Sydney Sweeney / American Eagle Controversy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this ad is a bit tone deaf, but not actually offensive. They could easily just add a couple more pairs of jeans/spokespeople and defuse all of this, so they may go that route.

But people don’t necessarily want that. A lot of people are tired of every add featuring an interracial couple.

Who cares what race she is? She’s objectively hot.

A lot of people were tired of seeing only white people in ads. The younger generation is more multi-ethnic than any past generation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this ad is a bit tone deaf, but not actually offensive. They could easily just add a couple more pairs of jeans/spokespeople and defuse all of this, so they may go that route.

But people don’t necessarily want that. A lot of people are tired of every add featuring an interracial couple.

Who cares what race she is? She’s objectively hot.

A lot of people were tired of seeing only white people in ads. The younger generation is more multi-ethnic than any past generation.

Exactly. Only a clueless white dude would write this.

[Anonymous]

So if they said a African American person has good genes it would be ok or is nobody allowed to have good genes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this ad is a bit tone deaf, but not actually offensive. They could easily just add a couple more pairs of jeans/spokespeople and defuse all of this, so they may go that route.

None of the people who care about this would actually buy AE jeans so no need to waste money.

I disagree. There is definitely an extreme contingent that thinks AE is promoting eugenics, but there are also a lot of younger women who seem to dislike the ad because they don’t like how Sydney panders to men and — although they haven’t really articulated it this way — they find it cringy. I see so many TikTok videos of attractive* users mocking her because of her weird pronunciation. These sexy ads remind me od perfume commercials — awkward and earnest and desperate to seem sexy, and that alone kills their appeal among Gen Zers

*I know it sounds weird to bring up they’re attractive, but I’m mentioning it because a lot of people seem to think the backlash is coming from a bunch of ugly, jealous women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this ad is a bit tone deaf, but not actually offensive. They could easily just add a couple more pairs of jeans/spokespeople and defuse all of this, so they may go that route.

But people don’t necessarily want that. A lot of people are tired of every add featuring an interracial couple.

Who cares what race she is? She’s objectively hot.

A lot of people were tired of seeing only white people in ads. The younger generation is more multi-ethnic than any past generation.

People are getting weird because America is getting noticeably Browner and the corporations were changing strategies to match it. Currently, America is 78 percent White, however only about 50 percent of babies are born to White mothers. Interracial relationships are much more common than they were when boomers and Gen X were younger so people are being really strange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So if they said an African American person has good genes it would be ok or is nobody allowed to have good genes?

I know you love seething at Disney live action films and think the world is too “woke” now as a result, but they would not have an ad with a POC extolling their genes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So if they said a African American person has good genes it would be ok or is nobody allowed to have good genes?

If we stop measuring skin color, hair texture, lip and nose width, then how can we run a proper DEI program? It's important to evaluate people by these things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So if they said a African American person has good genes it would be ok or is nobody allowed to have good genes?

I don’t know if you’ve been on Instagram or Twitter lately, but those platforms have been flooded with hateful racist comments from neo n*zis. An ad featuring a Black woman talking about her great genes would receive a hunch of racist comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this ad is a bit tone deaf, but not actually offensive. They could easily just add a couple more pairs of jeans/spokespeople and defuse all of this, so they may go that route.

But people don’t necessarily want that. A lot of people are tired of every add featuring an interracial couple.

Who cares what race she is? She’s objectively hot.

A lot of people were tired of seeing only white people in ads. The younger generation is more multi-ethnic than any past generation.

People are getting weird because America is getting noticeably Browner and the corporations were changing strategies to match it. Currently, America is 78 percent White, however only about 50 percent of babies are born to White mothers. Interracial relationships are much more common than they were when boomers and Gen X were younger so people are being really strange.

It doesn't help that the Washington Post says "Democracy dies in darkness."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this ad is a bit tone deaf, but not actually offensive. They could easily just add a couple more pairs of jeans/spokespeople and defuse all of this, so they may go that route.

None of the people who care about this would actually buy AE jeans so no need to waste money.

I disagree. There is definitely an extreme contingent that thinks AE is promoting eugenics, but there are also a lot of younger women who seem to dislike the ad because they don’t like how Sydney panders to men and — although they haven’t really articulated it this way — they find it cringy. I see so many TikTok videos of attractive* users mocking her because of her weird pronunciation. These sexy ads remind me od perfume commercials — awkward and earnest and desperate to seem sexy, and that alone kills their appeal among Gen Zers

*I know it sounds weird to bring up they’re attractive, but I’m mentioning it because a lot of people seem to think the backlash is coming from a bunch of ugly, jealous women.

I saw an ad today of her at Baskin Robbins sucking her drink through a straw while two male employees look on, dumbfounded. I was struck by the infantile drink which was a strawberry soda type thing with gummy bears floating in it. I don't know what Gen zers find sexy but I doubt it's this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This ad is a thermometer. People are scared and stressed out. This is why the ad is so triggering.

I agree, I think it's understandable why people are frazzled and I don't like that they're being made fun of for being "oversensitive woke people."

If you are triggered by a white person saying they have good genes you have only yourself to blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this ad is a bit tone deaf, but not actually offensive. They could easily just add a couple more pairs of jeans/spokespeople and defuse all of this, so they may go that route.

None of the people who care about this would actually buy AE jeans so no need to waste money.

I disagree. There is definitely an extreme contingent that thinks AE is promoting eugenics, but there are also a lot of younger women who seem to dislike the ad because they don’t like how Sydney panders to men and — although they haven’t really articulated it this way — they find it cringy. I see so many TikTok videos of attractive* users mocking her because of her weird pronunciation. These sexy ads remind me od perfume commercials — awkward and earnest and desperate to seem sexy, and that alone kills their appeal among Gen Zers

*I know it sounds weird to bring up they’re attractive, but I’m mentioning it because a lot of people seem to think the backlash is coming from a bunch of ugly, jealous women.

Sydney has little traction with women. This is going to sound harsh but she wouldn’t have this fame if it wasn’t for her body. Her acting skills are average. I don’t think she has longevity and I think she knows it also. She is no Margot Robbie or Angelina Jolie talent wise, so she has to capitalize on her body until she ages out and gets replaced by a new hot girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this ad is a bit tone deaf, but not actually offensive. They could easily just add a couple more pairs of jeans/spokespeople and defuse all of this, so they may go that route.

None of the people who care about this would actually buy AE jeans so no need to waste money.

I disagree. There is definitely an extreme contingent that thinks AE is promoting eugenics, but there are also a lot of younger women who seem to dislike the ad because they don’t like how Sydney panders to men and — although they haven’t really articulated it this way — they find it cringy. I see so many TikTok videos of attractive* users mocking her because of her weird pronunciation. These sexy ads remind me od perfume commercials — awkward and earnest and desperate to seem sexy, and that alone kills their appeal among Gen Zers

*I know it sounds weird to bring up they’re attractive, but I’m mentioning it because a lot of people seem to think the backlash is coming from a bunch of ugly, jealous women.

I saw an ad today of her at Baskin Robbins sucking her drink through a straw while two male employees look on, dumbfounded. I was struck by the infantile drink which was a strawberry soda type thing with gummy bears floating in it. I don't know what Gen zers find sexy but I doubt it's this.

The guys probably like it. It’s like the waitresses they have at Hooters, they don’t put the girls in tight tank tops and tiny shorts to sell wings and beer to women.

[Anonymous]

This ad is a throwback to a different time, maybe they were going for the 90s when things seemed more optimistic and carefree overall.

However, as someone who grew up when there were hardly any ads or representation of people who looked like me in movies or popular culture, it does seem to be emphasizing the time when blonde-ish women with blue eyes and big boobs were the "ideal" and it's not a good look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this ad is a bit tone deaf, but not actually offensive. They could easily just add a couple more pairs of jeans/spokespeople and defuse all of this, so they may go that route.

None of the people who care about this would actually buy AE jeans so no need to waste money.

I disagree. There is definitely an extreme contingent that thinks AE is promoting eugenics, but there are also a lot of younger women who seem to dislike the ad because they don’t like how Sydney panders to men and — although they haven’t really articulated it this way — they find it cringy. I see so many TikTok videos of attractive* users mocking her because of her weird pronunciation. These sexy ads remind me od perfume commercials — awkward and earnest and desperate to seem sexy, and that alone kills their appeal among Gen Zers

*I know it sounds weird to bring up they’re attractive, but I’m mentioning it because a lot of people seem to think the backlash is coming from a bunch of ugly, jealous women.

Gen Z women generally don’t like MAGA which Sweeney has been suspected to be long before this ad from other incidents.