Sydney Sweeney does an ad for jeans, media throws a hissy fit

[The_Yoda]

ArchangelMadzz said:

The_Yoda said:

How about your corner of the room is not the whole room?  Your opinion on it being tone deaf is not the only opinion on the matter.  Does that address YOUR opinion?

Edit:

I am not trying to grandstand but it seems odd that not one poster had mentioned a major point of the ad campaign which was to use Sweeney's clout and design (the butterfly motif) to raise funds for the text line.  NPR didn't even mention it this morning that I heard.  Too many people got hung up on the wrong thing in my opinion.  You are free to disagree with that opinion because mine is no better than yours.  Different strokes for different folks.

For you and others I can totally see them thinking it tone deaf.  We all have opinions and we of course all think they are right or justified. The very nature of opinion.

Sorry if you had started to respond before I made the edit.  I almost put it in another post.  

There's lots of opinions on this, but the relevant ones here are your opinion and my opinion, that's why we're having a conversation between the 2 of us. 

The first fair point.

I just think they're 2 very different conversations the campaign being for DV victims is objectively good, we can all agree, that doesn't mean that we can't criticise it in any way.

A second fair point.  As to your read the room.  If she had different eye and hair color would you still think it related in any way to Nazi's?  Are all models and actresses with blond hair and blue eyes on the out since there is a rise (from nearly no one to a relatively small few morons) of Nazi-ism? When would that end, when we are back down to less than a million pro-nazi like opinions out of the 8 billion opinions on the planet?  

If someone was invoking images of slavery but the campaign was for blind orphans and we're all like hey wait why are you use slave imagery? the response isn't "Omg you guys are ignoring the orphans don't they matter?"

I would again say your are missing the point and focusing on the wrong thing if the point was assisting blind orphans that are not once mentioned.  That would be different if the outcry was What does slavery have to do with blind orphans? That is a different conversation. It's focus would then be on the contrast  / relevance of slavery to blind orphans.  Or am I missing your point which is my response is invalid and worthless since I did respond in similar fashion to "Omg you guys are ignoring the orphans don't they matter?".  Your use of "the response isn't" would seem to indicate that ...

Are you sure you are still not hung up on "perfect jeans"?  I can see where that would have been problematic.  On the surface she does appear to have great genes just like I would guess Usain Bolt to have great genes.  I hear he is also a hell of a nice guy to boot. 

Recognizing someones genes should not be problematic especially when it is a silly play on words that is not even original (Brook Shields Calvin Klein 1980).   

Sorry for the delay in response I got busy again.

Sweet I didn't edit over your response.  See above please.

Edit it dropped some of my second paragraph and I am replacing it