It’s an ad, not an essay, or a speech, or even a closing argument in court. It’s an unusually long, complex, and developed ad, but it’s an ad made to sell a product.
Ads have power. One can argue that they both reflect our thinking and influence it.
To me, the ad’s main message is that by working together and talking, we can learn about one another, and — perhaps — come to tolerate, and even enjoy, people we thought we could not.
This idea — that bias flourishes and survives when we live in isolation from those groups we hold bias against — is not a new one; it’s been around for some time. Many have expressed it in different ways, and it informs a good deal of thinking about how to get different groups of people to relax with, tolerate, and even appreciate one another.
So what is being attacked here, in this post?
The ad itself?
Or the idea that by spending time together, working together, and by extension, living among and with one another, people who hold bias against one another can learn tolerance?
And the one-liner in the post about “cis-gendered white women not bothering to show up”?
That’s confused. After all, cis-gendered (young) white women are the fuel on which the advertising industry has run: their faces and bodies have been used to sell every product known to man, including many bottles of beer!