American Eagle Jeans Commercials

4thgenheel said:
i mean, so far we have one poster (super, who is a treasure but could probably find an issue with his winning lottery ticket) who has expressed a shred of doubt about the ads but WOKE MOB!!!
Click to expand...
So your saying that outlier tic tok posters = woke mob?

Doesn't it take a few more people to be a mob?

And being against nazi and eugenics isn't woke.

Maybe they are stretching things a bit, but woke mob doesn't seem to be the right characterization. That's basically a fox news maga label for anyone they don't agree with.
 
I can go down the weirdo right wing internet/TikTok rabbit hole and find conservatives advocating for being able to have sex with 13 year-old girls. In fact, I’ve seen that very thing within the last week in the context of Trump being an alleged child rapist! Never once crossed my mind to extrapolate that to mean that the entirety of conservatives in the United States of America believe that having sex with 13 year-old girls is OK.

Unless, of course, that’s how we want to play this game, Pubs!
 
CFordUNC said:
I can go down the weirdo right wing internet/TikTok rabbit hole and find conservatives advocating for being able to have sex with 13 year-old girls. In fact, I’ve seen that very thing within the last week in the context of Trump being an alleged child rapist! Never once crossed my mind to extrapolate that to mean that the entirety of conservatives in the United States of America believe that having sex with 13 year-old girls is OK.

Unless, of course, that’s how we want to play this game, Pubs!
Click to expand...
My wife showed me a woman trying to justify trump possibly having sex with minors just a day or two ago. So, yes lots of nut jobs out there.
 
UNCatTech said:
I thought the basis of a conspiracy theory was some hidden agenda behind what's going on? In my opinion there is nothing behind these commercials and therefore the theory that there is an underlying promotion of eugenics would be a conspiracy.
Click to expand...
The theory wouldn't be that there's a conscious underlying promotion, but rather that the ads are coded in a certain way regardless of the intentions of the admakers.

Let's take a simple example: country singers. Why do all male country singers wear cowboy hats (or virtually all, and I don't follow the genre so this might not be true as much anymore but it was true not that long ago so let's go for it)? Is it because they all want to present themselves as the good guys in a cowboys versus indians racist John Wayne view of the Wild West? I very much doubt it. Mostly, I think, they want to make money making music, and perhaps a lot of money if they are lucky.

Rather, the cowboy hat is an identifier token. The country singer wears the cowboy hat so that someone paging through a magazine or watching videos or twitter videos knows whether to stop and pay attention. If you like country music, you see the singer with the cowboy hat and you're more likely to pay attention. Metal bands by contrast have long hair, almost always. Their band names are almost always written in some fucked up font that makes them vaguely evil but also unreadable. If you like metal, and you see a band with a name you can barely read because it is so over-the-top gothic and long haired guys, you'll stop to pay attention. You don't stop for the cowboy hat.

So there's no conspiracy, but the genres end up embracing the stereotypes. The cowboy hat was originally a racist trope that has become a genre standard; you can make up your own mind whether you think it has shed its past in spirit even if its iconography has not advanced. The long hair originally signified rebellion and disregard of mainstream culture; in my opinion, it signifies that no longer and is just a genre trope.

Another example: There's an old idea about how to assess whether a film is actually pro-feminist:

1. Is there more than one important female character;
2. If so, do they talk to each other;
3. If so, do they talk about something other than a man

And if you think about it, it's rather amazing how few films meet those three simple criteria. Even supposedly "woke" films like The Last Jedi fail this test. It's not because filmmakers are trying to be sexist. It's just that movies have always revolved around male characters with female characters limited to being damsels in distress or love interests, and when people make movies, those kinds of plots and stories resonate with them due to that familiarity. So we end up with films where the female characters rarely have interesting personalities of their own or concerns that transcend whatever the men in their lives are doing. Films that don't follow that formula end up designated as "chick flicks." It's an ingrained sexism, not intentional but still meaningful and potent.

This doesn't mean all female characters are weak. It just means they are limited. We see male characters ogle women and comment about how they look or their sexual proclivities (e.g. opening scene of Reservoir Dogs). We much more rarely see women doing this, largely because we rarely see two women talking to each other on screen about anything that isn't strictly necessary to the plot.
 
Last edited:
superrific said:
The theory wouldn't be that there's a conscious underlying promotion, but rather that the ads are coded in a certain way regardless of the intentions of the admakers.

Let's take a simple example: country singers. Why do all male country singers wear cowboy hats (or virtually all, and I don't follow the genre so this might not be true as much anymore but it was true not that long ago so let's go for it)? Is it because they all want to present themselves as the good guys in a cowboys versus indians racist John Wayne view of the Wild West? I very much doubt it. Mostly, I think, they want to make money making music, and perhaps a lot of money if they are lucky.

Rather, the cowboy hat is an identifier token. The country singer wears the cowboy hat so that someone paging through a magazine or watching videos or twitter videos knows whether to stop and pay attention. If you like country music, you see the singer with the cowboy hat and you're more likely to pay attention. Metal bands by contrast have long hair, almost always. Their band names are almost always written in some fucked up font that makes them vaguely evil but also unreadable. If you like metal, and you see a band with a name you can barely read because it is so over-the-top gothic and long haired guys, you'll stop to pay attention. You don't stop for the cowboy hat.

So there's no conspiracy, but the genres end up embracing the stereotypes. The cowboy hat was originally a racist trope that has become a genre standard; you can make up your own mind whether you think it has shed its past in spirit even if its iconography has not advanced. The long hair originally signified rebellion and disregard of mainstream culture; in my opinion, it signifies that no longer and is just a genre trope.

Another example: There's an old idea about how to assess whether a film is actually pro-feminist:

1. Is there more than one important female character;
2. If so, do they talk to each other;
3. If so, do they talk about something other than a man

And if you think about it, it's rather amazing how few films meet those three simple criteria. Even supposedly "woke" films like The Last Jedi fail this test. It's not because filmmakers are trying to be sexist. It's just that movies have always revolved around male characters with female characters limited to being damsels in distress or love interests, and when people make movies, those kinds of plots and stories resonate with them due to that familiarity. So we end up with films where the female characters rarely have interesting personalities of their own or concerns that transcend whatever the men in their lives are doing. Films that don't follow that formula end up designated as "chick flicks." It's an ingrained sexism, not intentional but still meaningful and potent.

This doesn't mean all female characters are weak. It just means they are limited. We see male characters ogle women and comment about how they look or their sexual proclivities (e.g. opening scene of Reservoir Dogs). We much more rarely see women doing this, largely because we rarely see two women talking to each other on screen about anything that isn't strictly necessary to the plot.
Click to expand...
The difference between the area in red and the rest of your post is that there IS a conscious effort to incorporate, non-white, non-male actors into movies, commercials, TV shows, etc. My wife, Trump-hater extraordinaire, even commented that every commercial on Amazon Prime has either a black or gay character.
 
ZenMode said:
The difference between the area in red and the rest of your post is that there IS a conscious effort to incorporate, non-white, non-male actors into movies, commercials, TV shows, etc. My wife, Trump-hater extraordinaire, even commented that every commercial on Amazon Prime has either a black or gay character.
Click to expand...
In the last few years, yes. It's because there was a renewed emphasis on diversity after the Oscars one year where basically all the winners were white. This is what you call "wokeism."

I was talking historically. And ads are not the same as movies.
 
UNCatTech said:
So your saying that outlier tic tok posters = woke mob?

Doesn't it take a few more people to be a mob?

And being against nazi and eugenics isn't woke.

Maybe they are stretching things a bit, but woke mob doesn't seem to be the right characterization. That's basically a fox news maga label for anyone they don't agree with.
Click to expand...
i was being sarcastic. there is no woke mob, it's a right wing media fever swamp fabrication.
 
superrific said:
In the last few years, yes. It's because there was a renewed emphasis on diversity after the Oscars one year where basically all the winners were white. This is what you call "wokeism."

I was talking historically. And ads are not the same as movies.
Click to expand...
The so-called Oscars "issue" is a separate issue in itself, but a separate conversation.

My issue isn't the known things like Amazon commercials. My issue is everything else you're talking about.

Yes, there's some "playing the role" type of thing with how you dress as an artist, musical or otherwise. For example, Beyonce grew up in Houston. Have you ever seen her in a cowboy hat until she released a very popular country song? I don't recall ever seeing it, but in 2024 she's suddenly sporting cowboy hats at awards shows. Do you think she had some hidden, ulterior motive? Was she signaling something to her fans or would-be fans? Is she trying to signal to white, male, country america that she's "one of them"? An indian-hating good guy?

For the most part, people who get into country music probably just come from a 'country' life where you were raised listening to country music and boots, hats and big belt buckles are what you know and are familiar with. People who are into metal want to "look" metal because they like metal and an artist will try to appeal to metal fans by doing "metal" things like designing album cover to look "metal".

American Eagle wants to sell jeans, so they got a hot chick to do ads for them and they used a homophone/play on words to be funny.

All of this 'down the rabbit hole' stuff you're talking about honestly sounds like the thoughts of a conspiracy theorist.
 
Last edited:


Pretty good summation:

- Big cultural thing happens
— Random people on Twitter and TikTok whine
— Every lazy journalist writes stories about how people are OUTRAGED!!!
— Right-wing media blames "the left" and Democrats over a story that was wholly manufactured by the media based on random internet posts from people who likely aren't even political
— Repeat
 
ZenMode said:
All of this 'down the rabbit hole' stuff you're talking about honestly sounds like the thoughts of a conspiracy theorist.
Click to expand...
It is not my fault you can't understand simple concepts. What I am talking about is precisely the exact opposite of a conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy: a relatively small number of people working in concert to pursue a definite and intended aim for nefarious reasons that they do not want to share

Cultural production like I'm describing: a large group of people pursuing their own individual, loosely defined "agendas" largely on their own for simple and obvious reasons that are not at all nefarious but result in the perpetuation of harmful ideas.

The fact that you can't distinguish something from its literal opposite should be signaling something to you. Well, it signals something to the rest of us.
 
superrific said:
It is not my fault you can't understand simple concepts. What I am talking about is precisely the exact opposite of a conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy: a relatively small number of people working in concert to pursue a definite and intended aim for nefarious reasons that they do not want to share

Cultural production like I'm describing: a large group of people pursuing their own individual, loosely defined "agendas" largely on their own for simple and obvious reasons that are not at all nefarious but result in the perpetuation of harmful ideas.

The fact that you can't distinguish something from its literal opposite should be signaling something to you. Well, it signals something to the rest of us.
Click to expand...
What makes is sound "conspiracy" is you talking about this ambiguous concept like it may actually apply to a commercial for a clothing company. In your mind, there's enough doubt that you apparently can't say "It's just a commercial. The people on TikTok, or wherever they originate, are crazy."

You know... maybe China did develop and release Covid onto the world so Trump would lose the election.
 
Last edited:
CFordUNC said:


Pretty good summation:

- Big cultural thing happens
— Random people on Twitter and TikTok whine
— Every lazy journalist writes stories about how people are OUTRAGED!!!
— Right-wing media blames "the left" and Democrats over a story that was wholly manufactured by the media based on random internet posts from people who likely aren't even political
— Repeat
Click to expand...

Snore.
Another distraction. RELEASE THE DAMN FILES
 
telling that this board has so much devoted to this with so little to other topics

"The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history". - Orwell
 
ZenMode said:
What makes is sound "conspiracy" is when you talking about this ambiguous concept like it may actually apply to a commercial for a clothing company. In your mind, there's enough doubt that you apparently can't say "It's just a commercial. The people on TikTok, or wherever they originate, are crazy."

You know... maybe China did develop and release Covid onto the world so Trump would lose the election.
Click to expand...
It does apply to commercials. That's how cultural memes get transmitted. Do you know the original definition of a meme? It wasn't short funny video clips or images. It was a term coined by Richard Dawkins in the 1970s in a cultural analogy to genes. Memes are the vector of transmission of ideas. Here's wikipedia describing Dawkins formulation:

Dawkins used the term to refer to any cultural entity that an observer might consider a replicator. He hypothesized that one could view many cultural entities as replicators, and pointed to melodies, fashions and learned skills as examples. Memes generally replicate through exposure to humans, who have evolved as efficient copiers of information and behavior. Because humans do not always copy memes perfectly, and because they may refine, combine or otherwise modify them with other memes to create new memes, they can change over time. Dawkins likened the process by which memes survive and change through the evolution of culture to the natural selection of genes in biological evolution.

Dawkins noted that in a society with culture a person need not have biological descendants to remain influential in the actions of individuals thousands of years after their death:

But if you contribute to the world's culture, if you have a good idea...it may live on, intact, long after your genes have dissolved in the common pool. Socrates may or may not have a gene or two alive in the world today, as G.C. Williams has remarked, but who cares? The meme-complexes of Socrates, Leonardo, Copernicus and Marconi are still going strong.<a href="Meme - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>8<span>]</span></a>
Click to expand...
In that context, Dawkins defined the meme as a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation and replication, but later definitions would vary.

If melodies and fashions can be memes, so too can commercials. Indeed, commercial imagery are some of the most potent memes, as gobs of research has demonstrated. That's what makes them subtle. The choice of a movie backdrop can both reflect and replicate cultural assumptions. Dialogue. Clothing. If I were to ask you to think of a mafioso, chances are very high you'd be thinking of a character from a movie.

This concept is obviously beyond your comprehension, but it's not a conspiracy theory. You should be able to understand at least that.
 
superrific said:
It does apply to commercials. That's how cultural memes get transmitted. Do you know the original definition of a meme? It wasn't short funny video clips or images. It was a term coined by Richard Dawkins in the 1970s in a cultural analogy to genes. Memes are the vector of transmission of ideas. Here's wikipedia describing Dawkins formulation:

Dawkins used the term to refer to any cultural entity that an observer might consider a replicator. He hypothesized that one could view many cultural entities as replicators, and pointed to melodies, fashions and learned skills as examples. Memes generally replicate through exposure to humans, who have evolved as efficient copiers of information and behavior. Because humans do not always copy memes perfectly, and because they may refine, combine or otherwise modify them with other memes to create new memes, they can change over time. Dawkins likened the process by which memes survive and change through the evolution of culture to the natural selection of genes in biological evolution.

Dawkins noted that in a society with culture a person need not have biological descendants to remain influential in the actions of individuals thousands of years after their death:


In that context, Dawkins defined the meme as a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation and replication, but later definitions would vary.

If melodies and fashions can be memes, so too can commercials. Indeed, commercial imagery are some of the most potent memes, as gobs of research has demonstrated. That's what makes them subtle. The choice of a movie backdrop can both reflect and replicate cultural assumptions. Dialogue. Clothing. If I were to ask you to think of a mafioso, chances are very high you'd be thinking of a character from a movie.

This concept is obviously beyond your comprehension, but it's not a conspiracy theory. You should be able to understand at least that.
Click to expand...
Being condescending isn't going to work....

I'm not disputing the existence of memes or other societal influences. I'm saying that you, in regard to this specific situation, are aligned with the TikTokers referenced in the NBC news video clip.
 
ZenMode said:
The so-called Oscars "issue" is a separate issue in itself, but a separate conversation.

My issue isn't the known things like Amazon commercials. My issue is everything else you're talking about.

Yes, there's some "playing the role" type of thing with how you dress as an artist, musical or otherwise. For example, Beyonce grew up in Houston. Have you ever seen her in a cowboy hat until she released a very popular country song? I don't recall ever seeing it, but in 2024 she's suddenly sporting cowboy hats at awards shows. Do you think she had some hidden, ulterior motive? Was she signaling something to her fans or would-be fans? Is she trying to signal to white, male, country america that she's "one of them"? An indian-hating good guy?

For the most part, people who get into country music probably just come from a 'country' life where you were raised listening to country music and boots, hats and big belt buckles are what you know and are familiar with. People who are into metal want to "look" metal because they like metal and an artist will try to appeal to metal fans by doing "metal" things like designing album cover to look "metal".

American Eagle wants to sell jeans, so they got a hot chick to do ads for them and they used a homophone/play on words to be funny.

All of this 'down the rabbit hole' stuff you're talking about honestly sounds like the thoughts of a conspiracy theorist.
Click to expand...
Beyonce is just hot as fuck, I don't care what she wears. Maybe this is a case where less is better. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top