No one cares what brand you jeans wear anyway, it's not 1995 anymore where people thought Calvin Klein and The Gap were cool. No one gives a shit anymore, if you want to impress anyone with a brand, you have to step up to the Louis Vuitton range minimum, not some $60 pair of jeans your mom bought you and even those higher end designer brands are becoming some what passe.

And again, Sweeney is not even that attractive, there's a ton of random models better looking than her.

Whole thing is a whole to do about a nothing budget brand that isn't even cool and a "good looking" spokesperson who's not even that good looking. 

Honestly, I wouldn't kick her out of my bed.

Do the criticisms of the campaign have anything to do with the campaign? Is DV help part of the campaign? Did my initial post bring that to light?  If so then you were missing a major point of the campaign.  Understandable since normally the point of an ad campaign is to make money for the advertiser. In this instance it is to make money for the text line and they did not virtue signal by making that front and center of these short reels / photos.  

Wait a tick is that a German Shepard in one of them OMFG! This is totally Nazi the Jews are doomed! 

Slipper slope fallacy does not have to be a new slope ... 

In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because the slippery slope advocate believes it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences.

A slippery slope fallacy occurs when someone claims that a position or decision will lead to a series of unintended negative consequences.

You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur  (although you did try) , this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Well hell you posted a new reply.  LOL oh well.

I hadn't even looked at the comments, I felt dirty enough just being on Instagram. Now I am full on soiled. Kidding, mostly, but I really do hate social media and don't really participate.

One of the comments related to the pics with the dog. "I just see some jeans, a cute dog, and a pretty lady."  That one is in the slim minority of comments I am seeing (I don't know jack when it comes to how the comments you see in Instagram are selected).  Many are along the lines of "Blonde girl, blue eyes, denim, and a German Shepherd. So we’re just cosplaying 1939 now?" and "American Eagle: “Make America 1930s Germany Again.”"

I cannot see any of the replies to comments without signing in.

Clearly at an empass. 

I do think it's incredibly dishonest to keep bringing up the DV part of the campaign because 1. It's irrelevant to the criticism and 2. It's completely absent from every single post they have made on this campaign.

Literally every single post they've made makes no mention of it.

Honestly, we don't have to buy into every pretend media storm/rage bait

There is a very valid sensitivity to media promoting and setting standards for "great genes" based off history, but it's really not that serious but clicks, discourse etc :)

"The Sydney Sweeney ad “backlash” is a product of what cultural analysis has become in newsrooms: Writers lazily chewing on whatever is getting attention on TikTok. Grim."

"extremely good reminder that good paid ads generate lots of free earned media"

Again, I think it's important not to play part in the circus, peddled mostly for clicks/views. 

It's just an ad. People look to be offended by any and everything these days.

I don’t tend to remember what Sydney Sweeney looks like, but I know her appearance gets discussed a lot.

Not really picking up what some are claiming is racial dog whistling. If anything the jeans ad seems a bit old fashioned. A new spin on a 90s campaign. They probably predicted this is the kind of media cycle they would get from the campaign though and are benefiting.

This whole polarisation thing where certain figures cry evil is a bit annoying though. If there is any dog whistling going on, it’s those people amplifying it by complaining.

Another ragebait thread.

Ever since the O.J. trial, the media has figured out that outrage, even completely fictitious outrage, pays the bills. This is just business as usual.

She is gorgeous. Nothing offensive about that.