies and have been told that all opinions are equally valid and deserve respect/consideration. Fortunately, that wasn't taught in my house. Rather, we were taught to be our own person. We were taught to do our best and learn in our failures and have enough self esteem to acknowledge wrong and work to fix it moving forward.

Anyone ever wonder why some aren't impacted by "cancel culture"? Think about Eminem, the South Park dudes, etc. They aren't impacted because they don't give a crap and don't buy into the nonsense. They don't care what people think of them. They act/speak as they feel and that's good enough for them. They don't care if they are on an island. "Cancel culture" only works if we buy into it.

OK, Sparky. Cancel culture isn't just about how you feel. It has been about people's livelihoods. If it was just online TikToks that made people mad, that would be one thing, but people had their lives effected in real and tangible ways by cancel culture up to losing opportunities and even jobs over something stupid they said decades before. South Park & Eminem have always made a living through being shocking, over the top people so of course it didn't effect them as much.

And I'm glad you are level-headed and strong willed enough to handle these things, but there are a whole lot of people that didn't grow up with your father in their ear and are stumbling through life and very susceptible to indoctrination. A bad professor can corrupt a lot of kids' minds.

Also, pretty hilarious that you seem to think you can speak for an entire generation.

You make my point for me, so thanks for that. The bold is exactly how almost all of these things start. If those people were minimized as they should be instead of magnified as they are, we wouldn't have a problem. It would be the equivalent of the town idiot standing in the corner yelling at the wall. Something that has happened since the dawn of time. There are literally billions of these sorts of potential interactions every day in our social media culture and we hear about less than a fraction of a % of them, but then we turn around and pretend they are the norm. It doesn't help anyone to feed the nonsense.

I don't really know where the "bad professor" comment comes from, but its true that there are bad professors out there. Its also true that there are a ton of good professors out there. I'll just leave it at that as I have no real idea how it has anything to do with my comments.

You completely ignored 95% of what I wrote and tried to claim I made your point for you. Read the rest of the paragraph around the bolded one and think about it.

The professor thing was me assuming your comments about being one of the children and not needing our protection was based on earlier discussions about professors. I assumed you were referencing the discussion of how this IS serious and needs addressing (not just ignoring) because there are college professors speaking about this as Nazi propaganda. And the fear is that those "bad professors" are teaching kids this nonsense.

If not, then I have no idea what your original post was talking about.

 

[Zow]

Who is more outrageous? Those that are outraged or those that are outraged at the outrage?

Somebody posted earlier in this thread about this issue being a current microcosm of America and I'm tending to agree. I genuinely don't understand why the rational line of thinking here isn't, "Yeah, AE's pun here was probably innocent in nature but, man, while not intended that joke could be reasonably misconstrued with these specific circumstances."

 

[Sand]

@glvsav37 yes, chattel slavery is no longer an issue in the US, but racism is still definitely a thing.

It’s easy to say as part of the majority that everyone needs to move on and forget about it, but you might want to consider that you are not the right person to make that claim. It’s not outrageous for people to think the consequences of that system are still very much a thing in 2025.

If Gatorade came out with a commercial that featured Saquon and talked about his good genes it would absolutely be seen as problematic.

Gotta shake my head here. Both Sydney and Saquon have superb genes. That's a ridiculously obvious truth and miles away from problematic.

 

[-OZ-]

I'd wager most teens wouldn't connect a good genes pun to the Nazis.

Do you really think their point is “kids will think about nazis”? Or is it perhaps that the same message as the Nazis used is being received?
I don’t agree either way, but their point can’t be that “kids will think about mid 20th century History!”.

This is not a quote from Team Occam, that’s for sure. This line of thinking pretty much restricts speech to suit the completely eggshell plaintiff, which in this case is the angry McGill professor screaming about beauty standards and Palestine post-colonial utopias while apologizing for Mohammed Atta and trying to ban American football on the grounds of violence or stuff like that.

Their ultimate goal isn’t caution and discretion, nor is it a tort they’re messing with. This is speech and liberty they’re going after in the name of some amorphous diversity that really is about will, pressure points, and power. It’s transparent.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Wow you’ve also proven that government lawyers are ****ing stupid today.

Done with this ****.

So you get to say that we’re all dumber for what I said and get butthurt when I rebut? Sounds right, King Occam.

Nice try.

 

[-OZ-]

@glvsav37 yes, chattel slavery is no longer an issue in the US, but racism is still definitely a thing.

It’s easy to say as part of the majority that everyone needs to move on and forget about it, but you might want to consider that you are not the right person to make that claim. It’s not outrageous for people to think the consequences of that system are still very much a thing in 2025.

If Gatorade came out with a commercial that featured Saquon and talked about his good genes it would absolutely be seen as problematic.

Gotta shake my head here. Both Sydney and Saquon have superb genes. That's a ridiculously obvious truth and miles away from problematic.

Of course, and the pun isn’t new. But they had to know what they were doing, and chose to let people be upset.
It’s a business decision, but let’s not act like the reaction is totally unexpected.

 

[WDIK2]

Now for something completely different. No one else thinks she has kind of a dull expressionless face? I mean, I can get past that, just checking if I'm out on a limb here.

Now back to the slap-fight.

 

[Zow]

Now for something completely different. No one else thinks she has kind of a dull expressionless face? I mean, I can get past that, just checking if I'm out on a limb here.

Now back to the slap-fight.

We've already established she doesn't have a face like two pages ago.

Now, back to slapping each other in our respective faces...

 

[Zow]

@glvsav37 yes, chattel slavery is no longer an issue in the US, but racism is still definitely a thing.

It’s easy to say as part of the majority that everyone needs to move on and forget about it, but you might want to consider that you are not the right person to make that claim. It’s not outrageous for people to think the consequences of that system are still very much a thing in 2025.

If Gatorade came out with a commercial that featured Saquon and talked about his good genes it would absolutely be seen as problematic.

Gotta shake my head here. Both Sydney and Saquon have superb genes. That's a ridiculously obvious truth and miles away from problematic.

Of course, and the pun isn’t new. But they had to know what they were doing, and chose to let people be upset.
It’s a business decision, but let’s not act like the reaction is totally unexpected.

I still leave the door open for "should have know" but didn't actually. I think that's possible, though I'm not sure I'd wager on that being the reality.

 

[TLEF316]

Now for something completely different. No one else thinks she has kind of a dull expressionless face? I mean, I can get past that, just checking if I'm out on a limb here.

Now back to the slap-fight.

I mean....she's obviously obscenely attractive by every day standards. But yeah......her current position as Hollywood's flavor of the month is driven almost entirely by her most prominent assets. (and her willingness to do stuff like this ad, the soap thing, etc.).

 

[Moe.]

@glvsav37 yes, chattel slavery is no longer an issue in the US, but racism is still definitely a thing.

It’s easy to say as part of the majority that everyone needs to move on and forget about it, but you might want to consider that you are not the right person to make that claim. It’s not outrageous for people to think the consequences of that system are still very much a thing in 2025.

If Gatorade came out with a commercial that featured Saquon and talked about his good genes it would absolutely be seen as problematic.

Gotta shake my head here. Both Sydney and Saquon have superb genes. That's a ridiculously obvious truth and miles away from problematic.

Sure but if you made him the central figure of a marketing campaign and the tagline was something like “he was bred for this” people would not be happy. It’s all about the delivery and it’s not a stretch to interpret this AE ad a certain way. I’m not personally offended but that’s not a requirement to think something was tone-deaf and then want to have a conversation about it. Heck their own marketing chief said they were trying to be provocative and push buttons.

 

[Nugget]

She rocked SNL as the Hooters waitress.

 

[Nugget]

Not sure if this has been posted as the last page became rough to read, but here was the Ad Week take - link

“It signals that creating controversy and attention-grabbing content is now everywhere, and this flavor may reflect a cultural longing for simpler times. It is unlikely that [the team] proceeded with this campaign without having insight into their audience and business that led to the decision.”

Leila Fataar, former Adidas and Diageo marketer-turned-founder of consultancy Platform13 and author of Culture-Led Brands, believes the backlash reflects a simple truth: brand messages don’t land in a vacuum; they land in culture, and that culture needs to be reflected in agency teams and marketing departments.

“Brands are active participants in a global dialogue, with cultural fluency not just a marketing advantage but a foundational element of successful contemporary business strategy,” she said.

Fataar added: “In this transformational and pivotal moment in global history, and specifically in the U.S., ensuring a variety of perspectives both in ideation and, importantly, in decision making is essential.”

 

[BLOCKED_PUNT]

could be reasonably misconstrued

OBJECTION!