Why sleazy? They’re in business to make money.

They’re in business to make money. — praxis

:up:

Of course it’s possible they spent about $7 million on the campaign without realizing that pairing the “Good Genes” slogan with a blonde, blue-eyed white woman might draw attention from the woke—because, as I’m sure you will agree, the woke are always so sensible and discreet.

with a blonde, blue-eyed white woman — praxis

They didn’t say Beyoncé has great genes.

Why, what color/race is Beyonce and why do you notice that first and foremost?

Seems to me the goal of wokeness should be that absolutely anyone on earth could replace Sydney Sweeney and the ad should be viewed with equity and inclusiveness.

But wokeness can’t help creating exclusive categories for privileged or victim members, and seeing things skin deep to form those categories. And imputing ill-intent behind anything “white” with “genes” in it.

I know you don’t see the contradiction. You just see that I don’t see all of the ill-intent that is so obvious to you because you are not asleep. Or because you are careless and shallow in your reasoning on this issue.

Your critique of “wokeism” focuses on certain highly visible activist actions and social media flashpoints, whereas I’m more interested in the underlying intellectual currents that can, at least in principle, inform fairer treatment of others, without inevitably leading to the authoritarian excesses you’re concerned about.

It is the intellectual currents that inform their treatment of others, and that treatment manifests into the highly visible actions and social media flashpoints we’ve seen too many times, and the countless ones we haven’t seen.

As I see it the necessary mental segregation required to understand and believe these currents begets actual segregation, such as race or sexuality-based “affinity graduations”, or diversity hiring. Perhaps their premises are too nationalistic and racialist to lead anywhere else. So I’m not sure it’s even possible to inform fairer treatment of others in principle.

Of course it’s possible they spent about $7 million on the campaign without realizing that pairing the “Good Genes” slogan with a blonde, blue-eyed white woman might draw attention from the woke—because, as I’m sure you will agree, the woke are always so sensible and discreet.

If those phenotypes are the first things that come to mind when you hear the phrase “good genes” then you’re the problem to begin with. To me it was obvious they were pointing to the other parts of her body, especially the one’s she’s known for. This discrepancy and the racism inherent to the woke backlash is what makes it so stupid, and evil.

Anyway, I’ve outlined an ad campaign strategy, a successful campaign strategy—how and why someone may intend to do something. Will you now admit that they may have created the controversy intentionally?

Will you now admit — praxis

Will you admit you are theorizing about AE marketing folks’ intentions and predictions? This whole admission doesn’t matter - you are asking the wrong person. There is no point to your question or me answering it ( :lol: which I did!).

Here is what happened. The AE marketing team totally botched their intent, thinking they were ushering in a new era of “Beyond Good woke and Evil Woke” - a utopia where genes are now “blue” and can cover over all races and colors of skin.

But they botched their post divisiveness delusions, by picking a white girl for the ad campaign - the world was not ready for their equitable vision…..

Who the hell really knows. The wokesters have made it into a whole new thing completely unconnected with denim clothing marketing anyway.

I know, admit it: you pissed AE played progressives like a fiddle. :lol: They got all this free publicity by having a great looking white girl say “genes”, because the woke are so predictably shallow and loud the words “AE jeans” would surely take on a life of their own. They probably seeded the outrage by planting some comments on the right twitter feeds.

As usual, the woke focus on non-issues, the unimportant. And self-contradict. If woke thinks AE was evil whitey, then ignore it and be silent so that it goes nowhere. Don’t seek validation of your feeling by asking for others to make admissions for you.

What is interesting about the ad for woke culture is that it was so clearly wrong to them to highlight the word “genes” with a white woman. If they used a white man instead of Sweeney, the ad should cause even more outrage right? AE at least checked the woke “empowered woman” box - but then there is the extra cleavage, just another patriarchal male gaze opportunity setting women’s empowerment back (because Sydney is incapable of making her own decisions and showing her own cleavage because she wants to - she only wants to because men have made her that way….)

So many unanswerable, contradictory, layers of bullshit comprise much of the woke picture of reality.

Where are the positives? Where are the achievements specifically tied to woke?

You aren’t advancing any arguments.

AE played progressives like a fiddle. — Fire Ologist

They don't deserve all the credit. Many prominent right-wing figures have played along, including various writers, personalities like Dr. Phil and Megyn Kelly, senator Ted Cruz, and the vice president. When Trump endorsed the ad AE stock spiked dramatically.

Advertising reflects culture, and I think this campaign shows how much the tide has turned against the woke. Advertising can also promote what it reflects.

I think this campaign shows how much the tide has turned against the woke. — praxis

You aren’t looking at the right thing. It’s not the campaign that teaches the lesson (so you don’t get the lesson). It is how the woke reaction to the campaign has been so soundly mocked and done zero to promote woke agenda that shows how much the tide has turned. Woke needs to turn inward and reflect on how it is often full of unsound, incoherent , contradictory bullshit baby feelings. The substance of wokeness is no longer being ignored and thoughtlessly forced upon culture at large.

They don't deserve all the credit. — praxis

You literally quantified the credit in dollar amounts.

Just admit it, wokeness can be easily played like fiddle.

Don’t know how you think it’s so obvious that some marketing team could predict a positive return playing that fiddle. I’m sure there are white people who will purposely not buy AE jeans now - woke won’t support them, and anti-woke won’t want to look like they are making a political statement by wearing them (like driving a Tesla) inviting retaliation from woke kooks).

But you do think that they predicted a positive return from looking racist. You seem to have the sleepers all figured out just like the accounting..

But you do think that they predicted a positive return from looking racist. — Fire Ologist

I think they predicted a positive return from accurately observing the cultural climate and subtly leveraging it to their advantage. And again, advertising can also promote what it reflects.

Just admit it, wokeness can be easily played like fiddle.

This is particularly hilarious in that I just listed the folks who did the heavy lifting in promoting the campaign, and that lists includes the president of the United States. :lol:

I can’t name even one wokeist or liberal that helped to promote it.

I can’t name even one wokeist or liberal that helped to promote it. — praxis

So you are saying the woke’s reaction to the ad had nothing to do with the extra mileage the ad achieved for AE.

No self-reflection.

The math according to you is:
1. Ad shows white girl saying “my genes” meaning AE jeans.
2. Woke folks will blow up in rage and thunder.
3. Because the tide has turned against them, anti-woke will blow up in a fit of ecstasy.
4. The words “AE jeans” will be a household name for years.
5. We will get rich.

That’s your math. Thought the woke being played like a fiddle (2) was obvious part of it.

No self-reflection.

I just did a search for prominent left-wing figures who’ve criticized AE for the ad campaign and several names came up, such as activist and scholar Angela Davis, who expressed skepticism about corporate marketing campaigns using coded language that can resonate with supremacist ideas, urging brands to be more socially responsible.

Your critique of “wokeism” focuses on certain highly visible activist actions and social media flashpoints, whereas I’m more interested in the underlying intellectual currents that can, at least in principle, inform fairer treatment of others, without inevitably leading to the authoritarian excesses you’re concerned about.

It is the intellectual currents that inform their treatment of others, and that treatment manifests into the highly visible actions and social media flashpoints we’ve seen too many times, and the countless ones we haven’t seen.

As I see it the necessary mental segregation required to understand and believe these currents begets actual segregation, such as race or sexuality-based “affinity graduations”, or diversity hiring. — NOS4A2

To the right of these intellectual currents (dominated by Critical Theory and post-colonialism) are political
models showing little or no influence of Hegel and Marx (such as classical liberalism) To the left of the intellectual currents shaping wokism are postmodern social constructionist models, also drawing from Hegel and Marx but moving farther beyond them than wokism does. I support such perspectives, and am arguing that the intellectual ideas which both wokism and postmodern approaches draw from need to be assimilated in order to get to a politics beyond the wokist practices which you reject. Beyond means going forward, keeping the positive ideas which wokism draws from, rather than simply discarding this philosophical heritage and returning to older political thinking. Going forward means embracing thinking along the following lines:

By and large identity politics has depended on a rhetoric of blame, the illocutionary effects of which are designed to chastise the target (for being unjust, prejudiced, inhumane, selfish, oppressive, and/or violent). In western culture we essentially inherit two conversational responses to such forms of chastisement - incorporation or antagonism. The incorporative mode ("Yes, now I see the error of my ways") requires an extended forestructure of understandings (i.e. a history which legitimates the critic's authority and judgment, and which renders the target of critique answerable). However, because in the case of identity politics, there is no preestablished context to situate the target in just these ways, the invited response to critique is more typically one of hostility, defense and counter-charge.

In its critical moment, social constructionism is a means of bracketing or suspending any pronouncement of the real, the reasonable, or the right. In its generative moment, constructionism offers an orientation toward creating new futures, an impetus to societal transformation. Constructionist thought militates against the claims to ethical foundations implicit in much identity politics - that higher ground from which others can so confidently be condemned as inhumane, self-serving, prejudiced, and unjust. Constructionist thought painfully reminds us that we have no transcendent rationale upon which to rest such accusations, and that our sense of moral indignation is itself a product of historically and culturally situated traditions. And the constructionist intones, is it not possible that those we excoriate are but living also within traditions that are, for them, suffused with a sense of ethical primacy? As we find, then, social constructionism is a two edged sword in the political arena, potentially as damaging to the wielding hand as to the opposition.”(Ken Gergen, Social Construction and the Transformation of Identity Politics)

The math according to you is:
1. Ad shows white girl saying “my genes” meaning AE jeans.
2. Woke folks will blow up in rage and thunder.
3. Because the tide has turned against them, anti-woke will blow up in a fit of ecstasy.
3.a. Woke folks sublate the whole dust-up as the right wing making something bigger than it really was, so woke needs take no blame or responsibility for 2, when they….made something bigger than it really was. (this is still possible because the woke still own the major media).
4. The words “AE jeans” will be a household name for years.
5. We will get rich.

New 3.a. Points to lack of self-reflection.

The incorporative mode ("Yes, now I see the error of my ways") requires an extended forestructure of understandings (i.e. a history which legitimates the critic's authority and judgment, and which renders the target of critique answerable).

See, I disagree. I think this is basically treating adults like they are irresponsible children. It doesn’t require “extended forestructure” - it simply requires you make the case.

Basically, the highest elites have to realize they are proportionately not that far from the basest deplorables. People need to start with that humility. From there require of themselves that they respect different people’s dignity as fellow people, and THEN hash out the arguments as humble respecting adults.

The preoccupation with bias and forestructure creates a diminishing return. Forestructure building and bias recognition are important. But I’ll grant they represent 20% of a fruitful conflict resolution.

I… am arguing that the intellectual ideas which both wokism and postmodern approaches draw from need to be assimilated in order to get to a politics beyond the wokist practices which you reject. — Joshs

This sounds positive. Can you put some real flesh on this as a for example?
1. A sample woke specific intellectual idea
2. What do you mean by “assimilated to get beyond”
3. Why beyond a wokeist practice?

If the woke idea was so good, why do want to end up beyond a wokeist practice?

Is this like desegregation?
1. Diversity is good.
2. Force diverse people together from segregated areas.
3. Have a new society that loves diversity and there is no need to look for segregated groups anymore because they are all integrated now, thanks to woke ideas and woke solutions (that we now no longer use as no longer needed).

Is that an example? I’d rather hear yours. I think there is a massive gap between 2 and 3 here.

3.a. Woke folks sublate the whole dust-up as the right wing making something bigger than it really was, so woke needs take no blame or responsibility for 2, when they….made something bigger than it really was. (this is still possible because the woke still own the major media). — Fire Ologist

This seems to only underscore the point, or is it a joke at this point, that AE manipulated the right into promoting the campaign, because “the woke still own the major media” and yet did not utilize major media. Again, I just pointed out that major media attention came from the right—from the fucking president for Christ’s sake, and the vice president, and at least one Republican congressman. No Democratic officeholders weighed in publicly that I could find. No left-wing personalities (similar to Megyn Kelly or Dr. Phil) weighed in publicly that I could find.

Is it not possible they - knew - and decided to not react to what might happen, and run the ad campaign anyway? That would have been my position on the matter. It's a good ad, and one which reflects certain trends (the Beyonce ad was extremely similar) but instantiates a return to "mainstream" images. I can't see that there is any way to impugn that tactic from a company called American Eagle without some further indication.

That it went this way is great, for them. I can't understand that they would have planned it. Shes hot, young, popular and wants to work with them. They need naught else to pull the trigger.

It seems far more likely that a company would use impugning white, blonde young women as a strategy to rile up the public, given that is:

A. More likely to piss off the right-wing and cause much more of a up-roar than that found among the slowly-declining Woke messaging mechanisms; and

B. Grabbed a demo (Woke, such as it is) that they probably had no real hooks in previously, other than by habit.

The CNN "possibly white" debacle sort of shows that companies will make utterly ridiculous, un-sound and irrational decisions in service of the above tactic. It is not possible anyone, in good faith, thought that shooter was white.

I can’t name even one wokeist or liberal that helped to promote it. — praxis

You can find compilations of wokists, including a handful of celebrities decrying the campaign, most notably Lizzo, Colbert, Doja Cat. But it is mostly non-celebrity figures. There are compilations of people breaking down calling it eugenics, calling it Nazism, facism etc.. etc.. all over the place. I cannot be bothered finding the source videos, but there's only a couple in these links I haven't seen in their natural habitat. That said, I recognize these videos are heavily biased, overall. I don't care abou the commentary, just that it brings together several examples of what I'm talking about.

AE manipulated the right into promoting the campaign — praxis

No, I don't think that's right. Besides the fact that all advertising manipulates its demo (i.e, that is not disparaging and is, in fact, a success of the campaign if so) i find it hard (as explained above) to conceive of AE caring about that particular division among the public.

But you could be right. And if so, i don't see the issue. That is what advertising does. And it worked.

Okay, Lizzo and Colbert got played. Who Doja Cat? :lol:

But you could be right. And if so, i don't see the issue. That is what advertising does. And it worked. — AmadeusD

I agree - the intent behind the ad campaign and predictive measures of its success is a whole discussion. And facts from that would be helpful to understand how people and society are grappling with wokeism - but who really knows? Those are facts, and our assumptions may be wrong.

Part of the issue the woke should reflect on here is the fact that unless you assume the AE marketing team had some sort of malicious intent, the ad is perfectly normal. You have to bring your own assumptions to the table to read into the ad how unwoke is is. Good genes might refer to her hot figure. Good genes may refer to her success as an actress/model/person. We have to say “bullshit, they meant her blond whiteness.” AND we have to bring to the table that blonde whiteness America is a nod to Nazis and racists, because in another century and another land, there is nothing inherently supremacist about white genes.

Point being, the woke have to bring their own facts to the table, and they don’t seem to care about or need real proof.

I’m not trying to be naive or blind myself, I’m just saying that often woke people make something that seems to come out of thin air, and then the thing they make is all that matters and they forget about the thin air (which includes the facts).

If wokeism wants to survive better, it needs to improve its choices of hills to die on. Good genes ads ain’t and should not have hit Colbert’s radar.

that AE manipulated the right into promoting the campaign, — praxis

No that’s backwards. That would mean AE manipulated the appearance of woke outrage in order to then cause their real target audience, the right wing to be interested in news stories about woke propel flipping out. That is too far fetched.
The point about the media still being in the pocket of the left is that, the woke people who flipped out are being protected by the mainstream media - there are now news articles about how the ad was never really a thing for the woke, and that the right media and Trump are making it seem like the woke care about the ad just so they can brag about how woke is dead and they get to talk about white genes now with white pride I guess. I’m sure there is a little of that because people are pigs, but that is also the woke failing to take responsibility for screaming about spilled white milk, which they often do and fail to learn from.

Anything negative i've said about you personally(though, i take it I haven't, just being funny here) can be rescinded and in fact, reversed, based on this. Well done LOL

how unwoke is is. — Fire Ologist

I think it's a bit worse, though I definitely take Praxis' point (however buried it might be) that it is probably not a majority of people 'on that side' doing this, but...

The 'woke' reaction is to jump straight to 'Nazi', 'eugenics' etc.. and actually, genuinely talk about a society-wide conspiracy to ... do what? Kill all blacks? What hte heck are they even pointing to?

Turns out, its white supremacy. Which is, prima facie, an after due consideration utterly fucking preposterous to the point that I am willing to laugh in the face of the social incels who make this claim.

No that’s backwards. That would mean AE manipulated the appearance of woke outrage in order to then cause their real target audience, the right wing to be interested in news stories about woke propel flipping out. That is too far fetched.
The point about the media still being in the pocket of the left is that, the woke people who flipped out are being protected by the mainstream media - there are now news articles about how the ad was never really a thing for the woke, and that the right media and Trump are making it seem like the woke care about the ad just so they can brag about how woke is dead and they get to talk about white genes now with white pride I guess. I’m sure there is a little of that because people are pigs, but that is also the woke failing to take responsibility for screaming about spilled white milk, which they often do and fail to learn from. — Fire Ologist

I can’t tell if you’re being serious with all that.

It’s painfully obvious that MAGA has been hammering on anti-wokeness for years, and it’s worked for them. It’s more like AE is subtly playing along with or reflecting this cultural phenomenon and profiting from it. Countless media personalities, both left and right, take advantage of the so called culture war. Nothing new, complicated, or unusual about it.

Do you not see that what Fireologist is outlining is exactly the situation which would lead you to say this? Obviously, that doesn't close any books but I do genuinely think you're not reflecting in a reasonable way here.

It’s more like AE is subtly playing along with or reflecting this cultural phenomenon and profiting from it. — praxis

I saw the ad and found it distasteful in a retro way, but many ads annoy me. I was wondering if it was trying to be playfully defiant towards identity politics. Maybe it was trying to generate controversy and talking points which some advertising wanker felt would translate into sales. I was surprised the ad ran, as I would have thought making a childish pun about a white, shall we say, 'Aryan' looking girl and her 'genes' would be unappealing to a wide variety of younger customers who are more mindful about their values than some others. What are the other nuances of this ad?

Just so it's not missed on anyone, there is a large part of the country that would have had no inkling the ad was offensive (me, for example) had offense not been expressed, and so what is newsworthy is that someone would be offended by it.

'Aryan' looking girl and her 'genes' would be unappealing to a wide variety of younger customers who are more mindful about their values than some others. What are the other nuances of this ad? — Tom Storm

I read a branding expert talking about how AE jeans demographic is teens and the campaign may appeal to a teens rebellious nature—defiantly anti-woke or whatever.

Do you not see that what Fireologist is outlining is exactly the situation which would lead you to say this? Obviously, that doesn't close any books but I do genuinely think you're not reflecting in a reasonable way here. — AmadeusD

What have I said that is unreasonable?

Just so it's not missed on anyone, there is a large part of the country that would have had no inkling the ad was offensive (me, for example) had offense not been expressed, and so what is newsworthy is that someone would be offended by it. — Hanover

What good would woke folks be if they didn’t notice things that most people are oblivious to. :lol: