Incorrect, it would the anti woke crowd that would be mad, and calling it DEI woke nonsense. That being said I'm not offended if it's Sweeney doing this commercial, I'm not offended if it's Campbell doing this commercial.  In the future it's going to be neither and just an AI image of what people think perfect looks like.

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.  

Would they have had dozens of stories and pages of relevant search results?  Serious question.  They may have, but I am struggling to find a campaign that the anti-woke have made as big a deal of (articles and search results).  That struggle is likely the result of my ignorance.  I don't normally care much about ads. 

It is the companies money they are spending and their reputation they are risking let them do as they will.  If it is truly egregious let the market crucify them. I just don't see this one as being egregious. I am just a little happy though that, with all the extra attention, these jeans should sell better and the text line will get more money as an end result.

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

Its best to avoid praising certain people for having good genes because then you have to accept people have bad genes and that brings us down a road of eugenics. 

It's so easy to be "hey Sydney sweeney is fucking hot and so are our jeans"

I'm saying you bringing up DV part of the campaign was irrelevant because it doesn't mean that the campaign cannot be criticised, to me that's a weird thing to say. 

I totally understand the point of the campaign that it's a silly play on words, but the optics of it is pretty tone deaf and I'm surprised that this made it through the screening process. 

Like just because I understand the point doesn't mean it can't be weird and inappropriate, for example this old Sony ad 

Its best to avoid praising certain people for having good genes because then you have to accept people have bad genes and that brings us down a road of eugenics. 

It's so easy to be "hey Sydney sweeney is fucking hot and so are our jeans"

I'm saying you bringing up DV part of the campaign was irrelevant because it doesn't mean that the campaign cannot be criticised, to me that's a weird thing to say. 

I totally understand the point of the campaign that it's a silly play on words, but the optics of it is pretty tone deaf and I'm surprised that this made it through the screening process. 

Like just because I understand the point doesn't mean it can't be weird and inappropriate, for example this old Sony ad