Fair, but I would argue that being offended by that is just as stupid and ridiculous.

Sure but there are levels of offended and different reasons to be offended, if those 12% were asked further questions like:

How offensive did you find it?

-mildly

-moderately

-extremely

Which best describes why you find it offensive?

-Lacks racial/body diversity

-Promotes stereotypes

-Too sexualized

-Promotes Eugenics/Nazism

-I don’t like Sydney Sweeney

Depending on how people answer these questions, it could possibly be more like 3-4% of people would be considered “radicalized”.

I would agree that someone who is extremely offended and thinks it promotes Nazism while making a big deal about it online is radical but I wouldn’t say the same thing for someone who finds it mildly offensive for lacking diversity or being too sexual and isn’t making a big fuss about it.

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 get offended by 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

I think the article answers a lot of the questions:

"Adding to this, The New York Times revealed that a lot of comments and discussions going around online are from artificially-generated sources.

The report read, “Criticism of the ad campaign had come almost entirely from a smattering of accounts with relatively few followers, according to an analysis of social media data by The New York Times. Conversation about the ad did not escalate online or in traditional media until days later, after right-leaning influencers, broadcasters, and politicians began criticizing what they described as a wave of progressive outrage.”

Probably very few people were offended initially, if they even gave the ad any thought, but when you are getting bombarded with rubbish posts related to it for days, people feel pushed into having a stance on it. When all they see are MAGA people attacking an "outrage" related to the ad, and they themselves are opposed to said MAGA people, they might feel inclined to jump unto the wagon MAGA is attacking, and MAGA has effectively created the reality they wanted.

I think the article answers a lot of the questions:

"Adding to this, The New York Times revealed that a lot of comments and discussions going around online are from artificially-generated sources.

The report read, “Criticism of the ad campaign had come almost entirely from a smattering of accounts with relatively few followers, according to an analysis of social media data by The New York Times. Conversation about the ad did not escalate online or in traditional media until days later, after right-leaning influencers, broadcasters, and politicians began criticizing what they described as a wave of progressive outrage.”

Probably very few people were offended initially, if they even gave the ad any thought, but when you are getting bombarded with rubbish posts related to it for days, people feel pushed into having a stance on it. When all they see are MAGA people attacking an "outrage" related to the ad, and they themselves are opposed to said MAGA people, they might feel inclined to jump unto the wagon MAGA is attacking, and MAGA has effectively created the reality they wanted.

Yes of course.  You are a US expert which is why you were dead wrong with all your 2024 election predictions, lol.  

Not sure what kind of person makes a bunch of predictions, gets them all wrong and concludes they are an expert.

Middle America feels left behind by the left.  Reading a couple MSN articles doesn't make you an expert.  The fact you don't think living and experiencing culture is required to truly understand blows my mind.  I can know what living in the Ukraine is like by watching the news?  Of course not.  

The fact you still think the problem is intelligence tells me two things.  First, you still don't know what you are talking about.  Secondly, you are still licking your wounds from 2024.

I was wrong with all of my 2024 election prediction, because the single one I made turned out to be wrong. What a way to inflate numbers.

This isn't about understanding what living in a country is like, it's about understanding why people make stupid decisions. The definition of 'stupid' is to do things that do not only hurt others around you, but the person themself who is making the decision.

You've established yourself on this forum as someone who is rich. Naturally, you directly benefit from Americans making a stupid decision in an election, hence why you have a personal reason to let them believe that they aren't stupid, so that they keep doing what they are doing. On one hand you have said that Trump in unelectable for you because he is an insurrectionist, but on the other hand you stand up for everyone who voted for him. Either you are bipolar or you actually voted for Trump despite saying otherwise.

You have yet to understand, perhaps because you don't want to learn.  My point, and Zorg gets it, middle America feels left behind by liberals.  Liberals need to reform their platform to regain trust.  Stupid isn't why Trump won, lack of trust with liberals is.  It really isn't that hard to understand.  But tell us all about expertise when all your predictions were wrong.  

Let's rewind this: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9608528

You've now said it for the second straight time that middle America decides based on what they feel which is the same conclusion that I have made. But you had an issue with it because I said it.

I'm taking issue because you keep saying people are dumb...  that isn't the issue.  I'd explain it again but why bother?  At this point you aren't even trying.  

Edit

Zorg already explained perfectly.