Okay I can see how it can be interpreted that way but she didn’t actually say she had “good genes” and even if she did, that doesn’t necessarily mean other genes are bad. It just feels like the whole thing is being blown out of proportion and later arguments about equality will be taken less seriously because a similar point was being made about a jeans commercial. You know what I mean?
It didn’t have to be taken that way though. It feels like planted outrage. I mean, now that its out there, yeah that point can be made but it feels like an overreaction that ultimately reduces the credibility of real concerns about the effects of white supremacy. It feels bad to see the energy being put there.
there were other directions they could take the ad in that weren’t aryan racey, and given today’s current political climate there should have been someone in the marketing room to tell them this was a bad idea. this is also how white supremacy is able to find its way into mainstream media. if it’s not called out and ridiculed when it’s something like this then they feel emboldened to put out more and more
No posters say genes, and given the history of using language like genes to refer to traits, it seems very irresponsible and out of touch. Yes she’s beautiful but that is part of the plausible deniability of the campaign. I do not think the outrage towards it is overblown when people keep defending dog whistles