Sydney Sweeney Finally Addresses Ad Campaign

[Bronco 14,274]

6 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Do you mean I should consider why we have those phrases? They've hardly got racist origins. It's just in our biological make-up ingrained in us as humans that we see attractive, fit and youthful looking people of our species and think "they must have had strong, healthy parents." Animals operate the same way, to choose the strongest mate to produce healthy offspring. As humans, we just have a more refined and humane take on the same thing. There's nothing racially motivated about it, these phrases are used by all races to all races, not just whites towards other whites. Probably the most common usage I hear of it is when someone's young looking for their age, like: "They're 40? I thought they were about 25. Wow, good genes." If you can find something racially sinister about that, I don't know what to tell you. 

The origin and popularity of the phrases you use comes through the establishment in the 19th century of eugenics. The era where we established what "good genes" were because we explicitly defined what "bad genes" were.

They're historically rooted in the pseudoscience of the era that established the idea of hereditary criminality and the false idea that there was a feeble-mindedness disease. 

The phrases you claim as not having racist origins directly came into social popularity because of the American eugenics movement and its promotion of superior characteristics which were racially based and used to promote racial sterilisation as political policy in the western world.

As for the commentary about the animalistic grounds for attraction, these too are discredited as there's plenty of research showing the role socialisation plays in establishing what isn't attractive. And the ideas of biological essentialism you are pushing are typical the purview of right wing political movements.

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,642]

On 12/6/2025 at 2:36 PM, Eros92 said:

I genuinely don’t understand why people hate her for an ad she was paid to do by a company and people read way tooooo much into it.

I remember seeing it and not thinking twice about it. The whole ad was a play on words not some MAGA leaning, dog whistle, white power propaganda. She does in fact have great genes, she’s very pretty. It literally coulda been anyone but they picked her because she was hot in the moment. Not to mention she reflects their demographic, preppy white folk. That’s always been their brand. 
 

But I do know people like to be mad at everyone these days and can’t just see or watch things without thinking it’s some kinda of attack on someone or something. Not everyone is out to get everyone and some times ads are just ads 

 

On 12/6/2025 at 4:15 PM, Madame Goo Goo said:

For real, everyone who got offended by this ad needs to touch grass. It’s like everybody jumped to the absolute most bad faith conclusion immediately. Sydney should have doubled down on the ad not being racist a long time ago tho.

On 12/6/2025 at 6:37 PM, StrawberryBlond said:

Look, I'm not a fan of her by any means and don't know how she became the It Girl of the moment but I felt frustration on her behalf when the absolute worst was read into this ad, in a way that could only occur in the 21st century. It's basically an exact replica of Brooke Shield's 80's Calvin Klein jeans ad where she makes the genes/jeans pun while talking about the biological element and how it's very similar to jeans. No one read anything bad into that ad back then because people took stuff at face value and knew when a cigar was just a cigar. Sidney said as much herself in a recent interview when asked to explain the ad and said: "I think the ad spoke for itself." She also suggested that she was chosen as a spokesperson not because of how she looked but because her signature style is jeans and a t-shirt, which is a big factor people conveniently forget.

Saying someone has good genes has been a way to call them attractive for years, as well as that they're fit and youthful looking. There was just one iteration of the ad where she even mentioned the biology behind genes, everything else was her doing something unrelated for no reason and was just classic "sex sells" marketing. For people to misunderstand that and be deliberately obstructive just to provoke racial discussion where it had no place to be is just typical of today's world. Even if Sydney is a Republican and has a MAGA supporting family, she's still small fry when it comes to actual major league Nazis and fascists, so let's not forget who the real enemy is.

I think the reason she stayed quiet wasn't because she secretly believed in this stuff but simply that she hoped that if she didn't say anything or draw attention to it, it would blow over. That's a strategy that works surprisingly well but it depends on who you are and what the controversy is. Her original tactic wasn't working, so it's time to course correct. Just so you know that staying quiet doesn't mean you secretly support something awful, it can literally just mean you don't want drama.

15 hours ago, Madame Goo Goo said:

She most likely didn’t realize it or even knows what a dog whistle is, let’s not forget republican voters are uneducated and dumb. She didn’t write the ad, I’m not defending her I’m defending the ad/American Eagle. But, yes, I still don’t think Sydney Sweeney connected it to Nazism or eugenics. Rich celebrity being a republican for family and money reasons ≠ nazism. People have lost their damn minds.

So do we think multi-billion dollar companies simply develop ads in a half-lit room of the photographer/videographer, CEO, and the model? Because this was cleared by teams of marketers trained to watch for any sort of underlying story/idea. And it was also cleared by Sweeney's team if not her management's PR as well as her PR. So even if she's dumb, those dozens of people aren't clueless. And considering she waited 5 months to address this, what does it say about her character? "The ad speaks for itself" is unnecessarily ambiguous when you could just say "Its just an ad paying homage to the 1980s ad with the same concept of genes wordplay". I personally would not let anyone call me a racist freely without addressing it, much less half the country. Especially in a time where people dig up old videos and attempt to cancel others. 

[River 120,041]

On 12/7/2025 at 3:09 AM, timdrake said:

idk calling a woman a bitch will never sit right with me 

So don't call a woman a bitch then 

To me it's called feminism, it's the symbol of it 

I find it funny when people think that their opinions matters to me 

My life, my world, my rules 

[River 120,041]

12 minutes ago, AsleepOnTheCeiling said:

So do we think multi-billion dollar companies simply develop ads in a half-lit room of the photographer/videographer, CEO, and the model? Because this was cleared by teams of marketers trained to watch for any sort of underlying story/idea. And it was also cleared by Sweeney's team if not her management's PR as well as her PR. So even if she's dumb, those dozens of people aren't clueless. And considering she waited 5 months to address this, what does it say about her character? "The ad speaks for itself" is unnecessarily ambiguous when you could just say "Its just an ad paying homage to the 1980s ad with the same concept of genes wordplay". I personally would not let anyone call me a racist freely without addressing it, much less half the country. Especially in a time where people dig up old videos and attempt to cancel others. 

this is how little managers thinks gaga and her team are working on an era, like there's 0 understanding how marketing works lol

 

[timdrake 1,200]

5 hours ago, River said:

So don't call a woman a bitch then 

To me it's called feminism, it's the symbol of it 

I find it funny when people think that their opinions matters to me 

My life, my world, my rules 

you seem healthy and well-adjusted. very cool and interesting 

[River 120,041]

2 hours ago, timdrake said:

you seem healthy and well-adjusted. very cool and interesting 

oh stfu

 

[Janosch 175]

didn't she register as a Republican in 2024 or something like this?

[Bronco 14,274]

1 hour ago, Janosch said:

didn't she register as a Republican in 2024 or something like this?

Believe it was the summer of 2024 as well so just in time for the federal election

[StrawberryBlond 15,043]

20 hours ago, Bronco said:

The origin and popularity of the phrases you use comes through the establishment in the 19th century of eugenics. The era where we established what "good genes" were because we explicitly defined what "bad genes" were.

They're historically rooted in the pseudoscience of the era that established the idea of hereditary criminality and the false idea that there was a feeble-mindedness disease. 

The phrases you claim as not having racist origins directly came into social popularity because of the American eugenics movement and its promotion of superior characteristics which were racially based and used to promote racial sterilisation as political policy in the western world.

As for the commentary about the animalistic grounds for attraction, these too are discredited as there's plenty of research showing the role socialisation plays in establishing what isn't attractive. And the ideas of biological essentialism you are pushing are typical the purview of right wing political movements.

Fair enough, but that was back then and now the concept of good genes is now focused around health, not race. The modern concept isn't racially related. There are universal things we consider to be strong, healthy elements that can be applied to any race - shiny hair, bright eyes, clear (not white, clear) skin, plump lips, defined waist, shapely legs, etc. Any part of the body that is lustrous, strong, aerobicized, smooth, etc is viewed at is an example of good genes and any race can have them. If any part of the body looks overly thin, dry, washed-out, etc., you're more likely to be looked at as unhealthy. Just think of how you look when you're ill. List the elements that make you look unhealthy - your eyes become dull and lifeless, your skin can become dry, your lips become cracked, your body can lose weight and become thin and weak. When your body is starved of nutrients, it shows on the outside and we know these people are sickly and therefore, lacking in strength and health. This informs our mammalian brain that these people maybe won't survive the winter, will not have the strength to hunt and gather, will not be able to produce healthy children. Most of us aren't thinking of the history of eugenics when we compliment someone's good genes, it's coming from a place of nature's instinct of knowing what is healthy and unhealthy. I have a hard time believing that we're got different ideas of what healthy bodies look like apart from perception of weight. 

I won't deny that eugenics played a role in the western perception of beauty. And our opinions on beauty have changed over time and like you said, socialisation plays a role in our perceptions. But beauty and genes aren't the same. For one thing, beauty is subjective and can't be solidly defined by science, but genes are broken down scientifically. It's literally what you learn about in biology class. Beauty is about opinion, genes are about biology. What are the ideas of "biological essentialism" you're talking about? I'm certainly not pushing right wing politics regardless. Good genes should be all about being strong and healthy, not based on a subjective idea of attractiveness, nor should there be a racial element. 

20 hours ago, AsleepOnTheCeiling said:

So do we think multi-billion dollar companies simply develop ads in a half-lit room of the photographer/videographer, CEO, and the model? Because this was cleared by teams of marketers trained to watch for any sort of underlying story/idea. And it was also cleared by Sweeney's team if not her management's PR as well as her PR. So even if she's dumb, those dozens of people aren't clueless. And considering she waited 5 months to address this, what does it say about her character? "The ad speaks for itself" is unnecessarily ambiguous when you could just say "Its just an ad paying homage to the 1980s ad with the same concept of genes wordplay". I personally would not let anyone call me a racist freely without addressing it, much less half the country. Especially in a time where people dig up old videos and attempt to cancel others. 

Which is why I think, if people have any issue with the ad, they should point the finger of blame at American Eagle. But typically, we just jump down the throat of the messenger who's just trying to get a job. American Eagle haven't tried to defend Sydney, so far as I can see. It's not right that they're letting her take all the flak instead of making their stance clear that there was no racial motivation here. AE should take full responsibility and their silence says more about them than it does the spokesperson. And of course no one's going to admit that it ripped off another brand's ad (I'm surprised Calvin Klein isn't calling them out). And here's the thing - many have already come to the conclusion that Sydney's a racist and aren't interested in hearing her defence. Once you're been painted as the villain, it doesn't matter what you say. No matter what Sydney said, I doubt anyone would say it was good enough. What do you logically want her to do or say that would be an acceptable response? 

[hELXIG 43,864]

Why did I read that whole thing in her lazy, lobotomised, valley-girl drawl  

Anyway. She seemingly didn't give a f.uck until she realised the controversy was going to actually affect her career. She's already dropped the mask now so a carefully worded statement written by her PR manager doesn't mean jack sh.it