this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025
87 points (97.8% liked)

The Onion and other satire w/ layers

1192 readers
71 users here now

For posting satire from The Onion and other similar sources.

redundancy, but not for its own sake


Be nice. All instance rules apply.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 

American Eagle is in full-on crisis mode after their “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans” campaign was met by swift public backlash as critics accused the ad of invoking eugenics. Today, the clothing company finally put out a statement explaining the campaign’s original aim: American Eagle is clarifying that their Sydney Sweeney ad was only intended to make people masturbate. [...]


Context: https://www.smh.com.au/culture/celebrity/why-sydney-sweeney-s-good-jeans-campaign-is-being-compared-to-nazism-20250729-p5mikz.html

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 31 points 3 days ago (32 children)

This was definitely a case of public overreaction. Anyone who didn't get the joke, is just very sad inside.

[–] Sciaphobia@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I don't think it's a case of missing the joke. I think is a case of seeing subtext, real or imagined, on top of it. I haven't spent much time thinking about it myself because Musk did two (2) Nazi salutes in a row and a shocking number of people are okay with or defend it.

Maybe that ad was a nod to horrific shit, maybe it wasn't, but I could easily see it argued either direction, and am unsure in the current climate that this is where oyr attention should be regardless of intent.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 16 points 3 days ago (3 children)

It wasn't even a "nod to horrific shit" though. It was just a pun about Sydney Sweeney having "good jeans". Honestly, it's so bizarre that people would jump to eugenics over it. Would that have been their reaction if they had used a Japanese model with the exact same measurements? The pun would still be valid, but I doubt anyone would be outraged.

[–] Sciaphobia@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Your interpretation is absolutely not a nod to anything negative. The point I was driving at is that it's very possible that people fully understood that pun and believed that wasn't the only message being delivered. It absolutely was nod to horrific shit if there really was an intended extra undertone of, the blond haired blue eyed white woman has good genes. I am not arguing it's intentional, but I can see how some would look at that sideways.

Being ambiguous is kind of how dog whistles work and I can see why people would be on edge in current America about that specific flavor of whistle. I'm personally more concerned with the open rooftop screaming though.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Whether or not they intended it, it's pretty tone deaf right now to release an ad with a blonde haired, blue eyed person saying they have "great genes" because of her blue eyes with the word "genes" literally on the screen but crossed out to make the jeans pun. It's a bad look.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago (3 children)

If they used a model of any other ethnicity...would that be just as bad? If all this outrage is solely based on her being white, then that's pretty fucked up. You guys need to check your own biases, here.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No, it's not based on her being just white. It's like you decided to ignore almost everything I said. There's some important historical context about white, blond, blue-eyed people saying they have superior genes.

[–] SolacefromSilence@fedia.io 5 points 3 days ago

If they did, isn't what they did

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world -5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Why didn't they use more than one model though? Multiple ethnicities? "I have great genes/jeans," layered over pictures of models of every race, weight, disability, background, etc. Could've advertised multiple styles and colors of jeans, ripped jeans, etc.

Why did they only pick her, who is from racist Spokane and whose dad is a Trumper? Why is it specifically "Sydney Sweeney has great genes," and not "Americans have great genes"? It's American Eagle, right?

Eta: the CEO of American Eagle is also a Trump supporter, and his son is selling a Florida house for the Trumps

And none of this is to mention that she seems to have extra genes via mosaic Down Syndrome, causing her facial features and large tongue/speaking issues, as well as her biddable temperament to do whatever fascists want without giving it a second thought. She is likely being taken advantage of even more than most actresses her age are, which is a lot.

Below - currenr pic of Sydney, pic of girl w mosaic down syndrome, pic of Sydmey before plastic surgery/injectables, pic of descriptive features of down syndrome:

Eta: Relevant link, she is like the Down Syndrome Clayton Bigsby and that's exactly how I feel watching her spout off Nazi shit https://youtu.be/BLNDqxrUUwQ

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Look, I agree with the first half, but wtf is the point of speculating if she has down syndrome? It's rude at best, ableist at worst. Don't do that.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world -4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It is not ableist and it is highly relevant when discussing this.

  1. She nearly has almost every feature of (mosaic) down syndrome, I already gave evidence. I'm not making fun of her about her condition. I'm not calling her ugly. There is nothing rude about what I said unless YOU are ableist and a eugenicist who thinks Sydney Sweeney represents some peak physiological genetic state (there is no such thing, we are genetically all equals). She looks markedly different from her parents btw if you want to look at their faces. I'm not just saying shit to be mean - she legit has mosaic Down Syndrome. It's not ableism, it's true.
  2. Down Syndrome isn't a "problem," and mosaic down syndrome people are much more common than you realize and are totally fine individuals deserving of love and a job and having kids.
  3. However, if someone is making an ad campaign to further Nazi rhetoric, who you know, literally tortured and killed people with Down Syndrome, by saying they have good "genes" when they have mosaic Down Syndrome, something Nazis killed, then it is entirely relevant. Nazis were infamously bad at science and none of their eugenicist stuff or science was worth anything. Eg removing eyes from one twin and seeing what happened to the other twin. This is entirely in line with Nazis being whims based and not based on reality. Pointing this out directly contradicts their own genetic supremacy narratives, a good thing.
  4. It's also in line with their love of total control of women, and so pointing out that she likely has personality traits from mosaic Down Syndrome that make her more likely to be predated on is the opposite of ableism. Of course Nazis would like a blue eyed, obedient girl with Down Syndrome who was raised by a Trumpie father. It would actually be ableist to allow her to continue to be abused.
[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So, you're an abelist now, too? Wow. Keep digging...let's see how far down the bigoted rabbit-hole you'll go to prove everyone else is a bigot. Please, go on.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

What is ableist about what I said, exactly?

I think it's more that you're mad you jerked it to a girl with down syndrome being taken advantage of by fascists and media

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Man, if you don't even have the self-awareness to see what you just wrote, then there is no point in talking to you.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, it's rather that YOU are ableist against people with down syndrome and projected that onto my words. Now when asked what exactly is ableist, you can't say - because it was you projecting.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Still can't hear yourself, right now...can you?

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I accept that you cannot make a valid refutation or good faith argument (have been unable to do so 3x now) and have lost this debate.

[–] Walk_blesseD@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Nazis these days don't even gotta dogwhistle anymore: they can blast the foghorn and even still the most wilfully obtuse motherfuckers lacking a high-school level of media literacy (that's you) will be out here running defence for them. Shut the fuck your mouth

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 days ago

Lol! You guys are hilarious.

load more comments (30 replies)