His recent discussion was a copypasta from elsewhere on the internet and has been removed. — Baden

He would’ve gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids!

The issue, for many, is that any time one of these group do something vaguely noteworthy, they are praised as some kind of supernatural Hero. Literally: — AmadeusD

Before each trans characteristic he repeatedly say “like superheroes” which is simile. A clever rhetorical device isn’t meant to be taken literally, obviously. To Mijin’s point, the first superhero-like characteristic mentioned is the need to stay hidden.

The monologue was informative as well as entertaining and persuasive. I didn’t realize that hate crimes against the trans community had spiked so sharply in LA over the last few years. Thanks anti-wokesters? :confused:

There is good dogma we can agree on. — Fire Ologist

The problem with dogma is that no one but the absolute authority can disagree with it.

Dogma is a belief held to be absolutely true regardless of evidence, often defended without question and resistant to challenge. A well-founded principle, by contrast, rests on reasoning, evidence, or lived experience, and remains open to revision if better information arises. Where dogma closes inquiry by demanding acceptance, a principle encourages ongoing testing and refinement, making it more flexible and adaptable to new circumstances.

Why would you advocate for dogma instead of well-founded principles? It’s as though you want our moral reasoning stifled and fixed on external control (punishment, approval, laws) rather than developing internal principles (justice, fairness, human rights).

You asked the following:

Are you both equating the values we happen to choose with our feelings, or saying we make our choices out of gut feelings, and random “cultural influences” and “innate traits” that we don’t choose? — Fire Ologist

I’m saying we all share the same basic gut feelings or intuitions, but we prioritize them differently—shaped not by randomness, but by cultural trends or intentional personal development, and perhaps our personal innate traits like introversion or extroversion.

Overtly woke means being openly and deliberately aligned with “woke” values.

Earlier in the topic we discussed the Bud Light/Mulveney ad campaign and unlike the AE campaign’s subtlety (which may or may not have been intentionally provocative), the Mulveney campaign was overtly woke. In your opinion, was the Mulveney campaign humble or self-aggrandizing? Did it respect diversity or demean gender?

To be clear, are you now saying that thought can’t be given, only words can be given?

I PM'd my email address where you could kindly send your essay. Thanks for the offer.

This suggests a conservative backlash disproportionate to the extent of the liberal position being used to present the left as radicalized. — Hanover

Well, I’m sure this is an isolated incident and not something MAGA does on a daily basis or anything.

It's also possible the left took the bait by refusing to downplay the ad and instead chose to adopt the 12% minority as its official position. — Hanover

No Democrat officeholder has publicly commented on the campaign. As for leftists personalities, Lizzo modified one of her songs or something and Colbert devoted around a minute of one of his monologues to joke about it and ridicule the wokesters for overreacting.

I think progressives need to understand that being conservative doesn’t mean having no heart or empathy or feelings.
And conservatives need to understand that being liberal doesn’t mean having no common sense.

These are both simply not true. Generalizations are not helpful. — Fire Ologist

Those are rather odd and extreme generalizations. I recall someone in the discussion saying it ultimately comes down to values. People prioritize their values differently, shaped by cultural influences and, perhaps, innate personal traits.

I'm interested enough to read your essay but don't want to link my phone, from fear of spamage.

At this point I'm primarily interested in how you separate thought and meaning.

I'm sure you realize that thoughts can be incommensurable.

If I'm following correctly you're saying:

• Offense can't be given.
• Thought can be given.
• Meaning can't be given.

Is that right?

If you packaged your thoughts and sent them to me did you send their meaning as well?

I cannot package your emotions and send them over to you. — AmadeusD

Is this my thinking that you sent over to me?

Offense can be given in many ways—through direct insults, indirect or implied slights, a condescending tone or delivery, hurtful humor, acts of disrespect, deliberate provocation, or insensitivity to someone’s circumstances. Claiming that offense is only taken is a weak attempt to dodge responsibility.

Offense is taken, not given. — AmadeusD

This doesn't negate the fact that it's impolite to offer offense to others.

Indeed. And by extension we would imagine that the values held by 'woke' activism would be strongest amongst this cohort. — Tom Storm

My wife has been a high school English teacher for many years and I briefly asked her about this. Her insights were generally what you might expect—kids in more conservative communities tend to have conservative views and kids in more liberal communities tend to have more liberal views.

Incidentally, my father was a staunch conservative and mentioned the aphorism about shifting values when I was a kid, so for a long time I expected to turn conservative when I grew up. I cleverly avoided this fate by never growing up.

Had to drop the newest Murakami after reading 30% of the book — Manuel

It doesn’t get any better after 30% so you’re not missing anything.

If you've only skimmed them, bugger off and read them properly. That might explain why you're saying unreasonable things. — AmadeusD

I might be saying unreasonable things because I haven’t read everything you’ve written to me? You know that sounds crazy, right?

No, they just are not relevant to what I'm pointing out. I've bene over why some of your responses are unreasonable at the time i responded to them. It doesn't seem to bare repeating.. You can review if you'd like to. — AmadeusD

I’ve only skimmed your trollish responses so I don’t know what you’re talking about. I guess it will remain a mystery.

Youngsters can be led by conservative values. I suppose you mean that youths may have a slight tendency to lean liberal. That appears to be statistically true according to recent surveys.

Right. So people like you (and me) are either racist due to our biases and we don’t know it (so, asleep), or we are way above the fray and just color blind to race. (But that is probably a dream I’m having because I’m actually sleeping. Like Martin Luther King Jr apparently was.) — Fire Ologist

It’s funny you put it that way, because if King had been more “woke” in the original sense of the word, he might have lived longer—the idea being that the marginalized simply need to be more awake out of necessity.

I would have thought the younger, the more values led, with a tendency to be turned off by these sorts of campaigns. Interesting what you say about younger people. — Tom Storm

I'm curious what you mean by the younger being more values led.

Several things — AmadeusD

It sounds like you feel that I've said several unreasonable things but are unable to articulate the source of those feelings. That's fine.

AE's plan, if there was one, was to get you to do exactly what you're doing. — AmadeusD

Mission accomplished then. :clap:

James by Percival Everett

A retelling of Huckleberry Finn from Jim’s viewpoint. In the first chapter, Jim is on Miss Watson’s porch paying close attention to Tom and Huck’s shenanigans. They believe Jim is asleep but of course he needs to stay woke.

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:

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?

'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.

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?