Sydney Sweeney / American Eagle Controversy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

Good grief. You have serious problems. There was a Jean ad not too long ago featuring Beyoncé. No outrage over that.
Truth is the left has caused this ad campaign to truly succeed because of your insane outrage.

Is the right really this dumb? You honestly don't understand that the complaint is about the MESSAGE and not the skin, face, body or boobs?

The "genes" thing is a play on words nothing more nothing less. Everything is not that deep.

I am starting to think AE started the controversy to drive attention to the brand.

Yes, it's a play on words. Good genes/jeans. Her jeans are BLUE -- extrapolate to blue genes, eyes. I so hope Hitler comes back so he can sterilize all the low IQ population, including the dull PP above and Ye. What a joke Ye thinks Hitler would want him around. I would love to see him run in for a hug.

I took the good genes to mean that she's objectively attractive and therefore must have had good genes. It would be the same if it was an attractive model or actress of a different ethnicity. The thing is she is about the hottest actress of her generation right now. I am 50, and the only actresses in their twenties that I know are her and Zendaya. And I have never even seen their TV show, so the reason I know them is because of coverage in mainstream media.

“The thing is she is about the hottest actress of her generation right now.”

You made me actually laugh out loud. I hope you are getting paid for that major shill job.

Sweeney does not pay me, I am a government attorney

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Sweeney. She did not make the commercial. She was just a paid actor. Let her be.

I posted pages ago that I don’t begrudge Sweeney trying to make a buck. But she’s gotta deal with the fallout of how she chose to make the buck.

She's probably loving every minute of this. She got paid to make the ad now she's got all this free publicity of everyone everywhere talking about her.

[Anonymous]

She is a maga.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She is a maga.

Okay then let the Maga buy the product if they choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

Good grief. You have serious problems. There was a Jean ad not too long ago featuring Beyoncé. No outrage over that.
Truth is the left has caused this ad campaign to truly succeed because of your insane outrage.

Is the right really this dumb? You honestly don't understand that the complaint is about the MESSAGE and not the skin, face, body or boobs?

The "genes" thing is a play on words nothing more nothing less. Everything is not that deep.

I am starting to think AE started the controversy to drive attention to the brand.

This. And she is objectively beautiful. You could make the exact same ad with beautiful women or men of every ethnicity. If they say they will only make it with white actors, then ok, that’s outrageous. But otherwise the fact that it happened to feature a beautiful white woman instead of a beautiful black or Indian woman is just what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Sweeney. She did not make the commercial. She was just a paid actor. Let her be.

I posted pages ago that I don’t begrudge Sweeney trying to make a buck. But she’s gotta deal with the fallout of how she chose to make the buck.

She has increased her profile and everyone is now aware she’s the it girl. It’s only bitter harpies that were never going to like her that are complaining.

[Anonymous]

Her face is not objectively beautiful though. She looks rather dim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Her face is not objectively beautiful though. She looks rather dim.

Does that all come from her genes? Are they good?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

Good grief. You have serious problems. There was a Jean ad not too long ago featuring Beyoncé. No outrage over that.
Truth is the left has caused this ad campaign to truly succeed because of your insane outrage.

Is the right really this dumb? You honestly don't understand that the complaint is about the MESSAGE and not the skin, face, body or boobs?

The "genes" thing is a play on words nothing more nothing less. Everything is not that deep.

I am starting to think AE started the controversy to drive attention to the brand.

This. And she is objectively beautiful. You could make the exact same ad with beautiful women or men of every ethnicity. If they say they will only make it with white actors, then ok, that’s outrageous. But otherwise the fact that it happened to feature a beautiful white woman instead of a beautiful black or Indian woman is just what it is.

So you think they would have someone with brown eyes saying the same thing? You miss the point of the ad entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

Good grief. You have serious problems. There was a Jean ad not too long ago featuring Beyoncé. No outrage over that.
Truth is the left has caused this ad campaign to truly succeed because of your insane outrage.

Is the right really this dumb? You honestly don't understand that the complaint is about the MESSAGE and not the skin, face, body or boobs?

The "genes" thing is a play on words nothing more nothing less. Everything is not that deep.

I am starting to think AE started the controversy to drive attention to the brand.

This. And she is objectively beautiful. You could make the exact same ad with beautiful women or men of every ethnicity. If they say they will only make it with white actors, then ok, that’s outrageous. But otherwise the fact that it happened to feature a beautiful white woman instead of a beautiful black or Indian woman is just what it is.

So you think they would have someone with brown eyes saying the same thing? You miss the point of the ad entirely.

This does not really seem like the brand of brown-eyed people based on this particular ad campaign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

Good grief. You have serious problems. There was a Jean ad not too long ago featuring Beyoncé. No outrage over that.
Truth is the left has caused this ad campaign to truly succeed because of your insane outrage.

Is the right really this dumb? You honestly don't understand that the complaint is about the MESSAGE and not the skin, face, body or boobs?

The "genes" thing is a play on words nothing more nothing less. Everything is not that deep.

I am starting to think AE started the controversy to drive attention to the brand.

Yes, it's a play on words. Good genes/jeans. Her jeans are BLUE -- extrapolate to blue genes, eyes. I so hope Hitler comes back so he can sterilize all the low IQ population, including the dull PP above and Ye. What a joke Ye thinks Hitler would want him around. I would love to see him run in for a hug.

I took the good genes to mean that she's objectively attractive and therefore must have had good genes. It would be the same if it was an attractive model or actress of a different ethnicity. The thing is she is about the hottest actress of her generation right now. I am 50, and the only actresses in their twenties that I know are her and Zendaya. And I have never even seen their TV show, so the reason I know them is because of coverage in mainstream media.

“The thing is she is about the hottest actress of her generation right now.”

You made me actually laugh out loud. I hope you are getting paid for that major shill job.

Sweeney does not pay me, I am a government attorney

You need to get more exposure to pop culture if you really believe she is the hottest actress of her generation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

Good grief. You have serious problems. There was a Jean ad not too long ago featuring Beyoncé. No outrage over that.
Truth is the left has caused this ad campaign to truly succeed because of your insane outrage.

Is the right really this dumb? You honestly don't understand that the complaint is about the MESSAGE and not the skin, face, body or boobs?

The "genes" thing is a play on words nothing more nothing less. Everything is not that deep.

I am starting to think AE started the controversy to drive attention to the brand.

This. And she is objectively beautiful. You could make the exact same ad with beautiful women or men of every ethnicity. If they say they will only make it with white actors, then ok, that’s outrageous. But otherwise the fact that it happened to feature a beautiful white woman instead of a beautiful black or Indian woman is just what it is.

So you think they would have someone with brown eyes saying the same thing? You miss the point of the ad entirely.

Only the self loathers would think they they could never have good genes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Her face is not objectively beautiful though. She looks rather dim.

Maybe that’s why she only said “great” and not the best. Leaving some room for improvement.

[Anonymous]

I think they knew exactly what they were doing and the marketing team is incredibly pleased with how this blew up. Which is depressing, but that's the world we live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her face is not objectively beautiful though. She looks rather dim.

Does that all come from her genes? Are they good?

Her face looks like she has an extra chromosome.