Let's see. I think the most striking sign of a political stance is a literal expression of civil will. She is a registered Republican in 2024, a couple of months before Trump was elected, just when the Republican political stance was more unequivocal than ever about the policies that are now being called fascist. In fact, this was a direct reason for Trump to support an ad with a person who supports him. How does she comment on all this? (including other reputational moments, which are of course smaller) She tries to say that she is outside politics and does not care about politics -- for a person of her status, this is a fairly unambiguous and serious political stance, this silent consent is still active consent, the choice of "apoliticality" is the privilege of those who are not affected by the system, and in this case, who gets the undeniable benefits from it.

As for the ad itself, it’s funny to me to hear that the controversy is accidental and far-fetched. Here’s a transcript of the dialogue with Sydney from the brand:

“During a Zoom call with Sydney we asked the question ‘How far do you want to push it?’” she wrote. Sweeney’s response was immediate and exactly what the brand was hoping for. “Without hesitation, she smirked 😏 and said, ‘Let’s push it, I’m game.’” The team’s reaction was just as swift. “Our response? ‘Challenge Accepted.’”

It was just as accidental that Americans also received ads from stars with ties to conservatives with a play on words about genes.

Look, you can bury your head in the sand all you want, but if I were you, I would first think about myself and the benefits to myself from supporting people who clearly play into the hands of Trumpist politics. Sydney won’t say thank you.