This thread is absolutely fascinating.

The pivot from "this is Nazi" to "no one is saying Nazi" about half-way through provides such a great view of how people attack, lose ground, then counter-attack from a different direction in online political battles. It also makes you wonder how many people would actually agree with the arguments of their "side" if they weren't conditioned to accept them without question. That they can change tactics on the fly without the slightest problem demonstrates that winning the argument in question isn't the point, not losing to the other side is the important bit.

If you find that you're not winning an argument, what do you do?  Work to erase the initial argument then change it to something else.

I don't know if I've ever seen a more clear example than this.  The first argument has almost been abandoned, other than a few hold-outs who didn't get the memo, and now it has switched to "this is fake news" (ironically enough) along with the usual "look at something else" attempts.  The general idea seems to be that you are not allowed to think about Gaza if 5 minutes of your time have been consumed by Sidney Sweeney.  Can the two things not exist in someone's brains at the same time?  Crazy.  What I like the most is the establishment of a custom criteria, such as "it only counts if one (1) elected official has addressed the topic."  Hey, these are the rules, I don't make them up.

Looking at the poll results for how actual people felt about the ad, I wonder how that poll would have changed if none of the respondents had heard any discourse about it?  What if they'd never learned their party's position or the position of their rivals?  What if they'd never learned that their party was attempting to alter the argument to something else?

Anyway, really interesting to watch.  Let's see how completely different the argument can get from the original discussion and if the misdirection attempts were successful.

This thread is absolutely fascinating.

The pivot from "this is Nazi" to "no one is saying Nazi" about half-way through provides such a great view of how people attack, lose ground, then counter-attack from a different direction in online political battles. It also makes you wonder how many people would actually agree with the arguments of their "side" if they weren't conditioned to accept them without question. That they can change tactics on the fly without the slightest problem demonstrates that winning the argument in question isn't the point, not losing to the other side is the important bit.

If you find that you're not winning an argument, what do you do?  Work to erase the initial argument then change it to something else.

I don't know if I've ever seen a more clear example than this.  The first argument has almost been abandoned, other than a few hold-outs who didn't get the memo, and now it has switched to "this is fake news" (ironically enough) along with the usual "look at something else" attempts.  The general idea seems to be that you are not allowed to think about Gaza if 5 minutes of your time have been consumed by Sidney Sweeney.  Can the two things not exist in someone's brains at the same time?  Crazy.  What I like the most is the establishment of a custom criteria, such as "it only counts if one (1) elected official has addressed the topic."  Hey, these are the rules, I don't make them up.

Looking at the poll results for how actual people felt about the ad, I wonder how that poll would have changed if none of the respondents had heard any discourse about it?  What if they'd never learned their party's position or the position of their rivals?  What if they'd never learned that their party was attempting to alter the argument to something else?

Anyway, really interesting to watch.  Let's see how completely different the argument can get from the original discussion and if the misdirection attempts were successful.

Hmmm, this thread has nothing to do with whether the ad represent nazim or not.  That was the 2 way conversation between you and another poster.  Maybe you should continue to address that person points against your own opinion.  From your comment you seem to believe that your conversation with that one person represent the only opinion expressed in the comments about the ad whether pro or con.

I believe you take way too much stock on your own discussion as if it's the only point being made about the topic.  Many different points were made and different directions based on the points move the subject to other areas.  If you want to continue your point, I suggest you continue your conversation with the person you were making your point against.

Can you show a single example of someone who said “this nazi” early on then changed their argument to “no one is sayings it’s nazi” later on?

Makes absolutely no difference if it is the same person or not.  If people are saying it--and the even the mainstream media reported that from the start--then someone coming in later and acting like that was never said is enough to establish my point.  One search and I saw Left rated outlets running stories that highlighted the eugenics angle--but now it's just fake outrage?  

Makes absolutely no difference if it is the same person or not.

People fall for far-right talking points in every democratic country, just like the left in every democratic country could be accused of not talking enough about topics like affordable housing, and it happens to be an accusation that is usually hardly based in reality. That's why one does not need to live in the USA to understand how stupid people behave and think.

The reason why social policies fall on deaf ears is because the message that immigrants are to blame for everything resonates much more easily. Just like your example, the accusation from the right that the left prioritizes taking down statues, resonates much better with the gullible than the truth.

In fall 2024 it was calculated by economists that Trump's policies would increase the expenses of an average American household by ~$3000 a year. This was broadcasted on major channels repeatedly, and talked about by Democrats. Despite the truth being readily accessible, the majority of Americans still believed that Trump's competence on the economy is superior to the Democrats'. You keep portraying the American political landscape as if the Democrats didn't address the important topics, as if nobody warned the American population of how bad a second Trump term would be. But that isn't what was going on in the months leading up to the election, because these things were talked about on a daily basis. At some point the responsibility for the election results must be put on the shoulders of the voters. There wasn't a lack of good information, there was a lack of good judgment.

According to a poll my YouGov and The Economist, 12% of Americans from their sample of 1635 adults found the ad offensive.

That might not sound like a lot, but for that much of the population to be so radicalized by ideological hysteria that they see Nazism in an ad for jeans is pretty concerning and shows how much people's brains have been rotted by so many years of culture war rubbish.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/articles/poll-suggests-sydney-sweeney-jeans-224306113.html?guccounter=1

Clever-39%

Offensive-12%

Neither-40%

Not Sure-8%

Also, the question doesn’t refer to Nazism at all, it just asks if it’s offensive or not. It’s very possible much of that 12% find it offensive without thinking it’s promoting Nazis.

Like it could simply be that some people wish it featured people of different races and body types without instantly jumping to NAZIS!!!!