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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

They didn’t say Beyoncé has great genes.

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.

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

If we assume American Eagle intentionally provoked controversy with the “Good Genes” Sidney Sweeney campaign, the financial logic is clear: spend heavily once, then let public debate multiply the reach.

A high single-digit million budget (likely around $7M) covered Sweeney’s endorsement fee, premium placements like the Las Vegas Sphere and Times Square 3D billboard, plus national TV and social buys. Under a normal, “safe” ad strategy, this might yield $14M in total media value when factoring in some organic buzz.

But controversy acts as a force multiplier. Criticism over pairing the “Good Genes” slogan with a blonde, blue-eyed celebrity spurred news coverage, reaction videos, and social media debate, generating an estimated 3× more earned media than a safe campaign — roughly $21M in extra exposure, for a total media value near $28M. Even a small conversion rate (0.1% of 500M impressions) could drive $30M in denim sales, delivering around a 4× ROI and cementing AE’s cultural relevance for months.

What do you think about the intentions of some people you don’t know? — Fire Ologist

I can make a judgment based on their actions, and so can you. Why don’t you in this case?

Do you think the controversy may have been intentional on AE’s part?
— praxis

I answered that too. — Fire Ologist

You haven’t actually and I don’t understand the problem with answering whether or not you think it was intentional.

Honestly I have no opinion on those other detailed marketing questions. — Fire Ologist

You say yourself that this is no big deal so why not say what you think? Do you think the controversy may have been intentional on AE’s part?

I know you were joking praxis but there is a huge difference between someone saying “calling the jeans ad white supremacy is just idiotic crap” and someone trying to curtail speech. — Fire Ologist

You haven't been clear on what you think about the ad. Do you think American Eagle is innocent and had no idea that their ad would be viewed as it has been?

Do you think the concern some have regarding woke is simply a continuation/development of this? — Tom Storm

In the states it’s been heavily politicized in recent years, and quite successfully.



Three pages back in this thread I asked one of the ‘Awake’ folks if they thought wokeists should ignore the American Eagles jeans ad. Answering the question was apparently a struggle.

It’s just a stupid ad, why not say what you think—that they’re probably capitalizing on culture war hot buttons or whatever.

Deeply ironic that you can’t say “white supremacy“ anymore. :lol:

I can’t tell if you’re serious. Assuming you are, you wrote “Earnestly critiquing something is not mockery. If you feel its mockery., maybe just notice how earnest critique makes it look. Silly.” in reference to the Kids in the Hall skit.

Earnest critique aims to identify strengths and weaknesses to improve understanding or quality. Even if it's harsh, the goal is constructive or truth-seeking. Mockery is about belittling, often using sarcasm, exaggeration, or tone to make the target look silly.

The skit was designed to make PC culture look silly in a comical way.

What is the correct term in this political climate?

Absolute bullshit. Earnestly critiquing something is not mockery. If you feel its mockery., maybe just notice how earnest critique makes it look. Silly. — AmadeusD

Oh, sorry, I assume calling it satire is acceptable or at least less offensive.

They were mocking PC culture. Today, people like Andrew Doyle practically make a career out of mocking woke culture.

I think Jesse Lee Peterson is one of the most outrageous commentators out there. But he is obviously correct about some things. — AmadeusD

Wow, okay! :grimace:

The logic of why we have rules around adults access to children is the same logic as why we restrict male access to females. — AmadeusD

Surfing is not a contact sport and locker rooms or whatever are also a non-issue.

Btw, the woman who made a fuss about it didn’t compete as a longboarder. She’s a Christian and just happened to be selling her conservative themed children’s book at the time.

:lol: Who would you rescue first?

1. A child being abused.
2. Someone involved in an industrial accident.
3. A woman being sexually assaulted.
4. A woman competing with a trans-woman in a longboard competition.

It seems to me that there's a rather large gulf between 3 & 4.

I take issue with trying to frame the opposing side as unreasonable in this particular way (its not always a sin). A single male surfer taking a female accolade is enough, on the "anti-woke" side (though, that's misleading of a label). A single harmed child will have us looking at child abuse law. A single dead engineer will have us overhauling H&S. A single female being abused or harmed by a male in the bathroom should have the same response, to be consistent, or discuss why they aren't similar. — AmadeusD

It seems like a stretch to compare longboard surfing, something that doesn’t even qualify for the Olympics, to child abuse, industrial safety, and sexual assault.

The divide between woke and not is so large I still am not sure if people are actually upset about this ad or whether this is American Eagle contriving outrage for publicity, with perhaps a few confused people buying in. — Hanover

To date American Eagle is being tight lipped about it. When looking for their response just now I found this interesting tidbit from former Levi’s brand president Jennifer Sey, who said, “They’ve [the woke] lost their power. They just haven’t realized it yet.”

Jean branders have realized it, apparently. :lol:

So they can be intelligent people, even skilled at logical argumentation, but the objects they argue about or judge to be important are just not always apt. — Fire Ologist

I’m curious if you think it would be appropriate for wokeists to ignore something like this:

Poor Pieter, a modern day Galileo forced to endure to endure the TPF Inquisition—so heroic. :lol:

I was thinking what a shame it would be if your work did have the potential to help solve the worlds problems but never got off the ground because you’re such a terrible marketer.

There was a big controversy about a transwoman being allowed to compete a couple years ago. Last year the world surfing league tightened up the requirements though, to appease the anti-woke. All that over 1 surfer, and a longboarder at that.

Why not surfing? That is precisely the sort of question you need to answer. If you can propose boards for no reason at all, then why can't I propose surfing for no reason at all? If we've done away with reasons then what's the difference? — Leontiskos

A similarity in the two is that both a surfer and a board can decide to hang 10.

Deeper down the rabbit hole, and assuming the AI is not hallucinating, iron is far more available than the elements which are historically used to make the other primary pigments, namely yellow and blue. Iron is also more bioavailable to species for the job of carrying oxygen in the blood. Iron is reported to be better at the job though some species use copper and vanadium and those critters got blue blood.

Red/iron has organic weight?

I think you are just assuming this is a representation of how attracted we are to particular colours where it could be more to do with economics and the textile industry, or even religious symbolism. — I like sushi

I looked into it a bit further online just now and it appears that red, the first chromatic color mentioned in early writings across cultures, is strongly associated with blood. Given this correlation, it seems reasonable to speculate that if our blood were blue instead of red, for example, we might find ourselves more drawn to the color blue instead of red. Correlation is not causation of course, but this may indicate that red has more of an organic weight than a socially constructed weight.

I think it is a strawman to impute bad intentions here, as if "power stratification" is the desired end. — Leontiskos

Of course the belief that values are baked into reality in a particular order is not just about power stratification. It helps to uphold the order nevertheless. — praxis

Who needs enlightenment when you’ve got freshly popped popcorn and a good seat in the cave.

Plus you are placing an interest in egalitarianism over and above an interest in hierarchy - thereby creating a hierarchy. — Fire Ologist

The religious hierarchy is fixed. Good reason for the separation of church and state in a democracy.

My point is that the idea that hierarchical thinking is an evil bogeyman is a strawman. Anyone who admits that some values are higher than others is involved in hierarchical thinking. — Leontiskos

I’m not attacking a strawman or anything else. I’m merely voicing the opinion that the fundamental conflict is between hierarchical vertical thinking and egalitarian horizontal thinking.

It's just not about power stratification.

Of course the belief that values are baked into reality in a particular order is not just about power stratification. It helps to uphold the order nevertheless.

We can probably skip paleolithic economic theory and simply acknowledge the absence of a state and organized religion, yes? This, in my opinion, loosens the rigidity of the bishop's hierarchy of values because it indicates that their fixedness is not natural.

What do you have to say about the fact that for 95% of human history we lived in hunter-gatherer egalitarian societies—without a state and organized religion?

This flies in the face of what the bishop claims is natural.

If I remember correctly, they examined the earliest written documents in various languages and looked for color names. They found that across languages the order of appearance was the same—red always showing up before blue, for instance.

Ah! I see. Not sure how relevant that is but it is something at least. — I like sushi

It’s highly relevant.

Imagine two abstract paintings of similar composition side by side on a wall. One of the paintings is colored with large blocks of black, white, red, and a little yellow. The other painting is only colored with large blocks of light blue and dark blue.

We may like the blue painting more but our eye will be naturally drawn to the ‘boldly’ colored painting. Why would that be if we can look at paintings with a “view from nowhere.”

Another rabbit hole: constructed emotion theory and aesthetic experience.